CAR_Public/110829.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 29, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 170

                             Headlines

ACCUTANE: October 2011 Trial Set for Class Action
AK STEEL: "Schumacher" Suit Pending for Damages Determination
AK STEEL: Discovery on Damages Issue Ongoing in "Patrick" Suit
AK STEEL: Oral Argument in "Lipker" Suit Scheduled for Oct. 5
AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Lawsuits

AK STEEL: $31.7 Million in Payments to VEBA Trust Due This Month
ALLIED WORLD: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Suits
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Gaer" Suit
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Shareholders Suit in Colorado
BB&T CORPORATION: Appeals in Debt Transaction Suits Remain Pending

BITTORRENT USERS: USCG Evidence in File Sharing Suit Weak
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
BURGER KING: Continues to Defend Calif. Class Action Suit
CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
CENTER FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Deal in Merger-related Suit

CHINA NORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
CIT GROUP: Mediation in Securities Class Action Set This Month
CLASSMATES.COM: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Merger-Related Suit Remains Pending in Md.
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Securities Suit

CSC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Fox Programming Suits in N.Y.
DENDREON: May Expand Class Period in Securities Class Action
DJSP ENTERPRISES: Ex-Workers' Class Action Gets Initial Approval
DUKE ENERGY: Awaits Approval of Merger-related Suit Settlement
DUKE ENERGY: Katrina-related Suit vs. PEC & PEF Remains Pending

EBIX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
GIRL SCOUTS: Faces Class Action in California
GROUPON: Certain Claims in False Ad Class Action Can Proceed
HEALTH NET: Continue to Defend Suits Relating to Disk Drive Loss
HEART CHECK: Not All Customers Can Participate in Class Action

KRAFT FOODS: Class Action Over Unpaid Wages Dismissed
MGM RESORTS: Call Center Class Suit in Early Stages of Litigation
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Amended "Stratte-McClure" Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement Pact in WaMu Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Lehman Securities Litigation

MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Abu Dhabi" Suit in New York
NUCOR CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Ill.
NVR INC: Suits Still Stayed Pending Developments in N.Y. Suit
OMNICARE INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
PENN NATIONAL: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Dismissal Appeal

PENSON WORLDWIDE: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
POPULAR INC: Conference on "Hoff" Suit Settlement Set for Nov. 2
POPULAR INC: Awaits Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
POPULAR INC: Motion to Dismiss "Almeyda-Santiago" Suit is Pending
POPULAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Lamadrid" Suit

PUBLIC SERVICE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Begay" Suit
SANFORD BROWN: Faces More Suits Over False Promises on Programs
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Product Corrosion Suits
SINOTECH ENERGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
SIRIUS XM: Court Approves Subscriber Class Action Settlement

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
TRUSTMARK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Stay Texas Suit
UNITED STATES: DOJ to Fight $90.MM Fee Bid in Black Farmers Suit
UPONOR PEX: Attorneys Available to Review Plumbing Claims
USA TRUCK: OK of Settlement in "Cerdenia" Suit Expected Late 2011

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery to End November 17
WELLS MID-HORIZON: Continues to Defend Piedmont REIT Class Suit
WILLIS GROUP: Hearing on Compensation Suit Deal Set for Sept. 14
WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Discrimination Suit
WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Troice" Suit




                             *********

ACCUTANE: October 2011 Trial Set for Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at Accutane Lawsuit News by Ryan
Green, patients who have sustained debilitating side effects from
anti-acne drug Accutane, such as Accutane Crohns disease or
inflammatory bowel disease, might be hoping to avoid a costly
trial and instead negotiate an out-of-court Accutane settlement.
But is a pre-trial Accutane settlement more likely to result from
an individual lawsuit that joins centralized litigation, or from
an Accutane class action suit?

Accutane class action suit

A class action lawsuit refers to a case in which one individual
plaintiff goes to trial representing an entire group of other
complainants.  Each individual case is not tried separately as its
own lawsuit.  Instead, one lawsuit, along with its verdict, must
stand for the rest.  In a hypothetical Accutane class action suit,
any potential damages awarded by a jury would be split evenly
amongst all the members of the class.

Accutane class action suit might not accurately represent many
cases

There is no record of a current Accutane class action suit.  One
possible reason for this is that the downside to a potential
Accutane class action suit for plaintiffs is the fact that their
own individual cases, along with their unique injuries and related
financial losses, may not directly correspond to, or be perfectly
represented by, the nominal class plaintiff.  In other words, in
an Accutane class action suit, plaintiffs may find their fates
hitched to another's case that does not completely mirror their
own circumstances.

Accutane class action suit versus Accutane mass tort

Other forms of aggregate litigation offer alternatives to an
Accutane class action suit.  One such option is the mass tort.
Currently, there are over 5,169 mass tort Accutane lawsuits
pending in New Jersey Superior Court under the oversight of Judge
Carol E. Higbee.

Mass torts group together in one court a large number of lawsuits
that all concern the same product or drug.  All of the cases must
also be deemed to share common issues of facts and legalities.
Unlike with a class action suit, however, each plaintiff maintains
his or her own individual status, and each lawsuit is guaranteed
the right to a jury trial, barring a pre-trial settlement, such as
an Accutane settlement.

In the New Jersey mass tort, all of the lawsuits allege that the
powerful anti-acne drug, originally developed as a form of
chemotherapy, caused debilitating gastrointestinal side effects,
such as Accutane Crohn's disease, inflammatory bowel disease,
ulcerative colitis, and surgical removal of the rectum and colon.
In a number of cases these side effects have led to depression and
suicide.  All of the plaintiffs seeking an Accutane settlement
additionally allege that drug maker Hoffman-LaRoche knew or should
have known about the serious risk of side effects such as Accutane
Crohn's disease, but did not do enough to alert patients and
doctors about these risks.

Accutane multidistrict litigation

Mass torts involve lawsuits filed in state courts; a comparable
form of aggregate litigation occurs in federal courts, and goes by
the name of multidistrict litigation (MDL).  A federal panel of
judges may consolidate lawsuits from around the country into a
single MDL for the purpose of simplifying pre-trial procedures and
avoiding duplicate judicial rulings.  It is generally assumed that
MDL results in a higher frequency of pre-trial settlements.  As a
result, plaintiffs may have their best shot of reaching an out-of-
court Accutane settlement if their federal lawsuits are
centralized into MDL.

At least 12 New Jersey mass tort Accutane lawsuits are being
prepared by Accutane lawyers for trials that are set to begin in
October 2011 and January 2012.


AK STEEL: "Schumacher" Suit Pending for Damages Determination
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed by William Schumacher remains
pending for determination of damages, according to AK Steel
Holding Corporation's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2011.

On October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794. The
complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits
to him and the other class members. The plaintiff and the other
purportedly similarly situated individuals on whose behalf the
plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from
similar litigation previously reported and now resolved (the class
action litigation filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on
previous releases of claims they had executed in favor of the
Company. There were a total of 92 individuals who were excluded
from the prior litigation and the potential additional
distributions to them at issue in the litigation total
approximately $3.2, plus potential interest. The defendants filed
their answer to the complaint on March 22, 2010. On August 11,
2010, the plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. On
January 24, 2011, that motion was granted. On March 15, 2011, the
plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. After being
fully briefed, that motion was granted on June 27, 2011. The case
remains pending for a determination of damages. No trial date has
yet been set. The defendants intend to contest this matter
vigorously.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


AK STEEL: Discovery on Damages Issue Ongoing in "Patrick" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by Judith Patrick in Ohio
is proceeding with respect to discovery on the issue of damages,
according to AK Steel Holding Corporation's August 8, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed
a purported class action against the Company's unit AK Steel
Corporation and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:05-cv-681. The complaint
alleges that the defendants incorrectly calculated the amount of
surviving spouse benefits due to be paid to the plaintiffs under
the applicable pension plan. On December 19, 2005, the defendants
filed their answer to the complaint. The parties subsequently
filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether
the applicable plan language had been properly interpreted. On
September 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to
the case issued a Report and Recommendation in which he
recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment be granted and that the defendants' motion be denied. The
defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate's Report and
Recommendation. On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order
adopting the Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial
summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan
interpretation. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted by the Court on October 27, 2008. The case is proceeding
with respect to discovery on the issue of damages. No trial date
has been set.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


AK STEEL: Oral Argument in "Lipker" Suit Scheduled for Oct. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument with respect to the appeal filed by AK Steel Holding
Corporation on the order granting Margaret Lipker's summary
judgment motion is scheduled for October 5, 2011, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 27, 2009, a case was filed against the Company's unit AK
Steel Corporation by Margaret Lipker in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 09-00050. The
Complaint in the Lipker Litigation alleged that AK Steel
incorrectly calculated the amount of Ms. Lipker's surviving spouse
benefits due to be paid under the applicable pension plan (which
was a different plan from that at issue in the Patrick
Litigation). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On February 23, 2010, the Court in the Lipker Litigation granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and found that Ms. Lipker
is entitled to a surviving spouse benefit of approximately four
hundred sixty three dollars per month. AK Steel appealed that
February 23, 2010, decision to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit on March 11, 2010, Case No. 10-5298. The
issues in the appeal have been fully briefed by the parties. In
addition, counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Patrick
Litigation filed an amicus curiae brief on July 20, 2010, on the
ground that the decision in the Lipker Litigation could impact the
merits of the issues in the Patrick Litigation. The amicus curiae
brief requested the Court of Appeals to affirm the district
court's decision in the Lipker Litigation on the issue of plan
interpretation and liability. Oral argument in the appeal of the
Lipker Litigation is scheduled for October 5, 2011. The defendants
intend to contest both of these matters vigorously.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation continues to defend itself in several
purported class action lawsuits filed by companies that have
purchased steel products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
the Company. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214,
08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An
additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same
federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December 28, 2010
another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in
the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The plaintiffs are
companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly
or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport
to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United
States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least
as early as January 2005 to the present. The complaints allege
that the defendant steel producers have conspired to restrict
output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high
prices with respect to steel products in the United States. On
January 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of
the claims set forth in the Complaints. On June 12, 2009, the
court issued an Order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Discovery has commenced. No trial date has been set. The Company
intends to contest this matter vigorously.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


AK STEEL: $31.7 Million in Payments to VEBA Trust Due This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation disclosed that it was scheduled to
make a total of $31.7 million in payments to a VEBA Trust this
month for a class of Butler Workers retirees and to their counsel
as part of a settlement agreement, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 18, 2009, three former hourly members of the Butler Armco
Independent Union filed a purported class action against AK Steel
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Case No. 1-09CV00423, alleging that AK Steel Corporation did
not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits. The
named plaintiffs in the 2009 Retiree Action sought, among other
things, injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of
a proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding
certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK
Steel with its union. The proposed class the plaintiffs sought to
represent consisted originally of all union-represented retirees
of AK Steel other than those retirees who were included in the
class covered by the Middletown Works class action litigation
referred to in Note 4. On October 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent certain
scheduled January 2010 changes to retiree healthcare from taking
effect. On January 29, 2010, the trial court issued an opinion and
order granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and
barring AK Steel from effecting any further benefit reductions or
new healthcare charges for Butler Works hourly retirees until
final judgment in the case. Absent a reversal of the decision to
impose the preliminary injunction, the negotiated changes to
retiree healthcare for the Company's Butler Works retirees would
have been rescinded and the Company's OPEB obligations would have
increased by approximately $145.0 based upon then-current
valuation assumptions. This amount reflects the value of the
estimated additional healthcare and welfare benefits AK Steel
would pay out with respect to the Butler hourly retirees.

