---

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

           Monday, September 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 175

                             Headlines

ARCADIA RESOURCES: Unit Continues to Defend Wage Suit in Calif.
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Accused of Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs Split on Countrywide Settlement
BEDFORD COUNTY, VA: Extension Sought for Class Certification Bid
BROMWELL FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in MFG IPO Suit

BROMWELL FINANCIAL: Suit vs. MF Global & Moore Capital is Pending
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Merger-related Suits Dismissed with Prejudice
GLOBAL TRAFFIC: Sued Over Proposed Sale to GTCR LLC Unit
LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Airport Link Tunnel
MARTHA STEWART: Man Ordered to Return Cash From Settlements

NESTLE WATERS: Accused in N.J. Suit of Defrauding Customers
ORCHID CELLMARK: Continues to Defend IPO-related Suit
ORCHID CELLMARK: Continues to Defend Merger-related Suits
QUEPASA CORP: Faces "Unauthorized Text Message" Suit in Nevada
SINO CLEAN: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Calif.

SINO-FOREST CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Canada
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Continues to Defend "Kubala" Suit in New York
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Continues to Defend "Padnos" Suit in New York
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Former QA Tester Mulls Class Action
XO HOLDINGS: "Zheng" Suit Remains Pending in New York

XO HOLDINGS: "Henzel" Suit Remains Stayed
XO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Murphy" Suit in New York
XO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Fast" Suit in Delaware
XO HOLDINGS: "Borden" Suit Stayed Due to Injunction Proceedings
ZEON CHEMICALS: Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Held

* Australian Companies See Class Actions as Significant Concern
* Law School Graduates Sue Alma Maters for Fraudulent Advertising





                             *********

ARCADIA RESOURCES: Unit Continues to Defend Wage Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A wholly-owned subsidiary of Arcadia Resources, Inc., continues to
defend itself from a wage-related class action lawsuit 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 June 20, 2011, the Company was served with a complaint filed in
the Marin County Superior Court of the State of California styled
Douglas et al. vs. Arcadia Health Services, Inc., Case No. CIV
1102982.  The complaint is brought as a purported class action on
behalf of California employees of Arcadia Health Services, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ASI.  The complaint alleges that (a)
AHSI failed to properly compensate the plaintiff and purported
class members for meal period and rest breaks under Sections 226.7
and 512 of the California Labor Code, (b) AHSI failed to pay
continuing wages under California Labor Code Section 203, (c) AHSI
failed to pay overtime compensation in accordance with California
Labor Code Section 1194, and (d) that the allegations also
constitute a violation of California Business and Professional
Code Section 17200.  The plaintiff seeks to represent two classes
of claimants, one representing claimants under the California
Labor Code claims set forth in (a) - (c) and another representing
claimants under Section 17200 under the California Business and
Professional Code.  On July 18, 2011, AHSI filed an answer in the
Marin County Superior Court denying all of the allegations in the
complaint.  On July 19, 2011, AHSI filed a petition to remove the
case to federal court.  The case has been removed to federal court
and is now pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  AHSI denies that it violated the
California Labor Code or the California Business and Professional
Code.  AHSI further contends that the action may not properly be
maintained as a class action.  AHSI intends to vigorously defend
the allegations.  While AHSI does not believe the claims of the
named plaintiff and the purported class members have merit, should
a court make a determination on these claims adverse to AHSI such
determination could have a material adverse affect on the
business, results of operations or financial condition of the
Company.


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Accused of Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Texin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Law Office of John P. Frye, P.C.; John P. Frye;
Atlantic Credit & Finance Inc., Doe One, Case No. 4:11-cv-04257
(N.D. Calif., August 29, 2011) is brought to seek redress for the
Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The lawsuit challenges Atlantic's use of Mr. Frye's attorney
collection letter to induce consumers to believe that an attorney
has become involved in Atlantic's debt collection effort, though
the attorney only lends the imprimatur of his law firm to induce
collection of the debt.  Ms. Texin also alleges that the
collection letter she received from Atlantic fails to advise her
and members of the putative class of their right to obtain an
exact up-to-date amount due on payment of the alleged debt, in
violation of the FDCPA.  She argues that Atlantic is vicariously
liable to her and the class for the acts of the Frye Law Office
and Mr. Frye.

Ms. Texin is a resident of California.

The Frye Law Office is engaged in the business of collecting
consumer debts.  Mr. Frye is an employee, agent, officer and
director of the Law Office.  Atlantic is a Virginia corporation
engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts.  Defendant
Doe One is an employee of the Law Office, who formulated and sent
the communication purporting to be from an attorney.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irving L. Berg, Esq.
          THE BERG LAW GROUP
          145 Town Center, PMB 493
          Corte Madera, CA 94925
          Telephone: (415) 924-0742
          Facsimile: (415) 891-8208
          E-mail: irvberg@comcast.net


BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs Split on Countrywide Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters News & Insight,
reports that Bank of America's embattled $8.5 billion proposed
settlement with Countrywide mortgage-backed securities noteholders
is only one tentacle of the octopus-like MBS litigation BofA
faces.  The settlement agreement, remember, addresses only MBS
investors' contractual rights to force Countrywide to buy back
deficient underlying mortgages.  It doesn't address securities law
claims that Countrywide and BofA misrepresented the mortgage-
backed notes in offering documents.  The proposed settlement
agreement explicitly carves those claims out, and, indeed, some of
the institutional investors that negotiated the mortgage
repurchase settlement have since filed a gargantuan securities
suit against the bank.

The plaintiffs securities bar once felt so optimistic about the
prospect of a big recovery from Countrywide and BofA that there
was a big fight for control of the MBS class action being
litigated before Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in Los Angeles federal
court.  Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check filed the case on behalf of the Maine State Retirement Fund
and a coalition of other public pension funds after their parallel
state court case was dismissed.  But Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
persuaded Judge Pfaelzer that its client, the Iowa Public
Employees' pension fund, had a bigger stake in the litigation than
Maine and its partners, so the judge appointed Cohen Milstein lead
counsel.

That ended up working out okay for Robbins Geller and Kessler
Topaz.  Their state court case was revived by a California
appellate court in May.  Judge Pfaelzer, meanwhile, sliced the
federal class action into a thin remnant of its former self,
ruling that Iowa's claims are limited to the specific tranches of
offerings in which it invested.  Steven Toll of Cohen Milstein
reckoned that the judge's rulings have knocked out 80 percent of
the class's case.  It's not clear how Judge Pfaelzer's rulings
will affect the state court class action, but Darren Robbins of
Robbins Geller said his pension fund clients, which hold hundreds
of millions of dollars of Countrywide MBS notes, are pushing
ahead.

They're also pushing for a say in the proposed mortgage repurchase
settlement.  On Aug. 30, Robbins Geller and Kessler Topaz filed a
petition to intervene in the $8.5 billion case, asserting that
Maine and their other pension-fund clients need more information
about the allocation of those billions before they can decide
whether to support the deal.  In an interview on Aug. 31,
Mr. Robbins told me his clients' breach of contract claims would
be resolved in the proposed $8.5 billion settlement (along with
those of every other noteholder in the 530 securitization trusts
the deal covers), so he wanted to weigh in.  "Eight and a half
billion dollars is a significant settlement," he said.  "This
appears to be a meaningful recovery but we're unable to make an
appropriate evaluation without more details."

Cohen Milstein and the Iowa fund, on the other hand, decided to
sit out the fight over the mortgage repurchase settlement.
According to Toll, Iowa thought enough investors were being heard
already, and didn't want to commit to another draining litigation,
particularly because the class action is shaping up to be a long,
tough fight through the appellate courts.

There's more significance to the different philosophies of these
two major Countrywide MBS noteholders than simply a split between
rival plaintiffs firms.  Whichever judge decides the fairness of
the proposed $8.5 billion settlement is going to have to consider
not only the interests of big investors who've joined the
litigation, like the Robbins Geller clients, but also those who
are waiting on the sidelines, like the Iowa fund.  Just another
reminder of what a big job awaits the judge who rules on this
deal.


