---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 30, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 171

                             Headlines

ALTERNATE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Idaho
AMERICAN FAMILY: Seeks to Decertify Class Action
APPLE REIT TEN: Continues to Defend "Kowalski" Securities Suit
APPLE REIT TEN: Continues to Defend "Kronberg" Suit in New Jersey
APPLE REIT TEN: Continues to Defend "Leff" Suit in New York

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "380544 Canada" Suit
AUTOMATIC DATA: Final Hearing on Calif. Suit Deal Set for Nov. 28
CHICOS FAS: Continues to Defend "Schlim" Suit in California
CHICOS FAS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Garcia" Class Suit
CHRYSLER GROUP: Canadian Unit Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits

CITY HOLDING: Final Hearing on "Casto" Deal Set for Jan. 2012
COMCAST: Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Karam" Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Rivera" Class Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defends 7 Suits Due to Negative Publicity

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Reed" Suit Remains Pending in Texas
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration Ongoing in "Montgomery" Suit
CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Gets Preliminary Okay of Class Settlement
DEAN FOODS: September Trial Set for Dairy Farmers' Class Action
DICK'S SPORTING: Deadline to Appeal Barrus Suit Settlement Today

EMULEX CORP: Appeal in Securities Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
FIRST BANK: Sued Over Excessive Auto Loan Interest Rates
INFOTRACK: Sued for Mislabeling Consumers as Sex Offenders
INT'L RECTIFIER: Plaintiffs Have Until Sept. 21 to Amend Suit
JBI INC: Faces Class Suits Over Alleged Securities Law Violations

MILLER ENERGY: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Class Action
MISSOURI CITIES: Face Class Action Over Red-Light Cameras
NEW LEAF: Suit Over Lead in Products Still Pending in Calif.
OLIVE GARDEN: Provides Details on Hepatitis A Class Action
PUBLIC STORAGE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit in Calif.

RED ROBIN: Continues to Defend "McConnell" Suit in Calif.
RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Wage Suit Remains Stayed Pending
SMART ONLINE: Securities Class Suit Partially Dismissed in July
SODEXO OPERATIONS: Accused of Violating Calif. Wage and Hour Laws
SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Suit vs. South Carolina Unit Remains Pending

ST. JOE COMPANY: Florida Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
TIM W.E. SGPS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit
TOYOTA AUTO: California Court Dismissed "Harel Pia" Appeal
VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Local Managers File Certification Motion
WELLS FARGO: AARP May Face Difficulty in Class Certification Bid

ZUNGUI HAIXI: Sutts, Strosberg Files Securities Class Action
ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Defends "Ricker" Class Suit in Ohio
ZORAN CORP: Settles Class Suits Over Proposed CSR Merger

* More Lawsuits Filed Over E-Book Pricing Agency Model




                             *********

ALTERNATE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------
On January 11, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the District of Idaho by Lance Teague on behalf
of purchases of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc.'s common stock
between September 20, 2006, through December 14, 2010, against the
Company and certain officers.  On March 7, 2011, plaintiff moved
to appoint John O'Brien as Lead Plaintiff.  The complaint alleges
claims against the Company and certain senior officers and
directors for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 there under and claims against
certain of its senior officers and directors for violations of
Section 20A and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages for all damages sustained
as a result of the defendants' alleged actions, including
reasonable costs and expenses, rescission, and other relief the
Court deems just and proper.  The Company believes the lawsuit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.  No amounts
have been recorded in the consolidated financial statements for
this matter as the Company believes it is too early in the
proceedings to determine an outcome.  The parties are currently in
the discovery phase and management is unable to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 22, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Seeks to Decertify Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Iowa chiropractor Mark Kruse concealed a conflict of interest
as a leader of class actions in his own state and Madison County,
according to American Family Insurance.

In a brief for Circuit Judge William Mudge on Aug. 16, the insurer
claimed Mr. Kruse's action in Iowa was replete with accusations
against doctors he represents in the Madison County action.

Anthony Martin of St. Louis wrote that class counsel at
LakinChapman should have disclosed the Iowa action at least three
years ago.

He wrote that in 2008, Mr. Kruse objected to an interrogatory
about other suits and wrote, "none."

Mr. Martin wrote that Mr. Kruse never supplemented the response.

He wrote that this June, Mr. Kruse produced a pleading from Polk
County, Iowa, in a suit against Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue
Shield.

He wrote that class counsel marked it confidential, adding that he
found it curious.

He wrote that the case awaits oral argument at the Iowa Supreme
Court.

He wrote that Mr. Kruse has a conflict with at least 95% of
medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy in Iowa.

He wrote that Mr. Kruse and others accuse Wellmark of conspiring
and combining with providers to boycott chiropractors and
discriminate against them.

"Kruse obviously has a conflict with all non-chiropractic
providers in Iowa as well as all of those in Blue Cross and Blue
Shield member company preferred provider organizations outside the
state of Iowa," he wrote.

American Family seeks to decertify a class action that retired
Judge Daniel Stack certified.

The former Lakin Law Firm sued on behalf of Manuel Hernandez in
2000, claiming American Family improperly reduced payments for
treatment of injuries from car crashes.

Judge Stack certified a class in 2002, for 11 states, on claims
back to 1990.

Mr. Hernandez died in 2004, but Judge Stack continued to hold
hearings and sign orders.

In 2006, American Family notified Judge Stack that Mr. Hernandez
died.

The insurer pleaded that the case died with him, but Judge Stack
allowed substitution of Mr. Kruse and others.

This June, American Family filed a decertification motion under
seal.

Mr. Martin didn't seal his Aug. 16 brief.

Judge Mudge set a status conference Sept. 2, but generally
continued all pending motions.

Martin practices at Sandberg Phoenix and von Gontard.

Andrew Ryan and Timothy Sansone, both of the same firm, worked on
the brief.


APPLE REIT TEN: Continues to Defend "Kowalski" Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Ten, Inc., continues to defend itself from a securities
class action lawsuit filed by Nancy Kowalski in a New York court,
according to the Company's August 12, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

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


APPLE REIT TEN: Continues to Defend "Kronberg" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Ten, Inc., continues to defend itself from a securities
class action lawsuit captioned Kronberg et al. v. David Lerner
Associates Inc., et al, Case No. 2:11-cv-03558, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to
the Company's August 12, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On June 20, 2011, two shareholders of the Apple REIT companies
filed a putative class action captioned Kronberg et al. v. David
Lerner Associates Inc., et al, Case No. 2:11-cv-03558, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against David Lerner Associates, Inc. and certain of its officers,
and the Apple REIT Companies and Glade M. Knight.  The complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of Units in the Apple
REIT Companies, asserts claims and seeks, among other things,
certification of the class, compensatory, special and general
damages, and other costs and expenses.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that: (1) David Lerner Associates, Inc. made
false and misleading misrepresentations about (a) the value of the
Units of the Apple REIT Companies, (b) previous distribution
payments made by the Apple REIT Companies, and (c) the operations
of the Apple REIT Companies, (2) the significant risks associated
with the illiquid investment in the Apple REIT Companies were not
properly disclosed to investors, and (3) under the various agency
agreements between David Lerner Associates, Inc. and the Apple
REIT Companies, the Apple REIT Companies and Glade M. Knight are
responsible for the actions and representations of David Lerner
Associates, Inc. and its certain officers regarding the sale of
Units of the Apple REIT Companies.  The Company believes that
these claims against the Apple REIT Companies and Glade M. Knight
are without merit, and the Company intends to defend against them
vigorously.  At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict
the outcome of these proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate
of the possible loss or range of loss due to these proceedings, if
any.


APPLE REIT TEN: Continues to Defend "Leff" Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Ten, Inc., continues to defend itself from a securities
class action lawsuit filed by Marvin Leff in a New York court,
according to the Company's August 12, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

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


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "380544 Canada" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In March 2006, Aspen Technology, Inc., settled class action
litigation, including related derivative claims, arising out of
its originally filed consolidated financial statements for fiscal
2000 through 2004, the accounting for which the Company restated
in March 2005.  Certain members of the class (representing
1,457,969 shares of common stock (or less than 1% of the shares
putatively purchased during the class action period)) opted out of
the settlement and had the right to bring their own state or
federal law claims against the Company, referred to as "opt-out"
claims.  Opt-out claims were filed on behalf of the holders of
approximately 1.1 million of such shares.  All but one of these
actions were settled and/or dismissed.