In the third quarter of 2010, the Company reached a tentative
settlement agreement with the Butler Works hourly retirees who
initiated the litigation. The participants in the Hourly Class
Settlement consist generally of all retirees and their surviving
spouses who worked for AK Steel at Butler Works and retired from
AK Steel on or before December 31, 2006. After reaching the Hourly
Class Settlement, the Company was notified that a separate group
of retirees from the Butler Works who were previously salaried
employees and who had been members of the Butler Armco Independent
Salaried Union were asserting similar claims and desired to settle
those claims on a basis similar to the settlement with the hourly
employees. The participants in this group consist generally of all
retirees and their surviving spouses who worked for AK Steel at
Butler Works and retired from AK Steel anytime from January 1,
1985, through September 30, 2006. If the Salaried Class Members
were to prevail on their claims, the Company's OPEB would have
increased by approximately $8.5 based upon then-current valuation
assumptions. This amount reflects the value of the estimated
additional healthcare and welfare benefits AK Steel would pay out
with respect to the Salaried Class Members. After negotiation with
counsel representing the Salaried Class Members, the Company also
reached a tentative settlement agreement with the Salaried Class
Members.

The Butler Retiree Settlement with both the Hourly Class Members
and the Salaried Class Members was subject to approval by the
Court. On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an Unopposed
Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint and an Unopposed Amended
Motion for an Order Conditionally Certifying Classes, and the
parties jointly filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement Agreements and Proposed Class Notice. On
September 24, 2010, the Court held a hearing on these motions and
issued orders granting the joint motion for preliminary approval
of the Butler Retiree Settlement, conditionally certifying the two
classes, and allowing the filing of a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint was deemed filed as of September 24,
2010 and defined the class represented by the plaintiffs to
consist of the Class Members.

On January 10, 2011, the Court issued written orders granting
final approval to the Butler Retiree Settlement, as well as the
proposed attorney fee award. The final judgment formally approving
the Butler Retiree Settlement and the attorney fee award also was
entered on January 10, 2011. The Butler Retiree Settlement became
effective on that date. No appeal from that Judgment has been
taken and the time for filing such an appeal has expired. Pursuant
to the Butler Retiree Settlement, AK Steel agreed to continue to
provide company-paid health and life insurance to Class Members
through December 31, 2014, and to make combined lump sum payments
totaling $91.0 to a VEBA Trust and to plaintiffs' counsel. AK
Steel will make three cash contributions to the VEBA Trust as
follows: approximately $22.6 on August 1, 2011; approximately
$31.7 on July 31, 2012; and approximately $27.6 on July 31, 2013.
The balance of the lump sum payments will be paid to plaintiffs'
attorneys on August 1, 2011, to cover plaintiffs' obligations with
respect to attorneys' fees. Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel
will transfer to the VEBA Trust all OPEB obligations owed to the
Class Members under the Company's applicable health and welfare
plans and will have no further liability for any claims incurred
by the Class Members after December 31, 2014, relating to their
OPEB obligations. The VEBA Trust will be utilized to fund all such
future OPEB obligations to the Class Members. Trustees of the VEBA
Trust will determine the scope of the benefits to be provided to
the Class Members. For accounting purposes, a settlement of the
Company's OPEB obligations will be deemed to have occurred when AK
Steel makes the last payment called for under the settlement in
2014.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


ALLIED WORLD: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG, continues to defend
itself from putative class action lawsuits challenging its merger
with Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Allied World entered into a definitive agreement and plan of
merger on June 12, 2011 with GO Sub, LLC, a newly formed Delaware
limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allied
World ("Merger Sub"), and Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation.  The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into Transatlantic, with Transatlantic
continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Allied World.  Transatlantic offers reinsurance
capacity for a full range of property and casualty products,
directly and through brokers, to insurance and reinsurance
companies, in both the domestic and international markets on both
a treaty and facultative basis.  Upon completion of the merger,
Allied World will be the parent company of Transatlantic and
Allied World's name will be changed to "TransAllied Group
Holdings, AG."

In connection with the merger between the Company and
Transatlantic, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits
have been filed against Transatlantic and the members of the
Transatlantic board of directors challenging the merger: Ivers v.
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 17, 2011 in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), Clark v.
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 17, 2011 in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York and
amended on June 22, 2011), Sutton v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.,
et al. (filed June 17, 2011 in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York), Jaroslawicz v. Transatlantic
Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 21, 2011 in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York) and Kramer v.
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 30, 2011 in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware).  Each of the Lawsuits
has been filed against Transatlantic, the members of the
Transatlantic board of directors, and Holdings.  In addition,
other than the Jaroslawicz action, each of the Lawsuits names as a
defendant GO Sub, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.  
Plaintiffs in each Lawsuit assert that the members of the
Transatlantic board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
and that Holdings and its subsidiaries aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  In addition, in the Clark
action, plaintiffs allege that Transatlantic aided and abetted its
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Lawsuits seek,
among other relief, to enjoin the merger.

On June 29 to 30, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay
the three actions pending in New York -- the Clark, Sutton, and
Jaroslawicz actions -- on the grounds that the Ivers and Kramer
actions are parallel proceedings pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery seeking the same relief as the three New York actions.  
On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in the three New York actions
moved to consolidate those actions into a single action.  The
court has not ruled on either of these motions.

On July 21, 2011, Vice Chancellor Parsons of the Delaware Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order consolidating
the two Delaware actions and requiring the Delaware plaintiffs to
file a consolidated amended complaint.  The Delaware plaintiffs
filed the Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, a
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Motion for Expedited
Proceedings on August 1, 2011.  On August 8, 2011, the defendants
moved to dismiss the Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint and to oppose the Delaware plaintiffs' Motion for
Expedited Proceedings.  The motions are currently pending before
the court.

The Company, Transatlantic, and their directors believe these
lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Gaer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed by Donald
N. Gaer in West Virginia, according to the Company's August 9,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On August 12, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Wallace E. Boston, Jr., Frank B. McCluskey
and Harry T. Wilkins, in the United States Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia (Martinsburg Division), encaptioned
Douglas N. Gaer v. American Public Education, Inc. et al, C.A. No.
3:10 CV-81.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a
class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's stock
between February 22, 2010 to August 5, 2010.  The plaintiff
alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false
misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's
prospects, the Company's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but
has not, at this time, specified the amount of damages being
sought in this action.  In an order dated November 10, 2010,
Douglas Gaer and the City of Miami Firefighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust were appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
lead plaintiffs' counsel was approved.  On January 25, 2011,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting the same statutory
claims against the Company, Boston and Wilkins.  On or about
March 10, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.  On or about April 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss.   On May 16, 2011, the
defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion to
dismiss.  The parties are now awaiting a decision from the Court.


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Shareholders Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspenbio Pharma, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between February 22, 2007, and July 19,
2010, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned
John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10 7365.  
This federal securities purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court in the Central District of California
on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased
common stock of AspenBio Pharma, Inc. during the period between
February 22, 2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint
names as defendants certain officers and directors of the Company
during such period.  The complaint includes allegations of
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants, all related to the Company's
blood-based acute appendicitis test in development known as
AppyScore.   On the Company's motion, this action was also
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado by order dated January 21, 2011.  The action has been
assigned a District of Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-
KMT.  On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the purported class.  The lead plaintiff is expected to
file an amended complaint on or about August 10, 2011, after which
time the Company anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the case.  
If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the Company
expects to renew its pending motion to dismiss.  Based on a review
of the plaintiff's currently operative complaint, the Company and
the individual defendants believe that the plaintiff's allegations
are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.


BB&T CORPORATION: Appeals in Debt Transaction Suits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
BB&T Corporation disclosed that its appeals in three purported
class action lawsuits relating to the Company's daily ordering of
debt transactions 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.

The Company is a defendant in three separate cases primarily
challenging its daily ordering of debit transactions posted to
customer checking accounts for the period from 2003 to 2010. The
plaintiffs have requested class action treatment, however, no
class has been certified. The court initially denied motions by
the Company to dismiss these cases and compel them to be submitted
to individual arbitration. The Company then filed appeals in all
three matters. There have been numerous subsequent procedural
developments, and at present the issues raised by these motions
and/or appeals remain pending. If the motions or appeals are
granted, they would preclude class action treatment. Even if those
appeals are denied, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses against these matters, including class certification.
Because of these appeals, and because these cases are in
preliminary proceedings and no damages have been specified, no
specific loss or range of loss can currently be determined.

BB&T Corporation, headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., is among
the nation's top financial-holding companies with $159 billion in
assets and market capitalization of $18.7 billion, as of June 30,
2011.


BITTORRENT USERS: USCG Evidence in File Sharing Suit Weak
---------------------------------------------------------
TorrentFreak reports that the U.S. Copyright Group has sued more
than 100,000 alleged BitTorrent users since last year.  But, a
recent filing in a U.S. class action lawsuit filed against the
group shows that these cases may be built on shoddy evidence.  It
cites a German court ruling where the company responsible for
providing the evidence could not prove that defendants actually
shared any files.  In addition there was evidence of a pirate
honeypot.

A few months ago, the U.S. Copyright Group (USCG), who pioneered
the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States, were themselves
sued for fraud, abuse and extortion.

The class-action lawsuit targets the movie studio Achte/Neunte,
their lawyers and the tracking company who went after thousands of
people who allegedly downloaded and shared the movie 'Far Cry' on
BitTorrent.

Through the lawsuit BitTorrent users, spearheaded by Dmitriy
Shirokov, are seeking relief based on 25 counts including
extortion, fraudulent omissions, mail fraud, wire fraud, computer
fraud and abuse, racketeering, fraud upon the court, abuse of
process, fraud on the Copyright Office, copyright misuse, unjust
enrichment and consumer protection violations.

The case is ongoing in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts
and thus far not much progress has been booked by either of the
parties involved.  However, previously unreported filings reveal
that the evidence the copyright holders claim to have against the
alleged file-sharers may be even weaker than expected.

The court filing in question shows how USCG is basically a front
for the partnership between the German based pirate tracking
outfit GuardaLey and the law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver.

Unlike the image often portrayed in the media, the plaintiffs
claim that GuardaLey is the main motivating power behind the
lawsuits.  One e-mail brought in as evidence clearly shows the
company actively approaching law firms to work with them and
plugging their scheme to various copyright holders.

