CAR_Public/110831.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 31, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 172

                             Headlines

ADVANCED BATTERY: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuits in New York
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: 5th Circuit Sets Oral Argument This Week
ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Faces "Rothal"-Related Suit in Florida
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Final Okay of FACTA Suits Settlements
ANADIGICS INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss N.J. Suit

APOLLO GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
BANKRATE INC: Resolved All Appraisal Claims in Acquisition Suits
BFC FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Schwarz" Suit Still Pending
BFC FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Suit
BFC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal From Order Setting Aside Verdict

BIDZ.COM INC: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in California
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
BLUEGREEN CORP: "Schwarz" Suit Remains Pending in Georgia
CHINA FIRE: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuits in Florida
CHINA SECURITY: Strikes Deal to Settle Class Action in Delaware

CITADEL BROADCASTING: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims
COMMERCIAL BARGE: Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Sept. 9
COMMERCIAL BARGE: Awaits Dismissal of Louisiana Class Suits
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend "Greenwood" Suit
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Units Continue to Defend "Knox" Suit

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Defends Four Federal Class Suits in Virginia
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Morefield" Suit
CONVERTED ORGANICS: Still Defends "Leeseberg" Suit in Delaware
CPI INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Final Court Approval of Suit Settlement
DISH DBS: Appeal in Channel Bundling Suit Remains Pending

DISH DBS: Paid $60 Million in April to Settle Retailer Suits
DJO FINANCE: Still Defends Pain Pump Class Suit in Canada
DOLLAR TREE: Trial Court Decertifies Class of Store Managers
DOLLAR TREE: 4th Cir. Sets Oral Argument on Appeal for September
DOLLAR TREE: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in California

EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Continues to Defend CDRT Merger-Related Suits
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
ENER1 INC: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Still Defends Suit Over Account Charges
FIRST DATA: Still Awaits Outcome of Appeal in ATM Fee Litigation

GULF RESOURCES: Awaits Amended Complaint in "Snellink" Suit
ICAGEN INC: Faces 10 Stockholder Class Suits Over Pfizer Merger
INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Mediation Set for August in Merger Suit
IPAYMENT INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit
IPAYMENT INC: Court Sets Sept. 26 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dismissal Hearing on Calif. Suit This Month
L&L ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
LIVINGSOCIAL: Suits Over Illegal Expiration Dates Consolidated
MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Shareholder Suits in New Jersey Dismissed
MF GLOBAL: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement

MICHAEL FOODS: Bids to Dismiss Egg Products Suits Still Pending
MOTRICITY INC: Accused of Engaging in Insider Trading
MOTRICITY INC: To Defend "Callan" Securities Suit in Washington
MOUNT REAL: Class Action Over Alleged Fraud Scheme Can Proceed
NESS TECHNOLOGIES: Enters Into MOU to Settle Delaware Class Suit

NEWS CORP: Court Sets Sept. 9 Deadline to File Dismissal Motion
NEWS CORP: "Wilder" Suit in New York Still Pending
OMNICARE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Kentucky
OVERSEE.NET: Pays $1,500 to Class Action Representative
PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Still In Talks to Settle "Niederklein" Suit

PHC INC: Still Faces Class Suits Over Proposed Merger With Acadia
PHILIP MORRIS: Dismissal of Marlboro Lights Class Action Upheld
PONIARD PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allozyne Acquisition
POSTROCK ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Spieker" Suit in Kansas
POSTROCK ENERGY: Court Approves Settlement in Oklahoma Suit

PRUCO LIFE: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss "Phillips" Suit
PRUCO LIFE: Continues to Defend Mass. Suit Over Retained Assets
PRUCO LIFE: Court Refuses to Enter Judgment in "Huffman" Suit
QUICKLOGIC CORP: Appeals in IPO-Related Suit Remain Pending
RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Rosen" Lawsuit Still Pending

RODMAN & RENSHAW: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suits
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit v. Unit
SCHIFF NUTRITION: Ganeden Faces Sustenex-Related Suit in Calif.
SCORES HOLDING: Strikes Deal to Settle "Diaz" Suit in New York
SIGNATURE GROUP: Court Gives Final Okay of Calif. Suit Settlement

SINOTECH ENERGY: Accused of Misleading Shareholders
SOAPSTONE NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Appellant's Standing Issue
SOLAR POWER: Still Defends Calif. Class Action Suit Over LDK Deal
ST. JUDE: Closing Briefing in Silzone Suits to Be Done in Sept.
ST. JUDE: Settlement Hearing in AGA-Related Suit Set for Sept.

ST. JUDE: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
STATE OF FLORIDA: Sued for Illegally Ticketing Motorists
SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
TELLABS INC: Court Approves Deal and Dismisses Illinois Suit
THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Won Court Approval of Class Suit Settlement

TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Phillips" Suit
TRIAD GUARANTY: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. AHM
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Continues to Defend "Larsen" Suit vs. Unit
UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal
UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Continues to Defend "Snellink" Suit in N.J.

VAUGHAN FOODS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Reser's Fine Foods
VERENIUM CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
VERIZON WIRELESS: Appeals Court Upholds Individual Arbitrations
VERTRO INC: Appeal in Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending
VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Awaits Okay of Deal in Merix Acquisition Suit

WEBMD HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
WESTERN DIGITAL: Court Confirms "Durrani" Deal Amount Fully Paid
WESTERN DIGITAL: Court Okays Deal and Dismisses "Sadaat" Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend "Kottaras" Suit in D.C.
WILSHIRE BANCORP: Class Action in California Still Pending

XFONE INC: Unit Still Awaits Ruling on Settlement in "Tzur" Suit
YTB INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Approval of Motion to Dismiss Suit
ZYNEX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Colorado

* Mandatory Arbitration Agreement to Benefit Employers
* Two Big Case Rulings to Impact Businesses Facing Class Actions





                             *********

ADVANCED BATTERY: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuits in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Battery Technologies Inc. continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits in New York, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

Since April 2011, four class actions have been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of the Company's senior executive
officers, asserting violations of the United States securities
laws.  The actions are captioned Cohen v. Advanced Battery
Technologies, Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 11-2849), Burns v.
Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 11-
2354), Quan v. Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. et al. (Civil
Action No. 11-2279), and Connors v. Advanced Battery Technologies,
Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 11-3098), The complaints allege that
the Company, in its filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, made material misrepresentations and omissions.  The
plaintiffs in the actions seek to represent a class of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between November 24, 2008 and
March 30, 2011.  The applications of plaintiffs to be appointed
"lead plaintiff" in the consolidated action is pending before the
Court.  No specific amount of damages has been alleged.  The
Company and its senior management believe that the claims are
without merit.  They intend to mount a vigorous defense to the
actions and to seek their prompt dismissal after a consolidated
complaint is filed.


AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: 5th Circuit Sets Oral Argument This Week
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has set an oral
argument this week to hear the appeal from the dismissal of a
putative class action against Affirmative Insurance Holdings Inc.,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

On August 17, 2009, plaintiff Toni Hollinger filed a putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas against several county mutual insurance companies and
reinsurance companies, including Affirmative Insurance Company.
The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in unfair
discrimination and violated the Texas Insurance Code by charging
different policy fees for the same class and hazard of insurance
written through county mutual insurance companies.  On August 5,
2010, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's claims for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Plaintiff appealed the
dismissal of her claims.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit has scheduled oral argument for the week of August 29,
2011.  The Company believes that this claim lacks merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.


ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Faces "Rothal"-Related Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust is facing another lawsuit filed by an
insurer of a co-defendant in the Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners
Ltd., et al., case, 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 September 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") completed its liquidation by contributing all of
its remaining assets to ALP Liquidating Trust ("ALP"), subject to
all of the Partnership's obligations and liabilities.  Arvida
Company ("Arvida"), an affiliate of the general partner of the
Partnership, acts as Administrator (the "Administrator") of ALP.
Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc., is general partner of the Partnership
(the "General Partner").

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.  In this
lawsuit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003,
plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out
of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.  On
May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper.  Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems.  Plaintiffs have filed
a motion to expand the class to include other homes in Weston.
The motion to expand the class was denied.  The case went to
mediation on March 11, 2010.  The case did not settle.  The Arvida
defendants have filed their answer to the amended complaint.  The
Arvida defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses and
intend to vigorously defend themselves.  The court concluded its
hearings on the motion to certify the class covering the homes in
Camellia Island and certified the class by order dated
September 16, 2010.  On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed
its notice of appeal challenging the certification order.  On
June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order
certifying the class.  The case has been returned to the trial
court for further proceedings including trial.  The Partnership
intends to vigorously defend itself.  The Partnership is not able
to determine what, if any, loss exposure that it may have for this
matter.  This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's
insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company (together
with its affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for defense and
indemnity.  Zurich is providing a defense of this matter under a
purported reservation of rights.  The Partnership has also engaged
other counsel in connection with this lawsuit.  The ultimate legal
and financial liability of the Partnership, if any, in this matter
cannot be estimated with certainty at this time.  The Partnership
is unable to determine the ultimate portion of the expenses, fees
and damages, if any, which will be covered by its insurance.

On June 23, 2011, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled,
Investors Insurance Company of America ("Investors Insurance") v.
Waterproofing Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:11-cv-61408-DMM,
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Ft. Lauderdale).  In the complaint, as amended, an insurer for
Waterproofing Systems, Inc. and Waterproofing Systems of Miami,
Inc. ("Waterproofing"), the alleged roofer of the homes and co-
defendant in the Rothal case seeks a declaratory judgment order
that it owes no duty of indemnity or defense to Waterproofing for
the damages sought in the Rothal complaint.  In the Investors
Insurance complaint, as amended, the plaintiff declares that ALP
has an interest in the plaintiff's policies that purport to cover
Waterproofing and by its complaint seeks an order that would
effectively adjudicate ALP's rights to any coverage benefits under
the Investors Insurance policies.  The Partnership will vigorously
defend its interests in the policies written by plaintiff.  The
Partnership is unable to determine what portion of its fees and
damages in the Rothal case, if any, may be recoverable under these
Investors Insurance policies.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Final Okay of FACTA Suits Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment(R) Inc. is awaiting final court approval of
settlements of lawsuits alleging it violated the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act, 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 January 2007, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, captioned Michael Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.
(No. CV07-00171), in the Central District of the United States
District Court of California (the "District Court") alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA").  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates
nor more than the last 5 numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on receipts given to customers.  FACTA imposes significant
penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have
been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses
incurred by the card holder.  On March 21, 2011, the District
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement,
preliminarily certifying a class action for settlement purposes
only.

On May 14, 2009, Harout Jarchafjian filed a similar lawsuit
alleging that the Company willfully violated FACTA and seeking
statutory damages, but without alleging any actual injury
(Jarchafjian v. American Multi- Cinema, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Case No.
CV09-03434)).  The District Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement on May 5, 2011, preliminarily certifying a class
action for settlement purposes only.

The Company says both the settlements are not expected to have a
material adverse impact to its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.


ANADIGICS INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss N.J. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANADIGICS, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending
in New Jersey, according to the Company's August 11, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

On November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie Attias v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on November 21,
2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related class action lawsuit
in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz v. Anadigics, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750 (jointly, the "Class Actions").  The
Complaints in the Class Actions, which were consolidated under the
caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-
05572, by an Order of the District Court dated
November 24, 2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection
with alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with,
among other things, Anadigics's manufacturing capabilities and the
demand for its products.  On October 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, (the "First Amended
Complaint"), which names the Company, a current officer and a
former officer-director, and alleges a proposed class period that
runs from July 24, 2007, through August 7, 2008.  On December 23,
2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint; that motion was fully briefed as of March 30, 2010.
After holding extensive oral argument on defendants' motion on
August 3, 2010, the District Court found plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint to be deficient, but afforded them another opportunity
to amend their pleading.  The District Court therefore denied
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to defendants'
renewing the motion in response to plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on October 4, 2010.  The Second
Amended Complaint, which contains the same substantive claims that
were alleged in the First Amended Complaint, alleges a proposed
class period that runs from February 12, 2008, through August 7,
2008.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on December 3, 2010.  That motion is fully briefed and
pending before the District Court.

Because the Class Actions, which are in a preliminary stage, do
not specify alleged monetary damages, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, to the
Company in connection therewith.

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


APOLLO GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC, is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint in
the purported class action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts,
according to the Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On July 16, 2008, Apollo was joined as a defendant in a pre-
existing purported class action pending in Massachusetts federal
court against, among other defendants, numerous private equity
firms.  The lawsuit alleges that beginning in mid-2003, Apollo and
the other private equity firm defendants violated the U.S.
antitrust laws by forming "bidding clubs" or "consortia" that,
among other things, rigged the bidding for control of various
public corporations, restricted the supply of private equity
financing, fixed the prices for target companies at artificially
low levels and allocated amongst themselves an alleged market for
private equity services in leveraged buyouts.  The lawsuit seeks
class action certification, declaratory and injunctive relief,
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  On August 27, 2008,
Apollo and its co-defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint and on November 20, 2008, the Court granted the
Company's motion.  The Court also dismissed two other defendants,
Permira and Merrill Lynch.  In an order dated August 18, 2010, the
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to
expand the complaint and to obtain additional discovery.  The
Court ruled that plaintiffs could amend the complaint and obtain
discovery in a second discovery phase limited to eight additional
transactions.  The Court gave the plaintiffs until September 17,
2010, to amend the complaint to include the additional eight
transactions.  On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to amend the complaint by adding the additional eight
transactions and adding Apollo as a defendant.  On October 6,
2010, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to file the fourth
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, filed on
October 7, 2010, adds Apollo Global Management, LLC, as a
defendant.  On November 4, 2010, Apollo moved to dismiss, arguing
that the claims against Apollo are time-barred and that the
allegations against Apollo are insufficient to state an antitrust
conspiracy claim.

On February 17, 2011, the Court denied Apollo's motion to dismiss,
ruling that Apollo should raise the statute of limitations issues
on summary judgment after discovery is completed.  Apollo filed
its answer to the fourth amended complaint on March 21, 2011.  On
July 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
fifth amended complaint that adds ten additional transactions and
expands the scope of the class seeking relief.  All defendants are
opposing the motion.  Currently, the Company does not believe that
a loss from liability in this case is either probable or
reasonably estimable.  The Court granted Apollo's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' initial complaint in 2008, ruling that Apollo
was released from the only transaction in which it allegedly was
involved.  While plaintiffs have survived Apollo's motion to
dismiss the fourth amended complaint, the Court stated in denying
the motion that it will consider the statute of limitations (one
of the bases for Apollo's motion to dismiss) at the summary
judgment stage.  Based on the applicable statute of limitations,
among other reasons, Apollo believes that plaintiffs' claims lack
factual and legal merit.  For these reasons, no estimate of
possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo believes that this action is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.


BANKRATE INC: Resolved All Appraisal Claims in Acquisition Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc., resolved all remaining claims filed by
stockholders seeking appraisal of the Company stock or alleging
breach of fiduciary duty related to the Company being acquired by
Ben Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's August 15, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 2, 2009, Ben Holdings, Inc., a majority owned subsidiary
of Ben Holdings S. r.l, together with Ben Merger Sub, Inc. a
Florida Corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Holdings
entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Bankrate. As a
result, the Company became a wholly owned subsidiary of Holdings.
In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting
Standards Codification 805, Business Combinations, the Acquisition
was accounted for on August 25, 2009, the date of which Holdings
obtained control of the Company.

In connection with the announcement of the Bankrate Acquisition,
certain persons who were then stockholders of the Company filed a
number of lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duties or seeking
appraisal of the fair value of their shares of the Company stock.
The lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duties were consolidated
and, on November 8, 2010, certified as a mandatory, non-opt-out
class action (with the exception of one of the parties seeking
appraisal, who was ruled not to be part of the class) and settled
based on an award of plaintiffs' counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $2.0 million, which was paid on
December 8, 2010. One of the appraisal claims was resolved in
September 2010 and the remaining claims were resolved in February
2011, on the basis of a per-share valuation equal to that offered
in the Bankrate Acquisition. All of these claims are now resolved.


BFC FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Schwarz" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Georgia has yet to decide on whether a class
will be certified in a lawsuit initiated by Paul A. Schwarz and
Barbara S. Schwarz against BFC Financial Corporation's subsidiary,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On September 18, 2008, in Cause No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, styled
Paul A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of
Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick
Division, the plaintiffs brought suit alleging fraud and
misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at
the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.
The plaintiff subsequently withdrew the fraud and
misrepresentation counts and filed a count alleging violation of
racketeering laws. On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
second complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of more than 100 persons alleged to have
been harmed by the alleged activities in a similar manner. No
decision has yet been made by the Court as to whether a class will
be certified. Bluegreen denies the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


BFC FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation's subsidiary is still awaiting a court
order on its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit
associated with overdraft fees, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In November 2010, two pending class action complaints against the
Company's subsidiary BankAtlantic associated with overdraft
fees were consolidated -- Jordan Arizmendi, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BankAtlantic,
Case No. 09-059341 (19), Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit for Broward County, Florida.  The Complaint, which asserts
claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing, alleges that BankAtlantic improperly re-
sequenced debit card transactions from largest to smallest,
improperly assessed overdraft fees on positive balances, and
improperly imposed sustained overdraft fees on customers.
BankAtlantic has filed a motion to dismiss which is pending with
the Court.


BFC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal From Order Setting Aside Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 0:07-cv-61542-UU, United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, have appealed an order setting aside
a jury verdict against BFC Financial Corporation's subsidiary,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On October 29, 2007, Joseph C. Hubbard filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the Company's subsidiary BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and
five of its current or former officers. The defendants in this
action are BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., James A. White, Valerie C.
Toalson, Jarett S. Levan, John E. Abdo, and Alan B. Levan. The
Complaint, which was later amended, alleges that during the
purported class period of November 9, 2005 through October 25,
2007, BankAtlantic Bancorp and the named officers knowingly and/or
recklessly made misrepresentations of material fact regarding
BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and
allowance for loan losses. The Complaint sought to assert claims
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 and unspecified damages. On December 12, 2007, the Court
consolidated into Hubbard a separately filed action captioned
Alarm Specialties, Inc. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., No. 0:07-
cv-61623-WPD. On February 5, 2008, the Court appointed State-
Boston Retirement System lead plaintiff and Lubaton Sucharow LLP
to serve as lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On November 18, 2010, a jury returned a verdict awarding $2.41 per
share to shareholders who purchased shares of BankAtlantic
Bancorp's Class A Common Stock during the period of April 26, 2007
to October 26, 2007 and retained those shares until the end of the
period. The jury rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the six month
period from October 19, 2006 to April 25, 2007. Prior to the
beginning of the trial, plaintiffs abandoned any claim for any
prior period. On April 25, 2011, the Court granted defendants'
post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and vacated the
jury verdict, resulting in a judgment in favor of all defendants
on all claims. On May 5, 2011, defendants filed a motion for
sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel seeking
reimbursement of their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
connection with this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs have appealed the
Court's order setting aside the jury verdict.


BIDZ.COM INC: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Bidz.com, Inc., continues to defend itself from an amended class
action complaint pending in California, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

In May and June 2009, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216
(CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009); James Mitchell v.
Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May
22, 2009); Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM)
(C.D. Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009)).  On July 30, 2009, the Court
consolidated the cases.  The consolidated complaint charges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company failed to
disclose unethical and fraudulent business practices, that it did
not have controls in place to prevent "shill bidding," that it
uses unreliable or false appraisal prices on its merchandise, and
that it failed to correctly account for and disclose in detail its
co-op marketing contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.
On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B.
Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to
amend.  On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended
complaint.  On July 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss the amended complaint and on September 8, 2010, the
Plaintiff filed another amended complaint.  On September 27, 2010,
the Company filed another Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint,
which was heard by the Court on November 1, 2010.  The Court took
the Company's Motion under submission in November 2010, and in
February 2011 the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss.  The Company
believes that the lawsuit is meritless and intends to defend the
cases vigorously.