BEDFORD COUNTY, VA: Extension Sought for Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mosely, writing for Shelbyville Times-Gazette, reports that
a man who filed a class action suit against the county and a
deputy last year is asking for more time to file motions in the
case.

Last December, Ricky Robertson sued Bedford County, Deputy Kevin
Roddy and "John Does," alleging violations of the 4th, 8th and
14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Robertson claims that the county operates a system of setting
bail for those arrested and presented to a judicial commissioner
"that is not based on the individualized assessment of that
particular person's likelihood to flee."

He also states that he was severely beaten at the jail and that
the rights of thousands of others have been violated by the local
bail bonding system.

According to documents filed in federal court on Aug. 29, both
parties in the suit have discussed meeting to inspect documents at
the Bedford County jail "that are necessary to support a motion
for class certification" but have not been looked at yet.

The documents include mittmuses, jail records, intake sheets, and
inmate profiles, which Mr. Robertson's attorney, Jerry Gonzalez,
says needs to be inspected, scanned, and categorized.
Mr. Gonzalez suggested an extension until Sept. 23 to file his
motion, which was granted by U.S District Judge Harry S. Mattice,
Jr., however, the judge wrote that no other extensions of the
deadline would be granted.

Also, both sides are trying to arrange a witness deposition to
discuss the documents and the procedures for setting bail in
Bedford County, including discussion of the number of inmates that
pass through the system.

The class action suit against Bedford County on the bail issue is
similar to litigation filed in seven other counties across the
state by Mr. Gonzalez, which include Wilson, Rutherford, Henry,
Davidson, Shelby, Macon and Trousdale Counties.

According to jail records, Mr. Robertson was arrested on Nov. 28,
2009, for disorderly conduct and public intoxication and was
released on $1,500 bond.

Mr. Robertson claims that during his arrest, Mr. Roddy and/or the
unknown deputies took him from the patrol car and forcefully
pushed him into jail by lifting his handcuffed hands high above
his shoulders from the back when they arrived.

He claims the more he protested about the pain, the higher they
lifted his handcuffed hands, and that he was beaten into
unconsciousness after he slammed his wallet down in front of the
booking officer.

Mr. Robertson also claims that the deputies who did not
participate in the alleged beating watched and did nothing to stop
it, and when he woke up and asked for medical treatment, the
deputies refused and laughed at him.

The suit also claims that Mr. Robertson's bail was set "based on
some rule of thumb or preset bail list" and that the county's
monetary bail requirement is a violation of due process.

He says that the system "serves to enrich bail bondsman who are
practically guaranteed a steady stream of relatively risk-free
revenue through the process of requiring all detainees to post
bonds for monetary bail."

Mr. Robertson is demanding two permanent injunctions -- one
requiring training on the appropriate use of force against inmates
and on probable cause for public intoxication, and the other
requiring the setting of bail "in a consistent manner that
comports with the requirements of due process."


BROMWELL FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in MFG IPO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bromwell Financial Fund, Limited Partnership, is awaiting final
court approval of a settlement in a securities class action
lawsuit relating to MF Global, Ltd.'s initial public offering,
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 6, 2008, and thereafter, five virtually identical
proposed class action securities suits were filed against MF
Global, Inc.'s parent, MF Global Ltd., (now, MF Global Holdings
Ltd.), certain of its officers and directors, and Man Group plc.
These suits have now been consolidated into a single action.  The
complaints seek to hold defendants liable under Secs. 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by alleging that the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with MF Global's
initial public offering in July 2007 were materially false and
misleading to the extent that representations were made regarding
MF Global's risk management policies, procedures and systems.  The
allegations are based upon MF Global's disclosure of $141.5
million in trading losses incurred in a single day by an AP in his
personal trading account ("Trading Incident"), which losses MFG
was responsible to pay as an exchange clearing member.  The
consolidated cases have been dismissed on a motion to dismiss by
defendants.  Plaintiffs have appealed.  In January 2011, the
parties reached a preliminary agreement to settle whereby MF
Global will contribute $2.5 million to an overall settlement
amount of $90 million.  The preliminary settlement will be subject
to Court review and final approval.


BROMWELL FINANCIAL: Suit vs. MF Global & Moore Capital is Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit against MF Global, Inc., and
Moore Capital Management remains pending, according to Bromwell
Financial Fund, Limited Partnership's August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On August 4, 2010, MF Global, Inc., was added as a defendant to a
consolidated class action complaint filed against Moore Capital
Management and related entities in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging claims of
manipulation and aiding and abetting manipulation, in violation of
the Commodity Exchange Act.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that, between October 25, 2007 and June 6, 2008, Moore Capital
directed MFG, as its executing broker, to enter "large" market on
close orders (at or near the time of the close) for platinum and
palladium futures contracts, which allegedly caused artificially
inflated prices.  On August 10, 2010, MFG was added as a defendant
to a related class action complaint filed against the Moore-
related entities on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who traded the
physical platinum and palladium in the relevant time frame, which
alleges price fixing under the Sherman Act and violations of the
civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  On
September 30, 2010 plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint that includes all of the allegations and claims
identified in the original complaint on behalf of subclasses of
traders of futures contracts of platinum and palladium and
physical platinum and palladium.  Plaintiffs' claimed damages have
not been quantified.  This matter is in its earliest stages.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Merger-related Suits Dismissed with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
All class action lawsuits filed in relation to the proposed merger
between Conexant Systems, Inc., and Standard Microsystems
Corporation were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 1, 2011.

Between January 10, 2011, and February 11, 2011, the Company, the
members of the Company's board of directors and, in certain of the
lawsuits, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, its
former Chief Financial Officer, Standard Microsystems Corporation
and Comet Acquisition Corp. were named as defendants in 12
purported class action lawsuits in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the
Company and SMSC filed by stockholders in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange, an additional five such
lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
and one such lawsuit filed in the United States District Court,
Central District of California.  On February 9, 2011, the first
four Delaware actions were consolidated under the caption In re
Conexant Systems, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 6136-VCP.  On March 3, 2011, a number of the California state
plaintiffs filed a stipulation and proposed order to consolidate
the California actions and appoint interim co-lead class counsel.
All of the actions have been voluntarily dismissed.  Seven of the
California actions were dismissed with prejudice.  The remaining
actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.


GLOBAL TRAFFIC: Sued Over Proposed Sale to GTCR LLC Unit
--------------------------------------------------------
Broadbased Equities, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. William L. Yde III, Dale C. Arfman, Gary O. Benson,
Shane E. Coppola, William M. Mower, Stuart R. Romenesko, Global
Traffic Network, Inc., GTCR LLC, GTCR Gridlock Holdings, Inc., and
GTCR Gridlock Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case No. 652413/2011 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., August 31, 2011), which is brought on behalf of public
shareholders of Global Traffic, challenges the Defendants' actions
in causing the Company to enter into a sale agreement with GTCR.

The Plaintiff alleges that the transaction protects and advances
the interests of the members of Global Traffic's board of
directors, including Mr. Yde, the Company's founder, chief
executive officer, president and chairman of the Board, to the
detriment of the Plaintiff and the Company's other public
shareholders.  The lawsuit also challenges the Defendants' efforts
to conceal material information from the Plaintiff and the class.

Broadbased Equities is a shareholder of Global Traffic, and has
owned shares of the Company's common stock continuously since
June 11, 2007.