It is clear that the evidence gatherers are by no means an
objective party.  On the contrary, it can be argued that this
German based company is the prime reason why more than 200,000
people have been sued in the United States.  And if it couldn't
get any worse, the evidence GuardaLey actually collects against
the BitTorrent users may be totally useless.

The documents filed by the attorneys of the plaintiffs, law firm
Booth Sweet, reveal that GuardaLey's evidence gathering techniques
are far from optimal.

The attorneys refer to a German court case where GuardaLey was
sued by one of the law firms (Baumgarten Brandt) they partnered
with.  The law firm filed suit after it discovered that GuardaLey
was aware of several technological flaws concerning their
evidence, but chose not to disclose them.  The law firm won the
case.

Based on an independent review the German judge concluded that
GuardaLey's evidence gathering technology does not check whether
the accused actually downloaded (or uploaded) content.  A major
flaw that was previously exposed by the University of Washington,
where copyright holders accused a printer of pirating.

The findings are especially troubling because some major
BitTorrent trackers insert random IP-addresses into BitTorrent
swarms.  These IP-addresses are not actually trying to download
any files, but they may be accused of doing so based on
GuardaLey's evidence.

TorrentFreak contacted attorney Jason Sweet of Booth Sweet who
believes that GuardaLey has continued to use the same technology
in all of its U.S. based cases.

"That's what the lawsuit in Germany was about.  That Guardaley
knew of the flaw, but continued using it to identify infringers.
We haven't seen anything that would indicate they've corrected the
problem or are using different methods.  I believe they've even
made statements to the contrary -- that they use the same tech for
all of their cases," attorney Jason Sweet told TorrentFreak.

This means that among the more than 100,000 BitTorrent users who
were sued by USCG in the U.S., many are likely to be wrongfully
accused.

"The real issue is that innocent people are getting swept up along
with the infringers, and no effort is being made to sort them out.
That's because despite Achte's protestations, this case was
designed to do one thing only -- generate revenue. And for them an
innocent person's money is just as good as a guilty person's,"
Mr. Sweet said.

And there is more.  Documents filed at the German court further
suggest that GuardaLey might also operate pirate honeypots.

"GuardaLey operates a 'honeypot' -- that is they represent "by
means of a falsified bit field, that it was always in possession
of 50% of the file being sought."  If the actual file is being
offered than an implied license is operative.  If it is a garbage
file, than no infringement occurs.  In either instance, IP
addresses are being identified that did not infringe," the
plaintiffs assert.

The above is a very worrying discovery that may become a pivotal
issue in the ongoing lawsuits in the U.S.  Could it be that the
evidence used by GuardaLey in the cases against the thousands of
BitTorrent users in America is just as weak?

Unfortunately, in these pay-up-or-else schemes the evidence never
gets as far as a proper review because the copyright holders are
only after settlements.  However, the class-action lawsuit against
USCG and partners could get to the bottom of this.

If the evidence turns out to be as weak as described, it would
probably mean the end of the "extortion-like" practices.


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that the firm commenced a class action
lawsuit on July 27, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who hold shares
of common stock of BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. against BJ's
Wholesale Club and its board of directors for violations of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of BJ's by
Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. and CVC Capital Partners Advisory
(U.S.), Inc.

The complaint arises out of a June 29, 2011 press release
announcing that BJ's Wholesale Club entered into a definitive
merger agreement with LGP and CVC, pursuant to which BJ's
Wholesale Club shareholders would receive $51.25 for each share of
BJ's Wholesale Club they own.

The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with Proposed Acquisition, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty and due care, as well as federal securities laws.  The
complaint further alleges that, in an attempt to secure
shareholder approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants
filed a false and materially misleading Form 14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement.  The omitted and/or misrepresented information is
believed to be material in assisting BJ's Wholesale Club
shareholders in making an informed decision whether or not to vote
in favor of the Proposed Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all BJ's Wholesale
Club shareholders as of June 29, 2011.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Umeda LLP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 23, 2011.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. of
Robbins Umeda LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder information
form on our Web site or by e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com

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

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com-- is a  
California-based law firm with significant experience representing
investors in securities fraud class actions, merger-related
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.  


BURGER KING: Continues to Defend Calif. Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in a California district court,
according to the Company's August 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger
King restaurants in California leased by the Company and operated
by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal
and state law.  In September 2009, the court issued a decision on
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In its decision,
the court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited
by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for
each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials.  In March 2010,
the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10
restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to
the settlement.  In February 2011, a class action lawsuit styled
Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corporation, No. C11-00667 (U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California) was filed
with respect to the other 86 restaurants.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  
The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the
lawsuit, but the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
of this litigation.


CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Financial Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from
two class action lawsuits alleging various securities or conduct
violations, according to the Company's August 11, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company operates in a legal and regulatory environment that
exposes it to potentially significant litigation risks.  As a
result, the Company is involved in various disputes and legal
proceedings, including litigation, arbitration and regulatory
investigations, including a number of investigatory matters and
legal proceedings arising out of customer allegations related to
past commissioned sales of alternative investment products.  In
2007 through the first quarter of 2009 a substantial amount
(approximately 10% to 20%) of the Company's sales of commissioned
products were in private placements of alternative products, two
of which as of December 31, 2009 (Medical Capital Corporation and
related issuer entities and Provident Royalties, LLC and related
issuer entities) were placed in receivership by action of the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission and issuers of
certain other alternative products sold by the Company are in
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy or may have financial difficulties.  
Additionally, difficult economic conditions in general and the
stock market decline have contributed to decline in broker-dealer
subsidiary client portfolio values.  As a result of such alleged
failings of alternative products and the uncertainty of client
recovery from the various product issuers, the Company is subject
to regulatory scrutiny and a number of recently instituted legal
or arbitration proceedings, including two recently instituted
proceedings seeking certification as class actions which name the
Company as one of a number of defendants and allege various
securities or conduct violations, one with respect to private
placements of Medical Capital Corporation and related issuer
entities for which the broker-dealer subsidiary placed
approximately $100 million of debt securities and the other with
regard to private placements of Provident Royalties, LLC and
related issuer entities for which the broker-dealer subsidiary
placed approximately $60 million of debt securities.  The Company
intends to vigorously contest the allegations of the various
proceedings and believes that there are multiple meritorious legal
and fact based defenses in these matters.  Such cases are subject
to many uncertainties, and their outcome is often difficult to
predict, including the impact on operations or on the financial
statements, particularly in the earlier stages of a case.  The
Company makes provisions for cases brought against it when, in the
opinion of management after seeking legal advice, it is probable
that a liability exists, and the amount can be reasonably
estimated.  The current proceedings are subject to uncertainties
and as such, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss
or a range of loss that may result from each individual matter.  
There is a contemplated settlement regarding both Medical Capital
Corporation and Provident Royalties, LLC, by which the Company
would contribute monies to a settlement fund.  The contemplated
settlement, in the amount of $200,000, was recorded in the books
of the Company as a liability, though the settlement is subject to
approval by a number of entities and there is no assurance that
the settlement will be completed.


CENTER FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Deal in Merger-related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Center Financial Corporation is awaiting approval of a settlement
it entered into in a purported class action lawsuit challenging
its proposed merger with Nara Bancorp Inc., according to the
Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On December 9, 2010, Center Financial and Nara Bancorp, Inc.
entered into a definitive agreement to merge.  The boards of
directors of both companies have unanimously approved the
transaction.  The transaction is subject to regulatory approval,
the approval of the shareholders of both Center Financial and Nara
Bancorp, and other customary closing conditions.  The Company
anticipates that the regulatory approval process will take several
months and, therefore, expects to complete the merger during the
fourth quarter of 2011.

On May 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court against the Company, the Company's directors
and Nara Bancorp alleging, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval
of the proposed merger with Nara Bancorp and that the Company
breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the disclosures
it made regarding the proposed merger.  On July 29, 2011, the
parties to the litigation agreed to settle all claims asserted in
the action, subject to, among other things, the execution of a
stipulation of settlement and court approval.  As part of the
settlement, Nara Bancorp and the Company agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures included in an amendment to the
registration statement for the Nara Bancorp shares to be issued at
the completion of the merger.  In addition, defendants have agreed
to pay up to $400,000 in plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses,
if and to the extent approved by the court.  The payment would be
due only if the merger is consummated and be payable by the
combined company.  If approved by the court, the settlement also
would result in the release by the plaintiff and the proposed
settlement class of all claims that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the merger agreement, the merger
and any disclosures made in connection therewith (but excluding
any properly perfected claims for statutory appraisal in
connection with the merger, certain claims arising under the
federal securities laws and any claims to enforce the settlement).


CHINA NORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited is awaiting a court
ruling on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 11, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company is involved in three securities class actions in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In
addition to the Company, these actions include as defendants
certain of its officers and directors.  The three class actions
assert claims under the federal securities laws.

The three actions are: (1) Rosado v. China North East Petroleum
Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 4577 (MGC), filed June 11. 2010;
(2) Weissmann v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et
al., 10 CV 4775 (MGC), filed June 18, 2010; and (3) Moore v. China
North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 5263 (MGC),
filed July 9, 2010.

The three securities class actions were consolidated as In re
China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited Securities Litigation
10 CV 4577 (MGC).  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint on January 14, 2011 adding several new defendants,
including former officers and directors of the Company.  On
March 22, 2011, the Company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss.  Other
defendants filed motions to dismissal as well.  The Court heard
oral argument on the motions to dismiss on May 12, 2011 and, at
that time, requested supplemental briefing, which the parties have
provided to the Court.  The motions to dismiss await further
action from the Court.


CIT GROUP: Mediation in Securities Class Action Set This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
A non-binding mediation in the consolidated securities class
action lawsuit filed by shareholders of CIT Group, Inc., is set
this month, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In July and August 2008, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of CIT's pre-reorganization
stockholders against CIT, its former CEO and its former CFO.  In
August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New
York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units against
CIT, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller and certain
members of its current and former Board of Directors.  In May
2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder actions into
a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as
Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which consists of
all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred stock from
December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were
damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant
to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock.

In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.  Specifically, it is alleged
that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller,
and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act
by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
CIT"s subprime home lending and student lending businesses.  The
allegations relating to the Company's home lending business are
based on the assertion that the Company failed to fully disclose
the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime mortgage loans.  
The allegations relating to the Company's student lending business
are based upon the assertion that the Company failed to account in
its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred
stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for
private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school,
which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should
have been written off.  The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the
Company, its former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and
those current and former Directors of the Company who signed the
registration statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ
preferred offering violated the 1933 Act by making false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's student lending
business.

Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT
Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated
securities action as a result of its discharge in bankruptcy.  On
June 10, 2010, the Court denied the remaining defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The action
continues as to the remaining defendants and CIT's obligation to
defend and indemnify such defendants continues.  The case is in
the discovery stage.  Plaintiffs seek, among other relief,
unspecified damages and interest.  Non-binding mediation is
scheduled for August 2011.


CLASSMATES.COM: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
BlogWorld reports that Classmates.com is being hit with a class
action lawsuit for privacy violations.