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of
those who purchased securities of BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc.
between October 14, 2009, and May 11, 2011.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding the
Company's business, operations, management, future business
prospects, and the intrinsic value of BioMimetic's common stock;
the safety and efficacy of BioMimetic's product Augment Bone Graft
and its prospects for FDA approval; and the inadequacies of
Augment's clinical trials.  In May 2011, it was revealed that the
FDA had clinical concerns with the safety and overall risk/benefit
of Augment and with the question of safety in regards to the
potential for cancer formation.  Shares of BioMimetic fell 35% to
$8.66 per share on May 10 after the news of the FDA report became
public.

If you purchased BioMimetic securities during the Class Period you
may, no later than September 6, 2011, request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead
plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  Your share in any recovery
will not be enhanced or diminished by serving as a lead plaintiff,
however, lead plaintiffs make important decisions that could
affect the overall recovery for class members.  You do not need to
be a lead plaintiff to recover in a class action; you can recover
as an absent class member.  You may retain Milberg LLP, or other
attorneys, for this action, but do not need to retain counsel to
recover as an absent class member.  If this action is certified as
a class action, class members will be automatically represented by
court-appointed counsel.  The complaint in this action was not
filed by Milberg.

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com-- represents individual and
institutional investors and serves as lead counsel in federal and
state courts throughout the United States.


BLUEGREEN CORP: "Schwarz" Suit Remains Pending in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
On September 18, 2008, in Case No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, styled Paul
A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of
Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick
Division, the plaintiffs brought lawsuit alleging fraud and
misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at
the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.
The plaintiff subsequently withdrew the fraud and
misrepresentation counts and filed a count alleging violation of
racketeering laws.  On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
second complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of more than 100 persons alleged to have
been harmed by the alleged activities in a similar manner.  No
decision has yet been made by the Court as to whether a class will
be certified.  The Company denies the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 12, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


CHINA FIRE: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuits in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
China Fire & Security Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from
multiple class action lawsuits which stemmed from its proposed
merger with Amber Parent Limited's subsidiary and acquisition of
its stock by a private equity firm, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On May 20, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Amber Parent Limited, an exempted company incorporated
in the Cayman Islands and an affiliate of Bain Capital Asia Fund,
L.P. (the "Guarantor") and Bain Capital Fund X, L.P., and Amber
Mergerco, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Florida corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent, providing for the merger of Merger Sub
with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the Merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.  The consummation of the
Merger is subject to certain conditions including the approval of
the shareholders of China Fire & Security Group, Inc. at a special
meeting that will take place on September 22, 2011.

Prior to entering into the Merger Agreement on May 20, 2011, the
Company, on March 7, 2011, issued a press release announcing that
the Special Committee of its Board of Directors had received a
non-binding letter from a leading global private equity firm (the
"PE"), pursuant to which the PE proposed to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of the Company in cash at a
price which represents a premium over the current stock price (the
"Proposal").

On April 1, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Ira
Brown v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc., et al., was filed in
the Broward County Circuit Court of the State of Florida against
the Company and its individual directors.  The complaint purports
to allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual directors
relating to the disclosure of information concerning the Proposal.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief,
including to enjoin any transactions related to the Proposal and
any related going private transaction, and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

In total, the Company is aware of nine putative class action
complaints related to the Proposal and the Merger (each a
"Shareholder Action") filed in various Florida state and federal
courts against, among others, the Company and certain officers and
directors of the Company.  These Shareholder Actions are:

   (1) Brown v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc. et al., Case.
       No. 11-7745 09 (Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit
       in and for Broward County, Florida) (filed April 1, 2011);

   (2) Thomasson v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc. et al.,
       Case. No. 11-10923 07 (Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial
       Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida) (filed May 11,
       2011);

   (3) Kashef v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc., et al., Case
       No. 50-2011 CA 007884XXXXMB (Circuit Court for the 15th
       Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)
       (filed May 27, 2011);

   (4) Ernst v. China Fire & Security Group, Inc. et al., Case.
       No. 11-12317 07 (Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial
       Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida) (filed May 31,
       2011);

   (5) Roche v. Lin, et. al., Case No. 11-12471 07 (Circuit Court
       for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
       Florida) (filed June 1, 2011);

   (6) Tessitore v. Amber Mergerco Inc., et al., Case No. 11-12536
       (Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
       Broward County, Florida) (filed June 2, 2011);

   (7) Hersh v. Amber Mergerco Inc., et al., Case No. 11-13037
       (Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
       Broward County, Florida) (filed June 8, 2011);

   (8) Fuller v. China Fire & Security Group, et al., 11-cv-61400-
       WPD (S.D. Fla.) (filed June 22, 2011); and

   (9) Tessitore v. China Fire & Security Group, et al.  11-cv-
       61580 (S.D. Fla) (filed July 15, 2011).

The six Shareholder Actions that were filed in the Circuit Court
for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida,
and have been consolidated under the caption In re China Fire &
Security Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 11745 (07).
The two federal Shareholder Actions were consolidated by an order
of the federal court issued on August 2, 2011.  On August 3, 2011,
the served defendants filed a motion to stay the consolidated
federal actions pending resolution of the consolidated state
actions.  All complaints allege among other things, that the
Company and certain officers and directors of the Company breached
their fiduciary duties, and seek, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the merger.  The operative complaints also allege
aiding and abetting claims against the Sponsors, Parent and Merger
Sub.  The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit,
and will contest them vigorously.  However, based upon information
that is presently available to it, the Company's management does
not believe these class actions could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows.


CHINA SECURITY: Strikes Deal to Settle Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
China Security & Surveillance Technology Inc. entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle a consolidated class action
complaint filed against the Company in connection with its
proposed merger with Rightmark Holdings Limited's subsidiary,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 11, 2011, the Company, its directors and Rightmark
Merger Sub Limited were named as defendants in six purported class
action lawsuits brought in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in connection with the proposed merger under the Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of May 3, 2011,
by and among Rightmark Holdings Limited, a British Virgin Islands
company, Merger Sub, a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned,
direct subsidiary of Parent, the Company and Mr. Guoshen Tu
(solely for the purpose of Section 6.15 of the Merger Agreement),
pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.  The six lawsuits were consolidated into a
single captioned In re China Security & Surveillance Technology,
Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6279-CS.

On August 11, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Company entered into a
memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs and other named
defendants, including members of the Company's board of directors
and Merger Sub, setting forth an agreement in principle for the
settlement of the Delaware Chancery Court Action.  A separate
action filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware captioned Strum v. China Security & Surveillance
Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-00646 is not included
in the agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Chancery
Court Action.

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the Company,
the other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed, among
other things, to settle the Delaware Chancery Court Action and all
related claims subject to the drafting and execution of a
definitive settlement agreement by the parties, final court
approval of the settlement, and consummation of the merger.  If
the court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum
of understanding, the asserted claims will be released and the
Delaware Chancery Court Action will be dismissed with prejudice.
Although the Company believes that no further supplemental
disclosure was required under applicable laws, as a result of
pendency and prosecution of the Delaware Chancery Court Action,
the Company has made available additional information to its
stockholders in the revised preliminary proxy statements filed
with the SEC on July 8, 2011 and August 8, 2011.  Additionally, in
connection with the settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek, and the
defendants have agreed to pay, an award of attorneys fees and
expenses in an amount to be negotiated by the parties, or awarded
by the court if no agreement is reached.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it is
anticipated that the settlement will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith.  There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to stockholders of the Company in connection with the proposed
merger.


CITADEL BROADCASTING: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in class action lawsuits in Nevada and Delaware
challenging Citadel Broadcasting Corporation's merger agreement
with Cumulus Media, Inc., have voluntarily dismissed their claims,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Cumulus Media Inc., Cadet Holding Corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Cumulus, and Cadet Merger Corporation,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of HoldCo, which provides that, upon
completion of the merger of Cumulus Merger Sub into the Company,
each outstanding share of class A common stock and class B common
stock of the Company (other than shares owned by Cumulus Merger
Sub, held in treasury by the Company or pursuant to which a holder
has properly exercised and perfected appraisal rights under
Delaware law), will, at the election of the holder thereof and
subject to proration, be converted into the right to receive (i)
$37.00 in cash, or (ii) 8.525 shares of class A common stock, par
value $0.01 per share, of Cumulus. In addition, holders of Special
Warrants to purchase class B common stock of the Company will have
the right to elect to have their Special Warrants adjusted at the
effective time of the Cumulus Merger to become the right to
receive upon exercise the (i) Cash Consideration or (ii) Stock
Consideration, subject to proration.

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

On May 6, 2011, two purported common stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, its
board of directors, Cumulus, Holdco, and Cumulus Merger Sub in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On July 19, 2011, the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an amended complaint
alleging that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by approving the merger for
allegedly inadequate consideration, following an allegedly unfair
sale process, and by failing to disclose material information
related to the merger. The amended complaint further alleges that
the Company, Cumulus, HoldCo, and Cumulus Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged fiduciary breaches. The complaint seeks,
among other things, an order enjoining the merger, a declaration
that the action is properly maintainable as a class action, and
rescission of the merger agreement, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs. Also on July 19, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Delaware
action filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings. On July 20, 2011,
the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, seeking an order preliminarily enjoining
the merger. On August 1, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Delaware
action filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Court of Chancery
Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissing their claims against all the
defendants without prejudice. On August 3, 2011, the plaintiffs in
the Delaware action filed a revised notice and proposed Order of
Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissing their claims
against all defendants without prejudice. On August 5, 2011, the
Delaware Court of Chancery signed Plaintiffs' proposed Order of
Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dated August 3, 2011. The
claims of the putative class have not yet been dismissed.

Each of Cumulus and the Company is obliged under certain
circumstances to indemnify and hold harmless each of their
respective directors and officers from and against any and all
claims and liabilities to which such director or officer shall
have become subject by reason of being a director or officer, to
the full extent permitted under Delaware law. An adverse outcome
in these lawsuits could prevent or delay the consummation of the
merger and result in substantial costs to the Company and/or
Cumulus. It is also possible that other similar lawsuits may be
filed in the future. Neither Cumulus nor the Company can
reasonably estimate any possible loss from current or future
litigation.


COMMERCIAL BARGE: Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for Sept. 9
------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery is set to hold a hearing on
September 9, 2011, to consider approval of the proposed settlement
of a putative class action lawsuit against Commercial Barge Line
Company, according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On October 22, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against American Commercial Lines Inc., the direct parent of the
Company, ACL's directors, Platinum Equity LLC, Finn Holding
Corporation and Finn Merger Corporation in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.  The lawsuit is captioned Leonard Becker
v. American Commercial Lines Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 5919-
VCL. Plaintiff amended his complaint on November 5, 2010, prior to
a formal response from any defendant.  On November 9, 2010, a
second putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the
Company, its directors, Platinum, Finn and Merger Sub in the
Superior/Circuit Court for Clark County in the State of Indiana.
The lawsuit is captioned Michael Eakman v. American Commercial
Lines Inc., et al., Case No. 1002-1011-CT-1344.  In both actions,
plaintiffs allege generally that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction by, among
other things, carrying out a process that they allege did not
ensure adequate and fair consideration to the Company's
stockholders.  They also allege that various disclosures
concerning the Transaction included in the Definitive Proxy
Statement are inadequate.  They further allege that Platinum aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of duties. Plaintiffs purport to
bring the lawsuits on behalf of the public stockholders of the
Company and seek equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the
merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief.  The Company
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and
Settlement, dated as of June 18, 2011, which sets forth the terms
and conditions of a proposed settlement of the Delaware and
Indiana actions, including the dismissal with prejudice and on the
merits of all claims against all of the defendants in both the
Delaware and Indiana actions in consideration for the
supplementation of the Definitive Proxy Statement.  The
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, dated as
of June 18, 2011, also provides that the defendants will not
oppose Plaintiffs' counsel's application to the Delaware Court of
Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses provided
that the application does not exceed $400,000. The proposed
settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, approval by
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  A hearing on the proposed
settlement has been scheduled by the Delaware Court of Chancery
for September 9, 2011.  There can be no assurance that the
Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the proposed settlement as
stipulated by the parties.


COMMERCIAL BARGE: Awaits Dismissal of Louisiana Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Barge Line Company is awaiting a final court order
dismissing all putative class action lawsuits filed against its
parent and its subsidiary in Louisiana, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

American Commercial Lines Inc., the parent of CBL, and American
Commercial Lines LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBL, have been
named as defendants in these putative class action lawsuits, filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana: Austin Sicard et al on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin
Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American
Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship
Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4012, filed on July 24, 2008;
Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
(America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing
Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-
Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007, filed
on July 24, 2008; and Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.;
Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC; American
Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship
Pilots Association, Case No. 09-cv-04494 B, filed on July 24,
2009.

The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al. action has been dismissed
with prejudice because it was not filed prior to the deadline set
by the Court.  The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from
the incident on July 23, 2008, involving one of ACLLLC's tank
barges that was being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C., an
independent towing contractor.  The tank barge was involved in a
collision with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin
Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New
Orleans area. The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900
barrels of #6 oil, of which approximately two-thirds was released.
The tank barge was damaged in the collision and partially sunk.
There was no damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor
damage.  The Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of
adverse health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.  The Class Action
Lawsuits were stayed pending the outcome of the two actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana seeking exoneration from, or limitation of, liability
related to the incident.  All claims in the class actions have
been settled with payment to be made from funds on deposit with
the court in the IINA and IINA and Houston Casualty Company
interpleader.  IINA is DRD's primary insurer and IINA and Houston
Casualty Company are DRD's excess insurers.  The settlement has
final approval from the court.  Settlement funds were provided to
claimants' counsel and the Company expects final dismissal of all
lawsuits against all parties will be entered, including the
Company, with prejudice.

Claims under the Oil Pollution Act were dismissed without
prejudice.  There is a separate administrative process for making
a claim under OPA 90 that must be followed prior to litigation.
The Company is processing OPA 90 claims properly presented,
documented and recoverable.  The Company has also received
numerous claims for personal injury, property damage and various
economic damages loss related to the oil spill, including
notification by the National Pollution Funds Center of claims it
has received.  Additional lawsuits may be filed and claims
submitted.  The claims by two of the three DRD crewmen on the
vessel at the time of the incident have been settled with funds
paid from the funds on deposit in the interpleader action and a
final dismissal with prejudice has been entered.  The third crew
member was the operator of the vessel at the time of the incident
and is also a defendant.  His claim remains unsettled.  The
Company is in early discussions with the Natural Resource Damage
Assessment Group, consisting of various State and Federal
agencies, regarding the scope of environmental damage that may
have been caused by the incident.  Recently Buras Marina filed
suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana in Case No. 09-4464
against the Company seeking payment for "rental cost" of its
marina for cleanup operations.

ACL and ACLLLC have also been named as defendants in this
interpleader action brought by DRD's primary insurer IINA seeking
court approval as to the disbursement of the funds: Indemnity
Insurance Company of North America v. DRD Towing Company, LLC; DRD
Towing Group, LLC; American Commercial Lines, LLC; American
Commercial Lines, Inc.; Waits Emmet & Popp, LLC, Daigle, Fisse &
Kessenich; Stephen Marshall Gabarick; Bernard Attridge; Austin
Sicard; Lamont L. Murphy, individually and on behalf of Murphy
Dredging; Deep Delta Distributors, Inc.; David Cvitanovich; Kelly
Clark; Timothy Clark, individually and on behalf of Taylor Clark,
Bradley Barrosse; Tricia Barrosse; Lynn M. Alfonso, Sr.; George C.
McGee; Sherral Irvin; Jefferson Magee; and Acy J. Cooper, Jr.,
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil
Action 08-4156, Section "I-5," filed on August 11, 2008.  DRD's
excess insurers, IINA and Houston Casualty Company intervened into
this action and deposited $9,000 into the Court's registry.
ACLLLC has filed two actions in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking exoneration from or
limitation of liability relating to the foregoing incident as
provided for in Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain
Admiralty and Maritime Claims and in 46 U.S.C. sections 30501,
30505 and 30511.  The Company has also filed a declaratory
judgment action against DRD seeking to have the contracts between
them declared "void ab initio".  This action has been consolidated
with the limitation actions and stayed pending the outcome of the
limitation actions.  Trial began August 8, 2011 and is anticipated
to continue for several weeks.   The Company participated in the
U.S. Coast Guard investigation of the matter and participated in
the hearings which have concluded.  A finding has not yet been
announced.  The Company has also made demand on DRD (including its
insurers) and Laurin Maritime for reimbursement of cleanup costs,
indemnification and other damages sustained by the Company.
However, there is no assurance that any other party that may be
found responsible for the accident will have the insurance or
financial resources available to provide such defense and
indemnification.  The Company has various insurance policies
covering pollution, property, marine and general liability.  While
the cost of cleanup operations and other potential liabilities are
significant, the Company believes it has satisfactory insurance
coverage and other legal remedies to cover substantially all of
the cost.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend "Greenwood" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation's subsidiary, CompuCredit
Corporation, is named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit
entitled Wanda Greenwood, et al. vs. CompuCredit Corporation and
Columbus Bank and Trust, No. 4:08-cv-4878, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
plaintiffs allege that in marketing and managing the Aspire Visa
card the defendants violated the federal Credit Repair
Organizations Act and California Unfair Competition Law.  The
class includes all persons who within the four years prior to the
filing of the lawsuit were issued an Aspire Visa card or paid
money with respect thereto.  The plaintiffs seek various forms of
damage, including unspecified monetary damages and the voiding of
the plaintiffs' obligations.  The Company says it is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.

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


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Units Continue to Defend "Knox" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation's subsidiary, CompuCredit
Corporation, and five of its other subsidiaries are defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit entitled Knox, et al., vs.
First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445, filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, on
February 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a
so-called "payday lending" business, certain of the Company's
Retail Micro-Loans segment subsidiaries violated various laws
governing consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade
practices and loan brokering.  The plaintiffs further allege that
CompuCredit Corporation is the alter ego of the Company's
subsidiaries and is liable for their actions.  The plaintiffs are
seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class member, and attorney's
fees.

The Company says it is vigorously defending this lawsuit.  These
claims are similar to those that have been asserted against
several other market participants in transactions involving small
balance, short-term loans made to consumers in North Carolina.

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


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Defends Four Federal Class Suits in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation is defending four putative federal
class action lawsuits in Virginia, according to the Company's
August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2011.

On June 3, 2011, a putative federal class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System,
entitled City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (Civil Docket for Case #:
1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD).  A similar putative federal class action
complaint, entitled Murphy v. Computer Sciences, et al. (Civil
Docket for Case #: 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD) was filed on June 13,
2011, in the same court.  Two additional similar putative federal
class action complaints, entitled Hilary Kramer v. Computer
Sciences Corporation, et al. (Civil Docket for Case #: 1:11-cv-
00636-TSE-IDD) and Norton Goldman v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al. (Civil Docket for Case #:1:11-cv-777TSE-IDD)
were filed in the same court on July 15, 2011, and July 21, 2011,
respectively.  The complaints name as defendants Computer Sciences
Corporation, Michael W. Laphen and Michael J. Mancuso, and the
Kramer and Norton complaints also name Donald G. DeBuck as an
additional defendant.  Each complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the business and
operations of the Company.