Global Traffic is a publicly traded corporation headquartered in
New York.  The Company provides traffic and news information
reports to radio and television stations in international markets.
The Individual Defendants are directors of the Company.  GTCR LLC
is a Chicago-based private equity firm.  GTCR Gridlock Holdings,
Inc. is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of GTCR Gridlock
Holdings (Cayman), L.P. ("Parent"), an affiliate of GTCR LLC.
GTCR Gridlock Acquisition is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
Gridlock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
          David Titus, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602
          Facsimile: (212) 952-0608
          E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com
                  gboodhoo@brualdilawfirm.com
                  dtitus@brualdilwfirm.com


LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Airport Link Tunnel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hurst and Adele Ferguson, writing for Brisbane Times,
report that cost blowouts affecting Brisbane's Airport Link tunnel
are at the center of a class action against Leighton Holdings
announced on September 1.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn has issued a call for shareholders to
join a AUD400 million suit against the construction giant over its
handling of profit downgrades and a shock write-down on key
projects.

The class action will be funded by Singapore-based litigation
funder International Litigation Funding Partners, which recently
won a shareholder action against Multiplex worth AUD110 million.

Leighton Holdings is accused of failing to disclose to investors
the problems it faced on key infrastructure projects quickly
enough.

On April 11, Leighton stunned the market with a AUD1.2 billion
write-down on two key projects, the desalination plant in Victoria
and Brisbane's Airport Link, as well as a write-down in its Middle
East business, Al Habtoor Leighton.

This caused the share price to drop dramatically, wiping billions
of dollars off the company's value.

Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson said the company might
have breached its continuous disclosure obligations by failing to
tell investors about cost increases and delays before April.

"We will allege that by November 2, 2010 and certainly by
February 14, 2011 Leighton should have told the market of the need
for these massive write-downs," he said in a statement.

"The Brisbane Airport Link has been subjected to a dramatically
revised profit forecast to a pre-tax loss of AUD470 million.
Various factors were blamed for this: design, access, weather,
engineering, planning and coordination difficulties.

"Our investigations have confirmed that as early as April 2009
Leighton was seeking approval for design changes because adverse
geological conditions were causing unexpected delays and cost
overruns for tunnelling works in the Airport Link project."

The 6.7 kilometer Airport Link, due to be finished next year, will
connect Bowen Hills to Kedron to Toombul, near the Brisbane
Airport.

The route will connect with the Clem7 project, which has suffered
from lower than expected usage, prompting some analysts to
question the Airport Link forecasts.

Comment on the class action has been sought from Leighton
Holdings.

Shareholders who bought shares in the country's biggest
construction company between November 2 and April 11 this year
will be eligible to participate.

A Maurice Blackburn spokesman said the law firm had started
speaking to institutional investors about the class action, but
would not say how many parties had already joined the case.

"[Thurs]day is really indicating that we think we have a very
strong case and it's really the call to shareholders to join the
action," he said.

"We're expecting to lodge statements of claim in the courts by the
end of the year."

The launch of the class action follows a recent bloodbath at
Leighton that included the replacement of chairman David Mortimer
and chief executive David Stewart, who had been in the top job
just eight months.

It coincides with an investigation by corporate regulator ASIC
into the company's continuous-disclosure practices, specifically
relating to the size and suddenness of the massive turnaround in
Leighton's fortunes just six weeks after it told shareholders it
was on track to make a $480 million full-year profit.

During the period that the class action will cover, Leighton
shares fell AUD4.01.

Continuous-disclosure rules require a company to inform the market
immediately once it becomes aware of information that could affect
its share price.


MARTHA STEWART: Man Ordered to Return Cash From Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Denson, writing for The Oregonian, reports that Hussein
Mehdi was a respected voice in mobile and wireless technology,
having published 18 articles on the subjects.  He held a doctorate
in engineering and was the breadwinner for his wife and three
kids.  He coached youth sports and supported environmental causes.

But the Eugene man also had an addiction to day trading.

At first, he showed a knack for it, his lawyer says.  But in time
Mr. Mehdi lost so much money that he grew obsessed with the
market.  He spent up to 12 hours a day trading stocks online, his
losses eventually tallying nearly $3 million.

Mr. Mehdi grew so desperate he came up with a plan.  In 2002, he
began submitting phony claims for class-action settlements arising
out of securities litigation.

In just seven years, he phonied papers to make fraudulent claims
in at least 70 class-action suits for himself, friends and
associates.  The take: $747,832.24.

He lost it all in the market, unaware of his gambling problem
until it was too late, said David Moule, his lawyer.

Mr. Mehdi's punishment for the crimes of mail fraud and willingly
filing a false tax return came on Aug. 31 in Courtroom 1 of the
U.S. District Courthouse in Eugene.  As his wife wept, Judge
Michael R. Hogan sentenced him to a little more than four years in
prison.

Judge Hogan also ordered Mr. Mehdi, 48, to pay back $100,136 he
cheated from the IRS and make restitution on the money he stole by
fraud, including cash from settlements in the Martha Stewart
insider trading case.

"It's a uniquely sophisticated con scheme," U.S. Attorney Dwight
C. Holton said after the sentencing.  Mehdi not only hid money
from the IRS, but he took money from shareholders.  "He collected
payments for damages he didn't suffer from companies."

Mr. Mehdi's lawyer saw the crime and its aftermath as a tragedy.

"Because of his addiction to gambling, he lost it all," Mr. Moule
said.  "He caused pain to his family, his children."

Mr. Mehdi's wife took a waitressing job, he said, and now faces
punishing financial straits as she supports their children.

Yet in one sense, the relatively light sentence was a victory for
the defense.

Prosecutors had wanted to put Mr. Mehdi away for 6 1/2 years.  A
government sentencing memo described his hardworking, family-man
persona as a clever facade.  In reality, prosecutors wrote, he was
an entirely different guy:

"(Mehdi) has been a cheat and a thief, a con artist, a charlatan,
a fraudster -- someone who illegally gained almost three-quarters
of a million dollars by swindling others."

Along the way, prosecutors said, Mr. Mehdi used several people --
including his wife, sister and father -- in his scheme, which
carried across three states and 14 bank accounts.

Mr. Mehdi acknowledged his pathological gambling addiction only
after he was caught and went into therapy, Mr. Moule said.

"He now regularly attends Gamblers Anonymous," he said.  "I guess
(his addiction) isn't so anonymous any more."


NESTLE WATERS: Accused in N.J. Suit of Defrauding Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Waters North America Inc. is not only the largest bottled
water company in the U.S. with 41% of the nation's market, the
giant corporation is also defrauding its customers, according to a
class action complaint filed on Aug. 31 by its customers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiff, a long standing customer from New Jersey, asserts
in the complaint that Nestle Waters regularly breaches its
contracts with water delivery customers nationwide by assessing
late fees on their accounts during a grace period even when
customers have made timely payments, and charging an excessive
late fee of up to 75% or more.

Steven L. Wittels, a founder and partner of Sanford Wittels &
Heisler LLP and lead attorney for the Plaintiffs and the Class,
called the water giant's practices the "slipperiest" he has ever
seen.  "What good is a grace period," Mr. Wittels asks, "if you
soak the customers with a late fee before the grace period even
ends? To add insult, the water company's punitive late fee aims to
drain its customers of hard-earned monies."

The suit asks the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action
because Nestle Waters' actions constitute a breach of contract and
violation of the Consumer Fraud Act in New Jersey and all other
states where the company conducts business.  Plaintiff is seeking
an award in excess of $50 million in damages and costs for the
class.

"Under the law, a late fee must be reasonable," said Jeremy
Heisler, co-counsel for the plaintiffs.  "Nestle Waters' flat $15-
$20 late fee fails that test because the company charges the same
amount no matter how large the fee is in relation to the amount
overdue, or how many days the payment is late.  They charged our
customer nearly 50% of the monthly payment due.  The late fee is
simply a penalty."

Nestle Waters' billing practices are unfair in two ways.  First,
it promises customers a grace period for paying invoices, but then
ignores its own promise and imposes late fees even when customers
timely pay their bills during the grace period.  Second, when
customers do pay late, Nestle Waters imposes an exorbitant late
fee sometimes exceeding 75% annually, and this constitutes an
illegal penalty.