The remaining action, 380544 Canada, Inc., et al. v. Aspen
Technology, Inc., was filed on February 15, 2007, in the federal
district court for the Southern District of New York and docketed
as Civ. A. No. 1:07-cv-01204-JFK in that court.  The claims in
this action include claims against the Company and one or more of
its former officers alleging securities and common law fraud,
breach of contract, deceptive practices and/or rescissory damages
liability, based on the restated results of one or more fiscal
periods included in the Company's restated consolidated financial
statements referenced in the class action.  This action was
brought by persons who purchased 566,665 shares of the Company's
common stock in a private placement.  Certain motions to dismiss
filed by other defendants were resolved on May 5, 2009.  The
claims in the 380544 Canada action are for damages totaling at
least $4.0 million, not including claims for attorneys' fees.  The
Company says it plans to defend the 380544 Canada action
vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 24, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 30, 2011.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Final Hearing on Calif. Suit Deal Set for Nov. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on final approval of Automatic Data Processing, Inc.'s
settlement to resolve a purported class action lawsuit pending in
California is scheduled for November 28, 2011, according to the
Company's August 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2011.

In September 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.  The lawsuit was subsequently
removed to the United States District Court, Central District of
California, Western Division.  The complaint alleges that the
Company unlawfully handled certain client calls and seeks
statutory damages.  The services at issue were performed by an
independent third-party vendor, and the Company believes that it
has the contractual right to full indemnification from this vendor
for any potential losses it might incur with respect to the
matter.  In April 2011, the Company and the third-party vendor
entered into a class action settlement agreement with the
plaintiff to settle the matter subject to court approval.  As part
of the settlement, the Company was to be dismissed from the
action, and the third-party vendor will pay all settlement
amounts.  The third-party vendor is also paying all of the
Company's legal fees and costs associated with the defense of the
matter.  The Company was dismissed from the action on May 2, 2011.
On July 20, 2011 the court granted preliminary approval to the
class action settlement and provisionally certified the settlement
class.  A hearing on final approval is scheduled for November 28,
2011.


CHICOS FAS: Continues to Defend "Schlim" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc., was named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Eileen Schlim v. Chico's
FAS, Inc.  The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, and
vacation pay, among other things.  The Company denies the material
allegations of the Complaint.  The Company believes that its
policies and procedures for paying its associates comply with all
applicable California laws.  As a result, the Company does not
believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 24, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.


CHICOS FAS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Garcia" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Lorraine V. Garcia voluntarily dismissed her putative class action
lawsuit against Chico's FAS, Inc., in July 2011, according to the
Company's August 24, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in February 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange, Lorraine V. Garcia v. Chico's
FAS, Inc.  The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, requested or required customers to provide
personal information as a condition of accepting payment by credit
card.  The Company denied the material allegations of the
Complaint.  The case was wholly without merit and, in July 2011,
the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint, without
receiving anything of value from the Company.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Canadian Unit Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler Group LLC's Canadian unit continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust laws,
according to the Company's August 12, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

More than 80 purported class action lawsuits alleging violations
of antitrust law were filed on various dates in 2003 against
several motor vehicle manufacturers, including Chrysler Canada,
Inc., as well as the National Automobile Dealers Association and
the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.  Some complaints were
filed in federal courts in various states and others were filed in
state courts.  The complaints allege that the defendants conspired
to prevent the sale to U.S. consumers of vehicles sold by dealers
in Canada in order to maintain new car prices at artificially high
levels in the U.S.  The complaints seek injunctive relief and
treble damages on behalf of each person who bought or leased a new
vehicle in the U.S. since January 1, 2001.  The federal court
actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine and, in July 2009, the District Court granted
the defendants' motion for summary judgment.  Chrysler Canada
remains a defendant in four of the pending state court actions.
In addition, Chrysler Canada is a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
September 2007 that claims that a similar alleged conspiracy was
preventing lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians.


CITY HOLDING: Final Hearing on "Casto" Deal Set for Jan. 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing of a settlement in putative class action
lawsuit against a subsidiary of City Holding Company will take
place on January 6, 2012, according to the Company's August 23,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In July 2010, City National was named as a defendant in a putative
class action, styled Casto, et al v. City National Bank, in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, WV, alleging that the manner in
which City National assessed overdraft fees to its consumer
checking accounts violates the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act, breached an implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing and creates an unjust enrichment to City National.
The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve
the case.  On August 19, 2011, Judge Jennifer Bailey, signed an
order preliminarily approving the settlement.  Upon approval of
the settlement, City National will pay $3.0 million total to the
class and its attorneys, which City Holding Company (City
National's parent company) had previously accrued at
June 30, 2011.  In addition, City National will forgive $2.5
million in overdrawn accounts that were "charged off" as unpaid by
former customers.  The Final Approval Hearing will take place on
January 6, 2012.


COMCAST: Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that Comcast
can't change the channel on an antitrust class action by customers
who say they paid higher rates for cable-television because the
media giant perpetrated a "clustering scheme" in the greater
Philadelphia area, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit ruled.

The 98-page decision upholds certification for a class consisting
of roughly two million cable-television subscribers in parts of
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

Six Comcast customers filed suit in December 2010, accusing the
cable giant of trying to monopolize the market for non-basic-
cable-television in the tri-state area through a series of
acquisitions and swaps with competing cable providers.

Those acquisitions allowed Comcast to increase its market share in
the area from 24% in 1998 to about 70% by 2007, they claimed.

A federal judge certified the class in January 2010 after a four-
day evidentiary hearing that included submission of 32 expert
reports.

The plaintiffs say Comcast engaged in similar anticompetitive
conduct in the Chicagoland area, and a suit over an alleged Boston
cluster is pending, but a three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit
addressed only the Philadelphia accusations on Aug. 23.
The plaintiffs say Comcast purchased and swapped for competing
cable systems as part of a monopoly-minded "clustering scheme" to
fortify its presence in Philadelphia and surrounding counties.

They accuse Comcast of participating in "conduct intended to
exclude competition from . . . RCN Telecom Services . . . by
denying it access to [cable-television channel] 'Comcast
Sportsnet,' requiring contractors to enter non-compete agreements"
and "inducing potential customers to sign up for long contracts
with special discounts and penalty provisions" in the areas where
RCN intended to establish a competing cable operation, the court
summarized.

A key issue on appeal was how to define the geographic market for
non-basic-cable-television in the greater Philadelphia area -- or,
as one 3rd Circuit judge put it during oral argument: "What's the
region in which claims could sensibly be brought together and
looked at for common proof?"

Comcast said the geographic market should be limited to the
individual household.

"Because an individual can choose only among providers offering
video programming services to his household, Comcast asserts that
the geographic market must be the household," Judge Ruggero
Aldisert wrote for the majority.

But the plaintiffs say the market should include a bundle of
counties home to millions in the tri-state area.

The District Court found that to be an appropriate definition at
this stage in the litigation, and the 3rd Circuit agreed, noting
that the multicounty definition could still be disputed at trial.

Comcast's narrow, household-based market-definition ignores the
realities of the cable-television industry and the scope of the
market in which suppliers "effectively compete," the panel found.

The panel also rejected Comcast's claim that there was no genuine
competition to eliminate in the so-called multicounty market, and
that it was RCN Telecom's own financial woes that were preventing
RCN from establishing a serious regional presence.

Evidence thus far "demonstrates that Comcast's alleged clustering
conduct indeed could have reduced competition, raised barriers to
market entry [by another provider] . . . and resulted in higher
cable prices to all of its subscribers in the [multi-county]
Philadelphia Designated Market Area [DMA]," the panel found.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Kent Jordan said he would vacate
certification and ask the District Court to consider creating sub-
classes, as proving damages would be difficult with a single
class.

"The variation in conditions within the nearly 650 franchise areas
in the Philadelphia DMA means that the issue of [proving and
calculating] damages is more fractured than a single class can
accommodate," Judge Jordan wrote.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Karam" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in California, according to the Company's August 24, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 30, 2011.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007, through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section
20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief.

On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs have intervened in the lawsuit and have
petitioned the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs.
On March 30, 2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement
System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead
plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for
lead plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.  Lead plaintiffs have
filed an amended consolidated complaint, and the Company has filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated action.

