CAR_Public/110901.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 173

                             Headlines

ALLY FINANCIAL: Mortgage Units Continue to Defend Suit in New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Grais Removes Countrywide Suit to Federal Court
BWAY PARENT: Fees Incurred in Settled Suit Covered by Insurance
CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq Continues to Defend "Fulghum" Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Qwest Continues to Negotiate Settlements of Suits

CENTURYLINK INC: 10th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Claims vs. Qwest
CVB FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Calif. Suit Pending
DUCOMMUN INC: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Implementing Terms of Class Action Settlement
ENSCO PLC: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits

FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Calif.
FXCM INC: RICO Class Suit Remains Pending in New York
FXCM INC: Claims Dismissed After N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Motion to Dismiss "Monk" Suit Still Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Continues in Suit vs. OCD Unit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Race Discrimination Suit Dismissed in May
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
LOJACK CORP: Continues to Defend Employee Class Claims in Calif.
LOJACK CORP: Fairness Hearing Set for Dec. 5 in Consumer Suit

MONSANTO CO: Judge in Class Action Replaced Due to Illness
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Being Sold to Google for Too Little, Suit Says
NCH CORP: Settles Sales Reps.' Class Action for $1.4 Million
NEVADA PROPERTY: Continues to Defend Condominium Unit Buyers Suit
NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Ads in Ill.

OLD SECOND BANCORP: Defends Amended Class Action Complaint in Ill.
RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE: Trial Not Yet Set for Class Action
ROCK-TENN COMPANY: Del. Class Suit Remains; Ill. Suits Dismissed
ROHM & HAAS: 3rd Cir. Refuses to Certify Medical Monitoring Suit
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Defends Consolidated Suit vs. AATI Merger

SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Class Action Attorneys Seek Legal Fees
SOUTH AFRICAN BREAD PRODUCERS: Price-Fixing Class Action Fails
SOUTH KOREA: Indie Bands Mull Class Action Against MOGEF
SOUTHERN UNION: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Texas & Delaware
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Supreme Court to Hear "Greenwood" Case in Oct.

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suits
TRANSUNION CORP: Expects Privacy Matter to Conclude by Year-End
TRANSUNION CORP: Defends Consumer Class Claim in Pennsylvania
WASHINGTON POST: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action

WORLD GYM: Violates Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, Suit Claims

* BC Court Wants Jurisdiction Over Competition Class Actions
* Good Developments Seen in MBS Class Actions





                             *********

ALLY FINANCIAL: Mortgage Units Continue to Defend Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc.'s mortgage subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against a class action lawsuit filed by New Jersey
Carpenters Health Fund, et al., in New York, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

There are fourteen cases relating to various private-label
mortgage-backed securities (MBS) offerings that are currently
pending. Plaintiffs in these cases include Cambridge Place
Investment Management Inc. (two cases pending in Suffolk County
Superior Court, Massachusetts, filed on July 9, 2010, and
February 11, 2011, respectively); The Charles Schwab Corporation
(case pending in San Francisco County Superior Court, California,
filed on August 2, 2010); Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (case
pending in Suffolk County Superior Court, Massachusetts, filed on
April 20, 2011); Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (case pending
in Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois, filed on October 15,
2010); Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis (case pending in
Marion County Superior Court, Indiana, on October 15, 2010, and
removed to the Southern District of Indiana); Massachusetts Mutual
Life Ins. Co. (case pending in federal court in the District of
Massachusetts, filed on February 9, 2011); Allstate Insurance Co.,
et al. (case pending in Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota,
filed on February 18, 2011); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, et
al. (a putative class action, filed on September 22, 2008, in
which certification has been denied, pending in federal court in
the Southern District of New York); West Virginia Investment
Management Board (case pending in Kanawha County Circuit Court,
West Virginia, filed on March 4, 2010); Thrivent Financial for
Lutherans, et al. (case pending in federal court in the District
of Minnesota, filed on March 28, 2011); Union Central Life
Insurance et al. (case pending in federal court in the Southern
District of New York, filed on April 28, 2011); National Credit
Union Administration Board (case pending in federal court in the
District of Kansas, filed on June 20, 2011); and The Western and
Southern Life Insurance Co., et al. (case pending in Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio, filed on June 29, 2011). Each
of the cases includes as defendants certain of the Company's
mortgage subsidiaries, and the New Jersey Carpenters,
Massachusetts Mutual, Union Central, and Western and Southern
cases also include as defendants certain current and former
employees. The plaintiffs in all cases have alleged that the
various defendant subsidiaries made misstatements and omissions in
registration statements, prospectuses, prospectus supplements, and
other documents related to MBS offerings. The alleged
misstatements and omissions typically concern underwriting
standards. Plaintiffs claim that such misstatements and omissions
constitute violations of state and/or federal securities law and
common law including negligent misrepresentation and fraud.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and rescission.


BANK OF AMERICA: Grais Removes Countrywide Suit to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters News & Insight,
reports that there is never a dull moment in Bank of America's
attempt to resolve its Countrywide mortgage-backed securities
liability.  In a stunning move on Aug. 26, the law firm leading
the fight against BofA's proposed $8.5 billion settlement with
Countrywide MBS noteholders removed the case from New York state
supreme court to federal court.  "The purpose of removal is to
make sure that this proceeding is adjudicated in the proper
forum," Grais & Ellsworth wrote in a letter to lawyers for Bank of
New York Mellon (the Countrywide MBS trustee) and for the big
institutional investors who crafted the proposed settlement.  "We
believe in good faith that this proceeding is subject to federal
jurisdiction as a mass action under the Class Action Fairness
Act."

The removal to federal court plunges the proposed settlement, at
least temporarily, into more uncertainty than ever.  Judge Barbara
Kapnick, who is presiding over the unusual state court proceeding
to evaluate the proposed deal, had imposed an Aug. 30 deadline for
Countrywide MBS investors to intervene in the case.  She had also
established a preliminary schedule for the discovery Grais &
Ellsworth and other objectors' counsel have demanded from BNY
Mellon, BofA, and the institutional investors and their Gibbs &
Bruns counsel.  The removal to federal court means that Judge
Kapnick isn't in charge of the case, so it's not clear whether
lawyers are required to abide by her schedule.

The Grais & Ellsworth filing was a surprise tactic.  The firm has
been in the state court litigation since early July, filing its
initial petition to intervene only days after Bank of New York
Mellon, as Countrywide trustee, filed a suit asking for court
approval of the settlement of investors' claims.  David Grais even
appeared before Judge Kapnick at an August 5 hearing on objectors'
requests for expedited discovery.  Grais & Ellsworth apparently
waited to remove the case to federal court until Judge Kapnick
granted the firm's motion to intervene in the state court case on
Aug. 22.

You can bet that BNY Mellon and the institutional investors will
move quickly to try to get the case back to Judge Kapnick, whose
first substantive ruling, albeit on a minor procedural matter,
went their way.  Lawyers from Mayer Brown and Dechert (for BNY
Mellon) and Gibbs & Bruns (for the investors backing the
settlement) will be filing remand motions this week, possibly as
soon as Monday or Tuesday.  Whoever hears the remand fight --
Grais & Ellsworth's petition said the case is related to a
Countrywide MBS investor suit before Manhattan federal judge
William Pauley -- will have to deal with all kinds of novel
questions.  Among them: Grais & Ellsworth's own previous precedent
on put-back claims in federal court.

Grais's argument for sending the $8.5 billion proposed settlement
to federal court comes under the Class Action Fairness Act, the
2005 law that requires big-money class actions to be litigated
under the oversight of a federal judge.  CAFA also mandates that
mass actions, in which at least 100 plaintiffs have filed parallel
suits seeking money damages against the same defendant, be
transferred to federal court.  Grais & Ellsworth is asserting that
because the proposed Countrywide MBS settlement will resolve the
claims of investors in 530 trusts, it's a mass action under CAFA.

But here's the thing: There's actually only one plaintiff in the
proceeding before Judge Kapnick.  As Thomson Reuters' Ms. Frankel
explained, the banks and the Gibbs & Bruns investor group that
negotiated the proposed settlement are seeking court approval for
the $8.5 billion deal under Article 77, a provision of the New
York rules of civil procedure that's typically invoked in small-
time family trust matters.  The lawyers behind the settlement
opted for an Article 77 proceeding -- instead of a class action --
specifically because New York trust laws give broad leeway to
trustees, who are presumed to be acting in the interests of trust
beneficiaries unless someone can show they acted unreasonably. It
may turn out that the banks' Article 77 strategy also undermines
Grais & Ellsworth's attempt to move the case to federal court
because technically the case is not a mass action.

There's also the little matter of a previous ruling by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, upholding a Manhattan
federal court's remand of a Countrywide MBS put-back case to state
court.  It's worth taking a moment to consider that case, in which
a plaintiff called Greenwich Financial Services asserted in New
York state supreme court that Countrywide had breached
representations and warranties about the mortgage loans underlying
notes Greenwich bought.  Those are the exact sort of investor
claims, remember, that are at issue in the proposed $8.5 billion
settlement.

Countrywide removed the case to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Greenwich successfully remanded the case to
state court, arguing that CAFA didn't apply to its put-back suit
because of an exception in the class action law for cases related
to rights and duties, including fiduciary duties, over securities.
It was a smart argument by Greenwich's lawyers, who badly wanted
to keep the case in state court.  Put-back suits argue that the
MBS sponsor is required to buy back underlying mortgages that
breach the representations the sponsor made about them. They're
based on the issuer's contractual duty, not on fraud allegations.

Countrywide appealed, but the Second Circuit found that "as long
as a plaintiff's claim seeks enforcement of a right that arises
from an appropriate instrument, its falls within the [CAFA]
exception."

The Article 77 proceeding that Grais & Ellsworth has now removed
to federal court is distinct from the Greenwich case because it
was filed by the Countrywide MBS trustee, not by an investor.
Nevertheless, the Second Circuit seemed pretty clear that put-back
claims, which the Article 77 proceeding addresses, are an
exception to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Grais & Ellsworth, as it happens, knows the Greenwich precedent
very well: Grais represented the plaintiff who fought so hard --
and effectively -- to remand the put-back case to state court.
And guess who oversaw the Greenwich case when it returned to state
court? Judge Kapnick! Last October, she dismissed Grais' case on
procedural grounds, finding that Greenwich didn't own the
requisite 25% voting rights that would have permitted it to demand
put-backs.


BWAY PARENT: Fees Incurred in Settled Suit Covered by Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
During each of the first nine months of 2011, BWAY Parent Company,
Inc., did not incur any legal fees and expenses arising from a
2010 merger-related litigation, that were not covered by
insurance, 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.

BWAY Parent, on June 16, 2010, acquired BWAY Holding Company
through the merger of Picasso Merger Sub, Inc., a 100% owned
subsidiary of BWAY Intermediate Company, Inc., with and into BWAY
Holding, which is the surviving corporation, pursuant to an
agreement and plan of merger dated March 28, 2010.

On April 5, 2010, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia,
against BWAY Holding Company, the members of the board of
directors of BWAY Holding, the chief financial officer of BWAY
Holding, Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, BWAY Parent and Picasso
Merger Sub, Inc.  The complaint in the lawsuit, Civil Action No.
2010CV183869, asserted that the members of the board of directors
and the chief financial officer breached their fiduciary duties by
causing BWAY Holding to enter into the Merger Agreement and
further asserted that BWAY Holding, MDP, BWAY Parent and Merger
Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty.  The
complaint sought, among other relief, an order enjoining the
consummation of the Merger and rescinding the Merger Agreement.
On November 10, 2010, the court issued a final order approving the
settlement agreed to between the parties and dismissing the case
with prejudice.  At September 30, 2010, the Company had
approximately $0.5 million accrued related to this litigation,
which the Company paid in November 2010 following the issuance of
the final order.  The Company continues to incur certain legal
fees and expenses related to litigation that may not be covered by
insurance.  During each of the first nine months of 2011 and 2010,
the Company did not incur any legal fees and expenses related to
litigation that were not covered by insurance.


CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq Continues to Defend "Fulghum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, Inc.'s subsidiary, Embarq Corporation, continues to
defend itself against a class action lawsuit related to its
retiree benefits program, according to the Company's August 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company acquired Embarq Corporation in July 2009.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas (Civil Action No. 07-CV-2602), a group of
retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
decision to make certain modifications to Embarq's retiree
benefits programs generally effective January 1, 2008 (which
resulted in a $300 million reduction to the liability for retiree
benefits at the time of the modifications). Defendants include
Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits
Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its
benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and
certain of its benefit plans. The Court has certified a class on
certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as
to other claims. Embarq and other defendants continue to
vigorously contest these claims and charges. The Company believes
it is premature to estimate the impact this lawsuit could have to
the Company's results of operations or financial condition. In
2009, a ruling in Embarq's favor was entered in an arbitration
proceeding filed by 15 former Centel executives, similarly
challenging the benefits changes.


CENTURYLINK INC: Qwest Continues to Negotiate Settlements of Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, Inc.'s subsidiary, Qwest Communications International
Inc., continues to negotiate settlements of class action lawsuits
relating to the installation of fiber-optic cable in certain
rights-of-way, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company acquired Qwest Communications International Inc., on
April 1, 2011.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber-optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in various
courts in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois (where there is a federal and a state court
case), Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington. For the most part, the
complaints challenge Qwest's right to install its fiber-optic
cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the
railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include
the right to permit Qwest to install its fiber-optic cable in the
right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. Most of the actions
purport to be brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named
plaintiffs' respective states, although two of the currently
pending actions purport to be brought on behalf of multi-state
classes. Specifically, the Illinois state court action purports to
be on behalf of landowners in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin, and the Indiana state
court action purports to be on behalf of a national class of
landowners. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. On
July 18, 2008, a federal district court in Massachusetts entered
an order preliminarily approving a settlement of all of the
actions, except the action pending in Tennessee. On September 10,
2009, the court denied final approval of the settlement on grounds
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On December 9, 2009,
the court issued a revised ruling that, among other things, denied
a motion for approval as moot and dismissed the matter for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are now engaged in
negotiating settlements on a state-by-state basis, and have filed
and received preliminary approval of a settlement in Illinois and
Alabama federal courts as well as Tennessee state court.


CENTURYLINK INC: 10th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Claims vs. Qwest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of claims against Centurylink, Inc.'s subsidiary,
Qwest Communications International Inc., was affirmed by the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2011, according to the Company's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company acquired Qwest Communications International Inc., on
April 1, 2011.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of Qwest's
retirees was brought against Qwest, the Qwest Group Life Insurance
Plan and other related entities in federal district court in
Colorado in connection with Qwest's decision to reduce the life
insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit. The
action was filed on March 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that Qwest and other defendants were obligated to
continue their life insurance benefit at the levels in place
before Qwest decided to reduce them. Plaintiffs seek restoration
of the life insurance benefit to previous levels and certain
equitable relief. The district court ruled in Qwest's favor on the
central issue of whether Qwest properly reserved its right to
reduce the life insurance benefit under applicable law and plan
documents. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to
assert additional claims. In 2009, the court dismissed or granted
summary judgment to Qwest on all of the plaintiffs' claims. The
plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals. On June 2, 2011, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the
District Court's decision.


CVB FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Calif. Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class
action lawsuit in California remains pending, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief
Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich Jr. (our former Chief
Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On September 14,
2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was
filed against the Company in an action originally captioned
Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the
Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to
those included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville
Fund") as lead plaintiff and approved the Jacksonville Fund's
selection of lead counsel.

On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company
throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be
between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported
class. On May 13, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.


DUCOMMUN INC: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Ducommun Incorporated continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits pending in Delaware and Missouri over its
acquisition of LaBarge, Inc., according to the Company's August 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

On June 28, 2011, the Company completed the acquisition of all the
outstanding stock of LaBarge, Inc. ("LaBarge"), a publicly-owned
company based in St. Louis, Missouri for $325,315,000 (net of cash
acquired and excluding acquisition costs). LaBarge is a provider
of electronics manufacturing services to aerospace, defense and
other diverse markets. LaBarge provides its customers with
sophisticated electronic, electromechanical and mechanical
products through contract design and manufacturing. The
acquisition was funded from internally generated cash, senior
unsecured notes and a senior secured term loan.

Ducommun has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions filed in April 2011 by purported stockholders of LaBarge
against LaBarge, its Board of Directors and Ducommun in connection
with the LaBarge acquisition. Two of the stockholder actions
(filed by purported class representatives Barry P. Borodkin and
Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 14) were filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court, and the court consolidated those two
actions. The other three stockholder actions (filed by purported
class representatives J. M. Foley, Jr., William Wheeler and Doris
A. Gastineau) were filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, and that court consolidated those three actions. The
consolidated Delaware and Missouri putative class actions
generally allege that the individual members of the Board of
Directors of LaBarge breached their fiduciary duties to LaBarge
stockholders with respect to the merger transaction announced on
April 4, 2011. These actions also allege that Ducommun and LaBarge
aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties. They seek
equitable relief (including injunctive relief), judicial
declarations that the merger agreement was entered into in breach
of the LaBarge directors' fiduciary duties, rescission of the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and the award
of attorneys' fees and expenses for the plaintiffs. In the
Delaware consolidated actions, the parties engaged in expedited
discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction hearing
scheduled for June 17, 2011. After document discovery and
depositions, and before the plaintiffs filed their motion for
preliminary injunction, the parties negotiated and signed a
memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims. The
preliminary settlement is subject to a definitive agreement and
final approval of the Delaware Chancery Court. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Chancery Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties do enter into such stipulation.
In the Missouri consolidated actions, the defendants sought a stay
of the Missouri actions from the Missouri court, the plaintiffs
opposed that request, and the Missouri court stayed the actions.
Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court's stay, and the
defendants opposed that request. On June 16, 2011, a hearing
before the Missouri court was held on plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. On June 20, 2011, the Missouri court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and reaffirmed the court's
stay. Ducommun believes these lawsuits are without merit, and in
the event that settlement of these claims is not finalized,
intends to defend them vigorously.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Implementing Terms of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2005, a class action employee suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws. In July 2010, Dynamics Research
Corporation and the plaintiffs agreed upon principle terms of
settlement, the cost of which was accrued on the balance sheet as
of June 30, 2010. In October 2010, the Company received an
executed settlement agreement by the plaintiffs. The Federal
District Court for the First Circuit reviewed the settlement and
on March 4, 2011 approved the settlement. The Federal Court thirty
day appeal period for challenges to the settlement expired on
April 4, 2011, with no appeals filed. The parties have proceeded
to implement the terms of the class action settlement.

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


ENSCO PLC: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend itself against class action lawsuits
over its merger with Pride International, Inc., as parties have
yet to enter into a stipulation of settlement, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On May 31, 2011 (the "Merger Date"), Ensco plc completed a merger
transaction (the "Merger") with Pride International, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Pride"), ENSCO International Incorporated,
a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary and
predecessor of Ensco plc ("Ensco Delaware"), and ENSCO Ventures
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and an indirect, wholly-
owned subsidiary of Ensco plc ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 6, 2011 (as
amended, the "Merger Agreement"), among Ensco plc, Pride, Ensco
Delaware and Merger Sub, and subject to the conditions set forth
therein, Merger Sub merged with and into Pride, with Pride as the
surviving entity and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Ensco
plc.

                Demand Letter, Derivative Cases
                 and Shareholder Class Actions

In June 2009, Pride received a demand letter from counsel
representing Kyle Arnold. The letter states that Mr. Arnold was
one of Pride's shareholders and that he believes certain of
Pride's then-current and former officers and directors violated
their fiduciary duties.  The letter requested that Pride's board
of directors take appropriate action against the individuals in
question.  In September 2009, Pride's board of directors formed a
special committee, which retained independent counsel and
commenced an evaluation of the issues raised by the letter in an
effort to determine a course of action.

On April 14, 2010, Edward Ferguson, a purported shareholder of
Pride, filed a derivative action in the state court of Harris
County, Texas against all of Pride's then-current directors and
against Pride, as nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Pride.
Among other remedies, the lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified
amount and equitable relief against the individual defendants,
along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and expenses
to the plaintiff. On April 15, 2010, Lawrence Dixon, another
purported shareholder, filed a substantially similar lawsuit in
the state court of Harris County, Texas against the same
defendants. These two lawsuits have been consolidated. After the
conclusion of Pride's investigation, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended petition on January 18, 2011, raising
allegations substantially similar to those made in the prior
lawsuits.

In December 2010, the special committee completed its evaluation
of the issues surrounding Pride's FCPA investigation and again
reviewed its conclusion on January 28, 2011 in connection with the
amended petition. The committee concluded that it was not in the
interest of Pride or its shareholders to pursue litigation related
to the matter. On February 14, 2011, Pride received the report of
the special committee dated December 8, 2010, as well as committee
minutes reflecting the conclusions reached in the meeting of
January 28, 2011.

Following the announcement of the Merger, a number of putative
shareholder class action complaints or petitions were filed
against various combinations of Pride, Pride's directors, Ensco
and certain of the Company's subsidiaries in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, and in the state courts of Harris County, Texas. These
lawsuits challenged the proposed Merger and generally alleged,
among other matters, that the individual members of the Pride
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the proposed Merger, failing to take steps to maximize value to
Pride's stockholders and failing to disclose material information
concerning the proposed Merger in the registration statement on
Form S-4; that Pride, Ensco and certain of its subsidiaries aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties; and that the Merger
Agreement improperly favored Ensco and unduly restricted Pride's
ability to negotiate with other bidders. These lawsuits generally
sought, among other remedies, compensatory damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches,
and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating
the Merger. In addition, the plaintiffs in the derivative class
action lawsuit related to Pride's previously disclosed FCPA
investigation filed an amendment to their petition adding claims
related to the Merger.  In the amendment, the plaintiffs contend
that the proposed Merger was motivated by a desire to extinguish
alleged liability related to the derivative action, as well as
other similar claims relating to the Merger.  The derivative class
action lawsuit, as amended, has been consolidated with the other
lawsuits in the state courts of Harris County, Texas.

On May 19, 2011, Ensco and the other named defendants signed a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs to settle the
previously disclosed shareholder class action lawsuits filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the Merger Agreement.
As provided in the memorandum of understanding, after approval by
Pride and Ensco boards of directors in May, the parties entered
into an amendment to the Merger Agreement.  The amendment reduced
the fee payable by Pride in connection with certain terminations
of the Merger Agreement to $195.0 million from $260.0 million.
The amendment also shortened the "tail period" for certain
transactions that could trigger a termination fee from 12 months
to nine months after termination. The amendment also eliminated
the "force the vote" provision applicable to Pride such that Pride
would not be required to submit the adoption of the Merger
Agreement to its shareholders if the Pride board of directors made
an adverse change in their recommendation.

The memorandum of understanding also provided, among other
matters, that the parties would seek to enter into a stipulation
of settlement which provides for the release of certain claims
held by such class and the payment of the fees and expenses of the
attorneys for the class in an amount to be agreed.  The
stipulation of the settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement that receives court approval.  In the event the parties
are unable to reach agreement on the amount of attorneys' fees,
such matter may be submitted to the court for determination.