The defendants deny the allegations made in the complaints and
intend to defend their position vigorously.  The Company says it
is not possible to make reliable estimates of the amounts or range
of losses that could result from these matters at this time.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Morefield" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2009, a class action lawsuit entitled Shirley Morefield
vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case # A-09-591338-C,
was brought in state court in Clark County, Nevada, against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors
asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to
stock option backdating.  The alleged factual basis for the claims
is the same as that which was alleged in a prior derivative case,
In re CSC Shareholder Derivative Litigation, CV 06-5288, filed in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, which was dismissed on August
9, 2007, by such court.  This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by
the Ninth Circuit, which judgment is final.  The defendants in the
Morefield case deny the allegations in the complaint.  On June 30,
2009, the Company removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 2:09-cv-1176-KJD-GWF.
On motion made by the plaintiffs, the District Court remanded the
case to state court on February 18, 2010.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their
opposition on June 14, 2010.  A hearing took place on August 18,
2010.  A decision is pending.  The Company says it is not possible
to make reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss, if
any, that could result from this matter at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 1, 2011.


CONVERTED ORGANICS: Still Defends "Leeseberg" Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Converted Organics Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit pending in Delaware, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On December 11, 2008, the Company received notice that a complaint
had been filed in a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of 59
persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing
terms agreement, or FTA, dated April 11, 2006, captioned Gerald S.
Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The lawsuit alleges
breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith in connection with the alleged
failure to register certain securities issued in the FTA, and the
redemption of the Company's Class A warrants in November 2008.
The lawsuit seeks damages related to the failure to register
certain securities, including alleged late fee payments, of
approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified damages related to
the redemption of the Class A warrants.  In February 2009, the
Company filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint.  On
October 7, 2009, the Court concluded that Leeseberg has properly
stated a claim for actual damages resulting from the Company's
alleged breach of contract, but that Leeseberg has failed to state
claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith, and the Court dismissed such claims.  On
November 6, 2009, the Company filed its answer to the Complaint
with the Court.  On March 4, 2010, the parties participated in a
conference, and began discussing discovery issues.  Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Class Certification on June 22, 2010, which was
denied on November 22, 2010.  On March 3, 2011, the court denied
the Company's motion for partial summary judgment.  On March 25,
2011, some individual investors filed a new complaint against the
Company asserting similar claims to those in the Leeseberg
litigation.  The Court consolidated this case with the existing
lawsuit and, on May 12, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint.  On June 6, 2011, the Company filed its answer to
consolidated complaint and counter claims against Plaintiffs.

The Company says it plans to vigorously defend these matters and
is unable to estimate any losses that may be incurred as a result
of this litigation and new complaint and upon their eventual
disposition.  Accordingly, no loss has been recorded related to
these matters.

Related to the consolidated lawsuit, in December 2009, the Company
filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Massachusetts for the
County of Suffolk, captioned Converted Organics Inc. v. Holland &
Knight LLP.  The Company claims that in the event it is required
to pay any monies to Mr. Leeseberg and his proposed class in the
matter of Gerald S. Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc.,
that Holland & Knight should make the Company whole, because its
handling of the registration of the securities at issue in the
Leeseberg lawsuit caused any loss that Mr. Leeseberg and other
putative class members claim to have suffered.  Holland & Knight
has not yet responded to the complaint.  Holland and Knight has
threatened to bring counterclaims against Converted Organics for
legal fees allegedly owed, which the Company would contest
vigorously.  On May 12, 2010, the Superior Court stayed the
proceedings, pending resolution of the Leeseberg litigation.  At
this early stage in the case, the Company is unable to predict the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or estimate any loss/gain.


CPI INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Final Court Approval of Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI International LLC is awaiting final court approval of its
agreement to settle a class action complaint in California,
according to CPI International Holding Corp.'s August 19, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2011.

On February 11, 2011, CPI International LLC (formerly, CPI
International, Inc., "Predecessor"), then a Delaware corporation
and publicly traded company, completed its merger with Catalyst
Acquisition, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of CPI International, Inc. (formerly, CPI
International Acquisition, Inc.), a Delaware corporation, whereby
Merger Sub merged with and into Predecessor (the "Merger"), with
Predecessor continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of CPII.  The Merger was effected pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 24, 2010, among
Predecessor, CPII and Merger Sub.  Immediately following the
consummation of the Merger and related transactions, Predecessor
was converted into a limited liability company and liquidated, and
CPI International Acquisition, Inc. changed its name to CPI
International, Inc.

On July 1, 2010, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed against Predecessor, the members of Predecessor's board of
directors, and Comtech Telecommunications Corp. in the California
Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, entitled Continuum
Capital v. Michael Targoff, et al. (Case No. 110CV175940).  The
lawsuit concerned the proposed merger between Predecessor and
Comtech, and generally asserted claims alleging, among other
things, that each member of Predecessor's board of directors
breached his fiduciary duties by agreeing to the terms of the
previously proposed merger and by failing to provide stockholders
with allegedly material information related to the proposed
merger, and that Comtech aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of Predecessor's
board of directors.  The lawsuit sought, among other things, class
action certification and monetary relief.

On July 28, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making
generally the same claims against the same defendants, and seeking
the same relief.  In addition, the amended complaint generally
alleged that the consideration that would have been paid to
Predecessor's stockholders under the terms of the proposed merger
was inadequate.  On September 7, 2010, Predecessor terminated the
Comtech sale agreement.  On November 24, 2010, Predecessor entered
in an agreement and plan of merger with CPII and Merger Sub, which
are affiliates of the Veritas Fund.  On December 15, 2010, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which removed Comtech
as a defendant, added allegations related to the Merger and to
Veritas Capital, and added a claim for attorneys' fees.  On
December 23, 2010, after Predecessor filed its preliminary proxy
statement relating to a special meeting in connection with the
approval of the Merger, the plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint, adding allegations related to the disclosures in the
preliminary proxy statement.  The third amended complaint sought,
among other things, class action certification and monetary
relief.

Predecessor believes the action is without merit; however, to
avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation and to complete the
proposed Merger without delay, the defendants entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding concerning settlement with the
plaintiff, followed by a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of
March 29, 2011.  The settlement and any attorneys' fees award are
subject to Court approval, and a preliminary approval hearing has
been scheduled for August 26, 2011.

Pursuant to the Stipulation and upon Court approval, among other
things, the defendants will receive a release of claims and the
plaintiff will dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice
in exchange for, among other agreements, an agreement by
Predecessor to make certain additional disclosures concerning the
Merger, which disclosures were included in a definitive proxy
statement filed by Predecessor on January 11, 2011.  The
Stipulation also provides that, upon Court approval and dismissal
of the action, Predecessor, its insurers or its successor in
interest will cause to be paid to the plaintiff's counsel
approximately $0.6 million in full settlement of any claim for
attorneys' fees and all expenses.  The Company expects $0.4
million of this payment to be borne by its insurers.


DISH DBS: Appeal in Channel Bundling Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
During 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers
filed an antitrust action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
lawsuit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision,
Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal,
Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group and Walt Disney Company.  The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged
in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled
channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to
purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.  On October 16, 2009,
the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed.  The Company says it
intends to vigorously defend this case.  The Company cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the lawsuit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 12, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


DISH DBS: Paid $60 Million in April to Settle Retailer Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation made a $60 million payment on April 28, 2011,
pursuant to a settlement that resolved retailer class action
lawsuits, 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.

During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state
and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the Company's retailers.  The plaintiffs
requested that the Courts declare certain provisions of, and
changes to, alleged agreements between the Company and the
retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost
incentives and payments, charge backs and other compensation.  On
September 20, 2010, the Company agreed to a settlement of both
lawsuits that provides, among other things, for mutual releases of
the claims underlying the litigation, payment by the Company of up
to $60 million, and the option for certain class members to elect
to reinstate certain monthly incentive payments, which the parties
agreed have an aggregate maximum value of $23 million.  The
Company says it cannot predict with any degree of certainty how
many class members will elect to reinstate these monthly incentive
payments.  As a result, a $60 million "Litigation accrual" was
recorded as of December 31, 2010, on the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.  On February 9, 2011, the court
granted final approval of the settlement, and the Company made a
$60 million settlement payment on April 28, 2011.


DJO FINANCE: Still Defends Pain Pump Class Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC is currently named as one of several defendants in
a number of product liability lawsuits involving approximately 80
plaintiffs, including a lawsuit in Canada seeking class action
status, related to a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain
pump) manufactured by two third party manufacturers that the
Company distributed through its Bracing and Vascular Segment.  The
Company sold pumps manufactured by one manufacturer from 1999 to
2003 and then sold pumps manufactured by a second manufacturer
from 2003 to 2009.  The Company discontinued its sale of these
products in the second quarter of 2009.  These cases have been
brought against the manufacturers and certain distributors of
these pumps, and in some cases, the manufacturers of the
anesthetics used in these pumps.  All of these lawsuits allege
that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged
periods after certain shoulder surgeries has resulted in cartilage
damage to the plaintiffs.  The lawsuits allege damages ranging
from unspecified amounts to claims of up to $10 million.  Many of
the lawsuits which have been filed in the past three years have
named multiple pain pump manufacturers and distributors without
having established which manufacturer manufactured or sold the
pump in issue.  In the past three years, the Company has been
dismissed from a large number of cases when product identification
was later established showing that the Company did not sell the
pump at issue.  At present, the Company is named in approximately
20 lawsuits in which product identification has yet to be
determined and, as a result, the Company believes that it will be
dismissed from a meaningful number of such cases in the future.
In addition, the Company is named in approximately six cases in
which it appears the Company did not distribute the pump in issue
and expect to be dismissed in the future.  To date, the Company is
aware of only two pain pump trials which have gone to verdict, one
in early 2010 which involved a manufacturer whose pump the Company
did not sell and one in September 2010 involving pain pumps that
DJO sold to two plaintiffs.  In the earlier trial, the plaintiff
obtained a verdict of approximately $5.5 million against the
manufacturer.  In the second trial involving DJO, the jury
rendered a verdict in favor of DJO and its manufacturer on all
counts as to two plaintiffs and a verdict on all counts for the
manufacturer as to a third plaintiff who had sued only the
manufacturer.  In the past nine months, the Company has entered
into settlements with plaintiffs in approximately 35 pain pump
lawsuits.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 16, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.


DOLLAR TREE: Trial Court Decertifies Class of Store Managers
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court in California ordered in July 2011 the
decertification of the entire remaining class of Dollar Tree
Inc.'s store managers, according to the Company's August 18, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2011.

In 2007, two store managers filed a class action against the
Company in California federal court, claiming they and other
California store managers should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under California and federal law.  Following a
partial decertification order last September, the trial court in
July of this year entered an Order decertifying the entire
remaining class and scheduled a conference in September to
determine how the individual cases of the three named plaintiffs
shall proceed.


DOLLAR TREE: 4th Cir. Sets Oral Argument on Appeal for September
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has set an oral
argument in September to hear the appeal from the dismissal of a
class action complaint against Dollar Tree Inc., according to the
Company's August 18, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 30, 2011.

In October 2009, 34 plaintiffs, most of whom were opt-in
plaintiffs in the Alabama action, filed a class action Complaint
in a federal court in Virginia, alleging gender pay and promotion
discrimination under Title VII.  On March 11, 2010, the case was
dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The appeal has been
fully briefed by the parties and oral argument is scheduled in
September.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed by a former assistant store manager in California,
according to the Company's August 18, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 30, 2011.

In April of this year, a former assistant store manager, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, instituted a class action
in a California state court primarily alleging a failure by the
Company to provide meal breaks, to compensate for all hours
worked, and to pay overtime compensation.  The Company removed the
case to federal court and the plaintiffs have contested the
removal and seek remand to state court.  The case presently awaits
a ruling by the federal court of whether it will retain
jurisdiction of the matter.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Continues to Defend CDRT Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corporation continues to defend itself
against shareholder class action lawsuits commenced in various
courts in connection with its merger with a subsidiary of CDRT
Acquisition Corporation, according to the Company's August 15,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On February 13, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with CDRT Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Parent"), and CDRT Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Sub").  On
May 25, 2011, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Sub merged with
and into the Company, with the Company as the surviving entity and
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

Eleven purported shareholder class actions relating to the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement have been filed
in state court in Delaware and federal and state courts in
Colorado against various combinations of the Company, the members
of the Company's board of directors, and other parties.  Seven
actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery beginning on
February 22, 2011, which were consolidated into one action
entitled In re Emergency Medical Services Corporation Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6248-VCS.  On April 4, 2011, the
Delaware plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action
complaint.  Two actions, entitled Scott A. Halliday v. Emergency
Medical Services Corporation, et al., Case No. 2011CV316 (filed on
February 15, 2011), and Alma C. Howell v. William Sanger, et. al.,
Case No. 2011CV488 (filed on March 1, 2011), were filed in the
District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado.  Two other actions,
entitled Michael Wooten v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation,
et al., Case No. 11-CV-00412 (filed on February 17, 2011), and
Neal Greenberg v. Emergency Medical Services Corporation, et. al.,
Case No. 11-CV-00496 (filed on February 28, 2011), were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and have been
consolidated.  These actions generally allege that the directors
of the Company, Onex Corporation and/or Onex Corporation's
subsidiaries breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things: approving the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, which allegedly were financially unfair to the Company
and its public stockholders; agreeing to provisions in the Merger
Agreement that would allegedly prevent the board from considering
other offers; permitting the unitholders agreement (which secured
the majority votes in favor of the Merger) and failing to require
a provision in the Merger Agreement requiring that a majority of
the public stockholders approve the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement; and/or making allegedly materially
inadequate disclosures.  These actions further allege that certain
other defendants aided and abetted these breaches.  In addition,
the two actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado contain individual claims brought under Section 14(a)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, pertaining to the purported dissemination of allegedly
misleading proxy materials.  These actions seek unspecified
damages and equitable relief.

The Company believes that all of the allegations in these actions
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend these matters.

In addition to the shareholder class actions, Merion Capital,
L.P., a former stockholder of the Company, has filed an action in
the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to exercise its right to
appraisal of its holdings in the Company prior to the Merger.
Merion Capital was the holder of 599,000 shares of class A common
stock in the Company prior to the Merger.  The Company has not
paid any merger consideration for these shares and has recorded a
reserve in the amount of $38.3 million for such unpaid merger
consideration pending conclusion of the appraisal action.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corporation continues to defend class
action lawsuits in California alleging violations of wage and hour
laws, according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against the Company's subsidiary American Medical Response,
Inc. ("AMR"), and certain subsidiaries in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws.  On April 16, 2008,
Lori Bartoni commenced a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn
Banta filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura
Karapetian filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, and on March 11, 2010, Melanie
Aguilar filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.  The Banta and Karapetian cases
have been coordinated with the Bartoni case in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Alameda.

At the present time, courts have not certified classes in any of
these cases.  Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities
failed to pay overtime charges pursuant to California law, and
failed to provide required meal breaks or pay premium compensation
for missed meal breaks.  Plaintiffs are seeking to certify the
classes and are seeking lost wages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and other sanctions permitted under California law for
violations of wage hour laws.  The Company is unable at this time
to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any.


ENER1 INC: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit against Ener1,
Inc. and certain of its officers.  The securities class action in
the United States Southern District Court of New York is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Ener1 securities between January 10, 2011 and August 15, 2011,
inclusive.

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

On this news, shares of Ener1 declined 42.31% on August 16, 2011.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Ener1 stock between January 10, 2011 and August
15, 2011, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone at
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Ener1 shares during the Class Period and wish to
apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than October 17,
2011.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in
the class action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of
your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and
Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex
class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.
Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud
class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.

Contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Greg Stone, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 394-3399
         E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                 gstone@saxenawhite.com
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


FIRST CALIFORNIA: Still Defends Suit Over Account Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
In February 2011, First California Financial Group, Inc.'s
subsidiary, First California Bank, was named as a defendant in a
putative class action alleging that the manner in which the Bank
posted charges to its consumer demand deposit accounts breached an
implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing and violates the
California Unfair Competition Law.  The action also alleges that
the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its consumer demand
deposit accounts is unconscionable, constitutes conversion and
unjustly enriches the Bank.  The action is pending in the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County.  The action seeks to establish a
class consisting of all similarly situated customers of the Bank
in the State of California.  The case is in early stages, with no
responsive pleadings or motions having been filed.  No class has
been certified in the case.  At this state of the case, the
Company says it has not established an accrual for probable losses
as the probability of a material adverse result cannot be
determined and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposures, if any.  The Company intends to defend the
action vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 15, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


FIRST DATA: Still Awaits Outcome of Appeal in ATM Fee Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation is still awaiting the outcome of an appeal
from the summary judgment entered in defendants' favor in the ATM
FEE Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's August 12,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.  Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders. Plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to
the court.  Five similar lawsuits were filed and served in July,
August and October 2004 (referred to collectively as the "ATM Fee
Antitrust Litigation").  The Court granted judgment in favor of
the defendants, dismissing the case on September 17, 2010.  On
October 14, 2010, the plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment.
The Company continues to believe the complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend them.


GULF RESOURCES: Awaits Amended Complaint in "Snellink" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Resources, Inc., is awaiting the lead plaintiffs' filing of
an amended complaint, if any, in the putative securities class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
August 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  That action,
captioned Snellink v. Gulf Resources, Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-3722
ODW (MRWx), was filed on April 29, 2011, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
complaint alleges the defendants made false or misleading
statements in the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the
years ended December 31, 2008, 2009, and 2010 by failing to
disclose material related party transactions and certain facts
about the CEO's prior employment at another company, and by
overstating revenue and net income.  The complaint seeks damages
in an unspecified amount.

On July 26, 2011, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel and requiring lead plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint, if any, within 45 days.  The defendants are
not required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until
after the lead plaintiffs either decide to proceed on the basis of
the original complaint or file an amended complaint.  The Company
says it intends to defend vigorously against the lawsuit.  The
Company currently cannot estimate the amount or range of possible
losses of this litigation.


ICAGEN INC: Faces 10 Stockholder Class Suits Over Pfizer Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Icagen, Inc., is facing 10 putative stockholder class action
lawsuits in Delaware over its proposed merger with Pfizer 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.

Subsequent to the quarter end, on July 20, 2011, the Company
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Pfizer Inc. and
Eclipse Acquisition Corp, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

Ten putative stockholder class action complaints have been filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery by stockholders of the Company:
Michael Rauscher v. Icagen, Inc., et. al. (filed July 22, 2011),
Denise R. Cooper v. P. Kay Wagoner, et. al. (filed July 22, 2011),
Michael Peters v. Icagen, Inc., et. al. (filed July 22, 2011),
Kenneth S. Cucchia v. Icagen, Inc., et. al. (filed July 22, 2011),
Michael Dabah v. Icagen, Inc., et. al. (filed July 25, 2011),
Dimitri Arges v. Charles A. Sanders, et. al. (filed July 25,
2011), Iroquois Master Fund Ltd. v. Charles A. Sanders, et. al.
(filed July 26, 2011), Leland Boyette v. Icagen Inc., et. al.
(filed July 27, 2011), Thomas Hollinshead and David Pill v. Icagen
Inc., et. al. (filed July 27, 2011) and Gary Pawlovich v. Charles
A. Sanders, et. al. (filed August 2, 2011), which the Company
refers to as the "Stockholder Actions."  The Stockholder Actions
each name Pfizer, Icagen, and the current members of the board of
directors of Icagen as defendants.  All of the Stockholder Actions
with the exception of Iroquois also name Eclipse Acquisition Corp.
as a defendant.  Further, Raucher, Arges, Iroquois Master Fund,
Boyette and Pawlovich also name Dennis B. Gillings, a former
director of Icagen, as a defendant.