The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends
to defend itself and its current and former officers vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend "Rivera" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.  The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus.  The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus.  The arbitrator is considering whether
the arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment
agreement is susceptible to class-wide resolution.  The Company
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against these allegations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 24, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 30, 2011.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defends 7 Suits Due to Negative Publicity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to seven putative class
action lawsuits arising from negative publicity, according to the
Company's August 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30,
2011.

During the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2011, the
Company experienced an unprecedented increase in putative class
action lawsuits by former students.  In all of these cases, the
plaintiffs and their counsel seek to represent a class of
"similarly situated" people as defined in the complaint.  The
Company believes these lawsuits are largely the result of negative
publicity -- and aggressive lawyer recruitment of potential
clients -- surrounding the Department of Education's ("ED's")
rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings, the
Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other related
matters.  In virtually all of the following cases, the plaintiffs
cite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report,
public statements by elected officials and/or other negative media
coverage in their complaints, although the locations of the
students, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claims
differ.  The Company believes all of the following complaints are
contractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrations
between the named students and the Company, and the Company has
moved, or will move, to compel these cases to arbitration:

                      Named Plaintiffs
Dated Filed         & Campus Attended                   Venue
-----------         -----------------                   -----
Dec. 20, 2010         Jacquel Kimble;    U.S. District Court,
                    Everest College in       Northern District
                   Hayward, California           of California

Jan. 24, 2011         Kevin Ferguson;    U.S. District Court,
                     Everest Institute        Central District
                     in Miami, Florida           of California

Feb. 17, 2011           Sandra Muniz;    U.S. District Court,
                         Heald College        Central District
                    campuses in Rancho           of California
                   Cordova & Roseville
                            California

Feb. 28, 2011         Laura Irizarry;    U.S. District Court,
                    Everest University         Middle District
                     in Tampa, Florida              of Florida

March 7, 2011     Sharon Jalanic-Reed        California State
                    and Lynell Graves;                  Court,
                      Everest College,      Los Angeles County
                     West Los Angeles,
                            California

March 11, 2011    Noravel Arevalo and    American Arbitration
                    14 former students             Association
                   at Everest College,
                   in Alhambra, Calif.

April 22, 2011      Kenneth Stockman;    U.S. District Court,
                       Everest College        Central District
                     in Reseda, Calif.           of California

The Company intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries
vigorously in all of these matters.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Reed" Suit Remains Pending in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas.  Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.  Plaintiff purports to be a former
student in the Company's Everest University Online operations.
The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.  The plaintiff
seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted to
receive distance education from Everest University Online while
residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,
pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive
relief, cost of lawsuit, and such other relief as the court deems
proper.  On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration, and the plaintiff has filed a putative class action
demand in arbitration.  The arbitrator has ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreement
is susceptible to class-wide resolution, but has not yet addressed
whether a class should be certified.  The Company has appealed the
clause-construction decision and the case has been stayed pending
the appeal.  The Company believes the complaint is without merit
and intends to defend itself and its subsidiary vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 24, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 30, 2011.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration Ongoing in "Montgomery" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Corinthian
Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Plaintiffs are thirty-three individuals who purport to be current
and/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program
at the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois.  The
complaint alleges breach of contract, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus.  The plaintiffs seek to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and seek actual and compensatory damages on behalf
of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive damages,
disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue and
benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and such
other relief as the court deems proper.  The Company removed the
case to federal court and moved to compel individual arbitrations,
which the court granted.  Thirty-one plaintiffs have now filed
individual demands in arbitration.  The Company believes these
matters are without merit and intends to defend itself and its
subsidiary vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 24, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 30, 2011.


CYBERDEFENDER CORP: Gets Preliminary Okay of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court granted preliminary approval of CyberDefender
Corporation's stipulation to settle a class action lawsuit pending
in Illinois, according to the Company's August 22, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 6, 2011, the Company and Edelson McGuire, LLC, a Chicago,
Illinois law firm, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which
is subject to court approval, to settle a class action that
includes claims allegedly arising out of the Company's design,
sales and marketing of its software products and services.  A
class action complaint and the Stipulation were filed in state
court in Cook County, Illinois, on May 6, 2011.  The Company
denies the allegations in the complaint and agreed to settle the
action solely to avoid the expense and distraction of litigation.
The Stipulation received preliminary approval by the court.

The Stipulation provides that any customer who can establish, to
the Company's satisfaction in accordance with the provisions in
the Stipulation, a purchase of the Company's software or services,
and who has not previously received a refund from the Company, is
entitled to a $10 refund in cash.  The total settlement fund will
be $9.75 million and will not exceed that amount in any event.
The Company will receive a credit for the lesser of: (i) $7
million; or (ii) 85% of the total of all refunds it makes to
customers during the period from September 1, 2010, through a date
which is 30 days after the entry of the final judgment in the
class action.  Although there can be no assurances, the Company
believes it will be entitled to the credit of $7 million.

The balance of the settlement fund, after deducting the $7 million
credit, will be $2.75 million, from which payments will be made
for: (i) claims that are approved in accordance with the
provisions of the Stipulation; (ii) the plaintiffs' attorneys' fee
award; (iii) a plaintiffs' incentive award of $3,000; and (iv) the
costs of the claims administration process, which will be
conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Stipulation.
The Company's insurance carrier under the applicable insurance
policy will contribute up to a maximum of $2 million to the
settlement, subject to the payment by the Company of the retention
(deductible) of $250,000.

Although there can be no assurances, the Company believes that the
insurance carrier's contribution will be sufficient to satisfy the
payments given the number of claims that the Company expects will
be filed.  Although there can be no assurances, the Company
estimates that, even if all potential claimants filed claims that
were approved, the Company's total, maximum exposure under the
Stipulation would be approximately $750,000.

Finally, in addition to the payments, the Stipulation provides
that the Company will maintain certain additional disclosures
relating to its products and services in its Terms of Service and,
where applicable, its Privacy Policy.


DEAN FOODS: September Trial Set for Dairy Farmers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larisa Brass, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that
surprising turns in a federal lawsuit pitting dairy farmers in the
Southeast against the organizations responsible for marketing and
buying their milk has many wondering what will happen next as the
case moves toward trial, now scheduled for September.

After decertifying from the class action suit farmers who are
members of the large, national cooperative Dairy Farmers of
America -- which is also a defendant in the case -- U.S. District
Court Judge J. Ronnie Greer granted Dean Foods' motion to vacate
the $140 million settlement announced in July.  The case is being
tried in Greeneville, Tenn.

The suit, filed in 2008, charges Dallas-based Dean, DFA and other
parties with colluding to establish anti-competitive practices
that plaintiffs claim have artificially suppressed farm milk
prices in the Southeast over the recent decade.

Exactly how many farmers remain members and potential
beneficiaries of any settlement agreement or court decision
remains unclear.  According to the decertification order, "more
than 2,000 farmers" were DFA members.  Before the decertification,
attorneys for the plaintiffs said about 7,200 dairy producers were
members of the class.

The court decision to vacate the Dean settlement with the dairy
farmers followed the decertification order of late July, a move
that surprised New York-based dairy consultant John Bunting, who
blogs about the industry, writes for the national dairy newsletter
Milkweed and has been following the case.

"There is something about this case which reminds me of a child
spinning until dizzy and falling," Mr. Bunting wrote on his blog,
JohnBuntingJournal.com.

In a phone interview, Mr. Bunting said: "I feel at the end of the
day I know less than at the beginning of the day."

A Dean Foods spokeswoman indicated the company is weighing its
options on whether it will proceed toward a new settlement with
the dairy farmers.

"We are currently reviewing the court's ruling granting our motion
to set aside the settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.  We are
waiting for the court's opinion explaining its ruling.  At this
time, it is too early to discuss next steps.  As always, we will
proceed in the best interests of the company and our stakeholders.
We continue to be confident that we have operated lawfully and
fairly at all times," Liliana Esposito, senior director of public
affairs, wrote in an e-mail.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not return requests for comment
on the status of the case or a potential settlement.

Since the original settlement with Dean, the dairy farmers also
reached a $5 million settlement agreement with Southern Marketing
Agency, also on the defendant list.  SMA markets milk on behalf of
its members in the region, one of which is DFA.  The agency's
attorney did not respond to a request for comment on Aug. 24.