At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these matters or estimate the extent to which the Company may be
exposed to any resulting liability, including the amount of
attorneys' fees that may be awarded.  Although the outcome cannot
be predicted, the Company does not expect these matters to have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, operating
results or cash flows.


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Friendfinder Networks Inc. continues to defend
itself in a consumer class action arbitration in California,
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 or about November 27, 2006, a claimant filed a consumer class
action arbitration at Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services,
Inc. or JAMS in San Jose, California, alleging a nationwide class
action against Various Inc. under a variety of legal theories
related to, among other things, representations regarding the
number of active users on its internet dating Web sites, causing
the appearance of erroneous member profiles, and a failure to
adequately remove or account for alleged erroneous member
profiles.  The claimant is seeking unspecified damages.  Various
disputes the claims and intends to defend the arbitration
vigorously.


FXCM INC: RICO Class Suit Remains Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit asserting claims against FXCM Inc. under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act remains
pending 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 quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On February 8, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York by a single former customer against Forex Capital Markets
LLC.  The complaint asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C Section 1961 et seq., as
well as the New York General Business Law.  The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, trebled, and alleges false and
deceptive trade practices, fraudulent and unfair trade execution
and account handling practices.  A motion to compel arbitration
was filed by Forex Capital Markets LLC during April 2011 and a
decision is pending.


FXCM INC: Claims Dismissed After N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claims asserted by plaintiffs against FXCM Inc. in a securities
class action lawsuit in New York were dismissed following the
parties' entry into a stipulation dismissing the lawsuit,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On March 3, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against FXCM Inc., as well as certain of the Company's
officers and directors and three underwriters in the Company's
IPO.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, alleges false or misleading statements in the IPO
prospectus regarding the Company's business model and trading
platforms, and sought an unspecified amount of damages on behalf
of persons who purchased the Company's Class A common stock in the
IPO.  On July 1, 2011, a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice
was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  As a result of the Dismissal, all claims
asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants were dismissed with
prejudice.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Motion to Dismiss "Monk" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed
by Ronald Monk is still pending with the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, 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 September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that the Company and
certain individuals, including executive officers and employees of
the Company, failed to disclose that a number of manufacturing
facilities were failing to maintain current good manufacturing
practices, and that as a result, the price of the Company's stock
has declined significantly. Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his alleged
economic losses. In May 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss, which is pending before the Court.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Continues in Suit vs. OCD Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the consolidated class action lawsuit
against Johnson & Johnson's subsidiary, Ortho-Clinical
Diagnostics, Inc., according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

In April 2009, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) received a
grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, requesting documents and information for the
period beginning September 1, 2000 through the present, pertaining
to an investigation of alleged violations of the antitrust laws in
the blood reagents industry. OCD complied with the subpoena. In
February 2011, OCD received a letter from the Antitrust Division
indicating that it had closed its investigation in November 2010.
In June 2009, following the public announcement that OCD had
received a grand jury subpoena, multiple class action complaints
seeking damages for alleged price fixing were filed against OCD.
The various cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Discovery is ongoing.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
complaint related to Johnson & Johnson's RISPERDAL(R) product
remains pending, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 3, 2011.

Starting in July 2006, five lawsuits were filed in United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey by various employers
and employee benefit plans and funds seeking to recover amounts
they paid for RISPERDAL(R) for plan participants. In general,
Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its
pharmaceutical subsidiaries engaged in off-label marketing of
RISPERDAL(R) in violation of the federal and New Jersey RICO
statutes. In addition, Plaintiffs asserted various state law
claims. All of the cases were consolidated into one case seeking
class action status, but shortly thereafter, one action was
voluntarily dismissed. In December 2008, the Court dismissed the
actions of the four remaining plaintiffs. In April 2010, those
plaintiffs filed a new consolidated class action against the
Company and Janssen, L.P. (now Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(JPI)); and in March 2011, that action was dismissed. In April
2011, one of those plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Race Discrimination Suit Dismissed in May
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson obtained a dismissal of a class action lawsuit
alleging race discrimination in May 2011, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3,
2011.

In September 2004, Plaintiffs, in an employment discrimination
litigation initiated against the Company in 2001 in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, moved to
certify a class of all African American and Hispanic salaried
employees of the Company and its affiliates in the United States,
who were employed at any time from November 1997 to the present.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the period 1997 through the
present (including punitive damages) and equitable relief. The
Court denied Plaintiffs' class certification motion in December
2006 and their motion for reconsideration in April 2007.
Plaintiffs sought to appeal these decisions and, in April 2008,
the Court of Appeals ruled that Plaintiffs' appeal of the denial
of class certification was untimely. In July 2009, Plaintiffs
filed a motion for certification of a modified class, which the
Company opposed. The District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion in
July 2010, and the Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' request for
leave to appeal the denial of certification of the modified class.
In May 2011, the case was dismissed with prejudice.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company and its subsidiary continue to defend
themselves against product liability lawsuits, two of which are
class actions, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company and its subsidiary ETHEX Corporation are named
defendants in at least 34 pending product liability or other
lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls initiated by
the Company in late 2008 and early 2009. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits allege damages as a result of the ingestion of
purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and
2008. The lawsuits are pending in federal and state courts in
various jurisdictions. The 34 pending lawsuits include 4 that have
settled but have not yet been dismissed. In the 34 pending
lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege economic harm, 24 plaintiffs
allege that a death occurred, and the plaintiffs in the remaining
lawsuits allege non-fatal physical injuries. Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability are based on various theories of
recovery, including, but not limited to strict liability,
negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding, fraud and
other common law and/or statutory claims. Plaintiffs seek
substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Two of the lawsuits
are putative class actions seeking economic damages with respect
to recalled products, one of the lawsuits is on behalf of 29
claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are individual lawsuits or
have two plaintiffs. One of these putative class actions, styled
LeFaivre v. KV Pharmaceutical Company et al., seeks economic
damages with respect to recalled metoprolol succinate product.
During January 2011, the decision of the U.S. District Court
dismissing the case in favor of the Company was reversed on
appeal. The Company requested reconsideration by the appellate
court, which was denied in March 2011, and the Company has filed a
motion for appellate review en banc, which was denied by the court
on May 12, 2011. The case has been returned to the district court
for further proceedings. The Company believes that these lawsuits
are without merit and is vigorously defending against them, except
where, in its judgment, settlement is appropriate. In addition to
the 34 pending lawsuits, there are at least 21 pending pre-
litigation claims (at least three of which involve a death) that
may or may not eventually result in lawsuits. The Company has also
resolved a significant number of related product liability
lawsuits and pre-litigation claims. In addition to self insurance,
the Company possesses third party product liability insurance,
which the Company believes is applicable to the pending lawsuits
and claims.


LOJACK CORP: Continues to Defend Employee Class Claims in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lojack Corporation continues to defend itself against employee
class claims in California, according to the Company's August 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In April 2006, Mike Rutti vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by an employee alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California
Business & Professions Code, and seeking class action status (the
"Federal Court Case"). In September 2007, the Company's motion for
summary judgment was granted and the district court dismissed all
of the plaintiff's federal law claims. The plaintiff appealed the
dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and in August
2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment on all claims except as to the claim for
compensation for the required postliminary data transmission, or
the data transmission claim, for which the dismissal was vacated.
The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit
and on March 2, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's grant of summary judgment on all claims except as to (a)
the claim for compensation for commuting under state law and (b)
the data transmission claim, which are the two remaining claims.
The plaintiff seeks to pursue the claim for compensation for
commuting time in the State Court Case. The plaintiff moved for
conditional class certification for the data transmission claim
and on January 14, 2011, the District Court for the Central
District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification. The trial for this claim in federal
court has been set to begin in November 2011.

Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in federal court in
September 2007, in November 2007, the plaintiff also filed Mike
Rutti, Gerson Anaya vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. comprising its
state law claims in California State Court (the "State Court
Case"). In June 2009, the California State Court granted class
certification with respect to nine claims and denied class
certification with respect to five claims. The Company appealed
this decision and on March 26, 2010, the California State
Appellate Court granted the Company's appeal in part, denying
certification with respect to certain claims and affirming
certification with respect to certain other claims.

On February 14, 2011, the Company filed a Notice of Removal to
remove this State Court Case to Federal Court, thereby seeking to
consolidate both the Federal and State Court Cases to be heard in
Federal Court and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
Federal Court Case to State Court. On April 15, 2011, the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the State Court Case to
the California State Court. On April 29, 2011, the Company filed a
petition for leave to appeal the decision to remand, which the
Ninth Circuit subsequently declined to hear. Thus, these claims
will be heard in State Court.

On July 29, 2011, the California State Court held a class
certification hearing regarding the remaining uncertified claims
and held that all such claims, except for vehicle maintenance
expense reimbursement claims, were to be certified. Thus, there
are currently 16 claims class certified, including morning and
evening commute time, meal breaks, rest breaks, on-call time,
postliminary data transmission time, time picking up supplies from
UPS along with associated travel time, time spent washing and
maintaining the company vehicle, time spent washing and
maintaining work uniforms, time charting the route to the first
job of the day, time spent driving to and from work meetings and
waiting for work meetings to start, reimbursement of work tools
expenses, reimbursement of the cost of washing the company
vehicle, failure to pay overtime, waiting time penalties,
penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act, and
claims under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200.

In both the Federal and State Court Cases, the plaintiff, on
behalf of the class, seeks unpaid wages, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual
defenses to these claims and intends to defend its interests
vigorously.


LOJACK CORP: Fairness Hearing Set for Dec. 5 in Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement resolving
a consumer class action against Lojack Corporation is scheduled
for December 5, 2011, according to the Company's August 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 15, 2010, a suit entitled Louis Morin v. LoJack Corp.,
Inc., et al was filed by a consumer in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court of the State of California (Central District)
alleging, amongst other claims, violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and Section
17500 (false advertising), and breach of implied warranty with
respect to LoJack Early Warning for motorcycles, and seeking class
action status. On July 29, 2010, the Company removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District Court of
California. On August 23, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss all claims, which was granted by the Court on
September 27, 2010, without prejudice. The dismissal without
prejudice provided the plaintiff with the opportunity to amend its
complaint, and on October 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, for alleged fraud, violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and Section
17500 (false advertising), and breach of implied warranty and
again sought class certification. On November 12, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims and a motion to
strike certain claims. On December 28, 2010, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff, on behalf of the
class, sought injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. On
March 3, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and the Company filed its opposition to class
certification on March 28, 2011.

The parties participated in a mediation hearing on March 29, 2011
and reached a settlement to resolve all claims on a class-wide
basis. The United States District Court for the Central District
of California preliminarily approved the settlement on June 16,
2011. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company would
revise its disclosures in motorcycle related marketing materials
and provide class members with a twelve month extension of the
terms of the Company's Limited Recovery Warranty. The Company
would also pay an enhancement award of $20,000 to the named
plaintiff and would pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs
up to $415,000. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company
would receive a release by all potential class members who do not
affirmatively opt out of the settlement. Nothing in the settlement
agreement constitutes an admission of any wrongdoing, liability or
violation of law by the Company. Rather, the Company has signed
the settlement agreement to resolve the litigation, thereby
eliminating the uncertainties and expense of further protracted
litigation. A fairness hearing for final approval of the
settlement is scheduled for December 5, 2011.