The settlement is for anyone residing in the United States who
were registered with or subscribed to http://www.classmates.comat  
any time beginning on October 30, 2004 through February 23, 2011.
The lawsuit claims "Classmates sent e-mail to subscribers of
www.classmates.com that violated the law and the privacy rights of
subscribers", among other things.

Classmates has denied any wrongdoing, but has agreed, because of
risks and expenses of continuing this lawsuit, that a settlement
is appropriate.

What will you get if you join the settlement? They've guesstimated
around $10 per person, payable through Paypal or a physical check.
That's obviously not a lot of money, but most likely people will
join the lawsuit to make a statement regarding their privacy.

This lawsuit opens up some interesting questions as to what can
happen if the public's privacy is violated.  Facebook has beefed
up their privacy and others might want to take note of this.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Merger-Related Suit Remains Pending in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit challenging the proposed
merger of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and Exelon Corporation
remains pending in Maryland, according to the Company's August 8,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On April 28, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Exelon. At closing, each issued and outstanding
share of common stock of the Company will be cancelled and
converted into the right to receive 0.93 shares of common stock of
Exelon, and the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of
Exelon.

In late April and early May 2011, shortly after the Company and
Exelon announced their agreement to merge the two companies, 12
shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City in Maryland. Each class action lawsuit was
filed on behalf of a proposed class of the shareholders of the
Company against it, members of its board of directors, and Exelon.
The shareholder class actions generally allege that the individual
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
proposed merger because they failed to maximize the value that the
shareholders would receive from the merger, and failed to disclose
adequately all material information relating to the proposed
merger. The class actions also allege that the Company and Exelon
aided and abetted the individual directors' breaches of their
fiduciary duties. The lawsuits challenge the proposed merger, seek
to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger until all
material information is provided relating to the proposed merger,
and ask for rescission of the proposed merger and any related
transactions that have been completed as of the date that the
court grants any relief. The class action lawsuits also seek
certification as class actions, compensatory damages, costs and
disbursements related to the action, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and rescission damages. Plaintiffs in three of the
twelve lawsuits subsequently filed motions to consolidate all the
lawsuits. The court has granted the motion to consolidate and all
actions are now proceeding as a single lawsuit. Given that these
lawsuits were recently filed, that the court has not certified any
class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their potential
damage claims, the Company is unable at this time to provide an
estimate of the range of possible loss relating to these
proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
or their possible effect on the Company, or its subsidiary
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's, financial results or their
possible effect on the pending merger with Exelon.

Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy company that
conducts its business through various subsidiaries and joint
ventures organized around three business segments: a generation
business, a customer supply business, and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a securities consolidated class action lawsuit in
Maryland is still ongoing, according to Constellation Energy
Group, Inc.'s August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008. The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the
Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures, of the Company between
January 30, 2008 and September 16, 2008, and who acquired
Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008. The securities
class actions generally allege that the Company, a number of its
present or former officers or directors, and the underwriters
violated the securities laws by issuing a false and misleading
registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
Company's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The securities
class actions also allege that Constellation Energy issued false
or misleading statements or was aware of material undisclosed
information which contradicted public statements including in
connection with its announcements of financial results for 2007,
the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the
second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first quarter 2008
Form 10-Q. The securities class actions seek, among other things,
certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees, and
rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there. On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September
17, 2009. On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Act of 1934 and restricting the lawsuit to those
persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering. Given
that the discovery phase has just begun, that the court has not
certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their
potential damage claims relating to the June 2008 offering, the
Company is unable at this time to provide an estimate of the range
of possible loss relating to these proceedings or to determine the
ultimate outcome of the securities class actions or their possible
effect on the Company, or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's
financial results.

Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy company that
conducts its business through various subsidiaries and joint
ventures organized around three business segments: a generation
business, a customer supply business, and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company.


CSC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Fox Programming Suits in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSC Holdings, LLC, continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit in New York filed by customers seeking
recovery for the lack of Fox programming, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.  On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks and
carriage was restored.  Several class action lawsuits were
subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking
recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those lawsuits were
consolidated in an action before the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York and a consolidated complaint
was filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  The plaintiffs have
asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
consumer fraud.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this
action.  The Company believes these claims are without merit and
intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits with certainty or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


DENDREON: May Expand Class Period in Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP disclosed that it is investigating
whether to expand the Class Period alleged in the lawsuit it filed
against Dendreon to include investors who purchased DNDN
securities between August 3, 2010, and August 3, 2011.

Hagens Berman filed its lawsuit on August 5, 2011, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.  The
suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Dendreon between January 7, 2011, and August 3,
2011.  The firm is investigating whether an expanded class period
might be justified.  The case, Ems v. Dendreon, et al., was
assigned number 2:11-cv-01294.

Dendreon's August 3, 2011, announcement that its financial results
would be below analysts' expectations and withdrawal of financial
projections for the full year shocked investors and analysts
alike.  On the news, the company's stock dropped from a closing
price of $33.65 on August 3, 2011, to an opening price of $12.73
on August 4, 2011.  Dendreon closed at $12.45 on August 23, down
nearly 80% from its peak value of $55.43 on May 3, 2010.

Dendreon has publicly stated that the reasons for withdrawing
earnings include a more gradual adoption of Provenge by doctors,
who still fear they may not or will not be reimbursed in a timely
manner.

If you wish to discuss serving as a lead plaintiff or have any
questions concerning this litigation, this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Peter Borkon of
Hagens Berman, at 206-623-7292 or via e-mail at Dndn@hbsslaw.com  
Investors who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must move the court
by October 4, 2011.  You can also learn more about the case at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/dendreon

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

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.meaningfuldisclosure.com-- is an investor-rights  
class-action law firm with offices in ten cities.  Founded in
1993, the firm's mission is to represent plaintiffs in class
actions and multi-party, large-scale litigation that has the
potential to protect the rights of investors, consumers, workers
and the environment.  
        

DJSP ENTERPRISES: Ex-Workers' Class Action Gets Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane C. Lade, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that a federal
magistrate in Miami has recommended that former employees of DJSP
Enterprises, the legal processing arm of Plantation attorney
David J. Stern's once-powerful foreclosure law firm, be given
class action status to sue Mr. Stern and his affiliates for
violating federal labor laws.

The suit, filed on behalf of four employees but which could affect
at least 700, claims workers were fired last fall without the 60
days notice required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification, or WARN, Act.  The action seeks back pay and
benefits.

DJSP, rocked by scandals involving Mr. Stern's work on behalf of
mortgage lenders, voluntarily delisted its stock this year when it
failed to meet the Nasdaq's required $1 per share price.  The
Florida Bar has filed a complaint with the state Supreme Court,
seeking disciplinary action against Mr. Stern, and his law
practice still is under investigation by the Florida Attorney
General.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro in Miami will make the final
decision on the class certification.  In April, she ruled the
employees could sue as individuals.


DUKE ENERGY: Awaits Approval of Merger-related Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation is awaiting approval of a settlement in a
consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its proposed merger
with Progress Energy, Inc., according to the Company's August 10,
2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

During January and February 2011, Progress Energy and its
directors were named as defendants in 11 purported class action
lawsuits with 10 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 merger.  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 Progress
Energy'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 Progress Energy 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 Progress Energy, 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 Progress Energy 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, Progress Energy 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, Progress Energy agreed to make available additional
information to its shareholders in advance of the special meeting
of shareholders of Progress Energy 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 Progress Energy with the SEC on
July 15, 2011.  In addition, Progress Energy 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
mentioned above.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters.


DUKE ENERGY: Katrina-related Suit vs. PEC & PEF Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Carolina Power & Light
Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) and Florida
Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF),
relating to losses suffered during Hurricane Katrina remains
pending, according to Duke Energy Corporation's August 10, 2011
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In May 2011, Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy
Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) and Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress
Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), 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, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of this matter.


EBIX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc., continues to defend itself from several securities
class action lawsuits, according to the Company's August 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Between July 14, 2011 and July 29, 2011, nine securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of
its officers in the Southern District of New York, and one class
action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the Northern District of Georgia.  These complaints
have yet to be consolidated.  The complaints allege that between
May 6, 2009 and June 30, 2011 the Company issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
and financial results, and the adequacy of its internal controls
in earnings reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public
statements, which allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages.  The Company believes that the complaints are
not justified, that it has meritorious defenses to each of the
plaintiffs' claims, and it intends to vigorously defend itself
against these actions.  As of June 30, 2011, no liability in the
Company's financial statements has been recognized with respect to
these class action complaints, as presently a loss is not probable
nor able to be reasonably estimated.


GIRL SCOUTS: Faces Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims the Girl Scouts of Greater Los Angeles
illegally requires employees to pay Girl Scout dues as a condition
of employment.


GROUPON: Certain Claims in False Ad Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge said
parts of a false advertising lawsuit can proceed against online
coupon distributor Groupon, according to one attorney who attended
a court hearing on Aug. 24.

A proposed class action was filed against Groupon earlier this
year by a tour operator in San Francisco, accusing Groupon of bait
and switch advertising.  Groupon allegedly buys tour-related
keywords on Google's AdWords service, but often does not actually
offer tour coupons when customers arrive at the site, the lawsuit
alleges.

The practice drives up the cost of keywords for the tour company
while the prominence of its ads in Google searches declines, the
lawsuit states.

Groupon is aiming for a mid- to late- September initial public
offering, despite recent market tumult that has shelved some
flotations, several people familiar with the company's plans who
spoke on condition of anonymity told Reuters.

Groupon asked a federal judge in Oakland, California to dismiss
the lawsuit.  At a hearing on Aug. 24, U.S. District Judge Phyllis
Hamilton ruled from the bench that certain allegations against
Groupon can proceed, said Steven Williams, an attorney for the
plaintiff who was at the hearing.

Other claims against Groupon were dismissed, with a chance for the
plaintiffs to refashion their allegations, Mr. Williams said.

A Groupon representative declined to comment, citing the ongoing
litigation.

"We're very happy we're going to get to go forward with these
claims to address what we think is classic bait and switch
advertising," Mr. Williams said.  "Only now its done through
Google instead of through the newspaper."

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
is San Francisco Comprehensive Tours LLC on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Groupon et al., No. 11-cv-1300.


HEALTH NET: Continue to Defend Suits Relating to Disk Drive Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated putative class
action and two other class actions arising from the loss of hard
disk drives containing customer information, 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 January 21, 2011, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM),
which handles the Company's data center operations, notified the
Company that it could not locate several hard disk drives that had
been used in its data center located in Rancho Cordova,
California. The Company has since determined that personal
information of approximately two million former and current Health
Net members, employees and health care providers is on the drives.
Commencing on March 14, 2011, the Company provided written
notification to the individuals whose information is on the
drives. To help protect the personal information of affected
individuals, the Company offered them two years of free credit
monitoring services, in addition to identity theft insurance and
fraud resolution and restoration of credit files services, if
needed.