Under its own written policy, Nestle Waters provides a 10-day
grace period after the due date for customers to make payments on
their accounts.  Nestle's policy further says it "may" assess a
late fee only after the grace period has expired.  But, rather
than adhering to this policy, Nestle routinely adds a $15 late fee
to customers' accounts on the first day of the grace period.

Nestle Waters conducts its billing scheme through its bottled
water divisions, including Poland Spring Brand 100% Natural Spring
Water, Arrowhead Brand 100% Mountain Spring Water, Deer Park Brand
100% Natural Spring Water, and Perrier.

The Complaint asks the Court to grant class certification, award
compensatory damages for the Plaintiffs, treble damages, and all
costs and disbursements related to the suit, as well as to enjoin
Nestle Waters from continuing to implement its unlawful trade
practices and schemes.

                            About SWH

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex
corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of
individuals in some of the major class action cases in the United
States.  The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


ORCHID CELLMARK: Continues to Defend IPO-related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Orchid Cellmark Inc. continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit relating to its initial public offering, 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 21, 2001, a complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming
the Company as a defendant, along with certain of the Company's
former officers and underwriters.  An amended complaint was filed
on April 19, 2002.  The complaint, as amended, purportedly was
filed on behalf of persons purchasing the Company's stock between
May 4, 2000 and December 6, 2000, and alleges violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The amended complaint alleges that, in connection with the
Company's May 5, 2000 initial public offering, the defendants
failed to disclose additional and excessive commissions
purportedly solicited by and paid to the underwriter defendants in
exchange for allocating shares of the Company's stock to preferred
customers and alleged agreements among the underwriter defendants
and preferred customers tying the allocation of IPO shares to
agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-
determined prices.  Plaintiffs claim that the failure to disclose
these alleged arrangements made the Company's registration
statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in May 2000 and the
prospectus, a part of the registration statement, materially false
and misleading. On or about July 15, 2002, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss all of the claims against the Company and the
Company's former officers.  On October 9, 2002, the Court
dismissed without prejudice only the Company's former officers,
Dale R. Pfost and Donald R. Marvin, from the litigation in
exchange for the Company entering into a tolling agreement with
plaintiffs' executive committee.  On February 19, 2003, the
Company received notice of the Court's decision to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claims against the Company.  Plaintiffs and the
defendant issuers involved in related IPO securities litigation,
including the Company, have agreed in principal on a settlement
that, upon a one-time surety payment by the defendant issuers'
insurers, would release the defendant issuers and the individual
officers and directors from claims and any future payments or out-
of-pocket costs.  On March 10, 2005, the Court issued a memorandum
and order (i) preliminarily approving the settlement, contingent
on the parties' agreement on modifications of the proposed bar
order in the settlement documents, (ii) certifying the parties'
proposed settlement classes, (iii) certifying the proposed class
representatives for the purposes of the settlement only and (iv)
setting a further hearing for the purposes of (a) making a final
determination as to the form, substance and program of notice of
proposed settlement and (b) scheduling a public fairness hearing
in order to determine whether the settlement can be finally
approved by the Court.  On April 24, 2006, the Court held a
fairness hearing and took the motion for final approval under
advisement.  On October 5, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for an order of final approval of the settlement, plan of
allocation and certification of the class.  Such settlement does
not require any payment by the Company to the plaintiffs.  The
defendant issuers' share of the settlement amount is funded by the
insurers.  Notices of appeal have been filed by six groups of
appellants.  None of the notices state the basis for appeal.

In related proceedings against the underwriters, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on December 5, 2006,
that the certification by the District Court for the Southern
District of New York of class actions against the underwriters in
six "focus cases" was vacated and remanded for further
proceedings.  In so doing, the Second Circuit ruled that "the
cases pending on this appeal may not be certified as class
actions."  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, and no further appeals have
been taken.

As a result of the Second Circuit's ruling, the plaintiffs and the
issuers stipulated on June 22, 2007 that the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with Defendant Issuers and Individuals,
which was originally submitted to the Court on June 10, 2004, was
terminated, which resolved the motion for final approval of the
class action settlement with the issuers and individual
defendants.  The Court entered the parties' stipulation as an
Order on June 25, 2007.  As a result of these developments, the
plaintiffs have filed amended complaints against the underwriters
and "focus case" issuers and individuals and are attempting to
certify a class action.

In response to the amended complaints, the underwriters and "focus
case" issuers moved to dismiss the amended complaints.  On
March 26, 2008, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and
denied in part.  As a result, the Court will proceed with the
plaintiffs' amended complaints against the underwriters and "focus
case" issuers to determine whether class actions can be certified.


ORCHID CELLMARK: Continues to Defend Merger-related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Orchid Cellmark Inc. continues to defend itself from several class
action lawsuits relating to the Company's proposed merger with
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, and OCM Acquisition
Corp., according to the Company's August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On April 11, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery
Division, Mercer County (Docket No. C 000032 11) against the
Company, LabCorp, Purchaser and individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors.  This action, captioned Bruce
Ballard v. Orchid Cellmark, et al., alleges that (i) individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors violated their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, including the
duties of loyalty, care, candor, and good faith, and failed to
maximize value for the Company's stockholders by agreeing to the
Merger Agreement, and (ii) the Company, LabCorp, and Purchaser
aided and abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the
acquisition of the Company by Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, and OCM Acquisition Corp., or, in the alternative, to
rescind the Merger Agreement to the extent already implemented,
(ii) an order requiring the Company's Board of Directors and
LabCorp to disclose all material information related to the Merger
Agreement, and (iii) monetary damages in an unspecified amount.
The Company believes the allegations described in the complaint
are entirely without merit, and the defendants intend to
vigorously defend such action.

On April 13, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6373-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp,
Purchaser, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Herbert Silverberg v. Thomas
Bologna, et al., alleges that (i) individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of
care and loyalty owed to the Company's stockholders by (a) failing
to properly value the Company, (b) failing to maximize the
Company's value, (c) agreeing to terms in the Merger Agreement and
other terms that favor LabCorp, and (d) putting LabCorp's
interests above those of the Company's stockholders; and (ii)
LabCorp and Purchaser aided and abetted the individual defendants
in the breach of their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i)
to enjoin the acquisition of the Company by Purchaser and LabCorp
and the implementation of deal protection devices in the Merger
Agreement and deployment of the Company's poison pill, and (ii)
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  The Company believes
the allegations described in the complaint are entirely without
merit, and the defendants intend to vigorously defend such action.

On April 18, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6389-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp,
Purchaser, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Gene Nannetti v. Thomas Balogna
[sic], et al., alleges that (i) individual members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of
good faith, independence, and loyalty owed to the Company's
stockholders by (a) failing to maximize the Company's value, (b)
failing to properly value the Company, and (c) ignoring or not
protecting against conflicts of interest resulting from their
interrelationships or connections with the proposed sale of the
Company, and (ii) the Company, LabCorp, and Purchaser aided and
abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their fiduciary
duties.  The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition of the
Company by Purchaser and LabCorp or, in the alternative, to
rescind the sale of the Company and award plaintiff rescissory
damages, and (ii) an accounting of all profits and any special
benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants in an
unspecified amount.  The Company believes the allegations
described in the complaint are entirely without merit, and the
defendants intend to vigorously defend such action.

On April 29, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware (Case No. 6433-VCN) against the Company, LabCorp,
Purchaser, and individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The action, styled Bruce Locke vs. Orchid Cellmark
Inc., et al., alleges that (i) individual members of the Company's
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of good faith,
loyalty, fair dealing, due care and candor owed to the Company's
stockholders by (a) failing to secure the best transaction
available for the Company's stockholders and (b) agreeing to
unreasonable and preclusive deal protection measures that will
deter superior offers for the Company, and (ii) LabCorp aided and
abetted the individual defendants in the breach of their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, (a) entering into the Merger
Agreement and (b) otherwise rendering substantial assistance to
the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the breaches.
The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition of the Company
by Purchaser and LabCorp, (ii) rescission, to the extent already
implemented, of the acquisition of the Company by Purchaser and
LabCorp, or alternatively, the awarding of rescissory damages and
appropriate compensatory damages to the Company's stockholders,
(iii) to require the individual defendants to properly exercise
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, (iv) to
require the individual defendants to disclose all material
information relating to the proposed transaction and (v) fees and
costs, among other relief.  The Company believes the allegations
described in the complaint are entirely without merit, and the
defendants intend to vigorously defend such action.