The decertification of DFA members is probably the biggest
surprise so far in a protracted and complicated process leading up
to trial, which during an Aug. 12 hearing Judge Greer postponed
until Sept. 13, Mr. Bunting said.  That decision opened the door
for Dean to abandon the settlement agreement, he said, and who
knows what will happen now.

"Generally speaking, the people I talk to were taken quite a bit
aback by it," he said.

In Judge Greer's decertification order, the judge cited the fact
that none of the original 17 plaintiffs supply milk via DFA
contracts and that one DFA member had left the cooperative without
notifying the court, agreeing with the defendants that this did
not represent the interests of DFA members.  In addition, he cited
a conflict between DFA members and independent producers, who
craft milk supply agreements outside of the cooperative.

Referring to statements from several dairy farmers, most of whom
also serve on DFA's Southeastern board, Judge Greer wrote that
this served as evidence DFA members financially benefitted from
their participation in the coop and thereby including both groups
of members in the class would represent a conflict of interest.

Dean made no comment in regard to the decertification order.

As for what happens next, Mr. Bunting said he couldn't speculate,
given the direction the case has taken so far.

"Every lawyer I talk to about the judge says they just can't get a
reading on the guy," he said.  "I think the (plaintiff lawyers)
don't have much of a choice but to charge full steam ahead toward
trial."


DICK'S SPORTING: Deadline to Appeal Barrus Suit Settlement Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to file an appeal from a court approval of Dick's
Sporting Goods, Inc.'s settlement to resolve numerous wage and
hour class action lawsuits is today, on August 29, 2011, according
to the Company's August 24, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2011.

The Company is a defendant in Tamara Barrus, et al. v Dick's
Sporting Goods, Inc. et al., a case that makes claims concerning
alleged failures to pay wages and overtime wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York law.  The case
was filed in May of 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York.  In their complaint, in addition to
the unpaid wage and overtime allegations, plaintiffs seek
liquidated damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.  In September 2006, a magistrate judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York conditionally
certified a class for notice purposes under the FLSA, which the
U.S. District Judge upheld.  The parties and the court agreed to
stay the litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims
through mediation.  Mediation sessions were held in April and
August 2007 and November 2008 and these attempts to resolve the
case through mediation were unsuccessful.  In December 2009,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding five individual
defendants, claims for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime under
the laws of thirty-five states, and claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").  In August 2010, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' state law claims (except those arising under
New York law), ERISA claims and RICO claims.

In September 2010, following the dismissal of the state law claims
in Barrus (except those arising under New York law), state wage
and hour class action complaints were filed against the Company in
Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Delaware,
Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey,
South Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, North Carolina, Maine,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Colorado, Florida and Massachusetts
(collectively, the "State Claims").  In these actions, plaintiffs
assert claims similar to those in the Barrus case and plaintiffs
are seeking remedies that include (to the extent applicable in
each state) injunctive relief, unpaid wages (including fringe
benefits), liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, expenses, expert
fees and an award of interest.

On January 28, 2011, the Company and attorneys for a group of
plaintiffs filed a settlement agreement in the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York to settle
Barrus and the State Claims.  The settlement, which is subject to
court approval, covers wage and hour claims under the laws of 36
states.  Under the settlement, the total amount to be paid will
depend on the number of claims that are submitted by class members
with a maximum settlement amount not to exceed $15 million plus
interest and taxes.  On February 3, 2011, the court granted
preliminary approval to the parties' settlement agreement.  On
June 1, 2011, the court held a fairness hearing.  On July 29,
2011, the court granted final approval to the settlement and
entered a final judgment in the action.  The deadline for filing
of a notice of appeal is August 29, 2011.  The deadline for filing
a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is
September 28, 2011.  The settlement and related fees resulted in a
pre-tax charge during the fiscal fourth quarter of 2010 of
approximately $10.8 million ($6.5 million after tax).


EMULEX CORP: Appeal in Securities Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a settlement in the securities class action lawsuit
against Emulex Corporation's subsidiary remains pending, according
to the Company's August 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended July 3,
2011.

On November 15, 2001, prior to the Company's acquisition of Vixel
Corporation, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court in the Southern District of New York
as Case No. 01 CIV. 10053 (SAS), Master File No. 21 MC92 (SAS)
against Vixel and two of its officers and directors (one of which
is James M. McCluney, the Company's current Chief Executive
Officer) and certain underwriters who participated in the Vixel
initial public offering in late 1999.  The amended complaint
alleged violations under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Section 11 of the Securities Act and sought unspecified damages on
behalf of persons who purchased Vixel stock during the period
October 1, 1999, through December 6, 2000.  On April 2, 2009, the
parties signed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the 2009
Settlement) to the District Court for preliminary approval.  The
District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on
June 10, 2009.  The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on
September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court
entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and
directing that the Clerk of the District Court close these
actions.  The 2009 Settlement provides for Emulex to pay zero and
for insurers to pay the entire settlement amount of $586 million
for all defendants.  Notices of appeal of the opinion granting
final approval were originally filed by six groups of appellants,
five of which have been settled or dismissed, leaving one
remaining appellant.


FIRST BANK: Sued Over Excessive Auto Loan Interest Rates
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a Caseyville car dealer has filed a class action lawsuit
against a St. Clair County bank for allegedly charging excessive
interest rates on auto loans.

LDJ Investments Inc., on behalf of several others, filed the
lawsuit against First Bank July 12 in St. Clair County Circuit
Court.

According to the class action claim, LDJ agreed to a written loan
arrangement with First Bank in April 2006.  The contract allegedly
contained the bank's standard loan forms and a promissory note
that included an agreed upon annual interest rate.  However, LDJ
claims First Bank considered the loan to be of a commercial type
and charged a higher interest rate than was specified in the
promissory note.

LDJ accuses First Bank of breach of contract and asks to have the
current loan balances lowered to compensate for fees or interested
for which they were allegedly overcharged plus interest and court
fees.

The proposed class is represented by attorneys Bernard Ysursa and
Thomas R. Ysursa, of Belleville, Pat Ducey of Troy and Eric W.
Evans of Granite City.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case no. 11-L-399.


INFOTRACK: Sued for Mislabeling Consumers as Sex Offenders
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that consumer credit agency Infotrack
Information Services falsely identified "hundreds or thousands of
consumers as sex offenders in consumer reports provided to
employers."

Lead plaintiff Samuel D. Jackson claims that "Infotrack created a
consumer report erroneously indicating that Jackson was a
registered sex offender and that he had committed heinous criminal
acts" and sent "that consumer report to Jackson's prospective
employer."

"This was not a one-time mistake on Infotrack's part," the
complaint states.  "Infotrack reports sex offender information
about consumers whenever the consumer's first and last name
matches the first and last name of any sex offender in its
national sex offender database.  Moreover, it never checks to
determine whether the consumer's date of birth -- or other
personal identifying information -- matches the date of birth of
the actual sex offender.  The failure to implement such basic
cross-checking procedures has resulted in the erroneous labeling
of hundreds or thousands of consumers as sex offenders in consumer
reports provided to employers."

In his case, Mr. Jackson says, "the erroneous information never
would have appeared in Jackson's consumer report, however, if
Infotrack would have implemented the most basic and fundamental
procedures to determine whether the sex offender information in
the report actually related to Jackson.  Indeed, Infotrack never
determined whether Jackson's date of birth matched the dates of
birth of the sex offenders listed in his report."

Mr. Jackson says Infotrack's report generated seven "possible
matches," three of which were for "a fifty-eight-year-old African
American male named Samuel L. Jackson from Virginia who was
convicted of rape in November 18, 1987.  Plaintiff was not yet 4
years old at the time."

When he called Infotrack to report the inaccurate information,
Mr. Jackson says, the company told him "that the company's
consumer reports frequently contain inaccurate sex offender
information when the consumer has a common first and last name and
that consumers frequently complain about the problem."

He says that "Infotrack's consumer reports are incomplete with
respect to the sex offender information that they report because
the consumer reports omit important information such as the actual
sex offender's age, height, weight, and whether the sex offender
is currently incarcerated."

He seeks punitive damages for Infotrack's failure to follow
"reasonable procedures" to ensure accuracy in its reports and for
reporting "sex offender information in consumer reports likely to
have an adverse effect on a consumer's employment, while excluding
from those consumer reports a great deal of personal indentifying
information."