On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this
incident was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, and similar actions were
later filed against the Company in other federal and state courts
in California. A number of those actions were transferred to and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California, and the two remaining actions are currently pending
in San Francisco County Superior Court and the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. The consolidated amended
complaint in the federal action pending in the Eastern District of
California is filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000
of our current or former members who received the written
notification, and also names IBM as a defendant. It seeks to state
claims for violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act and the California Customer Records Act, and seeks
statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each class member, as well
as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and other
relief. The Company has not yet filed a response to the
consolidated complaint.

The other federal court proceeding was instituted on July 7, 2011
in Riverside County Superior Court and is brought on behalf of a
putative nationwide class of all former and current members
affected by this incident, and seeks to state similar claims
against the Company , as well as a claim for invasion of privacy.
The Company removed this case to the Central District of
California on August 1, 2011. The Company has not yet filed a
response to the complaint in this action.

The San Francisco Superior Court proceeding was instituted on
March 28, 2011 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of
California residents who received the written notification, and
seeks to state similar claims against the Company, as well as
claims for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and seeks
similar relief. The Company has moved to compel arbitration of the
two named plaintiffs' claims.

Health Net, Inc. is a publicly traded managed care organization
that delivers managed health care services through health plans
and government-sponsored managed care plans.


HEART CHECK: Not All Customers Can Participate in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loni Blandford, writing for KTNV, reports that many customers of a
medical imaging company in the Valley were relieved to hear legal
action was being taken after that company suddenly closed up shop.
But Action News is learning not everyone is included in that class
action lawsuit.

"My health is great, but I was just curious about it," said
Dave Cherkis.

That's what Mr. Cherkis says sold him on signing up with Heart
Check America.  The company had a booth at a convention
Mr. Cherkis attended and offered him a free heart scan.  So he
stopped by their Sahara office in October 2010 and signed up to
get a full body scan and a virtual colonoscopy.

"All together the whole contract was roughly $3,000," explained
Mr. Cherkis.

Fast forward 10 months and Heart Check America's Las Vegas office
is now closed, along with locations in several states.  The
closings came after officials in Nevada and Colorado found the
company was scanning patients without a doctor's order, which is
against state law.

"I just don't like to be taken advantage of and they took
advantage of me," said Mr. Cherkis.

There is a class action lawsuit against Heart Check America.  It
was filed by a Las Vegas man alleging deceptive trade practices
and breach of contract.  But not everyone can be part of that
lawsuit.

"If they financed their contract through chase advance health or
through Conrad acceptance and were making payments to either of
those entities they automatically fall into the definitions of the
class," explained Attorney George West III.

But Mr. Cherkis financed his contract through GE Money Bank
Carecredit.  According to Mr. West, CareCredit customers have a
contract clause that prevents them from being part of the class
action suit.

"That does not mean that they don't have certain remedies at their
disposal," explained Mr. West.

Mr. West says they're looking at representing customers with
contracts through GE CareCredit on an individual basis, through
arbitration. Mr. Cherkis says he has since closed his Carecredit
account.  But he's still fighting to get his money back.  While he
waits for the legal process, he hopes his experience is a lesson
for other consumers.

"Be aware of what you sign.  I'm one of those trusting people I
sign papers yeah I'll read it later," said Mr. Cherkis.

Heart Check America could not be reached for comment.  GE
CareCredit says they encourage any Heart Check America customers
who financed through them to call the number on the back of their
card.


KRAFT FOODS: Class Action Over Unpaid Wages Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Ann Knef, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that a
proposed class action against Kraft Foods Global brought by
workers claiming unpaid wages has been dismissed without prejudice
by Madison County Circuit Judge Ann Callis.

Judge Callis signed an order Aug. 16, a day after attorneys for
lead plaintiff Joan Jones and the defendant stipulated to the
dismissal.

"In that this matter has not been certified as a class action, the
parties stipulate that there is good cause for excusing notice of
the dismissal," states the stipulation to dismiss.

Ms. Jones is represented by Joseph W. Phebus of Phebus & Koester
of Urbana.

Kraft is represented by Jonathan Garlough and Daniel Kaplan of
Foley & Lardner.

The suit alleged Kraft violated the Illinois Minimum Wage Act and
other wage laws by failing to compensate the estimated 500
potential class members for all of the hours they worked.

The class would have included all hourly employees at the Granite
City plant who were not paid for all the hours they worked,
according to the class certification motion.

The case is Madison case number 11-L-082.


MGM RESORTS: Call Center Class Suit in Early Stages of Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit complaining against the monitoring
and recording by MGM Resorts International's call center agents of
consumer telephone calls for hospitality-related bookings is in
the early stages of litigation, according to the Company's August
9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A putative class action, entitled, Lori Zaragoza v. MGM MIRAGE,
Inc. and MGM Resorts International, Case No. BC 461912, Los
Angeles County Superior Court, filed May 18, 2011, alleges that
during the one year prior to the filing, defendant's call center
reservation agents monitored and recorded consumer telephone calls
for hotel room and other hospitality-related bookings, without
prior notice to plaintiff and other California consumers in
violation of various provisions of the California Penal Code.  The
plaintiff seeks certification of a class action, compensatory
damages including consequential or statutory damages pursuant to
California Penal Code Section 637.2, whichever is greater,
injunctive relief, prejudgment interest and costs of suit.  The
case is in its early stages and the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a possible range of loss at this time.  The Company
contests that the complaint has merit and will vigorously defend
itself against the claims in this lawsuit.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Amended "Stratte-McClure" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself in a purported class
action lawsuit filed by Joel Stratte-McClure as set forth in an
amended complaint, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action,
which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and
certain present and former senior executives as defendants and
asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The
amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v.
Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Subject to
certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf
of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares
of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to
December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such
purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in
large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related
losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's
disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters.
Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On
April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On April 4, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with
respect to certain of their allegations.

On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in
response to the court's order of April 4, 2011.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments-- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth
Management Group and Asset Management.


MORGAN STANLEY: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement Pact in WaMu Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley is awaiting final approval of a settlement
agreement in In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Beginning in 2007, Morgan Stanley was named as a defendant in
several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of
the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and
mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley
related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other
mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege,
among other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents for the offerings at issue contained various material
misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the
issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks
and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class
certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages,
costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential
losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors
including, among other things, the financial condition of the
entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through
certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings
underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-
defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or
their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of
these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities
Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have
filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.

In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. On October 12, 2010, the court issued an order
certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the
Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual
Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an
underwriter. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of
the securities covered by the class certified by the court.

Morgan Stanley disclosed that it reached on March 29, 2011, an
agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs in the action
styled In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, to
settle this litigation.

The settlement agreement has not yet been completed and will be
subject to court approval.

On July 21, 2011, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement of this litigation by the Company and
other defendants.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments-- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth
Management Group and Asset Management.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Lehman Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself in In re: Lehman
Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Beginning in 2007, Morgan Stanley was named as a defendant in
several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of
the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and
mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley
related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other
mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege,
among other things, that the registration statements and offering
documents for the offerings at issue contained various material
misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the
issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks
and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class
certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages,
costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential
losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors
including, among other things, the financial condition of the
entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through
certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings
underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co-
defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or
their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of
these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities
Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have
filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership.

On July 27, 2011, the court presiding over In re: Lehman Brothers
Equity/Debt Securities Litigation issued an opinion granting in
part and denying in part the underwriter defendants' motion to
dismiss the current amended complaint.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments?Institutional Securities, Global Wealth
Management Group and Asset Management.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Abu Dhabi" Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself in a purported class
action captioned Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc., according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance. The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned
to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and
misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the
risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed
securities held by the Cheyne SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court
dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for
plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July
20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their
aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company,
and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on
August 5, 2010. Since the filing of the initial complaint, various
additional plaintiffs have been added to the case. The deadline
for new plaintiffs to join the case expired on March 11, 2011.
There are currently 15 plaintiffs asserting individual claims
related to approximately $983 million of securities issued by the
Cheyne SIV. Plaintiffs have not provided information quantifying
the amount of compensatory damages they are seeking and are also
seeking unspecified punitive damages. Based on currently available
information, the Company believes that the defendants could incur
a loss up to the amount of plaintiffs' claimed compensatory
damages, once specified, related to their alleged purchase of
approximately $983 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV
plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.  

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial
services firm that maintains significant market positions in each
of its business segments-- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth
Management Group and Asset Management.


NUCOR CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation continues to defend itself from antitrust class
action lawsuits filed against major steel producers, according to
the Company's August 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2011.

Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a
co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints
filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The cases are filed as class actions.  The plaintiffs
allege that from January 2005 through 2008, eight steel
manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive
activities with respect to the production and sale of steel.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.  Although the Company
believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend against them, the Company cannot at this time
predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of
Nucor's potential exposure.


NVR INC: Suits Still Stayed Pending Developments in N.Y. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Purported class action lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina remain stayed pending
further developments in a similar case filed in New York,
according to NVR, 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 July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York. The complaints seek injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated
damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid,
attorney and other fees and interest, and where available,
multiple damages. The suits were filed as purported class actions.
However, while a number of individuals have filed consents to join
and assert federal claims in the New York action, none of the
groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to represent have
been certified as a class. The lawsuits filed in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been
stayed pending further developments in the New York action.

NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of
single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings.


OMNICARE INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on
behalf of all purchasers of shares of common stock of Omnicare,
Inc. during a class period of January 10, 2007 to August 5, 2010.

The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff
and a class of all other individual and institutional investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Omnicare common
stock during the class period.  The defendants in the case are
Omnicare, Joel Gemunder, David W. Frosel, Jr., and John L.
Workman.  The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
concealing material information and making false and misleading
statements relating to Omnicare's business and financial
condition, particularly with respect to a widespread scheme to
defraud the federal Medicare program and several state Medicaid
programs by submitting claims for reimbursement for services that
did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations.

If you purchased shares of Omnicare common stock between January
10, 2007 and August 5, 2010, you may, no later than October 24,
2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  You
must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of
the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's
counsel at:

        Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
        Gardy & Notis, LLP
        560 Sylvan Avenue
        Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
        Telephone: 201-567-7377
        E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com
        Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com


PENN NATIONAL: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Penn National Gaming, Inc. is awaiting the Supreme Court's
decision regarding plaintiffs' appeal from a court ruling
dismissing a purported securities class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On July 16, 2008, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class
of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock
between March 20, 2008 and July 2, 2008. The lawsuit alleges that
the Company's disclosure practices relative to the proposed
transaction with Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge
Partners, L.P. and the eventual termination of that transaction
were misleading and deficient in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint, which seeks class
certification and unspecified damages, was filed in federal court
in Maryland. The complaint was amended, among other things, to add
three new named plaintiffs and to name Peter M. Carlino, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, and William J. Clifford, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, as additional defendants.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in November
2008, and the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint
with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration,
which was denied on October 21, 2009. The plaintiffs subsequently
appealed the dismissal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and
an oral argument was heard on October 26, 2010. On March 14, 2011,
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
lower court. The plaintiffs have requested the U.S. Supreme Court
to consider an appeal of the decision.