The three actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware have been consolidated into one action, captioned In re
Orchid Cellmark Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Docket Number 6373-
VCN. On May 4, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer.

On May 2, 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint
regarding a putative class action lawsuit that was filed on
April 19, 2011 by a single plaintiff in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division in Mercer County (Docket No. L-1083-11)
against the Company, LabCorp, Purchaser, and individual members of
the Company's board of directors.  The action, captioned Harrison
Kletzel v. Orchid Cellmark Inc., et al., alleges that (i)
individual members of the Company's board of directors violated
their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, and due care owed
to the Company's stockholders by (a) failing to undertake an
appropriate evaluation of the Company's worth as a merger
candidate or in liquidation, (b) failing to engage in a meaningful
auction process and (c) failing to act independently, and, (ii)
LabCorp, the Company and Purchaser aided and abetted the
individual defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties.
The plaintiff seeks (i) to enjoin the acquisition of the Company
by Purchaser and LabCorp, (ii) to enjoin the implementation of the
deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement and deployment of
the Company's poison pill, (iii) to direct the individual
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to maximize
stockholder value in any proposed sale of the Company, (iv) to
impose a constructive trust, in favor of the plaintiff and members
of the proposed class, upon any benefits improperly received by
defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct, and (v) monetary
damages in an unspecified amount as well fees and costs, among
other relief.

On May 2, 2011, a punitive class action lawsuit was filed by a
single plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company, LabCorp, Purchaser,
and individual members of the Company's Board of Directors (Docket
No. 3:11-cv-02508-AET-LHG).  The action, captioned Nicholas
Tsatsis v. Orchid Cellmark, Inc., alleges that: (i) individual
members of the Company's Board of Directors violated their
fiduciary duties of good faith and loyalty owed to the Company's
stockholders by failing to: (a) fully inform themselves of the
Company's market value, (b) act in the interests of equity owners
and (c) maximize stockholder value; (ii) individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duty through materially inadequate
disclosures and material disclosure omissions; (iii) LabCorp and
the Company aided and abetted the individual director's breaches
of fiduciary duty because LabCorp obtained sensitive non-public
information concerning the Company's operations and thus had the
advantage to acquire the Company at an unfair price; and (iv)
defendants violated section 14(e) of the Exchange Act by failing
to provide adequate disclosures in the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement dated April 19, 2011, rendering it materially false and
misleading.  Plaintiff seeks: (i) to have the Merger Agreement
declared unlawful and unenforceable; (ii) to enjoin the defendants
from proceeding with the Merger Agreement or consummating the
transaction unless and until the Company adopts and implements a
procedure or process, such as an auction, to obtain the highest
possible price for the Company; (iii) to rescind, to the extent
already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms
thereof; and (iv) monetary damages in an unspecified amount as
well as costs, fees, and disbursements, among other relief.

On May 4, 2011, the Company first learned that a putative class
action lawsuit was filed on April 20, 2011 by a single plaintiff
in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Chancery Division
against the Company, LabCorp, Purchaser, and individual members of
the Company's Board of Directors (Docket No. L-1099-11).  The
action, captioned Betty Greenberg v. Orchid Cellmark, Inc., et
al., alleges that: (i) individual members of the Company's Board
of Directors violated their fiduciary duties of good faith and
loyalty owed to the Company's stockholders by failing to: (a)
fully inform themselves of the Company's market value, (b) act in
the interests of equity owners and (c) maximize stockholder value;
and (ii) LabCorp and the Company aided and abetted the individual
directors' breaches of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiff seeks: (i) to
have the Merger Agreement declared unlawful and unenforceable;
(ii) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger
Agreement or consummating the transactions unless and until the
Company adopts and implements a procedure or process, such as an
auction, to obtain the highest possible price for the Company;
(iii) to rescind, to the extent already implemented, the Merger
Agreement or any of the terms thereof; and (iv) monetary damages
in an unspecified amount as well as costs, fees, disbursements,
among other relief.

On May 11, 2011, the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery
Division stayed the actions filed by the three shareholders in
that court: Bruce Ballard v. Orchid Cellmark, et al. (Docket No. C
000032 11), Harrison Kletzel v. Orchid Cellmark Inc., et al.,
(Docket No. L-1083-11), and Betty Greenberg v. Orchid Cellmark,
Inc., et al. (Docket No. L-1099-11), finding that the allegations
were substantially similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the
three actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery where a
motion for preliminary injunction was scheduled for argument on
May 12, 2011.  Under principles of comity and fairness and in
order to avoid duplicative litigation, the Superior Court of New
Jersey Chancery Division ordered the three actions pending in that
court be stayed until further order of the Court.

On May 12, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied the motion
for a preliminary injunction filed in the consolidated Silverberg,
Nannetti, and Locke actions finding there was no reasonable
likelihood of success on the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
fiduciary duty by the individual directors of the Company's Board
of Directors and thus no attendant likelihood of success on the
plaintiffs' claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary
duty by the Company, LabCorp, and the Purchaser.  On May 13, 2011,
the plaintiffs in these actions filed a motion to appeal, on an
expedited basis, the denial of their motion for a preliminary
injunction.  On May 16, 2011, the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware refused to allow the plaintiffs' appeal.

On May 12, 2011, a motion for preliminary injunction was filed in
the United States District Court of New Jersey in Tsatsis v.
Orchid Cellmark, Inc., (Docket No. 3:11-cv-02508-AET-LHG), seeking
to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger Agreement
or consummating the transaction.  On May 13, 2011, the United
States District Court of New Jersey denied the plaintiff's request
for an expedited hearing on the motion for a preliminary
injunction.  The Company and LabCorp opposed the request for a
preliminary injunction and the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the action for failure to state a claim.  On June 24, 2011, the
plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of this action, and on
July 7, 2011, the Court entered that dismissal.

The Company and LabCorp believe the allegations in each of the
complaints are entirely without merit, and the defendants intend
to vigorously defend each action.  However, even a meritless
lawsuit potentially may delay consummation of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including the Offer and the
Merger.

Additionally, the Company has certain other claims against it
arising from the normal course of its business.  The ultimate
resolution of such matters, including those cases disclosed, in
the opinion of management, will not have a material effect on the
Company's financial position and liquidity, but could have a
material impact on its results of operations for any reporting
period.


QUEPASA CORP: Faces "Unauthorized Text Message" Suit in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quepasa Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit relating to
its alleged unauthorized text messages to consumers, according to
the Company's August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On August 3, 2011, a class action complaint was filed by Michelle
Kaffko against the Company in the United States District Court of
Nevada.  The complaint alleges that the Company sent unauthorized
text messages to thousands of consumers by using equipment that
had the capacity to generate random telephone numbers.  The
Plaintiff is seeking, for herself and on the behalf of the members
of the class, $500 for each alleged violation.  The Company did
not send the unauthorized texts and intends to vigorously defend
against this baseless lawsuit.