A copy of the Complaint in Jackson v. Infotrack Information
Services, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-05801 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/25/Infotrack.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Mary M. Rowland, Esq.
          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          Three First National Plaza
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                  mrowland@hsplegal.com
                  cwilmes@hsplegal.com

               - and -

          Paul Strauss, Esq.
          CHICAGO LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
          FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, INC.
          100 N. LaSalle, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 630-9744


INT'L RECTIFIER: Plaintiffs Have Until Sept. 21 to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit commenced by Hui Zhao have
until September 21, 2011, to file an amended complaint, according
to International Rectifier Corporation's August 22, 2011, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 26, 2011.

In August 2008, shortly after the Company's disclosure that Vishay
Intertechnology,  Inc. ("Vishay") had made an unsolicited, non-
binding proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the Company,
a purported class action complaint captioned Hui Zhao v.
International Rectifier Corporation, No. BC396461, was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles.  The complaint named as defendants the Company and
all of its directors and alleged that the Vishay proposal was
unfair and that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach
of fiduciary duty by the Board.  In October 2008, the case was
consolidated with five other substantially similar complaints
seeking the same relief.  Later in October 2008, plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint purporting to allege claims for
breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of
investors based on the theory that the Board breached its
fiduciary duty by rejecting the Vishay proposal.  In April 2009,
the Superior Court sustained the Company's demurrer to the amended
complaint on the ground that the action should have been brought
not as a class action but as a shareholder derivative action, and
ordered the action to be dismissed with prejudice.  In June 2009,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment of
dismissal.

On June 20, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior
Court's order sustaining the demurrer, but reversed the portion of
the order that dismissed the action with prejudice.  The Court of
Appeal remanded the case to the Superior Court with directions to
permit plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint to
attempt to plead a shareholder derivative action.  If plaintiffs
choose to file an amended complaint, their deadline for doing so
is approximately September 21, 2011.  In the event plaintiffs file
an amended complaint per the Court of Appeal's direction, the
Company expects that the members of the Board of Directors who may
be named as defendants in that action will defend themselves
vigorously.


JBI INC: Faces Class Suits Over Alleged Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JBI Inc. is facing class action lawsuits over accusations that it
violated federal securities laws, according to the Company's
August 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 14, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission's ("SEC")
Division of Enforcement issued a "Wells Notice" to the Company
indicating that the staff intended to recommend that the SEC file
a civil lawsuit alleging that the Company violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws.  Based on
communications with the SEC's Enforcement staff, the Company
believes that the proposed lawsuit relates to the Company's
restated financial statements for the third quarter of 2009, which
were included in its Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009, and its
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, which
were included in its 2009 Form 10-K filed on March 31, 2010.  The
restatement concerned the Company's valuation of media credits,
accounting for certain acquisitions, and equity issuances.  The
Company believes that the staff may also recommend naming one or
more current and former officers of the Company as defendants in
the proposed lawsuit.  Subsequent to receipt of the "Wells
Notice", there have been a number of announcements in respect of
individual class action lawsuits against the Company that are
pending and that have been lodged.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the dispute with
the SEC or any separate class action litigation which may result,
including whether a lawsuit will be filed or the terms of any
settlement that may be reached.  The Company has been given an
opportunity to respond to the Wells Notice, and will decide on how
to proceed based on consultation with its litigation counsel.  The
Company does not anticipate that the notice will negatively impact
its business operations.


MILLER ENERGY: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harwood Feffer LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. between February 1, 2010 and
August 1, 2011, inclusive.  The action is entitled, Ward v. Miller
Energy Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-391.

No class has yet been certified in the action. Class members will
be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the
lead plaintiff.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must
move the Court no later than October 11, 2011.  If you have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights with respect to
this action, you may contact Robert I. Harwood at
rharwood@hfesq.com or Daniella Quitt at dquitt@hfesq.com or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.hfesq.com

The Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
against Miller and certain of its officers and/or directors for
issuing materially false and misleading financial statements to
investors.  On December 16, 2009, Miller announced that it had
acquired certain Alaskan oil and gas assets from Pacific Energy
Alaska Operating LLC and Pacific Energy Alaska Holdings, LLC
through a Chapter 11 U.S. Bankruptcy proceeding in Delaware.
Beginning on February 1, 2010, Miller publicly issued false and
misleading statements and material omissions concerning the value
of the Alaskan oil and gas assets that Miller acquired in the
Acquisition, and the reliability of Miller's quarterly and annual
financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the Alaskan oil and gas
assets it acquired from the Acquisition were worth substantially
less in value than publicly reported by Miller; (2) Miller failed
to properly record the state tax credits expected from its Alaskan
oil and gas operations; (3) Miller failed to properly record
depletion, depreciation and amortization expenses related to
leasehold costs, wells and equipment, fixed assets and asset
retirement obligations; (4) Miller failed to properly calculate
and record sufficient compensation expense on certain equity
rewards; (5) Miller failed to properly calculate the liability for
certain derivative instruments; (6) Miller failed to properly
record income taxes; (7) as a result of the above, Miller's
financial statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP;
(8) Miller lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (9) as
a result of the above, Miller's financial statements were
materially false and misleading; and (10) as a result of the
above, Miller's financial statements could no longer be relied
upon and had to be restated.

On July 29, 2011, Miller announced that its consolidated balance
sheets at July 31, 2010, October 31, 2010, and January 31, 2011,
and its consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for
the quarterly and year to date periods then ended, could no longer
be relied upon as a result of errors in those financial
statements.  As a result of Miller's accounting misstatements,
which Miller deemed to result from material weaknesses in its
internal controls over financial reporting, Miller was compelled
to restate its financial statements for the quarterly periods
ended July 30, 2010, October 31, 2010 and January 31, 2011.
Miller's restated financial statements reported, inter alia, a
substantial decrease in oil and gas revenue, decrease in the value
of its assets from oil and gas properties, increase in total
liabilities, and increase in losses from operations for each of
those three quarterly periods ending on those dates, as compared
to what Miller reported for those same quarterly periods in its
previously reported financial statements.

Harwood Feffer LLP -- http://www.hfesq.com-- is a national
litigation firm devoted to protecting the interests of individual
and institutional investors in federal and state courts
nationwide.


MISSOURI CITIES: Face Class Action Over Red-Light Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael de los Reyes, writing for Arnold Patch, reports that Simon
Law Firm, a St. Louis-based group, has filed a class action
lawsuit against Arnold, other Missouri cities that use red-light
cameras and American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the maker of red-
light cameras.

The suit also names the Missouri cities of Creve Coeur,
Ellisville, Florissant and Kansas City, reports Riverfront Times.

Lawyers with the firm said that Judge Mark Neil's decision to void
St. Louis city's red-light camera ordinance should apply to all of
Missouri.

Judge Neil's decision said the cameras do not enforce the rules of
the road or a city's traffic regulations, the Riverfront Times
reported.

The suing lawyers also said the red-light camera tickets should
assess points on violators' licenses if the cameras are for safety
reasons.

Currently red-light camera violations in Missouri are considered
non-moving violations, the attorneys said to the Riverfront Times.

Judge Neil's decision is under appeal, Riverfront Times reported.

The class action lawsuit against ATS and the cities has no merit,
said ATS spokesman Charles Territo in an e-mail interview with
Arnold Patch.

"One thing that challenges like these all have in common is that
they have consistently failed," Mr. Territo said.  "The
constitutionality of red-light camera programs has been affirmed
by courts at every level and throughout the country."

U.S. Appellate Judge Frank Easterbrook, of the Seventh Circuit
Court based in Chicago, dismissed a lawsuit against that city's
red-light cameras in 2009, this site reported in March.

Judge Easterbrook's decision said the U.S. Constitution allows
cities to pass laws that differ from state or county laws.  Judge
Easterbrook also said the cameras do not violate due process,
improperly fine drivers or raise city revenues.

Judge Easterbrook's decision has no bearing in Missouri because
the state is in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Patch reader
Greg Zotta said in a comment on the Arnold Patch site.

The circuit appeals courts work to find congruences and similar
reasoning when enforcing the U.S. Constitution, said Arnold City
Attorney Bob Sweeney in an interview with Patch in March.