MONSANTO CO: Judge in Class Action Replaced Due to Illness
----------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia MetroNews reports that State Supreme Court Chief
Justice Margaret Workman announced on Aug. 29 that she's replacing
Putnam County Circuit Judge O.C. Spaulding with Mercer County
Circuit Judge Derek Swope on the class action lawsuit involving a
large chemical company.

Judge Spaulding took himself off the Monsanto case back on Aug. 26
when he made a stunning announcement in his courtroom that he'd
been diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease.

The class-action lawsuit filed by current and former Nitro
residents against Monsanto concerning alleged pollution was
scheduled to begin Sept. 6, but Judge Swope signed an order on
Aug. 29 postponing the trial.  He'll conduct a status conference
Sept. 6.

Justice Workman also announced Senior Status Judge James Holliday
will provide assistance during Judge Spaulding's illness.  He had
already been appointed to help because the Monsanto case is
scheduled to last a couple of months.


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Being Sold to Google for Too Little, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Colaco, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Jon E. Barfield, William R. Hambrecht, Jeanne P.
Jackson, Sanjay K. Jha, Keith A. Meiseter, Thomas J. Meredith,
Daniel A. Ninvaggi, James R. Stengel, Anthony J. Vinciquerra,
Andrew J Viterbi, Google Inc, and Motorola Mobility Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-30541 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
August 29, 2011) is brought on behalf of the public shareholders
of Motorola to enjoin a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Motorola will be acquired by Google in a cash-for-stock
transaction valued at $12.5 billion.

The Plaintiff alleges that the merger agreement is the result of a
flawed process that resulted in the failure of Motorola's Board of
Directors to maximize shareholder value and deprive Motorola
public shareholders of the ability to participate in the Company's
favorable long-term prospects.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Motorola.

Motorola, which is incorporated under the laws of the state of
Delaware, is a provider of technologies, products and services
that enable a broad range of mobile and wireline digital
communication, information and entertainment experiences.  Google
hosts and develops Internet-based services and products including
Internet search, cloud computing, advertising technologies and
search engines.  The Individual Defendants are directors of
Motorola.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          180I Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


NCH CORP: Settles Sales Reps.' Class Action for $1.4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that industrial
products manufacturer NCH Corp. reached a $1.4 million settlement
in California on Aug. 25 with a class of sales representatives who
claimed the company refused to reimburse them for business-related
expenses.

In a joint motion for settlement approval, Texas-based NCH and a
class of employees from its California division agreed that the
settlement was reasonable and preferable to continuing to litigate
the class action.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Continues to Defend Condominium Unit Buyers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC continues to defend a class action lawsuit
filed by buyers of its condominium units, 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 December 2009, the Company finalized a class action settlement
with 1,050 condominium purchasers in the West Tower of the
Property, with said purchasers receiving 74.4% of their principal
deposits, and the Company retaining 25.6% of same, plus all
interest thereon resulting in a net gain of approximately $34.5
million which the Company recognized as net settlement income
within the 2009 consolidated statement of operations.  The
remaining 270 purchasers in the West Tower of the Property elected
to opt out of and not participate in the settlement, thus
preserving their legal and contractual rights.  If all purchase
contracts associated with these settlements had closed pursuant to
their terms, total net sales proceeds would have been
approximately $708.0 million.  The cancellation of these contracts
therefore, reduced expected net sales proceeds by $673.5 million.
In April 2010, the Company finalized a class action settlement
with 427 condominium purchasers in the East Tower of the Property,
with said purchasers receiving 68.0% of their principal deposits,
and the Company retaining 32.0% of same, plus all interest thereon
resulting in a net gain of approximately $18.0 million which the
Company recognized as net settlement income in the consolidated
statement of operations.  The remaining 63 purchasers in the East
Tower of the Property elected to opt out of and not participate in
the settlement, thus preserving their legal and contractual
rights.  If all purchase contracts associated with these
settlements had closed pursuant to their terms, total net sales
proceeds would have been approximately $345.2 million.  The
cancellation of these contracts therefore, reduced expected net
sales proceeds by $327.2 million.

Since the time of the class action settlements, some of the
purchasers within the East and the West Towers who had previously
opted out of the settlement offers, have settled their claims with
the Company in individual transactions on terms identical to the
applicable class action settlement resulting in an additional $4.3
million in net settlement income in 2010.

In the three months ended March 31, 2011, 15 of the condominium
purchasers closed on their respective units pursuant to terms of
the original purchase contracts.  Net proceeds from the sale of
these condominium units were $14.5 million resulting in a gain of
$7.3 million which has been recorded as gain on sale of fixed
assets in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Operations.

In the three months ended June 30, 2011, an additional two of the
condominium purchasers closed on their respective units pursuant
to terms of the original purchase contracts.  Net proceeds from
the sale of these condominium units were $1.8 million resulting in
a gain of $0.9 million which has been recorded as gain on sale of
fixed assets in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement
of Operations.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
during March 2011 on behalf of all buyers who previously accepted
class action settlements.  The complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose material information about the Property to unit
purchasers prior to entering into the class action settlements.
The complaint asserts claims of fraud, unjust enrichment and money
had and received.  The plaintiffs are seeking an order compelling
the return of the balance of deposits forfeited in the class
settlements and additional damages in an unspecified amount.  Two
separate lawsuits were filed against the Company during April 2011
and May 2011 on behalf of real estate brokers and agents
purporting to have represented either the buyers or seller under
the condominium unit purchase and sale agreements.  The complaints
include various causes of action and seek to recover unpaid sales
commissions allegedly owed the plaintiffs as a result of the sale
of condominium-hotel units in the East and West Towers of the
Property.

Several individual condominium purchasers who opted out of the
class action settlements have commenced confidential arbitrations
alleging that the Company defaulted under the condominium unit
purchase contracts and are seeking a refund of their deposits.
One purchaser has commenced a confidential arbitration proceeding
seeking an order compelling the Company to complete a penthouse
unit.  Arbitration hearings on several of these matters have been
held or will be held in the coming months.  During July 2011, the
Company received a ruling in one arbitration proceeding resulting
in an immaterial net gain to the Company that will be booked
within the three months ended September 30, 2011.  Rulings on
other arbitration proceedings are expected within the next 30-60
days.

For each of the claims, the Company believes that it has strong
legal defenses, and intends to vigorously defend its position.
Management does not believe that these claims or those discussed
will have a material adverse impact on the condensed consolidated
financial position, cash flows, or the results of operations of
the Company.


NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Ads in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gorsline Development, LLC, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Northern Illinois Gas
Company and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2011-CH-29684 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., August 22, 2011) challenges the Defendants' alleged
practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements, in violation of the
Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that unsolicited fax messages damage the
recipients because the faxes waste paper, ink toner and the
recipient's valuable time.  The Plaintiff adds that unsolicited
faxes interrupt the recipient's privacy.

Gorsline Development is an Illinois limited liability company.

Northern Illinois Gas, is an Illinois corporation operating under
its assumed name, NICOR Gas Company, with its principal place of
business in Naperville, Illinois.  The Doe Defendants will be
identified in discovery but are not presently known.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


OLD SECOND BANCORP: Defends Amended Class Action Complaint in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 17, 2011, a former employee filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
of the Old Second Bancorp, Inc. Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan and
Trust alleging that the Company, Old Second National Bank, the
Employee Benefits Committee of Old Second Bancorp, Inc. and
certain of the Company's officers and employees violated certain
disclosure requirements and fiduciary duties established under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA"). On June 21, 2011, the complaint was amended to add a
second lead plaintiff, also a former Old Second employee.  The
complaint seeks equitable and as-of-yet unquantified monetary
relief.  The Company believes that it, its affiliates, and its
officers and employees have acted, and continue to act, in
compliance with ERISA law with respect to these matters, and has
moved the court to dismiss all claims. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the allegations of the complaint.

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


RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE: Trial Not Yet Set for Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Gardiner, writing for QMI Agency, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against the province of Ontario alleging physical and
mental abuse of former residents of the now-closed Rideau Regional
Centre has been given the go-ahead to proceed by the Ontario
Superior Court.

"I am pleased," said Gan-anoque's David McKillop, the claim's
representative plaintiff.

"I feel great (about the decision) and I am here to help others,
too, who cannot help themselves."

Mr. McKillop was a resident at the centre from 1955 to 1972.  He
alleges in the lawsuit that residents were emotionally, physically
and psychologically traumatized by their experiences at the former
home for the physically and mentally challenged.

Mr. McKillop's litigation guardian, Vicky Clark, said the decision
by Madam Justice Carolyn Horkins is a welcomed step.

"It's a relief and it's a validation," Ms. Clark said.

Jody Brown is an associate lawyer for the Koskie Minsky legal firm
in Toronto that is handling the lawsuit.  She said the decision is
not unexpected and should have been made earlier.

The lawsuit, and a coincidental suit that also received the
court's certification covering similar allegations at another
facility in Chatham-Kent, closely resemble another action already
in the discovery phase before the courts about allegations at a
Huronia residence, Ms. Brown said.

"Once Huronia was certified, we thought certification for Rideau
and (Chatham-Kent) should have gone ahead."

A press release from Kirk Baert at Koskie Minsky further
elaborates: "The certification of these proceedings . . . months
before the originally scheduled certification hearing dates
signals the court's intent to advance these proceedings without
any further unnecessary delays."

Ms. Brown said it remains unclear how soon the case will go to
trial but suggested it could be resolved by the end of 2013.

"This is only a procedural step but it is a big step."

She said the case will now move on to discussions about the merits
of individual arguments and establishing a timetable.

Meanwhile, the sheer number of documents and statements from
former residents and their families, as well as finding available
court time, will likely slow the process.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all former residents of the Rideau
Regional Centre between 1963 and 2009, as well as their family
members.

Ms. Brown said it is unclear how many people could be involved but
it is clearly a large number.  The population of Rideau Regional
was 2,600 in the early 1960s and 1,700 in 1975, she noted.

Ms. Brown said it remains undetermined how large a settlement will
be sought.

The lawsuit alleges negligence and breach of fiduciary duties by
the province in the operation, control and management of the
centre.

In particular, the suit arises from the government's supposed
negligence for allowing alleged abuses to occur unchecked for
decades, despite the existence of many reports, both official and
unofficial, which should have raised alarm bells, according to the
Koskie Minsky news release.

The court action was launched in September 2010 for Rideau
Regional and December 2010 for the Southwestern Regional Centre in
Chatham-Kent.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Community and Social Services,
which held jurisdiction over both facilities, declined to comment
because the case is before the courts.

Similarly, Tim Little, a communications spokesman for the Ontario
Public Service Employees Union, which represented Rideau Regional
workers, said there would be no comment.

"Essentially, we don't see ourselves as being a party to the
lawsuit," said Mr. Little.

"To OPSEU's knowledge, these are lawsuits launched against the
province and it is about government management and not against the
staff."

In a hypothetical situation where former staff may be singled out
in the court proceedings, the union will defend its membership,
Little said, "but I don't expect that will be necessary."


ROCK-TENN COMPANY: Del. Class Suit Remains; Ill. Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Only the consolidated class action lawsuit challenging Rock-Tenn
Company's acquisition of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in
Delaware remains as similar class action lawsuits in Illinois have
been dismissed, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 27, 2011, the Company completed its acquisition of Smurfit-
Stone Container Corporation through the merger of Smurfit-Stone
with and into a wholly owned limited liability company subsidiary
of RockTenn. As a result of the merger, the separate corporate
existence of Smurfit-Stone ceased and RockTenn CP, LLC is
continuing as the surviving entity of the merger. The Company has
included in its financial statements the results of Smurfit-
Stone's containerboard mill and corrugated converting operations
in its Corrugated Packaging segment, Smurfit-Stone's recycling
operations in its Recycling and Waste Solutions segment and
Smurfit-Stone's display operations in its Consumer Packaging
segment. The Company made the Smurfit-Stone Acquisition in order
to expand its corrugated packaging business as the Company
believes the containerboard and corrugated packaging industry is a
very good business and U.S. virgin containerboard is a strategic
global asset. The purchase price for the acquisition was $4,919.1
million, net of cash received of $473.5 million.