SINO CLEAN: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sino Clean Energy Inc. continues to defend a shareholder class
action lawsuit in Nevada, 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 May 6, 2011, a shareholder class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its present and former officers
and directors for alleged violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The plaintiff claims that the Company's SEC filings
during the period between April 6, 2009, and May 5, 2011, contain
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
revenues and operations.  The action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
is titled, Plaintiff Gary Redwen v.  Sino Clean Energy, Inc.,
Baowen Ren, Wen Fu, Albert Ching-Hwa Pu, Hon Wan Chan, Wenjie
Zhang, Zhixin Jing, and Peng Zhou, Case No. CV11-03936.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP and Siskinds LLP, counsel in the Sino-Forest
Corp. securities class action, have served a statement of claim on
Sino-Forest and others.  The detailed claim alleges wrongdoing
against Sino-Forest, several of its senior officers and directors
including Allen Chan, Ernst &Young LLP and financial institutions
that had acted as underwriters for Sino-Forest's 2009 prospectus
offerings.  The claim alleges there were misrepresentations in
Sino-Forest's public disclosure that related to numerous aspects
of its operations.  The claim also alleges unjust enrichment,
oppression and conspiracy.  Many of the allegations contained in
the statement of claim have not previously been made by Muddy
Waters or the Globe & Mail.

The plaintiffs are the trustees of the Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada and the trustees of the International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 793 Pension Plan for Operating
Engineers in Ontario.  They have commenced this action on their
own behalf and on behalf of other Sino-Forest investors, and in
particular those who acquired Sino-Forest securities from March
19, 2007 to June 2, 2011 by primary distribution in Canada or on
the Toronto Stock Exchange or other secondary market in Canada.

"This action raises serious questions about how Sino-Forest
conducted its business and affairs and the manner in which it
raised capital from public markets" explains Dimitri Lascaris of
Siskinds LLP.  "The allegations leveled in this action assert
misconduct that pervades almost every corner of Sino-Forest's
operations".

Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP underscores that the plaintiffs
are not only pursuing Sino-Forest and its senior management, but
also the auditors and other advisors on which the public markets
may have relied: "this action names as defendants Sino-Forest's
auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, as well as financial institutions that
acted as underwriters for Sino-Forest in its 2009 prospectus
offerings.  The plaintiffs intend to scrutinize the role of the
auditor and underwriters and hold them to account for their role
in serving Sino-Forest."


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Continues to Defend "Kubala" Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skypeople Fruit Juice, Inc., continues to defend a securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed by Paul Kubala 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 April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor
child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its individual officers and
directors, Yongke Xue and Xiaoqin Yan, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC,
the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering
consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The purported class period is from
March 31, 2010 through and including April 1, 2011.  Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages and attorneys fees and costs "in an
amount to be proven at trial."

The Complaint alleges that certain public statements made by the
Company were materially misleading in violation of U.S. securities
laws.  In particular, the Complaint alleges that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2009 filed with the SEC on March 31, 2010 was not in compliance
with FAS No. 57, and therefore misleading under U.S. securities
laws because it did not identify the Company's acquisition of
Yingkou Trusty Fruits, Co., Ltd., as a "related party
transaction."  The Complaint also alleges that the prospectus
contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
SEC on April 20, 2010, as amended, for the Company's public
offering that was consummated in August 2010 was likewise
misleading because it stated that "there has not been a reportable
transaction between us and a related party since January 1, 2009."
Plaintiff maintains that the Company's stock price dropped, and
its shareholders suffered damages, once the Yingkou Acquisition
was disclosed as a "related party transaction" in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010, which was filed with the SEC on April 1, 2011.  The
Company's CEO and chairman of the board, Xue Yongke, and a
director, Yan Xiaoqin, were parties related to the Yingkou
Acquisition.

It is unclear at this time what Plaintiff's damages will be, if
any.  Accordingly, the estimate of loss cannot be made at this
stage.


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Continues to Defend "Padnos" Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skypeople Fruit Juice, Inc., continues to defend a securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed by Benjamin Padnos 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 June 20, 2011, plaintiff Benjamin Padnos filed a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York against the Company, all of its
individual officers and directors, Yongke Xue, Xiaoqin Yan, Norman
Ko, John W. Smagula, Spring Liu, Child Van Wagner & Bradshaw,
PLLC, BDO Limited and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of
the Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August
2010, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The purported class period is from March 31, 2010
through and including April 1, 2011.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and attorney's fees and costs "in an amount to be proven
at trial."  It is unclear at this time what Plaintiff's damages
will be, if any.   Accordingly, the estimate of loss cannot be
made at this stage.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Former QA Tester Mulls Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Gilbert, writing for Joystiq, reports that ex-Take-Two
Interactive employee Aaron Martinez believes he was mistreated
while employed by the publisher, and he's suing.  In a notice sent
to other QA employees, the former Visual Concepts (currently known
as 2K Sports) quality assurance tester claims "Take-Two Quality
Assurance Testers were not paid for all hours worked, were not
provided required off duty meal and rest breaks, and were not paid
all wages due at the time of termination."  Resultantly, he's
trying to gather other employees/ex-employees together in a class
action suit.

For its part, Take-Two denies all claims, but the presiding court
in California has yet to determine much about potential future
legal actions.  Mr. Martinez's lawyer, Michael Righetti, told
Joystiq that his client has filed a punitive class action suit,
and that the letter popping up online was sent out as an act of
compromise between Mr. Martinez and Take-Two, as well as to notify
other employees of the suit.  Mr. Martinez was employed by Visual
Concepts/Take-Two beginning in December of 2006, and it is unclear
when his time with the studio ended.

Bizarrely, in order to solicit contact information of other
employees at Take-Two during Mr. Martinez's time of employment,
the letter had to be sent by a third party working as an
intermediary.  Those receiving the letter have until Sept. 25 to
opt out of having their information released, at which time their
contact information will otherwise be given to the complainant's
legal counsel.

The original complaint was filed by Mr. Martinez way back in
June of 2010.


XO HOLDINGS: "Zheng" Suit Remains Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A derivative class action lawsuit filed by Youlu Zheng against XO
Holdings, Inc., 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 January 21, 2011, ACF Industries Holding Corp., proposed
to acquire all of the outstanding Company Common Stock not owned
by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share.

On July 11, 2011, XO Holdings, Inc., entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with ACF Holding, Arnos Corp., Arnos Sub Corp.
("Arnos Sub"), High River Limited Partnership, Barberry Corp., and
together with ACF Holding, Arnos, Arnos Sub and High River,
collectively the "Parent Group", and XO Merger Corp., a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent Group ("Merger Sub").

On or about June 3, 2010, Youlu Zheng filed a class action
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York against the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Adam Dell, Fredrik
Gradin, Vincent J. Intrieri, Keith Meister, Robert Knauss, David
S. Schechter, Peter Shea, Harold First, ACF Holding, Arnos, High
River, Starfire Holding Corp., and XO Holdings, Inc. alleging that
the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the
financing transaction consummated in July 2008 and other related
matters.  The plaintiffs request that the court rescind the July
2008 financing transaction, award compensatory damages to the
class of plaintiffs, award the plaintiff expenses, costs and
attorneys' fees, and impose a constructive trust in favor of the
plaintiff and the class upon benefits improperly received by the
defendants.  On July 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.  The defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint on September 23, 2010.  On March 14, 2011, the
plaintiffs amended their complaint to include the 2010 Rights
Offering and Reverse Stock Split and to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal.  On or about July 27,
2011, the court issued a written order conditionally certifying
two separate classes.  On July 19, 2011, the plaintiffs requested
that they be permitted to amend their complaint to include
allegations challenging the Merger, by which various Icahn
entities offered to purchase all outstanding shares of Company
Common Stock for $1.40 per share, plus one CVR subject to certain
conditions.  The plaintiffs declared their intention to move to
enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger Agreement.  A
hearing for the anticipated motion was scheduled for August 16,
2011.  The case is under consideration and the effect of this case
on the Company, if any, is not known at this time.


XO HOLDINGS: "Henzel" Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Henzel against XO Holdings, Inc.,
remains stayed, according to the Company's August 15, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 11, 2011, XO Holdings, Inc., entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with ACF Holding, Arnos Corp., Arnos Sub Corp.
("Arnos Sub"), High River Limited Partnership, Barberry Corp., and
together with ACF Holding, Arnos, Arnos Sub and High River,
collectively the "Parent Group", and XO Merger Corp., a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent Group ("Merger Sub").