Penn National Gaming, Inc. is a multi-jurisdictional owner and
manager of gaming and pari-mutuel properties.


PENSON WORLDWIDE: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on August 23, 2011, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas against Penson Worldwide, Inc.  The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is from
February 10, 2011 through August 4, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.  If you
are a member of the Class as described above, you may move the
Court no later than Monday, October 24, 2011, to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the Class.  However, in order to do so, you must
meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any
other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact:

        William B. Federman, Esq.
        FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
        10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
        Oklahoma City, OK 73120
        Telephone: (405) 235-1560
        E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
        Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


POPULAR INC: Conference on "Hoff" Suit Settlement Set for Nov. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
A conference on a settlement entered into by Popular, Inc., in a
consolidated securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular,
Inc., et al., is scheduled for November 2, 2011, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Between May 14, 2009, and September 9, 2009, five putative class
actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico
Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and
certain of its directors and officers, among others.  The five
class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a
securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al.
(consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re
Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated
cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Montanez v. Popular,
Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.).

On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in the Hoff case filed a
consolidated class action complaint which included as defendants
the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred
Stock, among others.  The consolidated action purported to be on
behalf of purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24,
2008 and February 19, 2009 and alleged that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing a series of allegedly false and misleading statements and
omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make statements
made by the Corporation not false and misleading.  The
consolidated action also alleged that the defendants violated
Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act
by making allegedly untrue statements and omitting to disclose
material facts necessary to make statements made by the
Corporation not false and misleading in connection with the May
2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock.  The consolidated
securities class action complaint sought class certification, an
award of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees.  On January 11, 2010, Popular, the
underwriter defendants and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint.  On
August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter
defendants on statute of limitations grounds.  The Court also
dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors
on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim
brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing.  The
Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and
certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite
state of mind.

The derivative actions (Garcia v. Carrion, et al. and Diaz v.
Carrion, et al.) were brought purportedly for the benefit of
nominal defendant Popular, Inc. against certain executive officers
and directors and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of
assets and abuse of control in connection with Popular's issuance
of allegedly false and misleading financial statements and
financial reports and the offering of the Series B Preferred
Stock.  The derivative complaints sought a judgment that the
action was a proper derivative action, an award of damages,
restitution, costs and disbursements, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. On October 9, 2009, the Court
coordinated for purposes of discovery the Garcia action and the
consolidated securities class action.  On October 15, 2009,
Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia
complaint for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors
prior to initiating litigation.  On November 20, 2009, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, and on December 21, 2009, Popular and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia amended
complaint.  At a scheduling conference held on January 14, 2010,
the Court stayed discovery in both the Hoff and Garcia matters
pending resolution of their respective motions to dismiss. On
August 11, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss the Garcia action. The Court dismissed the gross
mismanagement and corporate waste claims, but declined to dismiss
the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Diaz case, filed in the
Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan, was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. On
October 13, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to
consolidate the Garcia and Diaz actions. On October 26, 2009,
plaintiff moved to remand the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court
of First Instance and to stay defendants' consolidation motion
pending the outcome of the remand proceedings. On September 30,
2010, the Court issued an order without opinion remanding the Diaz
case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. On October 13,
2010, the Court issued a Statement of Reasons In Support of Remand
Order. On October 28, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants
moved for reconsideration of the remand order. The court denied
Popular's request for reconsideration shortly thereafter.
On April 13, 2010, the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in San
Juan granted summary judgment dismissing a separate complaint
brought by plaintiff in the Garcia action that sought to enforce
an alleged right to inspect the books and records of the
Corporation in support of the pending derivative action. The Court
held that plaintiff had not propounded a "proper purpose" under
Puerto Rico law for such inspection. On April 28, 2010, plaintiff
in that action moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal.
On May 4, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's request for
reconsideration. On June 7, 2010, plaintiff filed an appeal before
the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals. On June 11, 2010, Popular and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the appeal. On June 22,
2010, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. On July 6, 2010,
plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal. On
July 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's request for
reconsideration.

At the Court's request, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases
discussed the prospect of mediation and agreed to nonbinding
mediation in an attempt to determine whether the cases could be
settled.  On January 18 and 19, 2011, the parties to the Hoff and
Garcia cases engaged in nonbinding mediation before the Honorable
Nicholas Politan.  As a result of the mediation, the Corporation
and the other named defendants to the Hoff matter entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle this matter.  Under the
terms of the memorandum of understanding, subject to certain
customary conditions including court approval of a final
settlement agreement in consideration for the full settlement and
release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount of
$37.5 million would be paid by or on behalf of defendants.  On
June 17, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and a
joint motion for preliminary approval of such settlement.  On
June 20, 2011, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement and set a settlement conference for
November 1, 2011, which was subsequently moved to November 2,
2011.  On or before July 5, 2011, the amount of $37.5 million was
paid to the settlement fund by or on behalf of defendants.  
Specifically, the amount of $26 million was paid by insurers and
the amount of $11.5 million was paid by Popular (after which
approximately $4.7 million was reimbursed by insurers per the
terms of the relevant insurance agreement).

In addition, the Corporation is aware that a suit asserting
similar claims on behalf of certain individual shareholders under
the federal securities laws was filed on January 18, 2011.  On
June 19, 2011, such shareholders sought leave to intervene in the
securities class action.  On June 28, 2011, the Court denied their
motion to intervene as untimely.

A separate memorandum of understanding was subsequently entered by
the parties to the Garcia and Diaz actions in April 2011.  Under
the terms of this memorandum of understanding, subject to certain
customary conditions, including court approval of a final
settlement agreement, and in consideration for the full and final
settlement and release of all defendants, Popular agreed, for a
period of three years, to maintain or implement certain corporate
governance practices, measures and policies, as set forth in the
memorandum of understanding.  Aside from the payment by or on
behalf of Popular of approximately $2.1 million of attorneys' fees
and expenses of counsel for the plaintiffs (of which management
expects $1.6 million will be covered by insurance), the settlement
does not require any cash payments by or on behalf of Popular or
the defendants.  On June 14, 2011, a motion for preliminary
approval of settlement was filed.  On July 8, 2011, the Court
granted preliminary approval of such settlement and set the final
approval hearing date for September 12, 2011.

Popular does not expect to record any material gain or loss as a
result of the settlements. Popular has made no admission of
liability in connection with these settlements.
At this point, the settlement agreements are not final and are
subject to a number of future events, including approval of the
settlements by the relevant courts.


POPULAR INC: Awaits Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of a settlement
of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Between May 14, 2009 and September 9, 2009, five putative class
actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico
Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and
certain of its directors and officers, among others.  The five
class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a
securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al.
(consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re
Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated
cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Montanez v. Popular,
Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.).

On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The consolidated complaint
purported to be on behalf of employees participating in the
Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the
Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan from January
24, 2008 to the date of the Complaint to recover losses pursuant
to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA against Popular, certain
directors, officers and members of plan committees, each of whom
was alleged to be a plan fiduciary. The consolidated complaint
alleged that defendants breached their alleged fiduciary
obligations by, among other things, failing to eliminate Popular
stock as an investment alternative in the plans. The complaint
sought to recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable
relief, including injunctive relief and a constructive trust,
along with costs and attorneys' fees. On December 21, 2009, and in
compliance with a scheduling order issued by the Court, Popular
and the individual defendants submitted an answer to the amended
complaint. Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 2009, Popular and
the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint or, in the alternative, for
judgment on the pleadings. On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that
the motion to dismiss be denied except with respect to Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, as to which he recommended that the motion
be granted. On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation. On September 30,
2010, the Court issued an order without opinion granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss and providing that the
Court would issue an opinion and order explaining its decision. No
opinion was, however, issued prior to the settlement in principle.

Prior to the mediation in the Hoff and derivative action, the
parties to the ERISA class action entered into a separate
memorandum of understanding to settle that action.  Under the
terms of the ERISA memorandum of understanding, subject to certain
customary conditions including court approval of a final
settlement agreement and in consideration for the full settlement
and release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount
of $8.2 million would be paid by or on behalf of the defendants.  
The parties filed a joint request to approve the settlement on
April 13, 2011.  On June 8, 2011, the Court held a preliminary
approval hearing, and on June 23, 2011, the Court preliminarily
approved such settlement.  On June 30, 2011, the amount of $8.2
million was transferred to the settlement fund by insurers on
behalf of the defendants.  A final fairness hearing was set for
August 26, 2011.

Popular does not expect to record any material gain or loss as a
result of the settlements. Popular has made no admission of
liability in connection with these settlements.

At this point, the settlement agreements are not final and are
subject to a number of future events, including approval of the
settlements by the relevant courts.


POPULAR INC: Motion to Dismiss "Almeyda-Santiago" Suit is Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit for breach of
contract filed against one of Popular, Inc.'s banks remains
pending, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On October 7, 2010, a putative class action for breach of contract
and damages captioned Almeyda-Santiago v. Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico, was filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance against
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico.  The complaint essentially asserts
that plaintiff has suffered damages because of Banco Popular's
allegedly fraudulent overdraft fee practices in connection with
debit card transactions.  Such practices allegedly consist of: (a)
the reorganization of electronic debit transactions in high-to-low
order so as to multiply the number of overdraft fees assessed on
its customers; (b) the assessment of overdraft fees even when
clients have not overdrawn their accounts; (c) the failure to
disclose, or to adequately disclose, its overdraft policy to its
customers; and (d) the provision of false and fraudulent
information regarding its clients' account balances at point of
sale transactions and on its Web site.  Plaintiff seeks damages,
restitution and provisional remedies against Banco Popular for
breach of contract, abuse of trust, illegal conversion and unjust
enrichment.  On January 13, 2011, Banco Popular submitted a motion
to dismiss the complaint, which is still pending resolution.


POPULAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Lamadrid" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss
a class action complaint captioned Garcia Lamadrid, et al. v.
Banco Popular, et al., according to the Company's August 9, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On December 13, 2010, Popular was served with a class action
complaint captioned Garcia Lamadrid, et al. v. Banco Popular, et
al. which was filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance.  
The complaint generally seeks damages against Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, other defendants and their respective insurance
companies for their alleged breach of certain fiduciary duties,
breach of contract, and alleged violations of local tort law.
Plaintiffs seek in excess of $600 million in damages, plus costs
and attorneys fees.