On August 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed two Amended Complaints, as
a Motion For Expedited Proceedings and a Motion For Preliminary
Injunction.  In their filings, the plaintiffs assert that the
members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by entering into the merger via a flawed
process and at an unfair price that does not reflect the value of
the Company.  The plaintiffs also allege that the merger agreement
contains preclusive deal protection devices including a no
solicitation provision, termination fee, top-up option, and
matching rights.  Finally, the plaintiffs assert that the Schedule
14D-9 issued by the Company concerning the merger is materially
incomplete and misleading.

Each Stockholder Action seeks, among other relief, an injunction
preventing completion of the merger, as well costs and attorneys'
fees in connection with such litigation.  The Company believes the
Stockholder Actions are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them.  There can be no assurance, however, that the
Company will be successful in its defense.


INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE: Mediation Set for August in Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation in the consolidated lawsuit against International
Textile Group, Inc., has been scheduled for August 2011, according
to the Company's August 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

Three substantially identical lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, County of Greenville, State of South Carolina,
related to the merger of the Company and a company formerly known
as International Textile Group, Inc. ("Former ITG") in late 2006
(the "Merger").  The first lawsuit was filed in 2008 and the
second and third lawsuits were filed in 2009, all by the same
attorney.  These three lawsuits were consolidated in 2010.  The
actions name as defendants, among others, certain individuals who
were officers and directors of Former ITG or the Company at the
time of the Merger.  The plaintiffs have raised purported
derivative and direct (class action) claims and contend that
certain of the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger.  The plaintiffs have also made certain
related claims against certain of the defendants' former advisors.
While the Company is a nominal defendant for purposes of the
derivative action claims, the Company is not aware of any claims
for affirmative relief being made against it.  However, the
Company has certain obligations to provide indemnification to its
officers and directors (and certain former officers and directors)
against certain claims and believes the lawsuits are being
defended vigorously.  Certain fees and costs related to this
litigation are to be paid or reimbursed in part under the
Company's insurance programs.  A mediation of this matter has been
scheduled for August 2011.  Because of the uncertainties
associated with the litigation, management cannot estimate the
impact of the ultimate resolution of the litigation.  It is the
opinion of the Company's management that any failure by the
Company's insurance providers to provide any required insurance
coverage could have a material adverse impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements.


IPAYMENT INC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York denied iPayment, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action lawsuit filed by L. Green, doing business as Tisa's Cakes,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.,
Online Data Corporation, and iPayment, Inc., United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 09CV05679-
RJD-SMG. This matter was last updated in the Company's Quarterly
Report for the quarter ended March 30, 2011, filed on Form 10-Q
with the SEC on May 12, 2011. As the Company previously reported,
this matter relates to a purported class action lawsuit initially
filed in December 2009 by plaintiff L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
naming the Company, and one of its subsidiaries, Online Data
Corporation, and Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. as defendants. As
the Company previously reported, in October 2010 the Company filed
a motion to dismiss count one (unjust enrichment) of plaintiff's
First Amended Class Action Complaint, plaintiff filed an
opposition to the Company's motion and the Court set June 29,
2011 as the hearing date for its motion to dismiss. On June 29,
2011, the hearing on its motion to dismiss was conducted, and on
August 3, 2011, the Court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. The Company's
answer to the FAC must be filed August 19, 2011.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself against the claims asserted; however, at this time, the
ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and the Company's potential
liability associated with the claims asserted against it cannot be
predicted with any certainty and there can be no assurance that
the Company will be successful in its defense or that a failure to
prevail will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition or results of operations.


IPAYMENT INC: Court Sets Sept. 26 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has
set September 26, 2011, to hear iPayment, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a complaint filed by Vericomm, Inc., according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Vericomm v. iPayment, Inc., et al., United States District Court,
Central District of California, Case No. 2:2011-cv-00608-MMM-AGR.
Vericomm, Inc., one of the Company's independent sales groups,
filed a purported class action complaint against the Company on
January 20, 2011 in the District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division. On June 20, 2011 the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second, third, seventh, and eighth causes of
action alleged in Vericomm's Complaint, and to strike Vericomm's
request for attorneys' fees under California Code of Civil
Procedure section 1021.5. The Court set September 26, 2011, as the
date for the hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss and to
strike, which is also the date set by the Court for a scheduling
conference.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself
against the claims asserted; however, at this time, the ultimate
outcome of the lawsuit and the Company's potential liability
associated with the claims asserted against it cannot be predicted
with any certainty, and there can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful in its defense or that a failure to prevail
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition or results of operations.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dismissal Hearing on Calif. Suit This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed
by representatives of nursing home residents in California will be
heard this month, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

In April 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California by representatives of nursing home residents or their
estates against the Company, Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare), and other
unidentified companies or individuals. In February 2011,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting that certain
rebate agreements between the Company and Omnicare increased the
amount of money spent on pharmaceuticals by the nursing home
residents and violated the Sherman Act and the California Business
& Professions Code. The second amended complaint also asserts a
claim of unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek multiple forms of
monetary and injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint in March 2011. A hearing is set on the
motion to dismiss for August 2011.


L&L ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the common
stock of L&L Energy, Inc. during the period from August 13, 2009,
through August 2, 2011, seeking to recover damages for violations
of federal securities laws.

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

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

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against L&L Energy and certain of its officers and directors for
issuing materially false and misleading information about the
Company's internal controls and true business and financial
condition.  On July 29, 2011 the Company amended its fiscal year
2010 10-K to disclose further internal control deficiencies within
the Company.  On or about August 2, 2011, analyst firm Glaucus
Research issued a report showing that L&L Energy's 2009 financial
statements filed with Chinese authorities showed much worse
financial metrics than L&L Energy had represented in its SEC
filings.  The report also raised a number of red flags, including
that certain operating subsidiaries were not in the name of the
Company.  The Complaint alleges that when this adverse information
entered the market, the price of L&L Energy stock fell, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 25, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

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

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


LIVINGSOCIAL: Suits Over Illegal Expiration Dates Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
ConsumerAffairs.com reports that LivingSocial, always No. 2 to
Groupon's No. 1, is keeping up with its big competitor in ways it
might not want, falling prey to no fewer than five consumer class
action suits.

The suits, which were recently consolidated in federal district
court in Washington, D.C., where LivingSocial is based, accuse the
daily deals site of including illegal expiration dates on its gift
certificates -- or coupons, as the daily deals sites prefer to
call them.

The lawsuits were filed earlier this year in California,
Washington state, Florida and the District of Columbia.  They will
now move forward as a single action in D.C. federal court before
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle.

Plaintiffs say LivingSocial violated consumer protection laws that
ban expiration dates of less than five years on gift certificates.
The suit charges that LivingSocial knew that many of consumers
would not use the certificates before the expiration date and
would therefore lose their money.

"LivingSocial just doesn't do enough to make sure that consumers
are aware of what their rights are, and they're not doing enough
to communicate with their merchants," said attorney Christopher
Carney, who filed the Washington state suit in February.

LivingSocial, like Groupon, is expected to argue that its gift
certificates are more like coupons.  Coupons can expire too but
since they are free, there's no loss to the consumer.

LivingSocial also claims its promotional deals clearly indicate
that they must be used within a limited time and are not
deceptive.


MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Shareholder Suits in New Jersey Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, entered a
final judgment in June 2011 approving MedQuist Holdings Inc.'s
settlement to resolve two shareholder class action lawsuits, and
dismissing the cases with prejudice, according to the Company's
August 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On February 8, 2011, and February 10, 2011, two of MedQuist Inc.'s
minority shareholders filed class action complaints in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, Chancery
Division, (the "Court") against MedQuist Inc., the individual
members on MedQuist Inc.'s board of directors and the Company, in
a matter entitled in Re: MedQuist Shareholder Litigation (the
"Shareholder Litigation").  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties they owed to minority
shareholders of MedQuist Inc. in connection with the structuring
and disclosure of the Company's public exchange offer under which
the Company acquired additional shares of MedQuist Inc.'s common
stock resulting in the Company owning approximately 97% of
MedQuist Inc.'s issued and outstanding shares.

On March 4, 2011, the parties to the Shareholder Litigation
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") that
outlined the material terms of a proposed settlement of the
Shareholder Litigation.  Under the terms of the MOU, the Company
agreed to extend the expiration of the Public Exchange Offer and
further agreed that if, as a result of the Public Exchange Offer,
the Company obtained ownership of at least 90% of the outstanding
common stock of MedQuist Inc., the Company would conduct the Short
Form Merger under applicable law to acquire the remaining shares
of MedQuist Inc. common stock that the Company does not currently
own at the same exchange ratio applicable under the Public
Exchange Offer.  MedQuist Inc. agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures concerning the Public Exchange Offer, which were
contained in an amendment to Schedule 14D-9 that MedQuist Inc.
filed with the SEC on March 7, 2011.  The Company also agreed to
use its best efforts to finalize a stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation of Settlement") and present it to the Court for
preliminary approval within thirty days of the date of the MOU.

On April 1, 2011, the parties executed the Stipulation of
Settlement that memorialized the terms of the settlement outlined
in the MOU.  On this same date, plaintiffs' counsel filed with the
Clerk of the Court a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Proposed Stipulation of Settlement.  The Motion asked the Court
to, among other things, (a) hold a hearing to address preliminary
approval of the Stipulation of Settlement, (b) certify a class,
for purposes of effectuating the Stipulation of Settlement only,
of all MedQuist Inc.'s shareholders (except the named defendants
and their families and affiliates) as of and including the date of
the closing of the Short Form Merger contemplated under the
Stipulation of Settlement, and (c) schedule a final hearing within
60 days to determine whether the Stipulation of Settlement is
reasonable and fair and should receive final approval.

The Court held a preliminary approval hearing on April 19, 2011,
and entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement and
setting a final approval hearing for June 17, 2011 (the
"Preliminary Approval Order").  The Preliminary Approval Order
also required MedQuist Inc. to provide mail and publication notice
of the proposed settlement to all shareholders of recorded and
established deadlines for objections to the settlement and for
filing briefs in support and in opposition to the settlement.

On June 17, 2011, following mail and publication notice to
MedQuist Inc.'s shareholders, the Court held a fairness hearing on
the settlement.  On this date, the Court entered an Order and
Final Judgment (the "Final Judgment") that, among other things,
(a) certified the settlement class consisting of all MedQuist
Inc.'s shareholders (except the named defendants and their
families and affiliates) as of and including the date of the
closing of the Short Form Merger contemplated under the
Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement Class"), (b) found the
terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement to be fair and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and
(c) approved the application for attorney's fees and costs and
awarded plaintiffs' counsel $400,000 which was recorded in Cost
(benefit) of legal proceedings, settlements and accommodations for
the six months ended June 30, 2011, and in accrued expenses as of
June 30, 2011.  The final judgment also dismissed the case with
prejudice.


MF GLOBAL: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
MF Global Holdings Ltd. is awaiting final court approval of an
agreement which calls for the settlement of a consolidated class
action complaint filed against it, according to TriView Global
Fund LLC's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On March 6, 2008, and thereafter, five virtually identical
proposed class action securities suits were filed against MFG's
parent, MF Global Ltd. (now, MF Global Holdings Ltd.), certain of
its officers and directors, and Man Group plc.  These suits have
now been consolidated into a single action.  The complaints seek
to hold defendants liable under Secs. 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by alleging that the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with MF Global's initial
public offering in July 2007 were materially false and misleading
to the extent that representations were made regarding MF Global's
risk management policies, procedures and systems.  The allegations
are based upon MF Global's disclosure of $141.5 million in trading
losses incurred in a single day by an AP in his personal trading
account, which losses MFG was responsible to pay as an exchange
clearing member.  The consolidated cases have been dismissed on a
motion to dismiss by defendants.  Plaintiffs have appealed.

In January 2011, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to
settle whereby MF Global will contribute $2.5 million to an
overall settlement amount of $90 million.  The preliminary
settlement will be subject to Court review and final approval.


MICHAEL FOODS: Bids to Dismiss Egg Products Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Foods Group, Inc.'s motions to dismiss amended complaints
in an antitrust litigation over egg products remain pending,
according to the Company's August 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 2, 2011.

In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were
filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs,
manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry
organizations) alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and
processed-egg products.  Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide
classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and allege that
defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs by participating
in animal husbandry, egg-export and other programs of various egg-
industry associations. In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The Company currently has two
motions to dismiss pending before the Court: (1) a motion to
dismiss the direct-purchaser plaintiffs' Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint against Michael Foods, Inc.; and (2) a motion to
dismiss the indirect-purchaser plaintiffs' Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint against Michael Foods, Inc. and subsidiary
Papetti's Hygrade Egg Products, Inc.  The Company is also a party
to various other motions, filed by multiple defendants, to dismiss
portions of the complaints.  Oral arguments on the motions were
held in October and November 2010, and decisions from the court
are pending.

In late 2010 and early 2011, a number of companies, each of which
would be part of the purported class in the antitrust action,
brought separate actions against defendants.  These "tag-along"
cases, brought primarily by various grocery chains, assert
essentially the same allegations as the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint in the main action pending before the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  All of the tag-along cases were either
filed in or transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
where they will be treated as related to the main action.


MOTRICITY INC: Accused of Engaging in Insider Trading
-----------------------------------------------------
Jason Ankeny, writing for FierceMobileContent, reports that law
firm Goldfarb Branham LLP announced a class action against
struggling mobile content services firm Motricity concerning
alleged violations of shareholder protection laws.  Goldfarb
Branham claims Motricity inflated its stock through distorted and
false statements and may have engaged in insider trading.

"According to the lawsuit filed in the Western District of
Washington, Motricity officers began issuing statements in June of
2010 that did not accurately reflect material facts about the
effect of the industry's rapidly growing competition on the
company's stagnating growth rate," securities lawyer Hamilton
Lindley said in a statement.  "Furthermore, [former Motricity CEO
Ryan Wuerch] and senior executives have been accused of
orchestrating an $11 million insider trading scheme that has had
devastating effects on the company's performance."

Another class action suit filed by Kahn Swick & Foti LLC accuses
Motricity of violating the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  According to the suit, Motricity
priced its June 2010 IPO at $10 per share, for net proceeds of
$51.4 million, but misled investors by asserting the company would
"continue to achieve success despite the increasing popularity of
smartphones."  Kahn Swick & Foti claims that as a result of
Motricity's statements, its stock traded at artificially inflated
prices, peaking at $30.74 per share on Nov. 9.

Activist investor Carl Icahn is Motricity's largest investor with
14.6% of the firm's outstanding shares, down from 19.1% after last
year's IPO.  His son Brett sits on Motricity's six-person board of
directors alongside Hunter Gary, who is married to the daughter of
Icahn's wife.

Motricity and Mr. Wuerch agreed on Aug. 21 to terminate
Mr. Wuerch's employment with the firm and to end his membership on
its board of directors.  Jim Smith, named Motricity president and
COO in early 2009, will step into the CEO seat on an interim
basis; Motricity's board has already initiated a search for a
permanent replacement, adding it will consider Mr. Smith as well
as external candidates.

Mr. Wuerch's exit follows just days after Motricity reported
second quarter losses of $4.3 million, less than the $11.6 million
net loss reported a year earlier -- in addition, the mobile
content services firm projected third quarter revenues of $31.5
million to $32.5 million, far off analyst forecasts of $45
million.  Motricity blamed its weak results on increased
competition in the international market and closing its $100
million acquisition of mobile marketing startup Adenyo later than
expected.

With its stock down 42% over the past year, Motricity also is
seeking a replacement for CFO Allyn Hebner.  The company recently
removed its chief strategy and marketing and development officer,
Jim Ryan, as well.


MOTRICITY INC: To Defend "Callan" Securities Suit in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motricity, Inc., is facing a putative securities class action
lawsuit in Washington commenced by Joe Callan, according to the
Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On August 12, 2011, Joe Callan filed a putative securities class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, Western District of
Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity between June 18,
2010, and August 9, 2011, or in the Company's initial public
offering.  The defendants in the case are Motricity, certain of
its current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K.
Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan,
Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge
CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in the
Company's IPO, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets
Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company,
LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC.

As of August 15, 2011, the Company says it has not been served
with the complaint.  The complaint alleges violations under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
by all defendants and under Sections 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by Motricity and those of its
former and current officers who are named as defendants.  The
complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest and
plaintiff's costs and rescission.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.  As this matter is at a very early stage, at this time,
the Company is not able to predict the probability of the outcome
or estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter.


MOUNT REAL: Class Action Over Alleged Fraud Scheme Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sidhartha Banerjee, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
Quebec judge has authorized a class action lawsuit on behalf of
1,600 Canadian investors who say they lost $130 million in an
alleged fraud scheme.

Justice Jean-Francois Buffoni ruled that investors in Montreal-
based Mount Real Corp. have the right to sue accounting firms and
trustees they allege didn't do their jobs properly.

Three major accounting firms -- Deloitte & Touche, BDO Dunwoody
and Schwartz, Levitsky, Feldman -- are named in the suit. So are
two financial service companies: B2B Trust, a subsidiary of
Laurentian Bank, and Services Financiers Penson Canada Inc.

The suit also targets former Mount Real head Lino Matteo and chief
financial officer Paul D'Andrea.

Investors, represented by Andree Menard, are seeking $130 million,
plus interest.

Bruce Johnston, a lawyer for one of three firms representing the
investors, says the authorization has a deeper significance.

According to the Aug. 25 judgment, the accounting firms argued
their employees couldn't be held liable unless each individual
investor had relied on the financial statements to make their
investment decisions.

But lawyers for the investors argued that if the accountants had
done their due diligence, Mount Real would have fallen apart early
on and the fraud would not have occurred, Mr. Johnston said.

"The principles are remarkably simple: there are many obvious
things that should have been detected by any competent accountant
auditing this firm (Mount Real)," Mr. Johnston said in an
interview.

"This firm was bogus from A to Z, it had no real activities to
speak of, yet it was showing assets of $100 million and booming
sales and booming profits.

"It's only with the participation of the accountants and the
trustees that a fraud such as this one is possible."

Approval of the class action comes three years after it was
initially filed with the court.  Now there will be a delay before
the case goes to trial -- current backlogs are around two years.

But a spokeswoman for the investors said they are happy to see
some movement.

"It's six years we've been waiting for something so this is great
news," said Janet Watson, one of Mount Real's investors who says
she lost $70,000.

"This was our only chance to recover any of our money and also to
give us some sense of justice -- the perpetrators of this alleged
Ponzi scheme haven't gone to trial yet.

"There were three accounting firms involved in Mount Real in five
years and that's usually a sign that something is not right,"
Ms. Watson said from her home in the Eastern Townships.

Ms. Watson said investors were told they were giving their money
to a financial services and planning company that had the earnings
and reputable advisers to prove it.

But the core business was actually far from financial planning.

"Basically, their main business was the sale of magazine
subscriptions and had we known that we would have never invested,"
Ms. Watson said.