      Litigation Relating to the Smurfit-Stone Acquisition

Three complaints on behalf of the same putative class of Smurfit-
Stone stockholders were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
challenging the Company's acquisition of Smurfit-Stone: Marks v.
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., Case No. 6164 (filed
February 2, 2011); Spencer v. Moore, et al., Case No. 6299 (filed
March 21, 2011); and Gould v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et
al., Case No. 6291 (filed March 17, 2011). On March 24, 2011,
these cases were consolidated under Case No. 6164, plaintiffs
Marks and Spencer were appointed lead plaintiffs, and the
complaint in Spencer was designated as the operative complaint. In
the Spencer complaint, plaintiffs name as defendants Rock Tenn,
the former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of directors and Sam
Acquisition, LLC (now known as RockTenn CP, LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Rock Tenn that is the successor to Smurfit-Stone).
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the consideration
paid by Rock Tenn to acquire Smurfit-Stone was inadequate and
unfair to Smurfit-Stone stockholders, that the February 24, 2011
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus contained misleading
or inadequate disclosures regarding the acquisition by Rock Tenn
of Smurfit-Stone, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Company's acquisition of
Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches were aided and abetted by
Rock Tenn and Sam Acquisition, LLC. On May 2, 2011, the court
granted class certification, appointing the lead plaintiffs and
their counsel to represent a class of all record and beneficial
holders of Smurfit-Stone common stock as of January 23, 2011 or
their successors in interest, but excluding the named defendants
and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related
to or affiliated with any of the defendants. During argument in
connection with the preliminary injunction sought by the
plaintiffs, the plaintiffs acknowledged that their claims
concerning the adequacy of the disclosures in the February 24,
2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus were moot in
light of subsequent disclosures made by Smurfit-Stone and Rock
Tenn. On May 20, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' request
for a preliminary injunction preventing the completion of the
acquisition, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate
a likelihood of success with respect to the merits of their
claims, that the requisite showing of irreparable harm had not
been made and that the balance of the equities counseled against
granting the injunction. On July 7, 2011, the Company filed a
counterclaim in this case seeking a declaration that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to damages or the imposition of any
other remedy with respect to an error in Smurfit-Stone's proxy
statement relating to appraisal rights.

On February 17, 2011, a putative class action complaint asserting
similar claims was filed against Rock Tenn, Smurfit-Stone, the
former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of directors and Sam
Acquisition, LLC in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under the caption of Dabrowski v.
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-cv-01136. On
April 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging,
among other things, that the consideration paid by Rock Tenn to
acquire Smurfit-Stone was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone
stockholders, that Smurfit-Stone and the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Company's
acquisition of Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches were aided
and abetted by Rock Tenn and Sam Acquisition, LLC. The plaintiff
in Dabrowski also alleges that the March 31, 2011 amended joint
proxy statement/prospectus contains misleading or inadequate
disclosures constituting violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff in Dabrowski
seeks monetary and equitable relief. On August 4, 2011, the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this matter without prejudice.

Four complaints on behalf of the same putative class of Smurfit-
Stone stockholders are currently pending in the Circuit Court for
Cook County, Illinois challenging Rock Tenn's acquisition of
Smurfit-Stone: Gold v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., No.
11-CH-3371 (filed January 26, 2011); Roseman v. Smurfit-Stone
Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-3519 (filed January 27, 2011);
Findley v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-3726
(filed January 28, 2011); and Czech v. Smurfit-Stone Container
Corp., et al., No. 11-CH-4282 (filed February 4, 2011). On
February 10, 2011, these cases were consolidated together, and on
March 4, 2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants Rock
Tenn, Smurfit-Stone and the former members of the Smurfit-Stone
board of directors. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the consideration paid by Rock Tenn to acquire
Smurfit-Stone was inadequate and unfair to Smurfit-Stone
stockholders, that the February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus contained misleading or inadequate
disclosures, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Company's acquisition of
Smurfit-Stone and that those breaches were aided and abetted by
Rock Tenn and Smurfit-Stone. The amended complaint seeks equitable
relief. On April 21, 2011, the court stayed this consolidated
matter pending resolution of the Delaware plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction or until further order of the court. On
July 20, 2011, this consolidated matter was dismissed without
prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs.

The Company is continuing to vigorously defend against all claims
made against Rock Tenn, Smurfit-Stone and the former directors of
Smurfit-Stone arising out of this acquisition. The Company cannot
currently estimate the losses, if any, that will result from these
claims. No assurance can be given that the final resolution of
these claims will not be material to Rock Tenn.


ROHM & HAAS: 3rd Cir. Refuses to Certify Medical Monitoring Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that in a ruling that may sound the death knell for bringing a
medical monitoring suit as a class action, the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals has refused to certify claims brought by
residents of a small northern Illinois town who say they live in
fear of contracting cancer due to chemical dumping from a Rohm &
Haas plant.

"Because causation and medical necessity often require individual
proof, medical monitoring classes may founder for lack of
cohesion," U.S. Circuit Judge Anthony J. Scirica wrote in Gates v.
Rohm & Haas.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Scirica found
that the plaintiffs' claims were not amenable to being proven on a
classwide basis because several key elements would vary from
person to person.

Judge Scirica found that the plaintiffs could not prove whether
each member of the class was exposed to the contamination by
relying on experts who described only the average exposure to
those living in the vicinity over a 20-year period, but did not
account for those who spent time away from home.

"Each person's work, travel, and recreational habits may have
affected their level of exposure," Judge Scirica wrote in an
opinion joined by Judges Marjorie O. Rendell and Jane R. Roth.

"Averages or community-wide estimations would not be probative of
any individual's claim because any one class member may have an
exposure level well above or below the average," Judge Scirica
wrote.

Plaintiffs attorney Aaron J. Freiwald of Layser & Freiwald said he
was disappointed by the ruling and worries that the court has made
it impossible to pursue medical monitoring claims.

"This means that, in effect, there is no class action vehicle for
medical monitoring," Mr. Freiwald said.

And without the class action mechanism, Mr. Freiwald said, nearly
all medical monitoring claims will be impossible to pursue because
the value of individual claims is too small to justify bringing
individual cases.

The ruling is a victory for attorney Carl A. Solano of Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis, who said the court properly recognized
that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the rigorous requirements of
Rule 23.

"The court is saying you can't try to bypass those requirements by
taking a broad brush approach that uses averages," Mr. Solano
said.

In the suit, residents of McCullom Lake Village, a town of about
1,000 in the northeast corner of Illinois, claim that their
exposure to "volatile organic compounds" from two nearby factories
has put them at greater risk of contracting brain cancer.

In addition to the federal class action, Mr. Freiwald has also
filed individual personal injury suits in the Philadelphia Common
Pleas Court on behalf of residents who now have or have died from
brain cancer.  But the first of those cases to go to trial was
dismissed before it could be sent to the jury and is now on
appeal.

Named as defendants in all of the suits are Rohm & Haas Co. and
its subsidiary, Morton International Inc., the maker of Morton
Salt.  A third defendant, Modine Manufacturing Co., a manufacturer
of heating and cooling technology, settled by agreeing to create a
$1.4 million medical monitoring fund.

The suits allege that over several decades, both the Morton plant
and the Modine plant were "dumping" millions of gallons of
chemical waste in a lagoon that ultimately contaminated the town's
drinking water.

According to the suits, the chemicals dumped in the lagoon
included trichloroethylene (TCE) and dichloroethylene (DCE), both
of which degrade to a compound known as vinyl chloride, a
substance that has allegedly been found to cause cancer.

In addition to medical monitoring claims, the plaintiffs were also
seeking to pursue property damage claims.

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter initially refused to dismiss
the suit, but later ruled in a hefty opinion that neither the
medical monitoring nor the property damage claims could be
certified as a class action because the class was not "cohesive"
and because individual issues would predominate.

Now the 3rd Circuit has upheld all of Judge Pratter's rulings,
finding that at every step she had properly identified issues that
do not lend themselves to class treatment.

Judge Pratter found the plaintiffs failed to present common proof
of three issues critical to recovering on the medical monitoring
claim -- that all of the plaintiffs suffered from vinyl chloride
exposure greater than normal background levels; that every
plaintiff would therefore have a significantly increased risk of
developing a serious disease; and that the proposed medical
monitoring regime was "reasonably medically necessary" for the
entire class.

Judge Scirica agreed, finding that the plaintiffs' proof of
exposure "would show only the amount that hypothetical residents
of the village would have been exposed to under a uniform set of
assumptions without accounting for differences in exposure year-
by-year or based upon an individual's characteristics."

Such evidence falls short of Rule 23's requirements, Judge Scirica
found, because "plaintiffs cannot substitute evidence of exposure
of actual class members with evidence of hypothetical, composite
persons in order to gain class certification."


SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Defends Consolidated Suit vs. AATI Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skyworks Solutions, Inc., is defending itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit challenging its proposed merger
with Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated, 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 1,
2011.

On May 26, 2011, the Company announced it had entered into an
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement")with PowerCo
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
("Merger Sub") and Advanced Analogic Technologies Incorporated
("AATI") pursuant to which the Merger Sub will, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of the conditions in the Merger Agreement,
merge with and into AATI, and AATI will survive the merger and
become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger").

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

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

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

The Company believes that the claims in the consolidated action
are without merit and intend to defend against such claims
vigorously.


SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Class Action Attorneys Seek Legal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
T.S. Last, writing for El Defensor Chieftain, reports that to
answer the bigger question of how much Socorro Electric
Cooperative's lawsuit against its member-owners will ultimately
cost, another question -- possibly two -- need to be answered
first:

Will attorneys who successfully defended the case on behalf of
some or all of the approximately 10,000 member-owners be awarded
costs and fees for their efforts?

And if so, how much?

                        Payment Proposals

Though Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr. ruled against the co-op in its
effort to block three bylaws that call for increased transparency
last May, he has yet to answer those questions.  He is considering
awarding fees and invited attorneys to file motions requesting
compensation and some of them have done so.

Socorro attorneys Thomas G. Fitch and Polly Ann Tausch, who
initially filed their response to the lawsuit pro se as member-
owners of the co-op, asked for fees and costs "but only to the
extent that it does not unduly burden the member/owners of the
cooperative," their motion reads.

They did, however, attach an itemized statement for professional
services which totaled $7,600, but was discounted 50% to $3,800.

"Movants do not wish to see the member/owner's cooperative --
which has already paid extensive attorney fees to prosecute this
ill-advised suit -- bear additional fees and expenses," their
motion reads.

As reported in El Defensor Chieftain on Aug. 13, an Inspection of
Public Records request revealed attorney fees paid by the co-op
doubled during the year the lawsuit was filed, increasing by
nearly $34,000 over the previous two-year average.

And that's not counting how much is owed to the Kennedy & Han law
firm of Albuquerque, which has been involved in the lawsuit since
early on but hasn't billed the co-op for any of it.  Attorney Paul
Kennedy said in an Aug. 11 phone interview that a bill was
forthcoming, but he had no idea how much it would amount to.

Socorro Electric is anticipating a big bump in legal fees this
year.  A proposed budget calls for a $177,711 increase for
professional services, the line item out of which attorney fees
are paid.