More specifically, plaintiffs -- Guillermo Garcia Lamadrid and
Benito del Cueto Figueras -- are suing Defendant BPPR for the
losses they (and others) experienced through their investment in
the RG Financial Corporation-backed Conservation Trust Fund
securities.  Plaintiffs essentially claim that Banco Popular
allegedly breached its fiduciary duties to them by failing to keep
all relevant parties informed of any developments that could
affect the Conservation Trust notes or that could become an event
of default under the relevant trust agreements; and that in so
doing, it acted imprudently, unreasonably and grossly negligently.  
Popular and the other defendants submitted separate motions to
dismiss on or about February 28, 2011.  Plaintiffs submitted a
consolidated opposition thereto on April 15, 2011.  The parties
were allowed to submit replies and surreplies to such motions, and
the motion has now been deemed submitted by the Court and is
pending resolution.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Begay" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Company of New Mexico is awaiting a ruling on an
appeal from a court order dismissing a putative class action
captioned Begay v. PNM et al., according to the Company's
August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

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

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


SANFORD BROWN: Faces More Suits Over False Promises on Programs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a former
student have filed five more lawsuits against Sanford Brown
College and its parent company Career Education Corp.  More than
30 complaints from more than 100 students claim the school used
high-pressure sales tactics and grandiose promises it couldn't
back up.

At least one class action is among the dozens of complaints, many
from multiple plaintiffs, filed against Sanford Brown and Career
Education Corp. since 2008.  One such complaint, not a class
action, has 38 plaintiffs; another has 36.

Career Education's Web site boasts that it has 95 schools in 23
states and offers more than 100 programs, including careers in
business, criminal justice, culinary arts, design, education,
engineering and computer science, health and law.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants falsely promised their
programs would give students sufficient training to enter the
workforce after graduation; that the instructors were adequately
trained; that the plaintiffs would earn a high salary after
graduation and that the defendants would help place the plaintiffs
in such a job; that the plaintiffs would easily be able to pay off
their educational loans; and that the defendants' credit hours
were transferable to other colleges and universities.

The plaintiffs say the defendants concealed that their promised
starting salary figures were inflated; that most of their
graduates were not employed full time; that Sanford Brown had a
poor reputation in the St. Louis business community; that the
defendants knew that the only other schools that would accept the
defendants' credit hours were schools that had matriculation
agreements with the defendants; that excessive loan repayment
would be required; and that the defendants' admissions
representatives were subject to quotas.

The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages for fraud and
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

All five new complaints were filed in St. Louis County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wilson v. Career Education Corporation,
et al., Case No. 11SL-CC03331 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/23/SanfordCollege.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary K. Burger, Jr., Esq.
          CANTOR & BURGER, LLC
          12283 Olive Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 542-9999
          E-mail: gary@cantorburger.com


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Product Corrosion Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. continues to defend itself in
class action lawsuits over alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings,
according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii
First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 -- Case 1--; Ke Noho
Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM --
Case 2 --; North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM -- Case 3 --; and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 -- Case
4. Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009. Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009. Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009. The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage. Case 1 is a class action
brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses.
Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc.,
Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case
No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed
with a new representative plaintiff. Case 2 is an action by the
builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company,
claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are
defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to
provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility
to corrosion in certain environments. Case 3 is a subrogation
action brought by the insurance company for the builders and
developers against the Company claiming the insurance company
expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the
Company's products. Case 4 is a putative class action brought,
like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.
In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc., the developer of the Ocean Pointe
development, has brought a third party complaint against the
Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be liable
are actually the fault of the Company. None of the Cases alleges a
specific amount of damages sought, although each of the Cases
seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive damages. The
Company is currently investigating the facts underlying the claims
asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the cause of
the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown to
exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general
contractor, various subcontractors and other construction
professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of
damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed. At this
time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any
property damage allegedly suffered and the extent of such
liability, if any, are unknown. Management believes the Cases may
not be resolved for an extended period. The Company intends to
defend itself vigorously in connection with the Cases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may
be covered by its insurance policies. On April 19, 2011, an action
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v.
Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 11-00254
ACK. In this action, Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which issued certain
Commercial General Liability insurance policies to the Company,
seeks declaratory relief in the Cases with respect to its
obligations to defend or indemnify the Company, Simpson Strong-Tie
Company Inc., and a vendor of the Company's strap tie holdown
products. The Company has moved to dismiss or stay National
Union's action, and anticipates that it will vigorously defend all
claims advanced by National Union and vigorously advance all of
its own claims against National Union.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.'s subsidiary, Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc., designs, engineers, and manufactures structural
connectors, anchors, and other products for new construction,
retrofitting, and do-it-yourself (DIY) markets.


SINOTECH ENERGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action
lawsuit against SinoTech Energy Limited and certain of its
officers, directors and underwriters on August 24, 2011.

Berman DeValerio is one of the nation's top law firms representing
investors who seek to recover money due to stock fraud.  The
lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et
al., 11-cv-5935, is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  To receive a copy of the
complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926 or click
here.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the United States securities
laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's American Depository
Shares from November 3, 2010 through August 16, 2011, including
purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November 3, 2010 initial
public offering.  Claims for November IPO purchasers arise under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  
Claims for other Class Period purchasers fall under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously
issued financial statements and declarations about its future
prospects.  Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1)
the Company's sole import agent, which accounted for more than
$100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty
shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only
chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or
no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer,
which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has
unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial
statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent
with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company
has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation
of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive
statements the Company made regarding its internal financial
controls were false and misleading.

On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name
Alfred Little published an investigative report detailing these
and other problems at SinoTech.  The day the Report was issued,
the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from
$4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close
of trading on August 16, 2011 -- a decline of $1.67 per share on
unusually high trading volume.  The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading
after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that
trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied
NASDAQ's request for additional information."  To date, trading
has not resumed.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than
October 18, 2011, request that the court appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class.  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 investors for violations of
securities and antitrust laws.  The firm has 49 lawyers in Boston,
San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
        

SIRIUS XM: Court Approves Subscriber Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jeffrey, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Sirius XM
Radio Inc. won court approval for a settlement with subscribers
who sued the satellite-radio broadcaster over claims it broke the
law by raising prices after acquiring its only rival.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan endorsed the accord
in a filing on Aug. 24 over the objections of some subscribers who
had argued at an Aug. 8 hearing that the deal paid them too little
and the lawyers too much.

"I have reviewed the settlement's substantive terms and conclude
that they demonstrate sufficient fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness," Judge Baer wrote.  "The vast majority of class
members will benefit in the course of their normal subscription
payments."

Subscriber Carl Blessing of Florida sued Sirius XM in 2009,
claiming the company violated federal antitrust law and state
consumer-protection law when it raised some prices and levied a
music royalty fee after Sirius Satellite Radio acquired XM
Satellite Radio in 2008.

The subscribers said New York-based Sirius XM broke promises it
made to win approval of the merger from the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission and Justice Department.  Sirius XM said
the increases were imposed to cover higher costs.

                         Antitrust Claim

In March, Judge Baer let the federal antitrust claim proceed as a
class action, or group lawsuit, on behalf of Sirius XM subscribers
from July 29, 2008, to July 5, 2011.  He denied class-action
status on the state-law claims.  The subscriber group and Sirius
XM reached a settlement before trial, and Judge Baer gave
preliminary approval to the agreement in May.

The deal, valued at $180 million, provides that prices for basic
service and Internet access, as well as the music royalty fee,
will remain at current levels through the end of the year.
Subscribers who canceled can reconnect without paying a fee.  
Those whose plans expire after Dec. 31 can renew before that time
at current rates.  Subscribers will get no cash.

Sirius XM declined to comment on Judge Baer's decision,
spokeswoman Kelly Sullivan said in an e-mail.

Objectors called the settlement of "dubious value" because Sirius
XM hadn't ever said it planned to raise prices this year.  They
also objected to the $13 million in fees to be paid to the lawyers
representing the class.

                         'Expense Sheets'

"I have reviewed the attorney expense sheets as well as the
attorney time-keeping records, and found nothing to suggest
exorbitant rates nor double billing nor padding of any kind," the
judge wrote.

The basic monthly charge is $12.99.  Sirius XM increased the rate
a subscriber paid to get service on an additional radio to $8.99 a
month from $6.99.  The class also decried a $2.99 charge for
Internet access, which had been free.  The music charge, assessed
after new royalty rates with record companies were set, amounted
to $1.98 a month.

Sirius had 21 million subscribers as of June 30, 8% more than the
previous year.  It provides 135 channels of commercial-free music
as well as sports broadcasts and talk shows featuring Howard Stern
and Martha Stewart, which carry advertisements.

Sirius XM rose 5.5 cents, or 3.3%, to $1.75 at 4:30 p.m. New York
time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading.  The shares have gained 7%
this year.

The case is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, 09-10035, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling in a purported securities class
action lawsuit filed against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and
certain affiliates remains pending, according to the Company's
August 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

TMCC and certain affiliates had been named as defendants in a
putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund vs. Toyota
Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of California
on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal securities laws.  
The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on
July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint alleges
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010,
defendants removed the state court action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 15, 2010.  After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice on
January 11, 2011.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 27, 2011.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims
and intends to defend against them vigorously.  The Company is
unable, however, to estimate the losses or range of losses that
are reasonably possible based upon currently available
information.  In determining whether it is possible to provide an
estimate of loss or range of possible loss, the Company has
considered a variety of factors, including the preliminary stage
of the proceedings, whether the case would be allowed to proceed
as a class action, the unknown size and scope of any class that
may be certified, the fact that the damages sought are not
specified, meaningful legal uncertainties associated with the
claims and the fact that there has been no discovery to date.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Stay Texas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to stay a class action lawsuit filed in Texas against one
of Trustmark Corporation's subsidiary is 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.

Trustmark's wholly owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in a purported class action complaint that was filed on
August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven
Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB
and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark
as defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged
fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of
fees received by each defendant from entities controlled by R.
Allen Stanford, owner of the Stanford Financial Group, and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and aid and abet fraud arising from the facts set forth in
pending federal criminal indictments and civil complaints against
Mr. Stanford, other individuals and the Stanford Financial Group.  
Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not
quantify damages.  In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to
federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the
United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court
in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford
related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit, which remain pending, although the plaintiffs
have yet to file any responsive briefing.  Instead, the plaintiffs
have sought to stay the lawsuit pending the conclusion of the
federal criminal trial of R. Allen Stanford in Houston, Texas.  
The court has not ruled on the plaintiff's motion to stay at this
time.


UNITED STATES: DOJ to Fight $90.MM Fee Bid in Black Farmers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by
Mike Scarcella, the U.S. Justice Department is planning to oppose
the $90.8 million legal fee request in the black farmers' loan
discrimination case in Washington federal district court.

Justice lawyers said in a recent court filing the government will
litigate the plaintiffs' attorneys assertion that they should
receive 7.4% of the $1.25 billion settlement.

The settlement, reached in February 2010, set the fee range
between 4.1% and 7.4%.  The deal between the government and
farmers resolved claims among people who missed a court-imposed
deadline to participate in an earlier settlement that involved
discrimination allegations.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has called the settlement fair
and reasonable.  But that doesn't mean the government is entirely
on board with the plaintiffs' lawyers, who include Gregorio
Francis of Morgan & Morgan, Andrew Marks of Crowell & Moring and
Henry Sander of Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders, Pettaway & Campbell.