On or about January 26, 2011, Henzel, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against XO Holdings,
Inc., the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First,
Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, and David
Schechter alleging that the Company and its Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor,
and due care.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
adequately consider ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal.  On July 22,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging the
Merger and asking the court to enjoin the Merger, and moved for
expedited proceedings.  On July 25, 2011, the defendants moved to
dismiss or stay the action and opposed expedited proceedings.  On
July 28, 2011, the parties agreed to stay the action during the
pendency of the injunction proceedings in New York.  On July 29,
2011, the plaintiff withdrew her motion for expedited proceedings.
The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the
Company, if any, is not known at this time.


XO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Murphy" Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit filed by Murphy 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 January 21, 2011, ACF Industries Holding Corp., proposed
to acquire all of the outstanding Company Common Stock not owned
by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share.

On July 11, 2011, XO Holdings, Inc., entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with ACF Holding, Arnos Corp., Arnos Sub Corp.
("Arnos Sub"), High River Limited Partnership, Barberry Corp., and
together with ACF Holding, Arnos, Arnos Sub and High River,
collectively the "Parent Group", and XO Merger Corp., a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent Group ("Merger Sub").

On or about January 28, 2011, Murphy filed a shareholder class
action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York against XO Holdings, Inc., the Chairman, Carl
Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik
Gradin, Robert Knauss, David Schechter, and ACF Holding, alleging
that the individually named defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to engage in an honest and fair sale process and
failure to disclose material information to the class concerning
ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal; and that the Chairman, the Company,
and ACF Holding aided and abetted the Board's breach of fiduciary
duties.  The plaintiff asks the court to direct the defendants to
carry out their fiduciary duties; to declare that the defendants
committed a gross abuse of trust; and to enjoin the consummation
of the proposed transaction.  On July 20, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint challenging the Merger and asking that
the court enjoin the consummation of the Merger.  The defendants
understand that the plaintiffs are now preparing a motion to
enjoin the Merger, and a hearing on that motion was scheduled for
August 16, 2011.  The case is under consideration and the effect
of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time.


XO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Fast" Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit filed by Fast 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 January 21, 2011, ACF Industries Holding Corp., proposed
to acquire all of the outstanding Company Common Stock not owned
by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share.

On July 11, 2011, XO Holdings, Inc., entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with ACF Holding, Arnos Corp., Arnos Sub Corp.
("Arnos Sub"), High River Limited Partnership, Barberry Corp., and
together with ACF Holding, Arnos, Arnos Sub and High River,
collectively the "Parent Group", and XO Merger Corp., a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent Group ("Merger Sub").

On February 11, 2011, Fast filed a class action complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against XO Holdings, Inc., ACF Holding,
the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel
Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, and David Schechter
alleging that the individually named defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by abandoning the 2010 Rights
Offering and Reverse Stock Split in favor of ACF Holding's 2011
Proposal.  The complaint also challenges the independence of the
Special Committee and the application of the provision contained
in the July 2008 Stock Purchase Agreement entered into by the
Company and certain affiliates of the Chairman in connection with
the issuance and sale of Class B and C preferred stock to
affiliates of the Chairman and which places certain restrictions
on the Chairman's ability to effect a transaction that would
result in the Chairman obtaining a 90% ownership share in the
Company unless such transaction were approved by a special
committee of disinterested directors.  The plaintiff also asks the
Court to enjoin the consummation of ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal
until the transaction's "financial and procedural unfairness' is
rectified; asks the Court to declare that the Special Committee
process in the Standstill Provision does not satisfy the entire
fairness requirement; and asks the court to declare that the
Special Committee is incapable of reviewing ACF Holding's 2011
Proposal.  On July 18, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint challenging the Merger and asking the court to enjoin
the consummation of the Merger, and moved for expedited
proceedings.  On July 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss or
stay the action and opposed expedited proceedings.  On August 1,
2011, the Court of Chancery denied the motion for expedited
proceedings.  The case is under consideration and the effect of
this case on the Company, if any, is not known at this time.


XO HOLDINGS: "Borden" Suit Stayed Due to Injunction Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Borden against XO Holdings, Inc.,
remain stayed due to the pendency of the injunction proceedings,
according to the Company's August 15, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On January 21, 2011, ACF Industries Holding Corp., proposed
to acquire all of the outstanding Company Common Stock not owned
by ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share.

On July 11, 2011, XO Holdings, Inc., entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with ACF Holding, Arnos Corp., Arnos Sub Corp.
("Arnos Sub"), High River Limited Partnership, Barberry Corp., and
together with ACF Holding, Arnos, Arnos Sub and High River,
collectively the "Parent Group", and XO Merger Corp., a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent Group ("Merger Sub").

On February 25, 2011, Borden filed a class action complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against XO Holdings,
Inc., the Chairman, Carl Grivner, Robert Knauss, Harold First,
Fredrik Gradin, Vincent Intrieri, David Schechter, Daniel
Ninivaggi, and ACF Holding on behalf of the public stockholders of
the Company.  The complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary
duties by the defendants related to ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal
including allegations that the Special Committee lacked
independence to consider and review ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal
and that the defendants placed personal interests of the
individual Board Members and the interests of the Chairman ahead
of the interests of the shareholders.  On July 22, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint challenging the Merger and
asking the court to enjoin the Merger, and moved for expedited
proceedings.  On July 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss or
stay the action and opposed expedited proceedings.  On July 28,
2011, the parties agreed to stay the action during the pendency of
the injunction proceedings.  The case is under consideration and
the effect of this case on the Company, if any, is not known at
this time.


ZEON CHEMICALS: Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Held
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Peterson, writing for WFPL News, reports that dozens of
residents of Louisville's Rubbertown neighborhood were at the
federal courthouse on Aug. 31 for a fairness hearing in a class
action lawsuit against Zeon Chemicals.

The settlement agreement offers up to $750 for those who live
within a mile of the chemical plant, and up to $100 for those
within one to two miles.  Nine area elementary schools will get
nearly $600,000 more.  But the settlement also takes away certain
rights of claimants to sue Zeon for future damages.

Attorneys for the several residents named in the lawsuit and
Zeon's lawyers have already agreed on the settlement.  But
Kentucky Resources Council attorney Tom FitzGerald was arguing
against it.  His client, community activist Eboni Cochran, says
the settlement offers too little compensation and does nothing to
reduce the risks the neighborhood faces from Zeon's emissions.

"My priority for the settlement would have been lower emissions,
it would have been community access to real-time monitoring," she
said.

Even Jonathan Tinsley, who's named in the lawsuit, was lukewarm
about the terms of the settlement.

"I don't totally agree with the lawsuit, yet in the wording of it
I'm compelled to the lawsuit," he said.

Judge John Heyburn now has to decide whether to accept the
settlement.  He's not allowed to make any changes to the
agreement, but can require both sides to amend it as a condition
of his approval.


* Australian Companies See Class Actions as Significant Concern
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Lamont, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald's
BusinessDay, reports that when litigation funder IMF Australia
announced it had doubled its profit, one could almost hear
boardrooms groaning at the onward march of class actions.

A survey of nearly 400 corporate counsel across 20 industries, by
law firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques, identified class actions as a
significant concern.

Across the board, 34% said their organizations had some
involvement in a class action -- not only as a defendant, but
sometimes as a class member.  Some 38% of ASX 200 companies
identified these actions as an issue.

"Shareholders and litigation funders are using class actions as a
form of de facto enforcement, whether or not the regulator acts,"
Mallesons' report concluded.

Mallesons partner Jason Watts told BusinessDay he expected
continuous disclosure obligations to remain the front runner in
class actions, in addition to trade practices issues such as
cartel behavior.