In addition to Fitch and Tausch, the Deschamps & Kortemeier law
firm of Socorro, which defended individual members and is part of
a team of attorneys pursuing a class action countersuit, similarly
submitted an itemized statement with their motion, billing a
little more than $7,600.

"And this is just the tip of the iceberg," Stephen Kortemeier
said.  "We have not begun to seriously litigate the claims of the
class action suit. That will involve considerable discovery.  All
the board members and a few others will probably be asked to give
depositions, and those cost about $1,000 apiece."

Claims in the countersuit allege that co-op officials breached
their fiduciary duties and were guilty of fraud, taking
reimbursements for expenditures they were not entitled to.

Before members passed a bylaw to limit trustees' expenses, the 12-
member board incurred expenses totaling $492,000 in 2009.

Mr. Kortemeier said whatever the cost of litigation turns out to
be, it'll be worth it.

"In the long run, it'll save money rather than cost because the
shenanigans will stop," he said.

Deschamps & Kortemeier has been working in concert with the Ikard
Wynne law firm of Austin, Texas, on the countersuit.

Nothing, as yet, has been filed by the Texas law firm requesting
costs and fees from the co-op, but Bill Ikard said in a recent
phone interview that one could be filed as a supplement to
Deschamps & Kortemeier's motion.  He provided the Chieftain with a
statement detailing hours the firm spent on the case that totaled
more than $18,000.

Keeping in mind that Judge Mitchell hasn't decided whether he'll
award anything at all to the defense attorneys -- and that Ikard
Wynne hasn't filed a formal request for fees with the court -- the
three itemized statements indicate attorneys feel justified in
asking the judge to award them roughly $29,600 for defending
members in an unusual case that essentially amounted to the co-op
bringing suit upon itself.

Judge Mitchell has emphasized during the hearings held so far that
he is interested in minimizing the ultimate cost to members.  He's
requested and received a copy of the co-op's insurance policy, as
well as a letter from Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange
that indicates the co-op may not be covered by the countersuit
that's still pending.

The case is currently in the discovery phase, which itself can be
a time-consuming process.  The purpose of discovery is to gather
evidence each side may present as exhibits to assist the judge in
making the decisions he'll have to make.

Attorneys on both sides said recently they haven't even begun
discovery, so the answers probably won't come anytime soon.  No
date has been set for the next hearing.

                          The Hired Gun

William "Bill" Ikard is an Austin, Texas, attorney who fits the
profile as the "hired gun" in the co-op fray.  He helped win a $23
million class action settlement against Pedernales Electric
Cooperative, the largest co-op in the country, a few years ago.

Enlisted by reform-minded Socorro Electric Trustee Charlie Wagner,
Mr. Ikard is the lead attorney in the countersuit against the co-
op and the class action proposal names Wagner as the
representative of the class of member-owners.

Mr. Ikard said he was currently negotiating with attorney Paul
Kennedy, who is handling the co-op's defense against the
countersuit, on the terms of the court scheduling order for this
next phase of the case.

Mr. Ikard said it could be a long while before there's a
resolution to the case.

"I don't know exactly how to assess the duration," he said, adding
that much of it depended on whether class action certification was
granted.  "It could be a year or 18 months before it goes to
trial."

The countersuit takes aim not at the co-op, per se, but members of
the board of trustees, who voted to bring the lawsuit, and several
former co-op officials.  It calls for them to be disgorged of
money the countersuit alleges was improperly obtained over the
years.

"There are many pieces to the equation," Mr. Ikard said when asked
how much the litigation will eventually cost members.  "Obviously,
minimizing cost is extraordinarily important for everyone.  At the
end of the day, payment for what we receive has to cover the costs
to defend the litigation."

According to the statement from Ikard Wynne, the firm put 55.5
hours into the case from April 11 to May 31 of this year.
Mr. Ikard logged 25 hours and billed at a rate of $450 per hour.
His associate, Jordan Haedicke, put in 30.5 hours at a rate of
$225 per hour for a grand total of $18,112.50.

Asked how he justifies the cost and the potential impact it'll
have on members, Mr. Ikard said it's a concept some people may
have difficulty understanding.

"They might say that the members end up paying for whatever
remedies they get, so it's sort of a pyrrhic victory, but that's
shortsighted," he said.  "The benefits are beyond calculation.
How do you put a dollar amount on democracy and fair dealing?"

                          A Year's Work

Meanwhile, Deschamps & Kortemeier has asked to be reimbursed for
$7,607.58 in fees and costs.  Its itemized list of professional
services and expenses were from May 26, 2010, the same day the
board of trustees passed a motion to contest the new bylaws in
court, to May 20, 2011, two days after the judge made the ruling
that the bylaws were valid and binding.

Deschamps and Kortemeier each charge a rate of $300 per hour,
which is described as the "average" rate for attorneys with
comparable experience.

The first item they list is a 0.30-hour meeting with Charlene
West, which came at no charge.  In all, the firm accounted for
24.17 hours.  They arrived at the final figure with the inclusion
of copy and filing fees and gross receipt tax.

The motion contends that in a declaratory judgment action,
discretion to award attorney's fees is "as a well recognized
exception to the general rule that attorney's fees must be
provided for in the contract or by statute," something the co-op
disputes.

"New Mexico courts do not have statutory authority to award
attorney's fees in declaratory judgment action," the co-op's
response states, "and that there are few circumstances where a
common law rule would allow awarding such fees."

The response goes on to argue that fees are not recoverable under
any exception to the general rule.

The co-op's filing also claims Deschamps & Kortemeier didn't
provide evidence of the reasonableness of its fees and the scope
of its services.

In addition, the response states the co-op tried to have the
lawsuit dismissed, which would have minimized the cost of
litigation.  It says the defendants should not be rewarded for
refusing to agree to a voluntary dismissal and keeping the case in
the courts.

Finally, the co-op's response brings up an "alleged" Legal Defense
Fund it suggests was established and managed by Deschamps &
Kortemeier.  It asks the court to look into the assets and
identities of the contributors in order to make a "reasoned and
balanced" judgment on the issue.

In its reply, Deschamps & Kortemeier say a third-party not
associated or controlled by the law firm started the fund drive.
The law firm has nothing to do with fundraising efforts, but is
holding approximately $900 in trust based on unsolicited
contributions.

The reply also states the co-op "misses the point" in its analysis
of the exception to the general rule and its argument on the
declaratory judgment issue is misplaced.

"Plaintiff has either misperceived Defendants' arguments or is
attempting to confuse the issue by interjecting immaterial
argument," the reply reads.

In regard to refusing to allow dismissal, Deschamps & Kortemeier
say that seeing the lawsuit through to its conclusion is necessary
to bring resolution to the matter once and for all:

"Presumably, the Trustees' would have continued their
unwillingness to accept the by-law amendments as binding and the
rights, duties and obligations of the parties would be returned to
legal limbo.  Thus voluntary dismissal would not end the
controversy, would not have resulted in recognition of the
validity of the amendments and would not have precluded this
matter being litigated in the future."

                         An Ironic Twist

Last reported to be in an Albuquerque hospital, the victim of a
brutal attack at his Socorro office on Aug. 5, attorney Thomas
Fitch is pretty much through with the co-op case.

A former district court judge and amateur thespian, Mr. Fitch may
have recognized the irony in filing his motion to recover costs on
June 29, 2011, exactly one year after the co-op filed its lawsuit.

Regarding costs, Mr. Fitch wrote that he and his partner Polly Ann
Tausch did not enter into the defense anticipating remuneration.
But they did attach an itemized time and expense statement for
time spent and mileage reimbursement.

The attorneys invested 35 hours in the case, according to the
document, and charged at a rate of $200 per hour.  As a "community
service" they worked for half their normal rate and listed
$3,800.48 as balance due.

". . . it does not seem fair to penalize the Socorro Electric
Cooperative which, in essence, would be a charge against the
member/owners who are the very persons being sued and who have
prevailed," the motion reads.

Instead, Mr. Fitch and Ms. Tausch suggest an ironic twist -- that
the individuals who brought the lawsuit should be made to pay for
it, starting with co-op attorney Dennis Francish.

"It would seem (in the first place) equitable to charge the person
or persons responsible for the ill-advised lawsuit.  Primarily
this would be, first, the attorney who advised the proceeding, the
professional responsible for the suit," the motion reads.
"Secondly, this would be the Trustees who voted to have the
lawsuit prepared and filed."

The motion also suggests the legal defense fund held by Deschamps
& Kortemeier be used to pay attorneys fees and costs.

Socorro Electric's response to the motion makes the same arguments
about the rules disallowing attorney fees to be awarded in
declaratory judgment cases and further argues that pro se
defendants are not entitled to being awarded fees and costs.

It also addresses the proposal to have the co-op's attorney and
trustees foot the bill:

"Such suggestions are entirely inappropriate, and Defendants
provide no statements of law which would support the granting of
such an award. Defendants are in effect asking this Court to issue
a severe sanction against counsel and/or the Trustees for bringing
suit. There is nothing equitable in this suggestion, and Plaintiff
urges the Court to disregard Defendants' request."

Who pays? How much? When is this all going to end? -- all
questions that can't yet be answered.

Awaiting Judge Mitchell's decisions, the only thing known for sure
is that it'll take time, and someone's money, to reach a final
resolution to an unusual case.


SOUTH AFRICAN BREAD PRODUCERS: Price-Fixing Class Action Fails
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sapa reports that the Western Cape High Court has refused to grant
leave for an appeal against a ruling preventing a class action
lawsuit against the country's three major bread producers.

Acting Judge Francois van Zyl said the importance of the issue did
not justify granting leave to appeal.

Pioneer Foods, Premier Foods and Tiger Consumer Brands were
recently fined by the Competition Tribunal for their involvement
in bread price-fixing.

In order to launch a class action lawsuit, the parties seeking
redress had to obtain "certification of a class action" from the
High Court.

The initial application for certification was brought by five
individuals, as well as the civic organizations, The Children's
Resource Centre Trust, the Black Sash Trust, the Congress of SA
Trade Unions and the National Consumer Forum.

To obtain certification, the aggrieved parties had to define the
class of people they wished to represent, and the periods in which
they had been adversely affected by the price-fixing.

In the initial application for certification, before Judge van
Zyl, senior counsel Geoff Budlender said there were two classes to
be certified -- a broad group of consumers adversely affected by
the illegal price-fixing, and a smaller group whose rights in
terms of the Constitution had been infringed.

The initial application was dismissed on the ground that the
aggrieved parties had failed to make out a case for a sufficiently
identifiable class of persons.  The aggrieved parties were also
required to indicate, in papers before court, the periods when the
prohibited price-fixing had happened, but had not done so.

In the Aug. 29 judgment, Judge van Zyl said the main requirement
for granting an application for leave to appeal was that there had
to be a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

He agreed with Mr. Budlender that the application was of
substantial public importance.  However, this was not the only
requirement for leave to appeal to be granted.

If the decision to refuse class action certification was wrong,
leave to appeal could be granted by way of a petition to the
Supreme Court of Appeal, he said.


SOUTH KOREA: Indie Bands Mull Class Action Against MOGEF
--------------------------------------------------------
Allkpop reports that hundreds, if not thousands, of songs are
being banned by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family lately,
and while bigger labels like SM Entertainment and Cube
Entertainment can afford to fight for their songs, smaller indie
labels are facing a more difficult time.

As such, the indie scene has decided to band together to file a
lawsuit against the MOGEF as one body.  The idea was first
suggested by law firm Jipyong, which SM Entertainment used to win
their lawsuit for SM the Ballad earlier this week.