NESS TECHNOLOGIES: Enters Into MOU to Settle Delaware Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ness Technologies Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a consolidated class action complaint which stemmed from
the Company's merger agreement with Jersey Acquisition Corp.,
according to the Company's August 19, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Eight putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with
the Merger Agreement in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, its directors, Citi Venture Capital
International and certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of the
Company's public stockholders.  On July 8, 2011, the Delaware
lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Ness
Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 6569-VCN),
and on July 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs in the Delaware action also filed a motion
for expedited proceedings and a motion for a preliminary
injunction.  On July 22, 2011, the Court of Chancery held a
hearing on the motion for expedited proceedings, and on August 3,
2011, the Court denied the motion in all respects except for
limited and focused expedited discovery to answer the narrow
question of whether either the financial advisor to Ness or the
special committee of its board of directors were conflicted
because of their relationships with CVCI.

Additionally, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
connection with the Merger Agreement in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey under the caption Nissim
Botton v. Ness Technologies, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 11-
3950(SRC)), against the Company, its directors, CVCI and certain
of its subsidiaries, on behalf of the Company's public
stockholders.  On July 15, 2011, the plaintiff moved for expedited
discovery and for the scheduling of a preliminary injunction
hearing.  On July 22, 2011, Ness and its directors moved to
dismiss the New Jersey action.  On July 27, 2011, the Court held a
hearing on plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, and on
August 4, 2011, the Court denied the motion.

On August 19, 2011, the Company entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware action regarding
the settlement of the Delaware action.

Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel
to the plaintiffs in the Delaware action, the Memorandum of
Understanding contemplates that the parties to the Delaware action
will enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
Court of Chancery approval following notice to the Company's
stockholders.  The settlement will not affect the merger
consideration of $7.75 per share in cash for each share of Ness
common stock to be paid in the Merger.  There can be no assurance
that the parties to the Delaware action will ultimately enter into
a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated.


NEWS CORP: Court Sets Sept. 9 Deadline to File Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery set a September 9, 2011, deadline
for News Corporation and other defendants of an amended class
action complaint to file a motion to dismiss the complaint,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2011.

On March 16, 2011, a complaint seeking to compel the inspection of
the Company's books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. - 220,
captioned Central Laborers Pension Fund v. News Corporation, was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The plaintiff requested
the Company's books and records to investigate alleged possible
breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company in
connection with the Company's purchase of Shine.  The Company
moved to dismiss the action, and briefing on the Company's motion
to dismiss has been completed. An oral argument on the Company's
motion to dismiss is scheduled for August 11, 2011.

On March 16, 2011, two purported shareholders of the Company filed
a derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
The Amalgamated Bank v. Murdoch, et al.  The plaintiffs alleged
that both the directors of the Company and Rupert Murdoch as a
"controlling shareholder" breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Shine Transaction.  The suit named as
defendants all directors of the Company, and named the Company as
a nominal defendant.  Similar claims against the same group of
defendants were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a
purported shareholder of the Company, New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System, on March 25, 2011.  Both the Amalgamated Bank
Litigation and the New Orleans Employees' Retirement Litigation
were consolidated on April 6, 2011, with The Amalgamated Bank's
complaint serving as the operative complaint.  The Consolidated
Action was captioned In re News Corp. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation.  On April 9, 2011, the court entered a scheduling
order governing the filing of an amended complaint and briefing on
potential motions to dismiss.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a
Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint on May 13, 2011, seeking declaratory relief and damages.
The Consolidated Complaint largely restated the claims in The
Amalgamated Bank's initial complaint and also raised a direct
claim on behalf of a purported class of Company shareholders
relating to the possible addition of Elisabeth Murdoch to the
Company's board.  The defendants filed opening briefs in support
of motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on June 10, 2011,
as contemplated by the court's scheduling order.  On July 8, 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Verified Amended Consolidated Shareholder
Derivative and Class Action Complaint.  In addition to the claims
that were previously raised in the Consolidated Complaint, the
Amended Complaint brought claims relating to the alleged acts of
voicemail interception at News of the World.  Specifically, the
plaintiffs claim that the directors of the Company failed in their
duty of oversight regarding the NoW Matter.  The Amended Complaint
seeks declaratory relief, damages, fees and costs.  The court has
entered a renewed scheduling order whereby the defendants are
scheduled to move to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and file
opening briefs in support of such motions, by September 9, 2011.

On July 15, 2011, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a derivative action captioned Massachusetts Laborers'
Pension & Annuity Funds v. Murdoch, et al., in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.  The complaint names as defendants the directors of
the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant.  The
plaintiffs' claims are substantially similar to those raised by
the Amended Complaint in the Consolidated Action.  Specifically,
the plaintiff alleged that the directors of the Company have
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving
the Shine Transaction and for failing to exercise proper oversight
in connection with the NoW Matter.  The plaintiff also brought a
breach of fiduciary duty claim against Rupert Murdoch as
"controlling shareholder," and a waste claim against the directors
of the Company.  The action seeks as relief damages, injunctive
relief, fees and costs.  On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action requested that the court consolidate the Mass.
Laborers Litigation into the Consolidated Action.


NEWS CORP: "Wilder" Suit in New York Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
News Corporation continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit filed in New York, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al., was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 3, 2011 and
July 11, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The plaintiff brought claims under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act,
alleging that false and misleading statements were issued
regarding the NoW Matter.  The suit names as defendants the
Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and
seeks compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and
costs.


OMNICARE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say in a class
action that the value of Omnicare shares dropped by a total of
$300 million after the company was revealed to have defrauded
Medicare and Medicaid.

A copy of the Complaint in Ansfield v. Omnicare, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00173 (E.D. Ky.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/26/Omnicare.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas P. Glass, Esq.
          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          STRAUSS & TROY
          150 E. Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          E-mail: tpglass@strausstroy.com
                  rswayne@strausstroy.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  cgermershausen@gardylaw.com


OVERSEE.NET: Pays $1,500 to Class Action Representative
-------------------------------------------------------
Domain Name Wire reports that Oversee.net has paid $1,500 to
Stewart Resmer, the "class representative" for a lawsuit filed
against Oversee.net in the wake of the halvarez shill bidding
scandal.

Mr. Resmer originally filed suit against Oversee in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  But the
judge tossed the case out because the amount of money concerned
was under $5 million.

As a result, Mr. Resmer's lawyers refiled in The Superior Court of
Los Angeles County.  Oversee.net settled the case, agreeing to
adopt a new shill bidding policy.  The company also agreed to pay
people that had overpaid as a result of the shill bidding,
although it had already made that offer to customers ahead of the
lawsuit.

Mr. Resmer, as class representative, got a check for $1,500.
Mr. Resmer also said two non-profits may receive money as part of
the settlement, including Internet Commerce Association.


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Still In Talks to Settle "Niederklein" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., is still engaged in negotiations to
settle a class action lawsuit captioned Niederklein v. PCS
Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company, along with its current chief executive officer, and
former chief financial officer has been named in a class action
lawsuit -- (Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, Case 1:10-cv-00479-CWD).
The class action was brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period
between March 28, 2007, and August 15, 2007.  On February 24,
2011, the Court granted the motion of Moustafa Salem to serve as
the lead plaintiff.  On June 8, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
motion to voluntarily dismiss the former CFO without prejudice
from the lawsuit, which the Court has granted.  On June 10, 2011,
the Company participated in a Court-ordered settlement conference
and is engaged in ongoing negotiations.

The Company says that under its bylaws, it is obligated, subject
to certain exceptions and conditions, to indemnify and advance
expenses to current and former officers and directors in
connection with this suit.  The costs incurred by PCS in
business, financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.


PHC INC: Still Faces Class Suits Over Proposed Merger With Acadia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHC, Inc., is facing class action lawsuits in Massachusetts in
connection with its proposed merger with Acadia Healthcare
Company, Inc., according to the Company's August 18, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended June 30, 2011.

On June 2, 2011, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in Massachusetts state court, MAZ Partners LP v. Bruce A.
Shear, et al., C.A. No. 11-1041, against the Company, the members
of the Company's board of directors, and Acadia Healthcare
Company, Inc. The MAZ Partners complaint asserts that the members
of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties by causing the Company to enter into the merger agreement
and further asserts that Acadia aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. Specifically, the MAZ Partners
complaint alleged that the process by which the merger agreement
was entered into was unfair and that the agreement itself is
unfair in that, according to the plaintiff, the compensation to be
paid to the Company's Class A shareholders is inadequate,
particularly in light of the proposed cash payment to be paid to
Class B shareholders and the anticipated pre-closing payment of a
dividend to Arcadia shareholders and the anticipated level of debt
to be held  by the merged entity. The complaint sought, among
other relief, an order enjoining the consummation of the merger
and rescinding the merger agreement.

On June 13, 2011, a second lawsuit was filed in federal district
court in Massachusetts, Blakeslee v. PHC, Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-
11049, making essentially the same allegations against the same
defendants. On June 21, 2011, the Company removed the MAZ Partners
case to federal court (11-cv-11099). On July 7, 2011, the parties
to the MAZ Partners case moved to consolidate that action with the
Blakeslee case and asked the court to approve a schedule for
discovery and a potential hearing on plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On August 11, 2011, the plaintiffs in the MAZ Partners case filed
an amended class action complaint. Like the original complaint,
the amended complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty
against the Company, members of the Company's board of directors,
and claims of aiding and abetting those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty against Acadia. The amended complaint alleges that
both the merger process and the provisions of the merger are
unfair, that the directors and executive officers of the Company
have conflicts of interests with regard to the merger, that the
dividend to be paid to Acadia shareholders is inappropriate, that
a special committee or independent director should have been
appointed to represent the interest of the Class A shareholders,
that the merger consideration is grossly inadequate and the
exchange ratio is unfair, and that the preliminary proxy filed by
the Company contains material misstatements and omissions. The
amended complaint also seeks, among other things, an order
enjoining the consummation of the merger and rescinding the merger
agreement.

PHC and Acadia believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously.  PHC and Acadia have
recently filed motions to dismiss in each case.  Regardless of the
disposition of the motions to dismiss, PHC and Acadia do not
anticipate the outcome to have a material impact on the progress
of the merger.


PHILIP MORRIS: Dismissal of Marlboro Lights Class Action Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that Philip
Morris dodged a class action by cigarette smokers who say the
tobacconist concealed the health risks of Marlboro Lights.

The original complaint filed 13 years ago in Illinois state court
claimed that Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies had
conspired to conceal the addictive and dangerous nature of
cigarettes by intentionally using incomplete and misleading
advertising.

In 2000, the complaint was amended to propose three classes:
Illinois residents who bought cigarettes from 1953 to 1965 when
the tobacco companies allegedly concealed facts about cigarettes'
addictive nature; residents who began smoking as minors; and
residents who bought Marlboro Lights.

By 2009, the class was expanded to include any Illinois residents
who had smoked any brand of "low-tar," "light" or "ultra light"
cigarettes, in addition to Marlboro Lights.

Phillip Morris was the only defendant not dismissed under the
statute of limitations as the case was removed to federal court.
The final incarnation of the suit alleged unjust enrichment
against Philip Morris for Marlboro Lights.

Ultimately, a federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice for
failure to state a claim.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed on Aug. 25, finding that the plaintiffs had made a
critical misstep when they "disavowed any need to allege that they
were deceived or injured by the defendants' actions."

"It is crucial to note that the plaintiffs do not allege that they
suffered any harm, that they relied on the defendants' marketing,
or that they would have acted differently had the defendants been
truthful about the cigarettes they were selling," Judge Daniel
Manion wrote for a three-judge panel.  "In other words, the
plaintiffs assert that their unjust enrichment claim does not
require proof of deception, causation, or actual harm with regard
to individual members of the plaintiff class."

The court said the allegations did not present a detriment to
consumers or a connection between the detriment and the benefit
retained by Philip Morris.  Unjust-enrichment claims require both
elements.

"We hold that the mere violation of a consumer's legal right to
know about a product's risks, without anything more, cannot
support a claim that the manufacturer unjustly retained the
revenue from the product's sale to the consumer's detriment,"
Judge Manion wrote.

"For many of [the proposed class members] the defendants'
retention of the cigarette revenue is not a detriment to them --
it is possible that many of the consumers have no regrets about
their purchases and would willingly repeat the same transaction,
despite the violation of their legal right to be informed about
the nature of cigarettes," the 20-page decision states.  "Since
these consumers would have acted no differently had the defendants
properly informed them about the true nature of cigarettes, their
transfer of money to the defendants in exchange for cigarettes was
not to their detriment."

Since failure of the unjust-enrichment claim is certain, the court
also declined to ask the Illinois Supreme Court whether the claim
could survive as an independent cause of action.

A copy of the decision in Cleary, et al. v. Philip Morris
Incorporated, et al., No. 10-2960 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/AT1FG54G.pdf


PONIARD PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allozyne Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit
over its proposed acquisition of Allozyne, 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 22, 2011, Poniard, FV Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Poniard ("Merger
Sub"), and Allozyne, Inc., a private Delaware corporation
("Allozyne"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement").  Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, which was approved by the boards of directors of
Poniard and Allozyne, Merger Sub will merge with and into
Allozyne, with Allozyne becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Poniard and the surviving corporation of the merger.

On June 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, against
Poniard, its board of directors and Allozyne. The action, titled
Aronheim v. Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Case Number:
CGC-11-512033) alleges in summary that, in connection with the
proposed merger with Allozyne, the members of the Poniard board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly
conducting an unfair sale process and agreeing to an unfair sale
price, by purportedly making inadequate disclosures about the
merger, and by purportedly engineering the proposed merger to
provide them with improper personal benefits.  The action also
alleges that Poniard and Allozyne aided and abetted the Poniard
board members' purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
lawsuit can be maintained as a class action, a declaration that
the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the Poniard
board members' fiduciary duties, rescission of the Merger
Agreement, an injunction against the proposed merger, a directive
that the Poniard board members exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of Poniard's
shareholders, the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of
the plaintiff and the class upon any benefits improperly received
by the Poniard board members as a result of their purportedly
wrongful conduct and fees and costs.  Poniard and its board of
directors believe that the claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against them.  As a loss is not deemed probable
at this time, the Company has not recorded a liability related to
this lawsuit.


POSTROCK ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Spieker" Suit in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
PostRock Energy Corporation continues to defend itself against a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Hugo Spieker in Kansas,
according to the Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit, captioned Hugo Spieker, et al. v. Quest Cherokee, LLC,
Case No. 07-1225-MLB, U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, filed August 6, 2007, filed by several royalty owners in
the Kansas.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to properly make royalty
payments by, among other things, charging post-production costs to
royalty owners in violation of the underlying lease contracts,
paying royalties based on sale point volumes rather than wellhead
volumes, allocating expenses in excess of the actual and
reasonable post-production costs incurred, allocating production
costs and marketing costs to royalty owners, and making royalty
payments after the statutorily prescribed time for doing so
without paying interest thereon.  The Company has filed an answer,
denying plaintiffs' claims.  No class certification hearing has
yet been scheduled.  The parties have participated in multiple
mediation sessions.  Another mediation session was scheduled in
mid-August.  If the matter cannot be resolved through mediation,
the case will proceed with general discovery, a class
certification hearing, and, if certified, a trial on the merits.

At June 30, 2011, the Company had reserved $10.6 million for the
estimated cost to resolve these cases.  The reserve included $9.5
million and $100,000 added in the first and second quarter of
2011, respectively.  After funding the settlement for the Oklahoma
lawsuits, the reserve remaining for the estimated cost to resolve
the Kansas lawsuit is $5.0 million.  The Company says there can be
no assurance the amount reserved will be sufficient to cover any
final settlement or damage awards.


POSTROCK ENERGY: Court Approves Settlement in Oklahoma Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Oklahoma court approved a settlement in the consolidated class
action lawsuit against PostRock Energy Corporation over royalty
interest, according to the Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Two lawsuits, (i) Billy Bob Willis, et al. v. Quest Resource
Corporation, et al., Case No. CJ-09-063, District Court of Nowata
County, State of Oklahoma, filed April 28, 2009, and (ii) Larry
Reitz, et al. v. Quest Resource Corporation, et al., Case No. CJ-
09-076, District Court of Nowata County, State of Oklahoma, filed
May 22, 2009, were filed in April and May 2009, respectively.  The
lawsuits and have been consolidated to proceed as a single action.
Plaintiffs are royalty interest owners located in Nowata and Craig
counties.

The lawsuits alleged that the Company wrongfully deducted post-
production costs from the plaintiffs' royalties and engaged in
self-dealing contracts and agreements resulting in a less than
market price for the gas production.  The Company denied the
allegations.  Settlements have been reached in each of the cases,
and on July 28, 2011, the Court entered an order approving the
class action settlement.  The Company says it used cash on hand to
fund the $5.6 million in settlements on July 29, 2011.


PRUCO LIFE: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss "Phillips" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey is awaiting a court
decision on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending
in Illinois, 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 January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pruco Life Insurance
Company, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc.

The complaint is brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of life
insurance policies sold by Prudential for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts that earn interest and are
subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time by the
beneficiaries.  The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose
material information about the accounts, Prudential wrongfully
delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
and post-judgment interest.  In February 2011, plaintiff appealed
the dismissal.  As previously reported, in December 2009, an
earlier purported nationwide class action raising substantially
similar allegations brought by the same plaintiff in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Garcia v.
Prudential Insurance Company of America, was dismissed.  In
December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois.
The complaint makes allegations under Illinois law, substantially
similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf of a class of Illinois
residents whose death benefits were settled by retained assets
accounts.  In January 2011, the case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  In
March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop Prudential Financial
as a defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company as a
defendant.  The matter is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential
Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company.  In April 2011, a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.


PRUCO LIFE: Continues to Defend Mass. Suit Over Retained Assets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey continues to defend a
consolidated class action lawsuit relating to retained asset
accounts pending in Massachusetts, 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 July 2010, a purported nationwide class action that makes
allegations similar to those in the Garcia and Phillips actions
relating to retained asset accounts of beneficiaries of a group
life insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs ("VA Contract") that covers the lives of members
and veterans of the U.S. armed forces, Lucey et al. v. Prudential
Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pruco Life
Insurance Company, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc.

The complaint challenges the use of retained asset accounts to
settle death benefit claims, asserting violations of federal and
state law, breach of contract and fraud and seeking compensatory
and treble damages and equitable relief.  In October 2010,
Prudential filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In November
2010, a second purported nationwide class action brought on behalf
of the same beneficiaries of the VA Contract, Phillips v.
Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prudential Financial,
Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and makes substantially the same claims.
In November and December 2010, two additional actions brought on
behalf of the same putative class, alleging substantially the same
claims and the same relief, Garrett v. The Prudential Insurance
Company of America and Prudential Financial, Inc. and Witt v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America were filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  In February
2011, Phillips, Garrett and Witt were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Massachusetts by
the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation consolidated with
the Lucey matter as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America
SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation.  In March 2011, the motion to
dismiss was denied.

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


PRUCO LIFE: Court Refuses to Enter Judgment in "Huffman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey's
motion for judgment on the pleadings in Huffman v. The Prudential
Insurance Company, 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 September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by employee
welfare benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that using
retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to
settle death benefit claims violates ERISA and seeking injunctive
relief and disgorgement of profits.  Prudential moved to dismiss
the complaint.

The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pruco Life
Insurance Company, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc.

In April 2011, Prudential withdrew its motion to dismiss the
complaint.  In May 2011, the Company filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings.  In July 2011, the court denied the motion.