"It's a threat for boards to have another source of action that is
potentially well-funded, in addition to the regulatory action they
face," he said.

The biggest litigation funder in the Australian market, IMF,
recorded net profit of $22.9 million, up from $11.9 million.  It
received $38 million from its litigation activities (up from $19.7
million) and has cases afoot with claims worth $1.8 billion.  Its
biggest cash cows in the past year were the $150 million Pan
Pharmaceuticals action against the Commonwealth ($18 million) and
the $60 million OZ Minerals claim ($12.8 million).

Ord Minnett analyst Brad Dunn said there was broad consensus that
the industry would benefit from regulation.

And business itself could use funders.  "For corporate litigants
these may involve patent actions, breaches of contract or other
commercial disputes where the business may lack the capital or the
time involved to pursue such an action through the courts."

Funders operations are being considered by the federal Treasury.

In a submission to the Treasury, the Australian Institute of
Company Directors called for regulation of funders through a new
license, rather than the government's proposal to exempt them if
they meet certain conflict-of-interest conditions.

It queried whether "encouraging a proliferation of funded class
action litigation is in the best interests of the Australian
economy".


* Law School Graduates Sue Alma Maters for Fraudulent Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth G. Olson, writing for CNNMoney, reports that as more law
school graduates facing six-figure debt loads are either unable to
find a legal job or taking low-paying legal drone jobs, some are
opting to sue their alma maters for fraudulent advertising.

Budding law school students are still coming in droves, tuition
coffers are plentiful, and faculty still receive generous six-
figure salaries.  And some top-performing graduates continue to
land the golden $160,000 first-year law firm job.

But law schools are no longer the pathway to a secure, tony
professional future they once were.  The legal job market is
undergoing shifts that could upend the way law schools do business
and even how the public thinks about a legal diploma.

Anger has been building as more law school graduates are facing
five or six-figure debt loads from their legal education but are
either unable to find a legal job, or any work for that matter, or
taking low-paying legal drone jobs.

Fed up, several groups of graduates are going to court to stop law
schools from engaging in what they argue is fraudulent
advertising.  Job placement figures are misleading or are outright
wrong, claim some of the newly degreed students who have struggled
to latch on to jobs as the traditional legal hiring structure
erodes.

Alexandra Gomez-Jimenez, 30, was so frustrated with her job search
after earning her law degree in 2007 that she decided this summer
to sue her alma mater, New York Law School, for fraudulent
advertising.  She and other graduates of the Manhattan-based law
school filed a lawsuit claiming they were duped by exaggerated job
placement stats that law schools publish to attract students.

"When I was applying, New York Law School said employment right
out of school was high," says Ms. Gomez-Jimenez, who worked as a
paralegal after graduating from college.

New York Law's school literature, she says, claimed that alumni
would find jobs with $70,000 to $80,000 salaries, and that 90%
found jobs within six months of graduating.  "I looked at it as
their having a network of connections that would get me a job.
But I never got help, or even an interview."

New York Law School's dean, Richard Matasar, has publicly defended
the school's practices but did not respond to a request for
comment for this article.  Mr. Matasar also happens to be the head
of the American Law Deans Association, which was formed to change
law school accreditation practices and policies.

Ms. Gomez-Jimenez says that she still had no job six months after
earning her law degree and was facing her first payment on
$190,000 in loans for tuition, books, and living expenses.  She
found a temporary job reviewing legal documents.  Eventually, she
hung a shingle as an immigration lawyer but decided to join the
class action suit after seeing a Craigslist ad looking for
plaintiffs.

Other Frustrated American law school graduates also have filed
lawsuits against Thomas M. Cooley Law School, which has four
campuses in Michigan and is opening another near Tampa, Fla., and
Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.

These schools turn out large numbers of graduates, but it's not
just diploma-mill law schools that are in this particular game,
says David Anziska, a lawyer for Kurzon Strauss, the New York law
firm that represents the plaintiffs in the New York Law School and
Cooley law school cases.

"Law schools all make it a secret, but it's not just the
recession.  This has been going on for a long time," Mr. Anziska
says, noting that many law schools are portraying the dearth of
jobs as a blip due to the poor economy.  "Law schools need to
adopt rigorous methods that tell you the extent of full-time legal
employment."

Even as the legal job market tumbles, law schools have been moving
at a glacial pace to adjust to the new economic reality.  But
after a 2010 commission studied the economy's impact on legal
employment, and regulators asked questions, the American Bar
Association took a major step last month toward requiring law
schools to be more specific about the actual employment outlook of
their graduates.

At the same time, federal lawmakers have begun to question the
accrediting body, formally called the ABA Section of Legal
Education & Admissions to the Bar, about how its process accounts
for rising default rates on federally backed student loans.  A law
student today accrues an average of $98,000 in debt for three
years of legal education, up more than 200% from the 1987 average.

A panel of accreditation experts from the U.S. Department of
Education fanned the flames of this debate in June when it
publicly questioned whether law schools -- 200 of which are
accredited by the ABA -- were taking adequate steps to collect job
placement information from their graduates.

This was welcome news to Kyle McEntee, co-founder of nonprofit
organization Law School Transparency, which has been trying for
several years to pry open the doors of the law school
establishment and bring greater openness to what law students can
expect when they graduate.

"There is a culturally embedded belief that a law degree brings
financial success," says Mr. McEntee, who started Law School
Transparency with fellow Vanderbilt Law School alum Patrick Lynch.
"So far, there has been a lot of talk in the legal profession, but
we want law schools to lay out the specifics so students can have
the necessary information to make a decision."

It took the ABA well over a year to agree to tighten employment-
reporting requirements for the law schools it accredits.  It will
hold schools responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the
data.  Prospective law students will have to wait some time before
they can benefit from any of these new requirements, as the first
such questionnaire won't go out until in February of next year,
and the questions themselves are still up for debate.

But Mr. McEntee concedes that "systemic reforms to legal education
will not occur by simply opening up the window and letting in a
little sunlight," and that academics and practicing lawyers need
to step up and argue for reform.

Overhauling law school job reporting has drawn a blizzard of
support from jobless law grads, but few academics have been
outspoken about upending the currently cozy situation for law
schools and their parent universities.  Paul Campos, a
constitutional law professor at the University of Colorado law
school at Boulder, happens to be one notable exception to the
rule.

Mr. Campos claims that the National Association of Law Placement
already collects adequate employment data, and it doesn't look too
pretty.  NALP figures show a 51% employment rate for 2010 law
school graduates, and figures may well be as low as 45% of those
who have full-time, permanent legal jobs, according to Mr. Campos'
calculations.

"It's really striking what an enormous gap there is between actual
employment and what law schools say," he says.  "It might be
called puffery, or more unkind things.

"None of them wants to be any more honest than they have to be,"
he says.  And students hesitate to tell the truth about their
employment, because it could tarnish the law school's reputation
and diminish the value of their degree, he adds.

Rankings published by U.S. News and World Report -- fuel law
schools' fear of scaring off applicants, whose choices are heavily
influenced by the annual listings.  A reliance on these rankings
has driven schools to distort their data, and students seldom
report their actual salaries, critics argue.

Mr. Campos, who started looking into the issue after many of his
students struggled to find work, says he estimates that only 63%
of graduates nationally find jobs a year after graduation, when
excluding those holding non-legal jobs or doing part-time or
temporary work.  The NALP figure is 88%.

Although applications are slowing -- 10% fewer people applied than
last year -- a substantial number, nearly 80,000 people, still
applied to law school for this upcoming fall, according to the Law
School Admissions Council's latest figures.

At the same time, graduates like Ms. Gomez-Jimenez say they are
determined to reform the process by pursuing their class action
suits in court.

"I don't expect to get any money out of this lawsuit," she says.
"But I want to change the process.  They get so much money from
us, but the law school didn't even try to help me or my
classmates."


                            *********

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  * * *