On August 29, a representative of Seokyo Music Labels Association
(an organization for indie labels) revealed, "Musicians who have
had their songs banned by the MOGEF are currently discussing the
possibility of a class action suit."

In reality, the indie and hip hop scene have been fighting a
losing battle against the MOGEF long before the mainstream market
was being impacted.  While idol groups headline within hours of
their songs being banned, indie groups have had to sit on the back
burner with virtually no help or support.

Should this class action suit win, hundreds of songs are expected
to be back on the market.  At the forefront of the suit are indie
bands 10cm and Vodka Rain, who recently had their songs
"Americano" and "Night Time Restaurant" banned by the MOGEF.


SOUTHERN UNION: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Texas & Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Union Company is defending itself against class action
lawsuits in Texas and Delaware challenging its proposed merger
with Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., according to the Company's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 19, 2011, the Company entered into a Second Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (Second Amended Merger
Agreement) with Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., and Sigma
Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE (Merger
Sub).  The Second Amended Merger Agreement modifies certain terms
of the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into by the Company,
ETE and Merger Sub on June 15, 2011 as amended on July 4, 2011.
The Second Amended Merger Agreement provides for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the Company (Merger), with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation in the Merger.  As a
result of the Merger, the Company will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ETE.  The Merger is expected to close in the first
quarter of 2012, subject to stockholder approval and certain other
regulatory approvals.

            Litigation Relating to the Merger with ETE

On June 21, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37091, was filed in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas. The petition names as defendants the members of
Southern Union's Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders or aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger. The
petition alleges that the merger involves an unfair price and an
inadequate sales process and that defendants entered into the
transaction to benefit themselves personally. The petition seeks
injunctive relief, including to enjoin the merger, attorneys' and
other fees and costs, indemnification and other relief.

Also on June 21, 2011, another putative class action lawsuit
captioned Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37134, was filed in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition named as defendants the members of
Southern Union's Board, Southern Union, and ETE.  The plaintiff
alleges that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the
merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted those
alleged breaches.  The petition alleges that the merger involves
an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the merger to Southern Union
stockholders. The petition seeks injunctive relief, including to
enjoin the merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief.  On June 28, 2011, an amended
petition was filed, naming the same defendants and alleging that
the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the merger and
that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The amended petition alleges that the
merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process,
that Southern Union's directors entered into the merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The amended petition seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the merger, and an award of attorneys' and
other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

The plaintiffs in the two Texas cases filed a motion to appoint
lead counsel and a motion for expedited discovery.  To date, no
preliminary injunctions have been filed in these Texas cases.

On June 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6615-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint names as defendants the
members of Southern Union's Board, Southern Union, and ETE. The
plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection
with the merger, and further claim that ETE aided and abetted
those alleged breaches. The complaint alleges that the merger
involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that
Southern Union's directors entered into the merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that the directors should deem a competing
proposal made by The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams) to be
superior. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, including to enjoin the merger, and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 29 and 30, 2011, putative class action lawsuits captioned
KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A.
No. 6622-CS, and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH v. Southern
Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-CS, respectively, were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaints name as
defendants the members of Southern Union's Board, Southern Union,
ETE, and Merger Sub. The plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's
stockholders in connection with the merger and that ETE aided and
abetted those alleged breaches. The complaints allege that the
merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process,
that Southern Union's directors entered into the merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that the directors must give full consideration to
the Williams proposal. The complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, including to enjoin the merger, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On July 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Memo v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery. The complaint names as defendants the
members of Southern Union's Board, Southern Union, ETE, and Merger
Sub. The plaintiffs allege that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders
in connection with the amended merger agreement and that Southern
Union, ETE, and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. The complaint alleges that the merger involves an unfair
price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union's
directors entered into the merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that the terms of the amended merger agreement are
preclusive. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including to
enjoin the merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief.

To date, the four Delaware plaintiffs have filed no preliminary
injunctions or motions to appoint lead counsel or consolidate the
lawsuits.  The Company believes the allegations of all the actions
lack merit and will contest them.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Supreme Court to Hear "Greenwood" Case in Oct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear the case regarding
Greenwood v. CompuCredit, et. al., Case No. 4:08-cv-04878 (CW)
beginning October 2011, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Columbus Bank and Trust Company ("CB&T"), a division of Synovus
Bank, and a wholly owned banking subsidiary of Synovus Financial
Corp. ("Synovus") and CompuCredit Corporation ("CompuCredit")
previously were parties to an affinity agreement ("Affinity
Agreement") pursuant to which CB&T issued credit cards that were
marketed and serviced by CompuCredit. On October 24, 2008, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against CompuCredit and
CB&T in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, Greenwood v. CompuCredit, et. al., Case No. 4:08-
cv-04878 (CW) ("Greenwood"), alleging that one of the credit card
programs offered pursuant to the Affinity Agreement violated the
Credit Repair Organization Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1679 ("CROA
Claims") and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17200 ("California UCL Claims"). CB&T intends
to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. On
January 22, 2009, the Georgia Superior Court in separate
litigation between CB&T and CompuCredit ruled that CompuCredit
must pay the reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by CB&T in
connection with the Greenwood case pursuant to the indemnification
provision of the Affinity Agreement. Any losses that CB&T incurs
in connection with Greenwood are also expected to be subject to
the indemnification provisions of the Affinity Agreement.

On May 2, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted a writ of
certiorari to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals that affirmed a denial of the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the CROA Claims in Greenwood. The CROA claims have
been stayed pending the resolution of the appeal. The Supreme
Court is expected to hear the case in its next term beginning in
October, 2011. The District Court has certified the California UCL
claims as a class action, but following the April 27, 2011
decision of the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC
v. Concepcion that overruled prior California law limiting
arbitration of class actions, defendants have moved to compel
arbitration of the State UCL Claims, and that motion is currently
pending before the district court. At this stage of the lawsuit,
and in view of the inherent inability to predict the outcome of
litigation, particularly where there are many claimants, Synovus
cannot determine the probability of a material adverse result or
reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures, if any. At
this time, based on current knowledge and advice of counsel,
management does not believe that the eventual outcome of this case
will have a material adverse effect on Synovus' consolidated
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit as well as shareholder derivative
lawsuits, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1 09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action") and on June 11,
2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund,
filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named
individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in
violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending
relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such
alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs
in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified
amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended
complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled
that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a
further amended complaint, which must be filed within 30 days of
the Court's Order. Lead Plaintiffs served their second amended
complaint on June 27, 2011 and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that
complaint is due to be filed on or before July 27, 2011. Discovery
continues to be stayed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1 09-CV-3069) (the "Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit"),
against certain current and/or former directors and executive
officers of Synovus. The Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary
duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the
Securities Class Action. The plaintiff is seeking to recover
damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive
relief.

On December 1, 2009, the Court consolidated the Securities Class
Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery
purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-JOF,
holding that the two cases involve "common issues of law and
fact."

On December 21, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative
action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the Superior Court of
Fulton County, Georgia (the "State Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuit"), against certain current and/or former directors and
executive officers of Synovus. The State Shareholder Derivative
Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their
fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as
alleged in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. The
plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount
and equitable and/or injunctive relief. On June 17, 2010, the
Superior Court entered an Order staying the State Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit pending resolution of the Federal Shareholder
Derivative Lawsuit.

Synovus and the individual named defendants collectively intend to
vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class Action
and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits allegations. There are
significant uncertainties involved in any potential class action
and derivative litigation. Although the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits cannot be ascertained at this time, at this stage of the
Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits, based
upon information that presently is available to it, Synovus'
management is unable to predict the outcome of the Securities
Class Action or the Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits and cannot
determine the probability of an adverse result or reasonably
estimate a range of potential loss, if any. In addition,
management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses with respect to these claims.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend Overdraft Fee Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corp. and its subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against class action lawsuits relating to overdraft
fees charged to customers, according to the Company's August 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in a purported putative
class action relating to overdraft fees charged to customers. The
case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et. al., was filed in
Gwinnett County State Court (state of Georgia) on July 30, 2010,
and asserts claims for usury, conversion and money had and
received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a
result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in
connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards
used to access customer accounts. On September 1, 2010, Synovus
Bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and filed a motion
to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to
state court. On July 22, 2001, the federal court entered an order
granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Gwinnett
State Court and dismissing Synovus' motion to dismiss as moot. The
order addressed federal jurisdiction, not the merits of the case.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and
Trust Company were named as defendants in a second putative class
action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges
overdraft fees to customers. The second case Childs et al. v.
Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for
alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus
Bank's assessment of overdraft charges allegedly resulting from
the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts.
On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-
district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re;
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. The Childs
case is currently stayed pending issuance of an initial scheduling
order in the MDL. These cases, and certain of the other litigation
and regulatory matters to which Synovus is subject, assert claims
for substantial or indeterminate damages. Additional lawsuits
containing similar claims may be filed in the future.

Synovus intends to vigorously pursue all available defenses to
these claims. These cases are in the early stages and no damages
have been specified, and there are significant uncertainties
involved in any potential class action. Although the ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits cannot be ascertained at this time,
based upon information that presently is available to it, Synovus'
management is unable to predict the outcome of these cases and
cannot determine the probability of an adverse result or
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any. In
addition, management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses with respect to these claims.


TRANSUNION CORP: Expects Privacy Matter to Conclude by Year-End
---------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion Corp. expects to bring all matters relating to the
Privacy Litigation to conclusion by the end of the year, according
to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

TransUnion Corp. is the defendant in sixteen purported class
actions that arose from its Performance Data Division that was
discontinued over 10 years ago. All of these purported class
actions, except for Andrews v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No.
02-18553, filed in 2002 in the Civil District Court, Parish of
Orleans, Louisiana were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Eastern Division) and are known as In Re TransUnion Corp. Privacy
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1350.

A settlement of the Privacy Litigation was approved by the court
on September 17, 2008. Pursuant to the terms of settlement the
Company paid $75.0 million into a fund for the benefit of class
members and any post-settlement claimants, and the Company
provided approximately 600,000 individuals with free credit
monitoring services. Through court monitored mediation the Company
has entered into various individual agreements to settle
substantially all of the approximately 100,000 post-settlement
claims that sought payments either from TransUnion or the fund.
All of settlement payments pursuant to these agreements are
expected to be made solely from the fund. Absent any appeal of
these settlements for the post-settlement claimants the Company
expects to bring this matter to conclusion by the end of 2011 and
believe that the remaining amount of the fund will be sufficient
to meet all demands asserted by any non-settling post-settlement
claimants.


TRANSUNION CORP: Defends Consumer Class Claim in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion Corp. is defending itself against a claim purporting to
be a class action pending Pennsylvania, according to the Company's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On April 8, 2011, a claim was filed in federal court in
Pennsylvania purporting to be a class action alleging that
consumers did not timely receive a copy of a letter from either of
the defendants which notified the consumer that a consumer report
was provided to a prospective employer of the consumer and that
employment report reflected an adverse public record relating to
the consumer. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter
(Leslie Ellis Thomas v. VeriFirst Background Screening LLC and
TransUnion LLC, No. 211-CV-02461-PD, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) as the Company does not
believe it has acted in a manner that is inconsistent with current
law and regulatory guidance.


WASHINGTON POST: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Zoe
Tillman, The Washington Post Company wants a Washington federal
judge to dismiss a securities class action filed by dissatisfied
investors, arguing that the company accurately reported the
financial health of its for-profit educational services arm,
Kaplan Inc., before its stock value dropped.