"Although the USDA submits that this settlement agreement provides
potential class members an opportunity to obtain meaningful relief
for their claims while fairly resolving the parties' respective
litigation positions, the government does not agree with every
point made by plaintiffs in support of final approval of this
settlement agreement," DOJ lawyer Tamra Moore of the federal
programs branch said in court papers.

Ms. Moore did not articulate why the government will oppose the
$90.8 million fee request.  DOJ lawyers have not yet filed a
formal opposition to the fee petition.

In two other recent large class actions in Washington where the
plaintiffs' lawyers asked for the maximum fee allowed, DOJ called
the petitions excessive.  DOJ argued in those cases the class
members should receive as much of the settlement fund as possible.

The Justice Department has also asked Judge Paul Friedman of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to strike an
expert's declaration that the plaintiffs' lawyers in the black
farmers case filed with the fee petition.  DOJ called the
declaration "improper."

Cornell University Law School professor Theodore Eisenberg, who
has written several studies on attorney fees and class actions,
said in the declaration the plaintiffs' fee petition is
reasonable.  The benefit the plaintiffs' lawyers obtained for the
class, he said, supports a $90.8 million legal fee award.
Mr. Eisenberg charged $650 an hour to prepare the declaration.

Earlier this month, Precious Martin Sr., an attorney in Jackson,
Miss., filed an objection to the settlement on behalf of ten
people.

Mr. Martin said in court papers that "there are obvious problems"
with approving a settlement before discovery.  The plaintiffs, he
said, lose bargaining leverage with the federal government.  
Mr. Martin urged Judge Friedman to reject class certification.

"Where there is less investigation into what the individual claims
may be worth, and less admissible evidence regarding liability
obtained from discovery, class counsel has significantly less
bargaining power to obtain the best settlement for its clients,"
Mr. Martin said.

Mr. Martin said there's no "particularized evidence" as to what
individuals claimants' damages are.  "There is no way to determine
whether the settlement is fair or not, especially in light of the
dearth of discovery in this case," he said.

Judge Friedman is scheduled to meet with lawyers in the case on
Sept. 1 for a fairness hearing.


UPONOR PEX: Attorneys Available to Review Plumbing Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The Uponor lawsuit attorneys working with Class Action.org are
available to review claims from property owners who experienced
problems with the Uponor PEX brass plumbing fittings.  An Uponor
lawsuit may be an option for these individuals, as it has been
alleged that the Uponor PEX brass plumbing fittings were
incorrectly designed and manufactured and are prone to premature
failure.  If you have experienced Uponor PEX failure with these
brass fittings, you may be able to seek financial compensation for
damages through an Uponor lawsuit.  To find out if you are
eligible for an Uponor lawsuit, visit
http://www.classaction.org/uponor-pex-plumbing-fittings.htmland  
complete the free, no obligation case evaluation form on the right
of the page.

According to a putative Uponor class action lawsuit against the
company and RTI, a related business, the PEX brass fittings were
not properly manufactured or designed.  According to reports,
these plumbing fittings may be prone to Uponor PEX failure, which
may occur within months of installation, when they are exposed to
water due to a chemical reaction known as dezincification.
Plumbing fittings which experience this reaction can burst or leak
and inhibit the plumbing system's ability to distribute water to
appliances and fixtures, resulting in reduced water flow.
Homeowners who suffered damage due to these brass plumbing
fittings may have legal recourse through an Uponor lawsuit.

To find out if you can participate in an Uponor lawsuit, visit
Class Action.org today for a free evaluation of your claim.  On
the site, you can also learn more about allegations of Uponor PEX
failure and find out how you can identify the fittings which are
reportedly prone to Uponor PEX problems.  The Uponor lawsuit
attorneys working with the Web site are offering this information
and initial consultation at no cost and with no obligation.

                    About Class Action.org

Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org-- is dedicated to  
protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex
litigation throughout the United States. Class Action.org keeps
consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging
litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of
defective products, drugs, and medical devices.  Information about
consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available
on the site.


USA TRUCK: OK of Settlement in "Cerdenia" Suit Expected Late 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Approval of a settlement of a purported class action lawsuit
entitled Hermes Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc. is expected later
this year, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 2, 2010 a former driver team member, filed a lawsuit
against the Company titled Hermes Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc. in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Bernardino, alleging various violations of the California
Labor Code and seeking certification of the lawsuit as a class
action to include "all individuals currently and formerly employed
in California as drivers, or other similarly titled positions."  
The Company has successfully removed the case to the United States
District Court, Central District of California and has filed an
answer denying the plaintiff's allegations.  The lawsuit seeks
monetary damages for the alleged violations.  In February 2011,
settlement of the lawsuit was negotiated through mediation subject
to the District Court's review and approval.  Such approval is
expected later in 2011.  At June 30, 2011, the Company had fully
accrued the agreed upon settlement amount.

USA Truck, Inc. operates primarily in the for-hire truckload
segment of the trucking industry.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery to End November 17
------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery in a consolidated class action lawsuit involving
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s parent is scheduled
to end November 17, 2011, according to the Company's August 8,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On September 28, 2010, Biovail Corporation completed the
acquisition of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International through a
wholly-owned subsidiary pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of June 20, 2010, with Valeant surviving as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Biovail.

On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class
action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Biovail, GlaxoSmithKline plc,
and SmithKline Beecham Inc. seeking damages and alleging that
Biovail and GSK took actions to improperly delay FDA approval for
generic forms of Wellbutrin XL(R). The direct purchaser plaintiff
in the Massachusetts federal court lawsuit voluntarily dismissed
its complaint on May 27, 2008, and shortly thereafter re-filed a
virtually identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In late May and early June 2008,
additional direct and indirect purchaser class actions were also
filed against Biovail and GSK in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations. These complaints
have now been consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser
and a lead indirect purchaser action.

On September 10, 2008, Biovail and GSK filed motions to dismiss
both the direct and indirect purchaser actions. Those motions were
heard on February 26, 2009. In the direct purchaser case, on
March 13, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motions, dismissing the Sherman Act Section 2 monopolization claim
that had been made by the direct purchasers against Biovail.
Biovail and GSK answered the remaining claims in the direct
purchaser case on April 16, 2009. On March 26, 2009, before an
order issued on the motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. The pending motions were therefore denied as
moot, and new motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' claims were filed on April 30, 2009. On July 30, 2009,
the Court dismissed all indirect purchaser claims except the
antitrust claims (limited as to Biovail's concerted actions) in
California, Nevada, Tennessee and Wisconsin and the consumer
protection claims of California and Florida.

On May 13, 2010, Aetna, Inc. filed a motion to intervene as an
indirect purchaser. The Court denied Aetna's motion to intervene
on July 21, 2010. Subsequently, the direct purchaser plaintiffs
and Aetna Health of California Inc. filed a motion to substitute
Aetna Health of California Inc. as the representative of the
pending California claims on August 13, 2010. The Court granted
this motion on September 22, 2010.

Additionally, on September 14, 2010, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to
add claims under Illinois's Antitrust Act and New York's Donnelly
Act. The Company and GSK opposed the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion. On December 21, 2010, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the motion for leave to amend, permitting
indirect purchasers leave to amend their complaint to assert
claims under New York's Donnelly Act but not under Illinois's
Antitrust Act.

Plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification. The Company
and GSK opposed the motions. A hearing on direct purchaser
plaintiffs' class certification motion was heard by the Court on
April 5, 2011. A hearing on indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class
certification motion took place on April 29, 2011. The Court has
not indicated a timetable for rulings on these motions.

Fact discovery ended on June 30, 2011. Expert discovery is
scheduled to end November 17, 2011. A summary judgment hearing is
scheduled for February 22, 2012.

The Company believes that each of these complaints lacks merit and
that the Company's challenged actions complied with all applicable
laws and regulations, including federal and state antitrust laws,
FDA regulations, U.S. patent law and the Hatch Waxman Act.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Biovail Corporation.


WELLS MID-HORIZON: Continues to Defend Piedmont REIT Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Mid-Horizon Value-Added Fund I, LLC, continues to defend
itself from a class action lawsuit filed by a stockholder of
Piedmonth REIT, according to the Company's August 11, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a putative
class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In re
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III; Wells
Capital, Inc.; Wells Management, the Company's sponsoring member;
certain affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and
certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors
of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related
proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as
amended.  The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified
monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT
internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy
statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative
claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

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

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  On September 20,
2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal
immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class
certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009.  
On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.  
On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.  A trial date has not
been set.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action.  Any financial loss
incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or their affiliates
could hinder their ability to successfully manage Wells VAF I's
operations and portfolio of investments.


WILLIS GROUP: Hearing on Compensation Suit Deal Set for Sept. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on the approval of a settlement in a class
action lawsuit filed against Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company and other brokers and insurers is set for September 14,
2011, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

Since August 2004, the Company and Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company
(along with various other brokers and insurers) have been named as
defendants in purported class actions in various courts across the
United States.  All of these actions have been consolidated into a
single action in the US District Court for the District of New
Jersey ('MDL').  These actions allege that the brokers breached
their duties to their clients by entering into contingent
compensation agreements with either no disclosure or limited
disclosure to clients and participated in other improper
activities.  Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive
damages, and certain equitable relief.  In May 2011, the majority
of defendants, including the Company and HRH, entered into a
written settlement agreement with plaintiffs.  On June 28, 2011,
the Judge entered an Order granting preliminary approval to the
settlement agreement.  Notice of the settlement will be sent to
all members of the class and each member will have the opportunity
to opt out of the settlement and pursue its own individual claim
against any defendant.  A Fairness Hearing to decide if the
settlement should be given final approval is scheduled for
September 14, 2011.  The amount of the proposed settlement to be
paid by the Company and HRH is immaterial and was previously
reserved.


WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company is awaiting court
approval of a settlement it entered into in a class action lawsuit
alleging discrimination against female officers and employees,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In December 2006, a purported class action was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, alleging that the Company discriminated against female
officers and officer equivalent employees on the basis of their
gender and seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.  In January 2011, the Company reached a
monetary settlement with plaintiffs that resolves all individual
and class claims.  The amount of this settlement is not material.  
However, this matter cannot be formally and finally settled until
the Court approves the settlement and until members of the class
are given an opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement.


WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Troice" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company is awaiting a court
ruling on a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against
one of its subsidiaries, which acted as broker of record on
certain lines of insurance for The Stanford Financial Group,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in six lawsuits relating
to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for which Willis
of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of
insurance.  The complaints in these actions generally allege that
the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged
fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding
coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract
actual or prospective Stanford client investors.  The complaints
further allege that these letters, which contain statements about
Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for
Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were
drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its
allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

One of the six actions is a class action, Troice, et al. v. Willis
of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01274-N, was filed on
July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado,
Inc. and a Willis associate, among others.  On April 1, 2010,
plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action
Complaint on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford
investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging
claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in
excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs.  On May 2, 2011,
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint, which motions are currently pending.  It may be
several months or longer before rulings are issued on these
motions.


                            *********

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  * * *