QUICKLOGIC CORP: Appeals in IPO-Related Suit Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic
Corporation's initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of
QuickLogic's officers and directors.  The complaint alleges
excessive and undisclosed commissions in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and
secondary public offerings and artificially high prices through
"tie-in" arrangements which required the underwriters' customers
to buy shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in
violation of the federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased
QuickLogic's stock pursuant to the registration statements between
October 14, 1999, and December 6, 2000.  Various plaintiffs have
filed similar actions asserting virtually identical allegations
against over 300 other public companies, their underwriters, and
their officers and directors arising out of each company's public
offering.  These actions, including the action against QuickLogic,
have been coordinated for pretrial purposes and captioned In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92, or IPO
Securities Litigation.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of
the settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company
will bear no financial liability.  The Company and the other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.
Certain objectors have filed appeals.  No hearing date has been
set.  The Company did not accrue any amounts related to the
proposed settlement because it was not reasonably estimable.

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


RADIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Rosen" Lawsuit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation continues to defend itself
from a class action lawsuit filed by The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

On March 11, 2011, Rosen filed a class action suit, alleging the
Company had violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting
the relationship between the Company and third parties in the
Company's clinical studies of its Onko-Sure(R) test kits.  The
Company believes there is no basis to the suit filed by The Rosen
Law Firm and it has been fully transparent in its relationship
with third parties.


RODMAN & RENSHAW: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
During 2011, Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc., has been named
as a party defendant in various litigations brought as class
actions relating to underwritten public offering that it
participated in involving China based businesses.  Each of these
actions is in the very preliminary stages and while the Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses, the proceedings are at
too early a stage to effectively evaluate the merits or predict
the outcome.  There is no assurance that the Company will not be
named in other actions brought or that the result of the pending
actions or any future actions, or the costs of defense of those
actions, will not adversely affect the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 12, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suit v. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. ("SHUSA") headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts, provides customers with a broad range of financial
products and services through its two primary subsidiaries,
Sovereign Bank and Santander Consumer USA ("SCUSA").

The putative class action litigation filed against Sovereign Bank
by Diane Lewis, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland has been transferred to and consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (the "MDL Court") under the caption In re
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.  The complaint alleges
violations of law in connection with Sovereign Bank's
overdraft/transaction ordering and fees practices.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 12, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


SCHIFF NUTRITION: Ganeden Faces Sustenex-Related Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2011, Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., filed a
Current Report on Form 8-K (the "Original Report"), reporting,
among other things, its acquisition of certain inventory,
receivables and intellectual property, among other things
(collectively, the "Assets"), and its assumption of certain
liabilities, in each case relating to, among other things,
probiotic brands Sustenex and Digestive Advantage, pursuant to an
Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2011, between Schiff
Nutrition and Ganeden Biotech, Inc.

In connection with the APA, Ganeden granted to the Schiff
Nutrition's wholly-owned subsidiary, Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc.,
("SNG") a Utah corporation, a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide
license under patents and associated know-how and other
intellectual property rights to develop, manufacture and
commercialize probiotics for use as dietary supplements for human
consumption or human use over-the-counter without a prescription
or otherwise in the vitamins, minerals and supplements market
(including foods or beverages marketed as supplements), subject to
certain exceptions, pursuant to an Intellectual Property License
Agreement between Ganeden and SNG dated as of June 1, 2011.

According to Schiff Nutrition's August 12, 2011, Form 8-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Ganeden is a
defendant in a purported consumer protection class action filed on
July 1, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California regarding, among other products, Sustenex
probiotic capsules and Digestive Advantage products.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, a declaratory
judgment, and an order requiring the defendants to engage in
"corrective" advertising, as well as unspecified additional
relief.  Ganeden's management disputes the allegations contained
in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the action.


SCORES HOLDING: Strikes Deal to Settle "Diaz" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company Inc. is in the process of preparing
settlement documents with parties to the third amended class
action complaint filed against the Company in New York, according
to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On October 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action and collective action on behalf of all
tipped employees against the Company and other defendants alleging
violations of federal and state wage/hour laws (Siri Diaz et al.
v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a
Scores West Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores
East Side, Case No. 07 Civ. 8718 (Southern District of New York,
Judge Richard M. Berman)).  On November 6, 2007, plaintiffs served
an amended purported class action and collective action complaint,
naming dancers and servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging
the same violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.  On or
about February 21, 2008, plaintiffs served a second amended
complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting the
action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs.  The
amended complaint alleged that the Company and the other
defendants are "an integrated enterprise" and that the Company
jointly employs the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants
to liability for the alleged wage/hour violations.  On behalf of
the Company and the other defendants, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss that portion of the Complaint that asserted State law
class action allegations; it also moved to dismiss the claims of
two of the named plaintiffs for failure to appear for depositions.
At the same time plaintiffs moved for conditional certification
under the federal law for a class of the servers, bartenders and
dancers; the Company opposed that motion.

On May 9, 2008, the Court issued its decision, denying the motion
to dismiss and granting conditional certification for a class of
servers, cocktail waitresses, bartenders and dancers who have
worked at Scores East since October 2004.  On May 29, 2008, the
Company filed an answer to plaintiff's' second amended complaint.
On or about September 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third
amended complaint adding in two individual defendants who are
alleged to be employers under the state and federal wage claims.
The Company disputes that it is the proper defendant in this
action and disputes that it violated the federal and state labor
laws, and further disputes that the dancers are "employees"
subject to the federal and state wage and hour laws.  Two of the
defendants have been dismissed without prejudice and the Company
has agreed upon a settlement amount of $450,000 that will be
contributed among and between all of the remaining defendants.
The settlement documents are currently in the process of being
prepared.


SIGNATURE GROUP: Court Gives Final Okay of Calif. Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Group Holdings, Inc., obtained final court approval of
its stipulation settling a consolidated class action lawsuit in
California, according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

From April through June of 2007, six complaints seeking class
certification were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against the Company and various
officers, directors and employees by participants in the Company's
prior Investment Incentive Plan, 401(k) and Employee Stock
Ownership Plan alleging violations of ERISA in connection with
Company stock held by the Plans. The six complaints were
consolidated in a single proceeding.  On April 15, 2010, the Court
granted the Order for Class Certification under Rule 23(b)(3). On
March 22, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement stipulation
whereby its insurance carriers will pay $21.0 million to settle
the claims of the certified class. On April 25, 2011, the Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement stipulation.  On
August 10, 2011, the Court entered the Final Order and Judgment
approving the settlement.


SINOTECH ENERGY: Accused of Misleading Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal class action claims Beijing-based SinoTech Energy duped
investors for $167 million during its initial public offering,
though the company's biggest customers and suppliers are just
empty shells.  It's one of a series of cases in which Chinese
sharpers are accused of profiting from unwary capitalists.

SinoTech claimed to be a "leading non-state owned provider of
Enhanced Oil Recovery ('EOR') services to major oil and gas fields
in China," and sold 19.7 million American Depository Shares at
$8.50 per share at its November 2010 IPO.

But on Aug. 16, a research analyst writing under the name Alfred
Little published a report "detailing numerous problems affecting
CTE's previously issued financial statements and future
prospects," the complaint states.

"The report found, among other things, that (1) the company's sole
import agent, who accounted for more than $100 million worth of
oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no
sign of operations; (2) the company's only chemical supplier is
also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the
company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast
majority of CTE's revenues, has unverifiable operations with
minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements CTE issued in the
United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company
made in China; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related-
party transactions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ('GAP') ; and (6) positive statements the Company made
regarding its internal financial controls were false and
misleading when made."

The company's share price dropped by more than 40 percent after
the report was published, from $4.02 on Aug. 15 to $2.35 the next
day, on unusually high trading volume.

NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading that day, and announced that
"trading would remain halted until the company 'fully satisfied
NASDAQ'S request for additional information.'"  SinoTech trading
is still at a standstill.

Lead plaintiff Jack Crayder is represented by:

          Steven Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
          1100 New York Ave NW
          Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Rehns, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
          88 Pine Street
          14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          E-mail: krehns@cohenmilstein.com


SOAPSTONE NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Appellant's Standing Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Soapstone Networks Inc. is awaiting a court decision on the issue
whether an appellant has standing to object to the settlement in a
consolidated class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
August 10, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Twelve purported securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and one or more of the Company's underwriters
in its initial public offering, and certain officers and directors
of the Company.  The lawsuits alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and were docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "Court") as: Felzen, et al.
v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3363; Lefkowitz, et
al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3541; Lewis, et
al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3698; Mandel,
et. al v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3713; Minai,
et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-3870;
Steinberg, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-
3983; Pelissier, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
01-CV-4204; Esther, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-4352; Zhous, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc. et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-4494; Mammen, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et. al.,
C.A. No. 01-CV-5722; Lin, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 01-CV-5674; and Shives, et al. v. Banc of America
Securities, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-4956.  On April 19, 2002, a
consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Complaint"),
which superseded these twelve purported securities class action
lawsuits, was filed in the Court.  The Complaint is captioned "In
re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation" (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)) and names as defendants
the Company, certain of the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering, and certain of the Company's officers and
directors.  The Complaint, which seeks unspecified damages,
alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including among
other things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering ("IPO") improperly required their customers to pay
the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of stock in the aftermarket as conditions of
receiving shares in the Company's IPO.  The Complaint further
claims that these supposed practices of the underwriters should
have been disclosed in the Company's IPO prospectus and
registration statement.  In addition to the Complaint against the
Company, various other plaintiffs have filed other substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against the Company have all been
transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of
case management.  The Company and its officers and directors
believe that the claims against the Company lack merit, and have
defended the litigation vigorously.  In that regard, on July 15,
2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as
defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without prejudice all
claims against the individual current and former officers and
directors who were named as defendants in the Company's
litigation, and they are no longer parties to the lawsuit.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions to
dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions to
dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants.  In that ruling, the
Court granted in part and denied in part those motions.  As to the
claims brought against the Company under the antifraud provisions
of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of these claims
with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity
to re-plead these claims against the Company.  As to the claims
brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws,
which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as
to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well.  The
Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in
all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would
have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.  This proposed settlement was conditioned on, among
other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims
against the Company and against the other issuers who had agreed
to the settlement would be certified for class action treatment
for purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors
included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by
the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be
excluded from the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in
part, to the Appeals Court's determination that individual issues
of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to
the proposed classes.  On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a
petition seeking rehearing en banc of this ruling.  On April 6,
2007 the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing of the Court's December 5, 2006 ruling but noted that
the plaintiffs remained free to ask the District Court to certify
classes different from the ones originally proposed which might
meet the standards for class certification that the Court of
Appeals articulated in its December 5, 2006 decision.

In light of the Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006 decision
regarding certification of the plaintiffs' claims, the District
Court entered an order on June 25, 2007, terminating the proposed
settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers, including the
Company.  On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the six focus cases.  On November 13, 2007, the
issuer defendants and the underwriter defendants separately moved
to dismiss the claims against them in the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.  On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued
an order in which it denied in substantial part the motions to
dismiss the amended complaints in the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009.  On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement.  Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement.  Ten appeals were filed
objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness
of the settlement, five of which have been dismissed with
prejudice.  On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed four
of the remaining appeals and remanded the final appeal to the
District Court to determine whether the appellant has standing to
object to the settlement.  The District Court has yet to rule on
that issue.

While the Company can make no promises or guarantees as to the
outcome of these proceedings, the Company does not believe that a
loss is probable.


SOLAR POWER: Still Defends Calif. Class Action Suit Over LDK Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Solar Power, Inc., is still defending itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging fiduciary duty breaches by its directors
in relation to a stock purchase agreement, according to the
Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On January 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed by William
Rogers against the Company, the Company's directors Stephen C.
Kircher, Francis Chen, Timothy B. Nyman, Ronald A. Cohan, D. Paul
Regan, and LDK Solar Co., Ltd., in the Superior Court of
California, County of Placer.  The complaint alleges violations of
fiduciary duty by the individual director defendants concerning
the Stock Purchase Agreement entered into on January 5, 2011,
pursuant to which defendant LDK agreed to acquire 70% interest in
the Company.  Plaintiff contends that the independence of the
individual director defendants was compromised because they are
allegedly beholden to defendant LDK for continuation of their
positions as directors and possible future employment.  Plaintiff
further contends that the transaction is unfair because it
allegedly contains onerous and preclusive deal protection devices,
such as no shop, standstill and no solicitation provisions and a
termination fee that operates to effectively prevent any competing
offers.  The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual director
defendants by providing aid and assistance.  Plaintiff asks for
class certification, the enjoining of the sale, or if the sale is
completed prior to judgment, rescission of the sale and damages.

The case is in its early stages and the Company is gathering facts
and information to refute the applicant's claims.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend the action.  Because the complaint
was recently filed, it is difficult at this time to fully evaluate
the claims and determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
or provide an estimate of the amount of any potential loss.  The
Company discloses that it does have insurance coverage for this
type of action.


ST. JUDE: Closing Briefing in Silzone Suits to Be Done in Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Closing briefing and argument is presently scheduled to be
completed by the end of September 2011 in the class action
lawsuits involving St. Jude Medical, Inc., commenced by patients,
who received a heart valve product with Silzone(R) coating,
according to the Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 2, 2011.

The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone(R) coating, which the Company stopped selling in
January 2000.  The Company has vigorously defended against the
claims that have been asserted and will continue to do so with
respect to any remaining claims.

The Company has two outstanding class action cases in Ontario and
one individual case in British Columbia by the Provincial health
insurer.  In Ontario, a class action case involving Silzone
patients has been certified, and the trial on common class issues
began in February 2010.  The testimony and evidence submissions
for this trial were completed in March 2011, and closing briefing
and argument is presently scheduled to be completed by the end of
September 2011.  Depending on the Court's ruling in this common
issues trial, there may be further proceedings, including appeal,
in the future.  A second case seeking class action status in
Ontario has been stayed pending resolution of the ongoing Ontario
class action.  The complaints in the Ontario cases request damages
up to 2.0 billion Canadian Dollars (the equivalent of $2.1 billion
at July 2, 2011).  Based on the Company's historical experience,
the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any
relationship to the amount claimed.  The British Columbia
Provincial health insurer has a lawsuit seeking to recover the
cost of insured services furnished or to be furnished to class
members in the British Columbia class action resolved in 2010, and
that lawsuit remains pending in the British Columbia court.


ST. JUDE: Settlement Hearing in AGA-Related Suit Set for Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement approval hearing with the Delaware Court of
Chancery is scheduled for September 2011 in the stockholder class
action lawsuit over St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s acquisition of AGA
Medical Inc., according to the Company's August 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

In connection with the acquisition of AGA Medical Inc. (AGA
Medical), the Company, in addition to AGA Medical and other
defendants, has been named as a defendant in two putative
stockholder class action complaints, one filed in the Fourth
Judicial District Court of Minnesota and the other filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, both in October 2010.  The plaintiffs
in the complaints allege, among other claims, that AGA Medical's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to AGA Medical's
stockholders by accepting an inadequate price, failing to make
full disclosure and utilizing unreasonable deal protection devices
and further allege that AGA Medical and the Company aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaints
seek injunctive relief, including to enjoin the transaction, in
addition to unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
other fees and costs and other relief.  The acquisition of AGA
Medical was completed on November 18, 2010, and the parties to
this action entered into a memorandum of understanding in November
2010 to settle the litigation, the amount of which was not
material.  The parties have executed a stipulation of settlement
and the settlement approval hearing with the Delaware Court of
Chancery is scheduled for September 2011.


ST. JUDE: Still Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
federal district court in Minnesota against St. Jude Medical,
Inc., and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude
Medical common stock between April 22, 2009, and October 6, 2009.
The lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for
the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a
preliminary earnings release dated October 6, 2009.  The
complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as
well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the Company failed to
disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its
products and was not receiving anticipated orders for Cardiac
Rhythm Management (CRM) devices.  Class members allege that the
Company's failure to disclose the information resulted in the
class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend
against the claims asserted in this lawsuit.  In October 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was heard by
the district court in April 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.


STATE OF FLORIDA: Sued for Illegally Ticketing Motorists
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Deeson, writing for WTSP.com, reports that a class action was
filed over "Florida Statue 316.2397".

When the Florida Highway Patrol pulls someone over on the highway,
it's usually because they were speeding.

But Eric Campbell was pulled over and ticketed while he was
driving the speed limit.

Mr. Campbell says, "I was coming up the Veterans Expressway and I
notice two Florida Highway Patrol Cars sitting on the side of the
road in the median, with lights off."

Mr. Campbell says he did what he always does: flashed his lights
on and off to warn drivers coming from the other direction that
there was speed trap ahead.

According to Mr. Campbell, 60 seconds after passing the trooper,
"They were on my tail and they pulled me over."

Mr. Campbell says the FHP trooper wrote him a ticket for improper
flashing of high beams.  Mr. Campbell says the trooper told him
what he had done was illegal.

But later Mr. Campbell learned that is not the case.  He filed a
class action suit which says "Florida Statue 316.2397" -- under
which Mr. Campbell cited -- "does not prohibit the flashing of
headlights as a means of communications, nor does it in any way
reference flashing headlights or the use of high beams."

However, the FHP trooper who wrote the ticket either didn't know
or didn't care.  "You could tell in his voice he was upset,"
Mr. Campbell says.  "He was professional, he wasn't rude . . . but
you could tell he was irritated."

However, the lawsuit says the FHP is well aware they are
wrongfully applying the state law and they are doing it as a means
of generating revenue.  In 2005, a court order was even issued
saying the state law doesn't prohibit the flashing of vehicle
headlights.

Mr. Campbell isn't the only one.  Since 2005, FHP records show
more than 10,429 drivers have been cited under the statute.

In addition to seeking the refund of the $100 ticket, the lawsuit
seeks damages in excess of $15,000.

What's that costing you?

If each person illegally cited was awarded $15,000 that would be
$156,435,000 in damages if the suit is successful.  Then you would
throw in at least another $1,042,900 in ticket refunds, all
because it appears troopers don't like motorists warning others
about speed traps.

Mr. Campbell says he felt as if the trooper thought it was a
personal affront.  According to Mr. Campbell, the trooper did not
like the fact somebody was ratting him out.

The Florida Highway Patrol says it can't comment because of the
pending lawsuit.

Mr. Campbell says FHP had no right to ticket him or anyone under
the current law and he adds the agency is not being honest when it
says it doesn't write tickets to increase revenue or punish
people, but rather to get the motorist to slow down on the
highway.  If that were true, Mr. Campbell says the FHP should be
delighted with him, because drivers did slow down before troopers
could give them a ticket.

The suit evolved out the fact that Mr. Campbell says "I don't like
what the government is dong especially now when most people have a
hard time affording gas and now they have to defend themselves
against a made up charge that doesn't exist."

The state will have to come up with the money for damages if the
suit is successful, and guess where the money is coming from: your
taxes.


SWK HOLDINGS: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
In July 2001, SWK Holdings Corporation, its underwriters, and
certain officers and directors were named as defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit.  This case is one of several
hundred similar cases that have been consolidated into a single
action.  The complaint alleges misstatements and omissions
concerning underwriters' compensation in connection with the
Company's initial public offering.  In February 2003, the Court
denied a motion to dismiss that would have disposed of the claims
against the Company.  A settlement proposal, which did not admit
wrongdoing, had been approved by the Board and preliminarily
approved by the Court.  While the parties' request for court
approval of the settlement was pending, in December 2006 the Court
of Appeals reversed the District Court's finding that six focus
cases could be certified as class actions.  In April 2007, the
Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing,
but acknowledged that the District Court might certify a more
limited class.  At a June 26, 2007 status conference, the Court
terminated the proposed settlement as stipulated among the
parties.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 14,
2007.  On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the six focus cases, which was withdrawn on
October 10, 2008.  On November 13, 2007, defendants in the six
focus cases filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, which the Court denied in March 2008.  Plaintiffs,
the issuer defendants (including the Company), the underwriter
defendants, and the insurance carriers for the defendants, engaged
in mediation and settlement negotiations.  They reached a
settlement agreement, which was submitted to the District Court
for preliminary approval on April 2, 2009.  As part of this
settlement, the Company's insurance carrier agreed to assume the
Company's entire payment obligation under the terms of the
settlement.  On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement.  After
a September 10, 2009 hearing, the District Court gave final
approval to the settlement on October 5, 2009.  Several objectors
have filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeal
for the Second Circuit from the District Court's order granting
final approval of the settlement.

Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, the Company says there can be no guarantee
that it will not be reversed on appeal.  The Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses to these claims.  If the settlement is
not implemented and the litigation continues against the Company,
the Company would continue to defend against this action
vigorously.

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


TELLABS INC: Court Approves Deal and Dismisses Illinois Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of the Northern District of
Illinois granted in July 2011 plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of settlement and dismissed the consolidated class action
lawsuit without prejudice, according to Tellabs, Inc.'s August 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2011.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint, captioned Makor Issues
& Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., was filed in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and
Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs).
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the United
States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All
nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
December 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of the Company's current or former officers and/or
directors.  The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during
the class period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and
reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the
Company's financial statements.  Further, certain of the
individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal
securities laws by trading the Company's securities while
allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about
the Company pertaining to these matters.  The consolidated amended
complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to
replead.  On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On
March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005.  On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings.  On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc.  On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered
plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which
was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor
modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district
court.

On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims.  On
October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United States
Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to
appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision.  On January 5, 2007, the
defendants' petition was granted.  The United States Supreme Court
heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007.  On June 21, 2007, the
United States Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings.  On November 1,
2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded
case.  On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of
the district court, and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings.  On February 24, 2009, the district court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On August 13,
2010, the Court granted in large part Tellabs' motion for summary
judgment.  Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit
and on July 27, 2011, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement and dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice.  The Company says all settlement
amounts will be paid by its insurers.


THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Won Court Approval of Class Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thermadyne Holdings Corporation obtained a court order in June
2011 approving the settlement of class action lawsuits filed in
connection with its merger with Razor Merger Sub Inc., according
to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On December 3, 2010, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of October 5, 2010, Razor Merger, a newly formed Delaware
corporation, merged with and into Thermadyne, with Thermadyne
surviving as a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Razor Holdco
Inc., a Delaware corporation.  (Razor Holdco Inc. was renamed
Thermadyne Technologies Holdings, Inc.  Technologies' sole asset
is its 100% ownership of the stock of Thermadyne.  Affiliates of
Irving Place Capital, a private equity firm based in New York,
along with its co-investors, hold approximately 99% of the
outstanding equity of Technologies, and certain members of
Thermadyne management hold the remaining equity capital.

In October 2010, two identical purported class action lawsuits
were filed in connection with the Acquisition against the
Company, the Company's directors, and Irving Place Capital.  On
November 25, 2010, the Company, the Company's directors and Irving
Place Capital entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of these actions.  On June 30,
2011, the Circuit Court issued an order approving the settlement
and resolving and releasing all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought.  The Circuit Court further awarded
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount
of $399,000, which were paid on July 21, 2011.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Phillips" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit commenced by
James L. Phillips, 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 February 6, 2009, James L. Phillips served a complaint against
Triad Guaranty Inc., Mark K. Tonnesen and Kenneth W. Jones in the
United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
between October 26, 2006, and April 1, 2008, and the complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws by the Company and
two of its present or former officers.  The court appointed lead
counsel for the plaintiff and an amended complaint was filed on
June 22, 2009.   TGI filed its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on August 21, 2009, and the plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 20, 2009.  TGI's
reply was filed on November 19, 2009, and oral arguments on the
motion occurred on August 30, 2010.  The court has not yet issued
its opinion.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend
this matter.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. AHM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc. is awaiting a court decision on motions to
dismiss its lawsuit commenced against American Home Mortgage,
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 September 4, 2009, Triad filed a complaint against American
Home Mortgage ("AHM") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware seeking rescission of multiple master
mortgage guaranty insurance policies ("master policies") and
declaratory relief.  The complaint seeks relief from AHM as well
as all owners of loans insured under the master policies by way of
a defendant class action.  Triad alleged that AHM failed to follow
the delegated insurance underwriting guidelines approved by Triad,
that this failure breached the master policies as well as the
implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and that these
breaches were so substantial and fundamental that the intent of
the master policies could not be fulfilled and Triad should be
excused from its obligations under the master policies.  Three
groups of current owners and/or servicers of AHM-originated loans
filed motions to intervene in the lawsuit, which were granted by
the Court on May 10 and October 29, 2010.  On March 4, 2011, Triad
amended its complaint to add a count alleging fraud in the
inducement.  On March 25, 2011, each of the interveners filed a
motion to dismiss.  Triad filed its answer and answering brief in
opposition to the motions to dismiss on May 27, 2011, and the
interveners filed their reply briefs on July 13, 2011.  The total
amount of risk originated under the AHM master policies,
accounting for any applicable stop-loss limits associated with
Modified Pool contracts and less risk originated on policies which
have been subsequently rescinded, was $1.4 billion, of which $0.8
billion remained in force at June 30, 2011.

Triad continues to accept premiums and process claims under the
master policies, with the earned premiums and settled losses
reflected in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.  However,
as a result of the litigation, Triad ceased remitting claim
payments to companies servicing loans originated by AHM and the
liability for losses settled but not paid is included in "Accrued
expenses and other liabilities" on the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  Triad has not recognized any benefit in its financial
statements pending the outcome of the litigation.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Continues to Defend "Larsen" Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
UnionBanCal Corporation continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit
relating to overdraft charges filed by a subsidiary's customer,
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.

The class action captioned Cynthia Larsen v. Union Bank, N.A., was
filed on July 15, 2009, by Union Bank customer Cynthia Larsen.  In
October 2009, the action was transferred from the Northern
District of California to the Multidistrict Litigation action
(MDL) in the Southern District of Florida.  Omnibus motions to
dismiss the complaints in many of the lawsuits included in the
MDL, including Larsen, were denied on March 12, 2010.  Plaintiffs
allege that, by posting charges to their demand deposit accounts
in order from highest to lowest amount, the Bank charged them more
overdraft fees than it would have charged them had the Bank posted
items to their accounts in chronological order.

Plaintiffs' complaint asserts common-law causes of action for
breach of contract and breach of duty of an implied duty of good
faith, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and
violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200
et seq. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, return or refund of
all improper overdraft fees, disgorgement of profits derived from
the Bank's alleged conduct, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  Plaintiffs represent a class of other Union Bank
customers who were charged overdraft charges as a result of "re-
sequencing" within the applicable statute of limitations period.
In July of 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to bring the
action as a class action.  Union Bank says it intends to
vigorously defend the case.  Trial is currently scheduled for
March 2012.


UNIVERSAL HOSPITAL: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Hospital Services, Inc., is awaiting a court's decision
on its second motion to obtain preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement it entered into to resolve merger-related
lawsuits, 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 February 6, 2011, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Sunrise Merger Sub, Inc. ("Sunrise Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Emergent Group Inc., pursuant to which the Company and Sunrise
Merger Sub commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") to purchase all
of the issued and outstanding shares of Emergent Group's common
stock at a purchase price of $8.46 per share in cash, followed by
a merger of Sunrise Merger Sub with and into Emergent Group with
Emergent Group surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company (the "Merger").  The Merger was completed on April 1,
2011.

Three putative shareholder class action complaints challenging the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement were filed on
behalf of three separate plaintiffs (collectively, the
"Plaintiffs") in the Superior Court of the State of California in
the County of Los Angeles (the "Court") against Emergent Group,
UHS, Sunrise Merger Sub and the individual members of the Emergent
Group Board (collectively, the "Defendants").  One was filed on
February 22, 2011, by Brian McManus, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, a second was filed on February 28,
2011, by Bryan Lamb, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and the third was filed on March 2, 2011, by
Leena Dave, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated.  Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the
members of the Emergent Group Board breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the public shareholders of Emergent Group by
attempting to sell Emergent Group by means of an unfair process
with preclusive deal protection devices at an unfair price of
$8.46 in cash per Share and by entering into the Merger Agreement,
approving the Offer and the proposed Merger, engaging in self
dealing and failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Emergent Group to its public shareholders.  The complaints further
allege that Emergent Group, UHS and Sunrise Merger Sub aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.  In addition, the
complaints allege that certain provisions of the Merger Agreement
unduly restricted Emergent Group's ability to negotiate with rival
bidders.  The complaints sought, among other things, declaratory
and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches,
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the
Merger and other forms of equitable relief.

On March 22, 2011, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
lawsuits for all purposes, and renamed the consolidated lawsuits
"In re Emergent Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation".  On March 24,
2011, a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the
consolidated lawsuits (the "MOU") was agreed to by the Plaintiffs
and the Defendants.  Following entry of the MOU the parties
entered into a definitive Settlement Agreement, subject to Court
approval, that provided in exchange for the Emergent Group's
amendment of its Schedule 14D-9 to include certain supplemental
disclosures Plaintiffs will seek an order dismissing all actions
alleging claims relating to the Merger and providing a full and
final release in favor of the Defendants and their related parties
from any claims that arose pursuant to or are related to the Offer
or the Merger.  The Defendants have agreed that Emergent Group or
its successor or their respective insurers will pay the
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses as are awarded by the
Court not to exceed $225,000.  At June 30, 2011, the Company has
paid $75,000 and anticipates the remainder of the balance to be
paid by its insurers.  The Court asked for additional information
from the parties during the first preliminary approval hearing and
declined to preliminarily approve the settlement.  The second
motion to obtain preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement
was filed on July 15, 2011, and is currently pending before the
Court.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company is not a party to any other
pending legal proceedings the adverse outcome of which could
reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on its
operating results, financial position or cash flows.


UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Continues to Defend "Snellink" Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Travel Group continues to defend a putative class action
lawsuit commenced by Albert Snellink in New Jersey, according to
the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On April 15, 2011, the plaintiff Albert Snellink commenced a
putative class action in the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey against the Company, and Jiangping Jiang,
Yizhao Zhang and Jing Xie, officers of the Company.  In the
complaint, plaintiff alleges a claim for violations of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against all defendants, and a claim for a violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants in connection with purported misrepresentations
contained in the Company's public filings and press releases.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and his costs
incurred in the action.  The Company's time to answer or move with
respect to the complaint has not yet expired.

The Company believes that the allegations of complaint are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


VAUGHAN FOODS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Reser's Fine Foods
------------------------------------------------------------
Vaughan Foods, Inc., is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit
over its proposed sale to Reser's Fine Foods, Inc., according to
the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On July 6, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Reser's Fine Foods, Inc., pursuant to which Reser's
will acquire the Company in a merger transaction.  As a result,
the Company will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Reser's and
shares of the Company's common stock will cease trading.

On August 10, 2011, the Company was notified of a lawsuit by a
person alleging to be a shareholder of the Company, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the
Company, Reser's, and each of the directors of the Company,
alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in
entering into the merger agreement with Reser's and inadequate or
misleading disclosures in the Company's proxy materials regarding
the special meeting.  The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the
lawsuit be certified as a class action, that he be declared the
class representative, that the merger be preliminarily or
permanently enjoined or that in the event it is consummated prior
to entry of final judgment, rescission of the transaction or an
awarding of recessionary damages, an accounting by the defendants
of all damages caused by them and profits and benefits obtained by
them as a result of the breach of their fiduciary duties and
costs.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend itself and its directors vigorously.


VERENIUM CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from final approval of Verenium Corporation's settlement
to resolve a class action lawsuit over its initial public offering
remain 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 June 2004, the Company executed a formal settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in December
2002 in a U.S. federal district court, or the Court.  This lawsuit
is part of a series of related lawsuits in which similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that conducted an Initial Public Offering, or IPO
of their common stock in 2000 and the late 1990s (the "IPO
Cases").  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision
certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting
preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification of
certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement.  On August 31,
2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary
approval of the modified settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the Court
held a Final Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final
approval of the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower Court's earlier
decision certifying as class actions the six IPO Cases designated
as "focus cases."  The Company is not one of the six focus cases.
Thereafter, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings
in all of the IPO Cases pending the outcome of the plaintiffs'
petition to the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and
resolution of the class certification issue.  On April 6, 2007,
the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but
clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited
class in the District Court.  Accordingly, the settlement as
originally negotiated was terminated pursuant to stipulation of
the parties and will not be finally approved.  On August 14, 2007,
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six focus cases, and
thereafter moved for certification of the classes and appointment
of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in those cases.  The six focus
case issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims against them in
November 2007 and an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in December 2007.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss on March 16, 2008.  On October 2, 2008, the plaintiffs
withdrew their class certification motion.

On February 25, 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the
district court that a settlement of the IPO Cases had been agreed
to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties and
preliminary and final approval by the court.  On April 2, 2009,
the parties submitted a tentative settlement agreement to the
court and moved for preliminary approval thereof.  On June 11,
2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the tentative
settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement to be
published and mailed.  The District Court held a final fairness
hearing on September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District
Court certified the settlement class in each IPO Case and granted
final approval to the settlement.  On October 23, 2009, three
shareholders filed a Petition for Permission To Appeal Class
Certification Order, objecting to the District Court's final
approval order and, in particular, asserting that the District
Court's certification of the settlement classes violates the
Second Circuit's earlier class certification decisions in the IPO
Cases.  Beginning on October 29, 2009, a number of shareholders
also filed direct appeals, objecting to final approval of the
settlement.  If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the
settlement will result in the dismissal of all claims against the
Company and its officers and directors with prejudice, and the
Company's pro rata share of the settlement fund will be fully
funded by insurance.

The Company says it is covered by a claims-made liability
insurance policy which it believes will satisfy any potential
liability of the Company under this settlement.  Due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because the objecting
shareholders are seeking to challenge the settlement on appeal,
the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be predicted, and an
estimate of potential losses is not estimatable.

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


VERIZON WIRELESS: Appeals Court Upholds Individual Arbitrations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that reversing its
view from a year ago, a federal appeals court said Verizon
Wireless customers must resolve disputes over alleged fraudulent
cellphone charges individually through arbitration rather than as
a class.

The ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia came four months after a divided U.S. Supreme Court,
in a case involving AT&T Inc., gave businesses a big victory in
upholding individual arbitrations to resolve customer disputes.

Some consumer advocates say arbitration favors companies by making
it too costly for consumers to bring small claims.

Verizon Wireless customers had claimed that a 2006 New Jersey
Supreme Court decision made it "unconscionable" to enforce a
clause in their service contracts requiring them to arbitrate
small administrative charges they deemed unfair.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit, which includes New Jersey,
had ruled in their favor in May 2010.

But on Wednesday, the same panel said the U.S. Supreme Court's
April 27 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, by a 5-4 vote,
now requires it to rule the other way.

As a result, the panel reinstated a 2008 decision by U.S. District
Judge Freda Wolfson in Trenton.  She said the Federal Arbitration
Act "establishes a strong federal policy" favoring arbitration,
and takes precedence over the New Jersey case.

The Concepcion holding is "broad and clear: a state law that seeks
to impose class arbitration despite a contractual agreement for
individualized arbitration is inconsistent with, and therefore
preempted by, the FAA, irrespective of whether class arbitration
is desirable for unrelated reasons," Judge Kent Jordan wrote for
the 3rd Circuit panel.

Verizon Wireless is the largest U.S. mobile service provider.  It
is based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and is a joint venture of
Verizon Communications Inc and Britain's Vodafone Group Plc.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs Keith Litman and Robert Wachtel did not
immediately respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Verizon
had no immediate comment.

The case is Litman et al v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
Wireless, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-4103.


VERTRO INC: Appeal in Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of Vertro, Inc.,
and other defendants in the consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit in Florida remains pending, according to the
Company's August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint alleged that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Act") and that the individual defendants also
violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of the
Company.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief
alleging that, during the putative class period, the Company made
certain misleading statements and omitted material information.

The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
November 16, 2009, and the court entered final judgment in favor
of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.  The Plaintiffs have filed
an appeal of the motion of summary judgment ruling.  Oral argument
of the appeal was held on November 17, 2010.

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

Regardless of the outcome, the Company says this litigation could
have a material adverse impact on its results because of defense
costs, including costs related to its indemnification obligations,
diversion of management's attention and resources, and other
factors.


VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Awaits Okay of Deal in Merix Acquisition Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Viasystems Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
agreement to settle for $1.5 million a consolidated lawsuit over
its acquisition of Merix Corporation, according to the Company's
August 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On October 13, 2009, and November 5, 2009, respectively, Asbestos
Workers Pension Fund and W. Donald Wybert, both former
shareholders of Merix Corporation, which the Company acquired in
February 2010, filed putative class action complaints in Oregon
state court (Multnomah County), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, against Merix, the members of its board
of directors and Viasystems.  The complaints, which were
substantively identical and sought to enjoin the Merix
Acquisition, alleged, among other things, that Merix' directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Merix' shareholders by
attempting to sell Merix to Viasystems for an inadequate price and
that Viasystems aided and abetted those breaches.

On November 23, 2009, the court entered an order consolidating the
two cases.  On December 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint"), which largely mirrored the original complaints, but
also added Maple Acquisition Corp. (the merger vehicle) as a
defendant and alleged that Merix' proxy statement for the Merix
Acquisition was materially deficient.

On January 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the Merix Acquisition, scheduled to take place
on February 8, 2010.  On January 29, 2010, the defendants filed
oppositions to plaintiffs' motion, and, on February 2, 2010,
plaintiffs filed their reply.  On February 5, 2009, following oral
arguments, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion.  The Merix
Acquisition was consummated on February 16, 2010.

After the Court denied the plaintiff's motion to enjoin the
transaction, the plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint, dated
April 19, 2010, naming only Merix' former board members as
defendants (the "Defendants").  In June 2011, the Defendants and
the plaintiffs agreed to settle the case for $1.5 million.  The
settlement is currently pending court approval.  The Defendants
are insured by Merix' directors and officers liability insurance
(the "D&O Insurance") coverage.  The Company says it has exhausted
the self-insured retention of the D&O Insurance and, therefore,
all settlement funds and any expenses related to this matter will
be paid by the D&O Insurance.


WEBMD HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of WebMD Health Corp., who purchased or otherwise
acquired WebMD securities between February 23, 2011, and July 15,
2011, inclusive.  If you are a member of this class, you can view
a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at
http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/

Members of the class may, not later than October 3, 2011, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that
the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact:

                 Darren J. Check, Esq.
                 David M. Promisloff, Esq.
                 Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
                 280 King of Prussia Road
                 Radnor, PA 19087
                 Toll Free: 1-888-299-7706
                            1-610-667-7706
                 E-mail: info@ktmc.com

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the
class action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/cases/webmd/

The Complaint charges WebMD and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  WebMD is a
provider of health information services to consumers, physicians
and other healthcare professionals, employers and health plans
through its public and private online portals and health-focused
publications.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that WebMD's customers,
particularly consumer products companies, were postponing
advertising on WebMD's Web site due to smaller advertising
budgets; (2) that, because of extended regulatory and legal
reviews, WebMD was experiencing sponsorship cancellations; (3)
that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
about the Company's business and prospects were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.