A group of investors sued the Post Co., in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia in October, accusing company officers
of misleading investors by releasing false information on Kaplan's
health.  The value of the company's stock dropped after the U.S.
Department of Education released new data in August 2010
indicating Kaplan could be at risk of losing its federal financial
aid.

The Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund, which held more than
2,000 shares of the company's stock at the time and claimed losses
of about $245,000, is the lead plaintiff.  The class is being
represented by a team from Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd. Attorneys
there could not immediately be reached.

The Post Co. is being represented by Williams & Connolly's Kevin
Baine and Steven Farina.  Neither could immediately be reached on
Aug. 29.

In the Post Co.'s motion to dismiss filed on Aug. 26, the company
said it always disclosed in its securities filings that Kaplan
"operates in a highly regulated environment . . . and that changes
in government regulations could have a significant negative impact
on its operating results."

The Education Department's report hit for-profit schools hard
across-the-board, the Post Co. argues, noting that its stock value
later returned to pre-report levels.  The company is claiming that
the complaint lacks any specific allegations of deliberate fraud
on the part of the Post Co. or its officers, and that any
financial losses were the result of changes in the regulatory
environment surrounding Kaplan and other similar companies.

"In short, there is no securities fraud in this case -- only a
plaintiff seeking to secure a windfall based on a temporary drop
in stock price that cannot be pinned to anything approaching fraud
by any of these defendants," the company argues.

The case is before U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman.


WORLD GYM: Violates Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Lambert, individually and as the representative of all
similarly-situated persons v. World Gym-Wacker, Inc., (d/b/a World
Gym. Inc.); World Gym & Fitness Center, Inc. (d/b/a World Gym.
Inc.); World Gym Palatine Corp. (d/b/a World Gym. Inc.); World Gym
- Bishop, Inc. (d/b/a World Gym. Inc.); World Gym Aurora, Inc.
(d/b/a World Gym. Inc.); and Al Phillips, Case No. 2011-CH-30373
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 26, 2011) challenges the illegal
and unfair acts committed by the Defendants in conjunction with
the closing of the World Gym at 100 South Wacker Drive in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations
of the Illinois Physical Fitness Services Act, the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of contract.

Mr. Lambert is a resident of Chicago, Illinois, who signed a
membership agreement with "World Gym, INC."

The World Gym Defendants are Illinois corporations.  Al Phillips
owns the World Gym Defendants.  Mr. Lambert alleges that one or
more, or all, of the Defendants have entered into contracts using
the identity of "World Gym, INC.," which is not a business
registered in, or authorized to do business in, the state of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott P. Clair, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          55 East Monroe Street, 37th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603-6029
          Telephone: (312) 346-7500
          Facsimile: (312) 580-2201
          E-mail: SClair@thompsoncoburn.com

               - and -

          Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
          John W. Rogers, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: KWisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
                  JRogers@thompsoncoburn.com


* BC Court Wants Jurisdiction Over Competition Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Randy C. Sutton at Norton Rose OR LLP reports that a recent
decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the context of a
proposed class action illustrates the willingness of the court to
exercise jurisdiction over foreign parties, particularly in
competition-related proceedings.

The British Columbia Supreme Court accepted that it had
jurisdiction over various defendants which allegedly conspired
with others to fix illegally the price of gem-grade diamonds,
notwithstanding the lack of any direct connection between the
foreign defendants and British Columbia.  In applying the relevant
legislation, the court found that the plaintiff's claim had been
sufficiently pleaded to give rise to the court's jurisdiction, as
it was alleged that there was harm in British Columbia arising
from the defendants' alleged wrongdoing.  In particular, the
products were sold in British Columbia through normal distribution
channels, arrived in British Columbia in the ordinary course of
business and the defendants knew or ought to have known that the
products would be sold in British Columbia.  The decision again
focuses attention on the fact that a foreign defendant need not
have a presence in a Canadian jurisdiction to be party to a
Canadian class action; the focus is on the location of harm.

                            Decision

In its June 1, 2011 decision in Fairhurst v Anglo American PLC
(2011 BCSC 705) the court was asked to consider the question of
jurisdiction over a group of foreign defendants in a proposed
class action claiming that the defendants and their subsidiaries
conspired to increase the price of diamonds.  The proposed
representative plaintiff alleged that she and other buyers of
diamonds were harmed as a result and the representative plaintiff
sought to certify a class action against the defendants.

None of the defendants ordinarily resided in British Columbia,
carried on business there or even participated in selling or
distributing gem-grade diamonds in general.  In fact, there were a
number of intervening transactions between the business that the
defendants engaged in -- namely, the sale of rough diamonds -- and
the ultimate sale of gem-grade diamonds in British Columbia.
These transactions included selling rough diamonds to independent
customers, or 'sightholders', which then either cut and polished
them into gemstones or sold them to other companies.  The polished
diamonds were in turn sold to jewellery manufacturers, both
wholesale and retail, and eventually to customers such as the
plaintiff.  The defendants submitted that as a result of these
intervening steps, the court in British Columbia had no
territorial competence over the defendants.

The British Columbia Supreme Court applied the Court Jurisdiction
and Proceedings Transfer Act, which provides that a court has
territorial competence in a proceeding brought against a person if
there is a real and substantial connection between British
Columbia and the facts on which such proceeding is based.  The
court found that to determine whether there was a real and
substantial connection between British Columbia and the subject
matter, Section 10 of the act was relevant.  This provision
creates a presumption that such connection exists if the plaintiff
sufficiently pleads that one of the circumstances outlined in
Section 10 of the act applies in the proceeding.

In interpreting the statute, the court referred to the British
Columbia Court of Appeal's decision in Stanway v Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals Inc, which dealt with the court's jurisdiction.
According to that case, the Section 10 presumption of a real and
substantial connection is a mandatory presumption with basic facts
that are set out in Sections 10(a) to 10(l), which are taken as
proven if they are pleaded.  The presumption, while rebuttable, is
"likely to be determinative in almost all cases".  Among the
Section 10 facts that would give rise to a mandatory presumption
are proceedings that concern a tort committed in British Columbia
or restitutionary obligations that to a substantial extent arose
in British Columbia.

The court found that both of these sets of facts were engaged by
the plaintiff's pleading.  Focusing on the tort claim, the
plaintiff's pleading of tortious conspiracy on the part of the
defendants did not require that all elements of the wrongful
conduct take place in the jurisdiction where the proceeding was
brought; it required only that the damage suffered occurred in
that jurisdiction.  The court noted as follows:

"The plaintiff has properly pleaded harm in British Columbia
arising from alleged wrongdoing on the part of the defendants.
The diamonds were sold in British Columbia through normal
distribution channels.  The defendants do not suggest that 'their'
diamonds were not sold in British Columbia.  The diamonds arrived
in British Columbia in the ordinary course of De Beers' business,
and the defendants knew or ought to have known that the product
would be sold in British Columbia."

Furthermore, the waiver of tort claim, if successful, would result
in a restitutionary obligation which would arise, to a substantial
extent, in British Columbia because the tort had occurred in
British Columbia and the waiver in the court would result in a
restitutionary obligation in the province.

The presumptions having been established, the court found that the
defendants were unable to rebut it satisfactorily.  As a result,
the British Columbia court had jurisdiction in the proceedings.

                  Extraterritorial jurisdiction

The jurisprudence on the extraterritorial reach in competition-
related claims is limited.  The most significant decision relating
to extraterritorial jurisdiction in conspiracy cases is VitaPharm
Canada Ltd v F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.  At issue in that case were
conspiracies entered into outside of Canada by Swiss and German
corporations.  The court in VitaPharm held that the court had
jurisdiction to deal with conspiracies outside of Canada, so long
as the conspiracy in question causes injury to Canadians.  In
particular, a conspiracy that injures Canadians can give rise to
liability in Canada even if it was entered into abroad.  The
Fairhurst decision is consistent with the VitaPharm appro ach and
illustrates that there are few obstacles to finding that Canadian
courts will have jurisdiction for the prosecution of
extraterritorial defendants, given the focus on the harm that the
conspiracy creates, rather than on the geographic location where
the conspiracy is alleged to have occurred.


* Good Developments Seen in MBS Class Actions
---------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters News & Insights,
reports that just a few months ago, the class action prospects for
investors in mortgage-backed securities weren't looking
particularly good.  In January, Manhattan federal judge Harold
Baer Jr. refused to certify two MBS classes, ruling that investors
had varying amounts of sophistication and information so
individual issues predominated.  Then in May, Los Angeles, federal
court judge Mariana Pfaelzer decimated a case against Countrywide,
finding that the class could only bring claims if name plaintiffs
bought into specific tranches of specific offerings.  If you were
an MBS noteholder without the resources of, say, frequent MBS
plaintiffs Allstate or Dexia, your chances of recovering anything
for the (alleged) lies sponsors told in offering statements were
slim.

That's beginning to change.  Manhattan federal judge Paul Crotty
recently certified a class of 103 MBS investors who bought notes
offered by Credit Suisse's DLJ Mortgage Capital.  In a 15-page
opinion Judge Crotty brushed off the very defense arguments that
had swayed Judge Baer.  "Defendants' argument is ironic-the
potential class includes unsophisticated investors and so the
class should not be certified; in the alternative, the class
should not be certified because the class includes very
sophisticated investors," the judge wrote in a footnote addressing
Baer's refusal to certify a class.  "Defendants' view is
apparently that, in order for a class to be certified, it must be
like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks: just right.
This suggestion is untenable."  Credit Suisse declined comment.

Meanwhile, Manhattan federal judge Jed Rakoff on Aug. 22 released
the opinion explaining his June 16 decision to certify a class of
MBS noteholders suing Merrill Lynch.  Unlike Judge Baer, Judge
Rakoff focused on the common fact that all of the Merrill MBS
class members relied on the same allegedly-false offering
statements.  He also expressly rejected arguments by Merrill's
lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom that class claims
should be limited, a la Judge Pfaelzer's Countrywide ruling, to
specific tranches in which name plaintiffs invested.

The judge noted that Skadden "felt obliged to petition for leave
to appeal" before he had issued an opinion explaining his
reasoning.  In that petition, Merrill's lawyers pointed to the
U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which came down
after Judge Rakoff's class certification order, to argue that
common issues don't predominate.  Judge Rakoff disputed Skadden's
reasoning.  "The common questions presented by this case --
essentially, whether the offering documents were false or
misleading in one or more respects -- are clearly susceptible to
common answers," the judge wrote.  "Not only do common questions
exist in this case, but they in fact predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members.  Accordingly, the
Court finds that Wal-Mart has little to no bearing on the issues
before the court."  Scott Musoff of Skadden was out of the country
and unavailable for comment; Jay Kasner declined to comment.

The Merrill class, which includes about 1,600 investors, is
represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, which scored
the first-ever settlement of an MBS class action earlier this
summer, in a case Wells Fargo settled before a ruling on class
cert.  Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll represents the investors
suing Credit Suisse.  Judge Crotty's certification of that class
was particularly gratifying to Joel Laitman of Cohen Milstein
because the firm was on the losing side of the MBS class rulings
by both Judge Baer and Judge Pfaelzer.

The more recent Crotty and Rakoff rulings, he told me, are going
to have a ripple effect as other federal judges consider whether
to certify several pending MBS investor classes.  "These are
certainly very good developments," Mr. Laitman said.  "The courts
recognized that all investors who relied on the prospectus should
be in the class."

The rulings will also give Mr. Laitman ammunition before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which in April agreed to
consider an interlocutory appeal of Judge Baer's denial of class
certification.  The Second Circuit's decision should determine,
for once and for all, whether MBS class actions are viable.
Defense briefs in the appeal are due in November.


                            *********

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  * * *