NEW LEAF: Suit Over Lead in Products Still Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2009, New Leaf Brands, Inc., was notified that it
was named as a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a
class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly
failing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.
The Company has responded to discovery requests from the Attorney
General of California.  To date, no trial date has been set.  The
Company is currently investigating the merits of the allegation
and is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or a range of possible loss.  This matter remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 23, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


OLIVE GARDEN: Provides Details on Hepatitis A Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at Food Poison Journal by Claire
Mitchell, on August 19, 2011, the Marler Clark law firm received
dozens of phone calls and e-mail submissions inquiring about the
class action lawsuit recently filed on Wednesday, August 17, 2011,
against a Fayetteville, North Carolina Olive Garden.  The lawsuit
came after Cumberland County health officials discovered that an
Olive Garden food service worker had tested positive for hepatitis
A and had potentially exposed thousands of the restaurant's
patrons to the virus.

A recent press release from the Marler Clark law firm explains who
may be eligible to be part of the class action lawsuit against
Olive Garden:

National food safety law firm Marler Clark filed a class action
lawsuit against Olive Garden.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
named plaintiff Claudia Prescott and all others who received
Hepatitis A vaccinations or Immune globulin (Ig) injections in the
wake of a Cumberland County Public Health Department announcement
that patrons of the Fayetteville Olive Garden had been exposed to
the hepatitis A virus after dining at the restaurant.

According to the complaint, which was filed in Cumberland County
Superior Court (File No. 11-CvS-7060) an employee who worked at
the Fayetteville Olive Garden was infected with hepatitis A while
working shifts at the restaurant in late July and early August,
leaving diners possibly exposed to the virus.  For public and
personal safety reasons, many persons who consumed food or
beverage at the Fayetteville Olive Garden on those dates were
required to obtain an Ig injection or the hepatitis A vaccine to
prevent infection with the potentially deadly hepatitis A virus.

"Standing in line for hours and receiving an unwanted immunization
is not commonly associated with a dinner out at Olive Garden,"
said Marler Clark attorney David Babcock.  "Hepatitis A is a
vaccine-preventable disease.  If Olive Garden had required its
employees to be immunized-or better yet, paid for employees to
receive the hepatitis A vaccine, thousands of people would not
have unnecessarily spent time and money protecting themselves from
infection."

WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO JOIN THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

While the precise size of the class is yet unknown, attorneys for
Marler Clark believe it may reach up to 3,000 people.  Anyone who
received an immune globulin shot or hepatitis A vaccine as a
result of consuming food or beverage at Olive Garden may be
eligible to join the class.

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis A is the only common vaccine-preventable foodborne
illness in the United States.  It is typically transmitted from
person to person or via contaminated food or water.  Outbreaks are
often associated with infected food handlers.  Symptoms may not
occur for several weeks after exposure and may include abdominal
discomfort, fever, malaise, muscle aches, and a yellowing of the
skin called jaundice.  In rare cases, hepatitis A causes liver
failure.

Marler Clark is a law firm dedicated to representing victims of
hepatitis A and other foodborne illnesses.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Storage Properties, Ltd., continues to defend a merger-
related putative class action lawsuit in California, according to
the Company's August 24, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 30, 2011, Public Storage, Public Storage Properties V,
Ltd. (the "Partnership") and Public Storage Properties V Merger
Co., Inc. ("Merger Sub"), among others, entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Reorganization.  On August 23, 2011, Merger Sub merged
with and into the Partnership.  Pursuant to the merger, the
Partnership's outstanding units held by its limited partners
(other than Public Storage and its consolidated affiliates), as
well as the general partnership interests held by B. Wayne Hughes
and his affiliates, were converted into the right to receive a
total of approximately $35.4 million to be paid in Public Storage
common shares or, at each partner's election, cash (the "Merger
Consideration").

A limited partner in four of the relevant limited partnerships has
brought a putative class action lawsuit in California state court
against, among others, Public Storage and B. Wayne Hughes,
alleging, among other things, that the mergers provide for
insufficient consideration for the relevant units of limited
partnership interest.  The limited partner seeks, among other
things, to enjoin the consummation of the mergers.

Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order to
enjoin the closing of the mergers has been denied by the court.
The litigation remains pending.


RED ROBIN: Continues to Defend "McConnell" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed by Kevin McConnell in a California
court, according to the Company's August 12, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 10, 2011.

On June 20, 2011, the Company was served with a wage and hour
class action lawsuit, Kevin McConnell v. Red Robin International,
Inc.  The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court in the
Northern District of California in the San Francisco division.
The claims are 1) failure to provide meal and rest periods; 2)
failure to compensate employees for all hours worked; 3) failure
to furnish wage and hour statements; 4) failure to maintain
employee time records; 5) unfair competition; 6) waiting time
penalties and 7) claims under the Private Attorney General Act.
Red Robin filed its Answer on July 11, 2011.  Although the Company
plans to vigorously defend against this suit, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it may be required
to pay damages, settlement costs, legal costs or other amounts
that may not be covered by insurance.


RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Wage Suit Remains Stayed Pending
----------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by Marcos B. Moreno against
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., remains stayed pending resolution
of the class action lawsuit filed by Kevin McConnell, according to
the Company's August 12, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 10,
2011.

In December 2009, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno v. Red Robin International, Inc.
The case was filed in Superior Court in Ventura County, California
and has been removed to Federal District Court for the Central
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.  Red Robin filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
February 10, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and
overtime, failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to pay
compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely wages
on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
unlawful business practices and unfair competition.  Plaintiff is
seeking compensatory and special damages, restitution for unfair
competition, premium pay, penalties and wages under the Labor
Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs.  On March 24, 2010,
the Court granted a stay of the case pending the outcome of a
California case currently before the California Supreme Court for
review.  That case involves similar allegations regarding rest and
meal breaks.  It is anticipated that the California Supreme Court
will provide useful guidance on rest and meal breaks when the
opinion in that case is issued.  The Company believes the Moreno
suit is without merit.  Although the Company plans to vigorously
defend against this suit, it cannot predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or whether it may be required to pay damages, settlement
costs, legal costs or other amounts that may not be covered by
insurance.


SMART ONLINE: Securities Class Suit Partially Dismissed in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina issued in July a final judgment and order of partial
dismissal with prejudice in the securities class action case filed
against Smart Online, Inc., according to the Company's August 12,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 18, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with the lead plaintiff in the securities
class action involving the Company in the case captioned Mary Jane
Beauregard vs. Smart Online, Inc., et al, filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The Stipulation provides for the settlement of the Class Action.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement on
January 13, 2011, the final settlement hearing was held on May 11,
2011.  The District Court approved the Stipulation and directed
that the terms of the Stipulation should be consummated.

The Stipulation provides for the certification of a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between May 2, 2005 and September 28, 2007,
inclusive.  As per the terms of the Stipulation, the settlement
class has received total consideration of a cash payment of
$350,000 made by the Company, and a cash payment of $112,500 made
by Maxim Group.  In addition, Henry Nouri is required to transfer
25,000 shares of Company common stock to the settlement class and
the Company is required to issue 1,475,000 shares of Company
common stock to the class.  Under the terms of the Stipulation,
counsel for the settlement class may sell some or all of the
common stock received in the settlement before distribution to the
class, subject to the limitation that it cannot sell more than
10,000 shares on one day or 50,000 shares in 30 calendar days.
Subject to the terms of the Stipulation, the Company paid the lead
plaintiff $75,000 on July 14, 2010, $100,000 on September 15,
2010, $100,000 on December 14, 2010 and $75,000 on March 14, 2011.

The stipulation provides that all claims against the settling
defendants are dismissed with prejudice.  The claims of the lead
plaintiff against Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp. and the
Company?s former independent registered public accounting firm,
Sherb & Co., are not being dismissed and will continue.  The
Stipulation contains no admission of fault or wrongdoing by the
Company or the other settling defendants.

On June 18, 2010, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement
with Dennis Michael Nouri, Reza Eric Nouri, Henry Nouri and Ronna
Loprete Nouri in settlement of claims filed by the Nouri Parties
against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware for advancement of legal expenses and indemnification.
The Settlement Agreement provides for the payment by the Company
of up to $1,400,000 for the benefit of the Parties.