On July 18, 2011, the Company shocked investors when it
drastically cut its fiscal year 2011 guidance.  The Company
reduced its anticipated revenue for 2011 down to between $580
million to $600 million from a previous range of between $610
million to $640 million, and reduced its anticipated income from
continuing operations for 2011 down to between $71 million to $80
million from a previous range of between $79.8 million to $91.8
million.  The defendants stated that the reductions were the
result of several factors, including an extended internal legal
and regulatory review of biopharmaceutical sponsorship programs in
the consumer and professional markets, delays and cancellations in
new consumer sponsorships, and lower licensing revenue as a result
of low new customer additions.  Upon the release of this news,
shares of WebMD stock declined $14.00 per share, or over 30%, to
close on July 18, 2011, at $32.48 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts
throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for
additional information about participating in this action, please
visit http://www.ktmc.com


WESTERN DIGITAL: Court Confirms "Durrani" Deal Amount Fully Paid
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court confirmed that a settlement amount was fully paid in
accordance with the settlement agreement in the class action
lawsuit commenced by Ghazala H. Durrani, according to Western
Digital Corporation's August 12, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
July 1, 2011.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee
of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the
Alameda County (California) Superior Court.  The complaint alleged
that certain of the Company's engineers had been misclassified as
exempt employees under California state law and were, therefore,
due unspecified amounts for unpaid hourly overtime wages and other
amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest
periods.  By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was
transferred to the Orange County (California) Superior Court.  On
June 16, 2009, the Company was dismissed from the case without
prejudice by stipulation, leaving the Company's subsidiary,
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. ("WDTI"), as the sole remaining
defendant.  On June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its answer to the
complaint, denying the substantive allegations thereof and raising
several affirmative defenses.  The parties participated in a
mediation of the case on June 3, 2010, which led to a proposed
settlement of the case.  The proposed settlement, which was
ultimately approved by the court, resolved the case on a class-
wide basis for an immaterial amount that was accrued by the
Company in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010.  The court granted
final approval of the settlement and entered judgment on February
7, 2011.  A final accounting hearing took place on July 11, 2011,
at which the court confirmed that the settlement amount was fully
paid in accordance with the settlement agreement.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Court Okays Deal and Dismisses "Sadaat" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A court approved the settlement in the putative class action
lawsuit commenced by Tariq Sadaat and dismissed the case in its
entirety, according to Western Digital Corporation's August 12,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 1, 2011.

On February 26, 2010, and as thereafter amended on August 23,
2010, and December 22, 2010, plaintiff Tariq Sadaat, a former
employee of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Orange County (California) Superior Court against the
Company, its subsidiary Western Digital Technologies, Inc., Kelly
Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and certain other unnamed
individuals.  Plaintiff sought to represent certain hourly
employees who were assigned to work at certain of the Company's
facilities by Kelly Services, a temporary staffing agency.  In
this regard, the complaint alleged that the hourly employees were
due unspecified sums for unpaid overtime wages and other amounts,
as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest periods.
The complaint sought unspecified damages including lost wages,
penalties under the California Labor Code and other statutes,
compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company's
response to the complaint was filed and served in January 2011.
The parties participated in a mediation of the case, which led to
a proposed settlement of Sadaat's individual claims for an
immaterial amount.  The Court approved the proposed settlement on
July 26, 2011, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, with
prejudice as to Sadaat's individual claims and without prejudice
as to the alleged class claims.


WHOLE FOODS: Continues to Defend "Kottaras" Suit in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market, Inc., still defends a class action lawsuit
pending in District of Columbia, according to the Company's
August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

On October 27, 2008, Whole Foods Market was served with the
complaint in Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking treble damages, equitable,
injunctive, and declaratory relief and alleging that the
acquisition and merger between Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats
Markets violates various provisions of the federal antitrust laws.
This case continues to be in the early stages of litigation.

Whole Foods Market says it cannot at this time predict the likely
outcome of this judicial proceeding or estimate the amount or
range of loss or possible loss that may arise from it.  The
Company has not accrued any loss related to the outcome of this
case as of July 3, 2011.


WILSHIRE BANCORP: Class Action in California Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against Wilshire Bancorp
Inc. in California is still pending, according to the Company's
August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

On March 29, 2011, Wilshire Bancorp Inc., the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer, and its current Chief Financial Officer
were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, in a case entitled Michael Fairservice v. Wilshire
Bancorp, Inc. et al.  The complaint arises out of the Company's
announcement that it had concluded an internal investigation in
connection with the activities of its former senior marketing
officer and implemented remedial procedures in response to that
investigation.  The internal investigation was conducted by the
Company's audit committee with assistance of outside independent
professional firms and the Company's internal audit department,
and was undertaken following questions from the FDIC regarding the
loan files originated by that marketing officer and after the
execution of a search warrant related to loan files involving the
former officer, as well as to address activities of the former
officer that had previously come to the attention of management.
The scope of the Company's internal investigation focused on loan-
related and other business activities of the former senior
marketing officer. As part of its investigation, management
discovered a deficiency in the operating effectiveness of loan
underwriting, approval, and renewal processes for those loan
originations and asset sales associated with the former officer.
Specifically, these processes lacked effective supervision and
oversight by the Company's former Chief Executive Officer.  The
Company's former Chief Executive Officer, who was responsible for
overseeing these matters, resigned following the reporting of
these activities to the Company's Board of Directors.

The purported class action complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that Wilshire Bancorp had deficiencies in its
underwriting, origination, and renewal processes and procedures;
was not adhering to its underwriting policies; lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and, as a result, its financial
statements were materially false and misleading.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, among other remedies.


XFONE INC: Unit Still Awaits Ruling on Settlement in "Tzur" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Xfone Inc. subsidiary continues to await a court ruling on a
settlement it negotiated to resolve a consumer class action suit
filed in Israel, according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur, et al., filed a request to
approve a claim as a class action against Xfone 018 Ltd., the
Company's former 69% Israel-based subsidiary, and four other
Israeli telecom companies, all of which are entities unrelated to
the Company, in the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel.  The
Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by consumers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers.  One of the Petitioners, Mr. Eli
Sharvit, seeks damages from Xfone 018 for the cost such telephone
calls allegedly made by him during the 5.5-year period preceding
the filing of the Class Action Request, which he assessed at
NIS54.45 (approximately US$15.71).  The Class Action Request, to
the extent it pertains to Xfone 018, states total damages of
NIS7,500,000 (approximately US$2,164,502), which reflects the
Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to all consumers that
(pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly called Xfone
018's technical support number during a certain period defined in
the Class Action Request.  An internal court deliberation with
respect to the Class Action Request has been scheduled by the
Israeli court for October 11, 2011.

On February 22, 2011, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit entered into a
settlement agreement, which following the request of the Israeli
Court was supplemented on May 3, 2011.  Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, Xfone 018 agreed to compensate its current and past
registered customers of international calling services who called
its telephone service center from December 15, 2004 until
December 31, 2009, due to a problem in the Services, and were
charged for such calls.  The Compensation includes a right for a
single, up to ten minutes, free of charge, international call to
one landline destination around the world, and shall be valid for
a period of six months.  In addition, Xfone 018 agreed to pay Mr.
Sharvit a one time special reward in the amount of NIS10,000
(approximately US$2,886).  Xfone 018 further agreed to pay Mr.
Sharvit attorneys' fee for professional services in the amount of
NIS40,000 (approximately $11,544) plus VAT.  In return, Mr.
Sharvit and the members of the Represented Group agreed to waive
any and all claims in connection with the Class Action Request.
As required by Israeli law in such cases, the Settlement Agreement
is subject to the approval of the Israeli Court.

On May 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with
Marathon Telecom Ltd. for the sale of its majority (69%) holdings
in Xfone 018.  Pursuant to Section 10 of the Agreement, the
Company is fully and exclusively liable for any and all amounts,
payments or expenses which will be incurred by Xfone 018 as a
result of the Class Action Request.  Section 10 of the Agreement
provides that the Company will bear any and all expenses or
financial costs, which are entailed by conducting the defense on
behalf of Xfone 018 and/or the financial results thereof,
including pursuant to a judgment or settlement (it was agreed that
in the event that Xfone 018 will be obligated to provide services
at a reduced price, the Company shall bear only the cost of such
services).  Section 10 of the Agreement further provides that the
defense by Xfone 018 will be performed in full cooperation with
the Company and with mutual assistance.  Subject to and upon the
approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Israeli Court, the
Company will bear and/or pay: (i) the costs of the Compensation;
(ii) the Reward; (iii) the Attorneys Fee; and (iv) Xfone 018
attorneys' fees for professional services in connection with the
Class Action Request, estimated at approximately NIS75,000
(approximately US$21,645).

In the event the Settlement Agreement is not approved by the
Israeli Court, Xfone 018 will vigorously defend the Class Action
Request.


YTB INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Approval of Motion to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a class action complaint originally filed in an
Illinois state court against YTB International Inc. are pending,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

On August 8, 2008, a complaint seeking to be certified as a class-
action was filed against the Company, three Company subsidiaries,
and certain executive officers, in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. On August 14, 2008, a second,
substantively similar, complaint was filed against the same
defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  The two cases have now been consolidated
and are proceeding together before the same judge. The plaintiffs
have filed a consolidated complaint, seeking damages of over $100
million.  On February 9, 2009, the Company filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On June 5, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motions and
dismissed the class action complaint, but granted the plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint that conformed with the Court's
ruling.  On July 15, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that purported to conform to the Court's ruling.  The
amended complaint asserts claims similar to those contained in the
dismissed complaint.  On July 20, 2009, the Court, acting on its
own motion, struck the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its
entirety based on the Court's belief that the amended complaint
does not pass muster under the applicable federal pleading
standards.  On July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed motions for
leave with the Court to amend their complaints.  The Court
granted their motions and a second amended complaint was filed
on December 24, 2009.  On February 12, 2010, the Company filed
motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  On
April 19, 2010, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss as to all
the out-of-state plaintiffs.  As a result, there is only one
remaining plaintiff who is a citizen of Illinois.  Consequently,
the Court has requested further briefing on the issue of whether
the Court retains jurisdiction to hear the matter when both
plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of the same state.  The
additional briefing was due on May 19, 2010.  On May 26, 2010, the
Court dismissed the last remaining Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an appeal with the Seventh Circuit.  Oral
argument for the appeal occurred on February 25, 2011.

Additionally, on June 16, 2011, the Plaintiffs have filed a new
class action complaint with substantially the same allegations in
Illinois state court.  This state court complaint has been removed
to Federal Court and motions to dismiss the suit are currently
pending before the Court.

On July 27, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overruled
the District Court's dismissal of the national class-action and
remanded the case for further proceedings.


ZYNEX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
Zynex, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit pending in Colorado, according to the Company's
August 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A lawsuit was filed against the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer on
April 6, 2009, in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et
al.).  On April 9 and 10, 2009, two other lawsuits were filed in
the same court against the same defendants.  These lawsuits
alleged substantially the same matters and have been consolidated.
On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-REB-KLM).  The
consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement by
the Company that it would restate its unaudited interim financial
statements for the first three quarters of 2008.  The lawsuit
purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 21, 2008, and March 31, 2009.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of
material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding
the financial results and operating conditions for the first three
quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements.  The plaintiffs
ask for a determination of class action status, unspecified
damages and costs of the legal action.

On May 17, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
and on July 5, 2010, the Company filed a Reply in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  On March 30, 2011, the United
States District Court of Colorado entered an Order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations are without
merit and will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.  The
Company has notified its directors and officers liability insurer
of the claim.  At this time, the Company is not able to determine
the likely outcome of the legal matters against it, nor can it
estimate its potential financial exposure.  Litigation is subject
to inherent uncertainties, and if an unfavorable resolution of any
of these matters occurs, the Company's business, results of
operations, and financial condition could be adversely affected.


* Mandatory Arbitration Agreement to Benefit Employers
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hetchcock, writing for Dallas Business Journal, reports that
labor and employment lawyer Patrick Maher used to be skeptical
about whether arbitration works in employers' best interests.

A recent ruling in a case involving AT&T Inc., however, is causing
him to rethink that position.

The U.S. Supreme Court in April struck down a California Supreme
Court decision prohibiting waivers of class action claims in
consumer arbitration agreements.

The ruling in the case, AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion, allows
businesses and employers to reduce the possibility of class action
lawsuits through the use of mandatory arbitration agreements.

Mr. Maher, a partner in the Fort Worth office of Shannon, Gracey,
Ratliff & Miller LLP and a past chairman of the State Bar of Texas
Labor and Employment section, said the case is changing the
landscape of class action lawsuits.

"It's a huge factor that's now favoring arbitration," he said.

The benefits of arbitration for employers have historically
included lower costs, faster resolution of cases and reducing the
possibility of runaway jury verdicts, proponents of the procedure
say.

But the supposed savings have been marginalized as arbitration
costs have risen and courts have gotten speedier at hearing cases,
causing Mr. Maher and some other lawyers to question whether the
out-of-court procedure is truly best for businesses, he said.

With the AT&T ruling, however, arbitration clauses carry the
additional benefit of minimizing the chances that businesses will
become targets of class action claims, making the procedure more
attractive, Mr. Maher said.

"I frankly now have been advising employers to consider adopting
mandatory arbitration agreements," he said.

                       Curbing class actions

The AT&T decision involved consumer claims; it remains to be seen
whether the courts will decide that employers can similarly dodge
class actions by requiring its employees to agree to arbitrate
cases.

But recent decisions seem to indicate that the case will be
applied to employer/employee cases as well, Mr. Maher said.

Attorney Tammy Wood of Dallas-based Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP
said it is common for telephone companies to have arbitration
provisions in the contracts they have with their customers, in
part because of the protection the contracts offer from class
action suits.

"I think they're going to continue to keep them in there," said
Ms. Wood, who does not represent AT&T but represents other phone
companies.

The waiver of class action claims makes it cost prohibitive for
customers to pay the thousands of dollars in filing fees to sue a
phone company, she said.

"Somebody who's pursuing a 39-cent claim isn't going to do that,"
she said.  "It pretty much takes away the consumer's right to
really have redress in that instance."

Procedural rules have changed over the years to make it more
difficult to file class actions, especially in state courts,
Ms. Wood said.

She sees the AT&T decision as the continuation of a trend to curb
class action suits.

"That can be very good for the company," she said, "and bad for
the plaintiff lawyers."

                        A thousand bites

The AT&T case took a twist earlier this month when AT&T tried to
thwart an effort led by two plaintiffs' firms to derail AT&T's $39
billion takeover bid for Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile.

In a series of lawsuits, AT&T accused the firms of trying to
pressure AT&T into "an extortionate settlement" by encouraging
AT&T customers to file multiple claims against the merger.

New York-based Bursor & Fisher launched a "Fight the Merger"
campaign in July, saying the huge deal would restrict competition
and violate federal antitrust law.

So far, Bursor & Fisher has filed more than 25 arbitration demands
and more than 900 notices of dispute on behalf of AT&T customers
who oppose the merger.

AT&T argued that the merger-related claims could not be decided in
arbitration, and accused the plaintiffs' firms of "taking a
thousand bites at the apple" in hopes of finding an arbitrator
willing to block the merger.


* Two Big Case Rulings to Impact Businesses Facing Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hethcock, writing for Dallas Business Journal, reports that
two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases involving companies with big
presences in North Texas will have a major impact on the risks
businesses face from class action cases.

One is a consumer case against AT&T Inc., the second-largest
public company in North Texas based on revenue and the region's
sixth largest private-sector employer, with more than 17,000 local
workers.

The other is an employment case against Wal-Mart, North Texas'
largest employer, which has more than 30,000 local workers.

The Justices sided with business in both cases.  And both cases
make it more difficult for plaintiffs to get class actions in
front of a jury, which could be good news not only for big
companies, but for midsize and smaller companies, as well, North
Texas lawyers say.

AT&T vs. Concepcion makes it easier for companies to avoid class
actions by including anti-arbitration agreements in contracts.
Dukes vs. Wal-Mart makes the class certification process more
difficult for plaintiffs.

Despite the rulings, class action litigation will live on.  Class
actions will likely look very different, though, as lower courts
sort through how to apply the decisions in the consumer and
employment contexts, and the rules continue to change.

The failure of a massive class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in
a sexual-discrimination case will have important implications for
employers, say North Texas lawyers who specialize in the area.

Class action lawsuits are intended to help individual employees,
consumers or citizens who claim they have been wronged by a
company or other entity by allowing the individuals to band
together with others who have similar claims.

The goal is to improve judicial efficiency and to help individuals
who might not otherwise be economically able to pursue cases on
their own.

In the case of Dukes vs. Wal-Mart, more than 1 million of the
company's female employees claimed that Wal-Mart had
systematically discriminated against them by promoting men to
managerial positions in greater numbers than women.  The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in late June that a class action with such a
large number of plaintiffs could not move forward because there
wasn't enough similarity in their claims, among other reasons.

The plaintiffs in the Wal-Mart case can still pursue their cases
individually or possibly in smaller classes.

The case is the largest employment class action in history and has
major implications for businesses, said Karl Nelson, co-partner-
in-charge of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Dallas office and part of
the team of lawyers that convinced the Supreme Court to
unanimously reverse certification in the Wal-Mart case.

"The question was whether the rules would permit such a broad,
sweeping class," Mr. Nelson said.  "The Supreme Court ruled that
it would not.  One ground was that the women just didn't have
enough in common."

The ruling levels the playing field for employers, leaving
companies in a better position to fight claims in court rather
than settling them, Mr. Nelson said.

"Once a class is certified, there's enormous pressure on the
employer to think about settling the case because the exposure for
the company is so very high," he said.  "In reality, it really
changes the dynamics of the case and the leverage."

                     Small company, big risk

Companies don't have to be megacorporations such as Wal-Mart to be
concerned about class action suits, Mr. Nelson said.  Classes with
as few as 20 plaintiffs have been certified, meaning companies
with relatively few employees or customers could be at risk.

Wal-Mart had strong nondiscrimination policies in place, which
helped the company in court, said Allan King of Littler Mendelson
PC's Dallas office.  Mr. King, who co-chairs the firm's class
action group, said Littler Mendelson has more than 300 class
action cases pending nationwide.

"A takeaway from (the Wal-Mart case) is that employers who have
very strong policies that are legally compliant with respect to
discrimination and other aspects of employment are going to be in
better shape to defeat class certification," he said.

The more specific the policy, the better, Mr. King said.  For
example, one company's policy might state only that the company
prohibits gender discrimination in any form.  A stronger policy,
however, would require managers to get training about gender
discrimination, provide a toll-free number for employees who feel
they've been discriminated against, spell out procedures to handle
discrimination complaints and state that there will be no
retaliation against employees who lodge complaints, Mr. King said.

The long-term implications of the Wal-Mart case will depend on how
broadly the courts apply the decision, Mr. King said.

"If these same principles are incorporated into other kinds of
litigation, beyond discrimination, it could be a very dramatic
effect," he said.

Both Messrs. Nelson and King are closely watching how the Wal-Mart
case will be applied to class actions involving allegations of
wage-and-hour violations, rather than discrimination.  Wage-and-
hour cases include claims that employers failed to pay minimum
wage or overtime compensation, misclassified employees as exempt,
paid nonexempt employees on a salary basis or misclassified
employees as independent contractors.

Wage-and-hour claims are among the most common issues in class
action suits, and their numbers are growing, Mr. King said.
Smartphones and other technological advances make it possible for
employees to return e-mail and do other work tasks from outside
the office, leading to more employee claims that their managers
are requiring them to work "off the clock" contrary to established
policies.


                            *********

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  * * *