On January 13, 2011, the District Court, issued the Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing Notice.  Based
upon the Nouri Settlement Agreement and the January 13, 2011
District Court Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and
Providing Notice, the following amounts were paid for the benefit
of  the Nouri Parties: the amount of $500,000 was paid on January
22, 2011 and $75,000 was paid on March 16, 2011, April 15, 2011,
June 14, 2011 and July 14, 2011, $7,773 was paid on May 12, 2011,
and an additional  $592,227 is payable in seven fixed monthly
installments of $75,000 based on the Effective Date, with the last
four scheduled installments totaling $300,000 subject to reduction
to the extent that fees and disbursements for the Nouris' appeal
are below certain levels or if the appeal is not taken to final
adjudication.  The Company was ordered by a Court of proper
jurisdiction to withhold $67,227 for future payment of adjudicated
debt owed by the Nouris.  The Settlement Agreement provides for
the exchange of mutual releases by the parties.

On July 1, 2011, the District Court issued the Final Judgment and
Order of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice in the Class Action
case.  The Court approved the Stipulation and directed that the
terms of the Stipulation should be consummated.

The settlement of the Class Action suit will cause current
shareholders to be further diluted due to the issuance of an
additional 1,475,000 shares of common stock pursuant to the terms
of the Stipulation.


SODEXO OPERATIONS: Accused of Violating Calif. Wage and Hour Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Ovieda, both individually, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly  situated current and former employees of Sodexo
Operations, LLC, and Sodexo, Inc. and Affiliated Companies v.
Sodexo Operations, LLC, a Delaware corporation], Sodexo, Inc. and
Affiliated Companies, a Delaware corporation, [Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 4:11-cv-04191 (N.D. Calif., August 24, 2011)
is brought to recover, among other things, unpaid wages earned and
due, indemnification for expenses, wages and penalties due from
illegal deductions, illegal break policies, including meal period
policies, failure to maintain required records, and failure to pay
all wages due to discharged or quitting employees.

Ms. Ovieda is a resident of Manteca, California.  She was employed
by Sodexo as a non-exempt, hourly employee.

Sodexo is a California corporation.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Dalia Khalili, Esq.
RASTEGAR & MATERN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1010 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 100
Torrance, CA 90501
Telephone: (310) 218-5500
Facsimile: (310) 218-1155
E-mail: mjm@rastegar-matern.com
        dk@rastegar-matern.com


SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Suit vs. South Carolina Unit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Springleaf Finance Corporation's
South Carolina operating entity remains pending, according to the
Company's August 12, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In King v. American General Finance, Inc., Case No. 96-CP-38-595
in the Court of Common Pleas for Orangeburg County, South
Carolina, filed in 1996, the plaintiffs assert class action claims
against the Company's South Carolina operating entity for alleged
violations of S.C. Code Section 37-10-102(a), which requires,
inter alia, a lender making a mortgage loan to ascertain the
preference of the borrower as to an attorney who will represent
the borrower in closing the loan.  On July 29, 2011, the court
issued an interim order granting the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and holding that SLFI, formerly American General
Finance, Inc., violated the statute.  The order states that the
class consists of 9,157 members who were involved in 5,497
transactions.  The court did not rule on the plaintiffs' request
for penalties, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, or class
notice.  The order also states that the court will issue a final
order on summary judgment, which will include its ruling on the
plaintiffs' request for penalties, prejudgment interest, attorney
fees, and class notice, following an additional hearing.  The
statute provides for a penalty range of $1,500 to $7,500 per class
member, to be determined by the judge.  SLFI is defending the case
vigorously.


ST. JOE COMPANY: Florida Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Landry, writing for Morningstar, reports that on Aug. 24,
2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak of the Northern District
of Florida, Panama City Division, dismissed, without prejudice,
the Meyer class action shareholder lawsuit against the St. Joe
Company on the grounds that:

"Plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation are insufficient to meet
the standard of pleading fraud with particularity because they
fail to allege that Defendants acted with the requisite scienter
and made statements that they knew were materially false at the
time.  Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to establish loss
causation."

The case was consolidated on Feb. 24, 2011, and was followed by
two separate derivative lawsuits in March and July.  The latter
two remain open, but since they rely on substantially similar
allegations as Meyer, their chances of exacting material financial
damage on the company are considerably weakened.


TIM W.E. SGPS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of TIM w.e. SGPS, S.A., is awaiting a decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit in Brazil, according to
the Company's August 22, 2011, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On December 1, 2010, the Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor
filled a class-action lawsuit against the Company's Brazilian
subsidiary, Total Spin Brasil Servicos de Telecomunicacoes Ltda.
("Total Spin"), and Globo Participacoes e Comunicacoes S.A. (TV
Globo) before the 11th Federal Civil Court of Sao Paulo in
connection with Total Spin's participation in the marketing
campaign "Torpedao Campeao", alleging that misleading statements
made in connection with the campaign caused collective damages to
consumers and seeking R$7 million in restitution of amounts paid
by consumers during the campaign and collective moral damages.  On
March 10, 2011, Total Spin submitted a challenge seeking to reduce
the damages claim to R$0.1 million.  On March 25, 2011, Total Spin
filed a response memorandum seeking full dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Company believes the claim is likely to be dismissed by the
court on the basis that a similar claim has already been dismissed
by the court for lack of evidence in pretrial stages.  The Company
also believes this claim is without merit and intends to contest
it vigorously.


TOYOTA AUTO: California Court Dismissed "Harel Pia" Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The appellate court dismissed Harel Pia Mutual Fund's appeal,
making the lower court's judgment in favor of Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation and the other defendants final, according to Toyota
Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust's August 23, 2011, Form 10-D
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
monthly distribution period July 1, 2011, to July 31, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates were named
as defendants in a putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. 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 alleged
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010,
the 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.  Subsequently, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
appeal, and on August 16, 2011, the court entered an order
dismissing the appeal, making the lower court's judgment in favor
of TMCC and the other defendants final.


VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Local Managers File Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
On August 23, 2011, the California employment law attorneys at the
law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a motion for
certification in a wage and hour class action lawsuit entitled
Aburto v. Verizon California, Case No. CV 11-03683ODW in the
Central District of California.  The lawsuit seeks backpay and
penalties on behalf of "all those individuals employed by Verizon
in California who worked as First Level Local Managers in the
Verizon FiOS Group at any time during the period between
January 14, 2007 to July 6, 2011."  The lawsuit alleges that the
telecommunications company acted in violation of California labor
laws by paying first level local managers fixed salaries without
pay for overtime despite the fact that the local managers claim to
have worked more than 40 hours of overtime each month as required
by Verizon.

In support of the motion for class certification, the Verizon
Local Managers presented the Declaration of, Robert L. Burnet, a
former Verizon Communications Division Staff Manager ? Human
Resources/Labor Relations.  According to Mr. Burnet's declaration,
"the exempt classification more properly applies to higher level
management personnel, not to these 1st Level Local Managers."  The
expert report claims that these Verizon FiOS local managers are
"glorified clerks" due to Verizon's approach of "centralizing
authority and decision making control to higher levels of
management rather than the Local Managers."  The expert report
relies in part on the fact that the "prime functions performed by
these Local Managers included observing operations and inputting
data into the many Verizon computer databases and programs, which
were clerical functions."  Moreover, the motion for class
certification is supported by 13 Declarations and 24 Questionnaire
Responses of 24 of the 64 Class Members.

If this alleged wage and hour violation is found to exist in more
than the one FIOS group that is the subject of this lawsuit then
the potential overtime wage and hour claims against Verizon for
backpay and penalties could be substantial, as Verizon employs
local managers in the FIOS group and other divisions -- such as
Verizon local managers involved with business operations, customer
support, construction operations and damage prevention --
throughout the state of California and United States.

For more information about this Verizon first level local manager
class action lawsuit, you can contact a San Diego employment
attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik or visit the Verizon
Local Manager Overtime Lawsuit Web site.  With employment law
offices in San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco, the employment
attorneys offer local managers free legal consultations to help
assess if they have a viable claim for unpaid overtime wages.


WELLS FARGO: AARP May Face Difficulty in Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Ecker, writing for Reverse Mortgage Daily News, reports
that while a lawsuit brought by AARP was able to influence
regulations by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) earlier this year, a pending class action case might not be
so fruitful, according to those familiar with the suit.

Filed in early August, the current lawsuit alleges that Wells
Fargo Bank and Fannie Mae have illegally foreclosed upon the heirs
of reverse mortgage borrowers without offering those heirs their
right to purchase the home for fair market value.

The plaintiff in the case for AARP is Robert Chandler of Elk
Grove, California.  According to court documents, Mr. Chandler,
who was living in the home that was later foreclosed upon,
inherited the home from his mother, who had had a reverse mortgage
and passed away in 2010.  The suit alleges that Mr. Chandler was
never given notice of his right to purchase the property for 95%
of the appraised value, a guideline set forth by HUD following the
first lawsuit, that clarified the non-recourse policy for HECM
loans (the case was later dismissed).

The current suit also notes several attempts on Mr. Chandler's
behalf to contact Wells Fargo and Fannie Mae and seek his right to
do so.

The next step in the suit is the certification of the class, which
must be done by the court.  But the certification can take weeks
or months, and it may not be such an easy task.

"The Court's ruling on class certification often comes down to
whether the proofs for the representative case are similar enough
to the proofs of the other class members," says Anthony Laura,
partner with Patton Boggs LLP.

In the case of plaintiff Mr. Chandler, there are several issues at
work that could distinguish his case from other potential members
of the class.  First, that he was residing in the home he
inherited from his mother, the reverse mortgage borrower.

"The relief that Mr. Chandler is seeking may not be typical of the
relief the others are seeking," Mr. Laura says.  "He's being
forcibly evicted from what happens to be his home.  Often times,
heirs don't necessarily live in the home but they may want to pay
off the mortgage somehow.  He's in a different situation than
others who don't intend to live in the home."

A second issue lies in the fact that Mr. Chandler's case notes
three points of contact with the lender and insurer of the loan.
Again, this may not be the case for other heirs in a similar
situation.

"The more points of contact among them, the better chance that the
facts pertinent to Chandler's claim will be disparate from those
of other class members," says Mr. Laura.

"To say those interactions are typical to thousands of other
persons would be tough to swallow.  I don't think you can assume
those multiple, separate interactions to have been similar."


ZUNGUI HAIXI: Sutts, Strosberg Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of all investors who acquired shares of Zungui
Haixi Corporation during the period December 21, 2009 to and
including August 19, 2011.  The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants engaged in violations of Ontario's Securities Act and
the common law.

The plaintiff has retained Sutts, Strosberg LLP to prosecute the
class action.

On August 22, 2011, Zungui publicly disclosed that the company's
auditor suspended procedures with respect to the audit of the
company's financial statements.  Following the announcement, the
price of Zungui's shares declined by 77%.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP pioneered securities class actions in
Ontario.  Please visit the Sutts, Strosberg LLP
Web site http://www.strosbergco.comand
http://www.zunclassaction.comfor more information about the
Zungui class action.

For further information:

          Jay Strosberg, Esq.
          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          Telephone: 519-561-6285
                     1-800-229-5323, ext. 8296


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Defends "Ricker" Class Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
Zoo Entertainment, Inc. is defending a putative class action
lawsuit in Ohio commenced by Bruce E. Ricker, according to the
Company's August 22, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On July 22, 2011, Bruce E. Ricker, individually and on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of the Company from May 17,
2010, through April 15, 2011, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  The complaint alleges that the Company, Mark
Seremet, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and David Fremed,
the Company's Chief Financial Officer, knowingly or recklessly
violated the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making false material statements or
failing to disclose material information in order to make
statements not misleading in connection with certain financial
statements of the Company.  Specifically, the complaint relies
upon the Company's April 15, 2011, restatement of its unaudited
consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March
31, 2010, the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, and the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, as the basis for
its allegations that the Company's financial statements filed for
those periods contained materially false statements.  The
defendants and their counsel are in the process of reviewing and
assessing the complaint's allegations.  As a result, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate any potential loss or exposure at this
time.

The Company has received a subpoena from the Securities and
Exchange Commission requesting certain information in connection
with the restatement of the Company's financial statements.  The
Company says it intends to fully cooperate with the SEC.


ZORAN CORP: Settles Class Suits Over Proposed CSR Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Zoran Corporation entered into an agreement to settle the class
action lawsuits commenced in connection with its proposed merger
with CSR plc, according to the Company's August 24, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A number of class action lawsuits related to the proposed merger
of Zoran Corporation ("Zoran") with CSR plc ("CSR") were filed by
alleged shareholders of Zoran after the public announcement of
their proposed merger.  In addition to asserting claims against
Zoran, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits currently name as
defendants certain members of Zoran's board of directors as well
as CSR and Zeiss Merger Sub, Inc., a subsidiary of CSR ("Merger
Sub").

Effective as of August 23, 2011, Zoran and the other defendants in
these lawsuits reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the lawsuits.  In
connection with this agreement, Zoran agreed to make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders.  After Zoran enters
into a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs, the proposed
settlement will be subject to court approval, and, if the court
approves the settlement, the settlement will resolve all of the
claims that were or could have been brought in the lawsuits being
settled, including all claims relating to the merger, the amended
and restated merger agreement between Zoran and CSR providing for
the merger and any disclosure made in connection with the merger,
including any such claims against CSR or Merger Sub.  In addition,
the agreement in principle contemplates that plaintiffs' counsel
will petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by Zoran (or its successors or insurer).

The proposed settlement will not affect the merger consideration
to be paid to Zoran's stockholders under the amended and restated
merger agreement or change any of the other terms of the merger or
the amended and restated merger agreement.

Zoran and the other defendants vigorously deny all liability with
respect to the facts and claims alleged in the lawsuit and
specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure was
required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or
that the directors failed to maximize stockholder value by
entering into the amended and restated merger agreement with CSR
and Merger Sub.  The agreement in principle is not, and should not
be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant.  However, to avoid the risk of delaying or otherwise
imperiling the merger, and to provide additional information to
its stockholders at a time and in a manner that would not cause
any delay of the merger, Zoran and the other defendants have
reached the agreement in principle with the plaintiffs.  The
parties consider it desirable that the action be settled to avoid
the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the settled claims.


* More Lawsuits Filed Over E-Book Pricing Agency Model
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that a
class action lawsuit over e-book pricing filed against five major
publishers and Apple has begun to sprawl, with four new "copycat"
lawsuits recently filed.  Two suits, filed in Manhattan, add
Random House as a defendant, while a third suit, also in
Manhattan, adds Amazon and Barnes & Noble.  Another suit was filed
in Oakland, Calif.  The claims and assertions of fact in each suit
are nearly identical to the original suit, filed August 9 by the
firm Hagens Berman: that the simultaneous introduction of the
agency model by the major publishers reflects an illegal
conspiracy to "artificially inflate" e-book prices.

The filing of copycat suits is very common in consumer class
actions.  "It is more the rule than the exception," one class
action attorney told PW.  If a case is perceived to be a good one,
there will be multiple filings by different firms in different
courts, and the firms will then compete to see who will become
lead counsel.  In the coming months, the cases?and there could be
more coming?will be organized, and the defendants will seek to
have them moved to one court.

According to the filings, the price fixing conspiracy occurred as
Apple negotiated terms with publishers in anticipation of the 2010
iPad release.  On January 27, 2010, when asked by reporters how
Apple's e-bookstore would compete with Amazon's $9.99 price,
Apple's Steve Jobs responded that the prices "would be the same."
That public pronouncement, one suit alleges, "was a signal to
Publisher Defendants that each of them had agreed to join the
conspiracy."  The following day, January 28, Macmillan CEO John
Sargent told Amazon of its switch to the agency model.  "This
would have been irrational if Macmillan had not expected its
primary competitors to follow suit," the lawsuit notes.  "Acting
alone, no individual publisher would be able to sustain the supra-
competitive prices."  The agency model, the suit notes,
effectively ended "retailer discretion" for e-book pricing.

The question now is whether the allegations of conspiracy in the
filings are sufficient to avoid dismissal.  In the coming months,
the defendants will most likely move to have the suits dismissed
on as many grounds as possible, and will also seek to delay any
discovery while the case is considered.  But such motions to
dismiss usually fail, lawyers say, although the case may be
narrowed.

The filings so far include no proof of any collusion.  But with
investigations under way in some states and reported federal
interest into Apple's practices, the questions raised in the suit
appear strong enough to at least advance the case, and that could
be damaging enough.  Even if the case is defensible, the prospect
of being deposed about pricing, the economics of digital
publishing, and other core business operations looms.  And there
are the legal fees, which have already begun to toll, and come at
a time when publishers appear poised to litigate with Google,
following the failure of the Google settlement.


                            *********

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  * * *