CAR_Public/110907.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, September 7, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 177

                             Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: Sued Over Extra Membership Cancellation Fees
BANK OF THE CASCADES: Bondholders File Class Action Over Losses
BANNER: Feb. 2012 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Labor Law-Violation Suit
BROOKLYN FEDERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Investors Bancorp Merger

CACI INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Final Judgment
DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Alberta Litigation
DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Manitoba Suit vs. Unit
DOLLAR GENERAL: "Brickey" Suit Will Not Proceed as Class Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Fact Discovery Deadline in "Richter" Suit in Nov.

DOLLAR GENERAL: "Womack" Suit Settlement to be Filed This Month
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend "Gaer" Securities Suit
EXTREME NETWORKS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Spark Plugs
FULL TILT: Lawyers File Motion to Withdraw From Class Action

HARRIS CORP: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 16
JDS UNIPHASE: Received $0.3-Mil. From Nortel Settlement
MYLIFE.COM INC: Class Action Over Fake Name Scam Can Proceed
NATIONAL A-1: Men File Class Action Over Ladies Free Promotion
NORTH AMERICAN PALLADIUM: To Vigorously Defend Class Action

PEKIN INSURANCE: Judge Mudge Cuts LakinChapman Fee in Settlement
POWERCOR: Class Action Over Victorian Bushfire Set to Begin
SOLYNDRA LLC: Employees File Class Action Over Layoffs
SOLYNDRA LLC: Sued Over Termination of 900 Employees in Calif.
STATE OF IOWA: Racial Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed

STUBHUB INC: Accused of Doing Prohibited Reselling of Tickets
TIMBERCORP: Judge Criticizes Lawyers in Investor Class Action
TOWERS WATSON: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholders Suit
WELSPUN GROUP: Disputes Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Dues
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Still Awaits Deal Approval in Florida Suit

WMS INDUSTRIES: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in "Conlee" Suit
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Deceptively Markets Products, Suit Claims

* Miami Solo Practitioner Suspended Over Solicitation Letter





                             *********

24 HOUR FITNESS: Sued Over Extra Membership Cancellation Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO
class action claims 24 Hour Fitness charges members an extra month
of dues when they cancel, though they paid first and last month
fees when they joined.

Lead plaintiff Albert Alatorre says 24 Hour Fitness gets credit
card and bank account information when its customers sign up for
"Unlimited Guest Services," then uses the information to extract
an extra month of fees from them when they cancel.

Upon cancellation, Mr. Alatorre says, the health club makes "one
additional EFT [electronic funds transfer] 'tap' to the bank or
credit card accounts of plaintiff and each and every class member
for membership dues".  The company then applies the last-month
dues it already has collected to the month after that.

Mr. Alatorre says 24 Hour Fitness does this for all such accounts
at all of its 346 health clubs in 14 states.

He claims that no class member has ever received a full refund of
the extra "EFT tap."

He seeks treble damages and an injunction for racketeering, unfair
competition, fraud, breach of contract and misrepresentation.

A copy of the Complaint in Alatorre v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-04318 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/02/Fitness24.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa M. Harnett, Esq.
          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          Gregory B. Scarlett, Esq.
          WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, L.L.P.
          5567 Reseda Boulevard, Suite 330
          Post Office Box 7033
          Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
          Telephone: (818) 705-6800
                     (323) 872-0995

               - and -

          Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq.
          Kathleen R. Scanlan, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305


BANK OF THE CASCADES: Bondholders File Class Action Over Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that
bondholders say in a federal class action that the Bank of the
Cascades lost $23.5 million when it handed over their money to a
shell company with no assets, investments or income.  And they say
the bank accepted as security "a number of leases to which [the
shell company] was not even a party."

Investors lost varying amounts of money, but named plaintiffs
Russell and Rena Firkins say they lost the most: more than
$725,000 in bonds issued through three funding corporations
created by DBSI Inc., an Idaho-based commercial real estate
investment company.

The Firkins say they represent nearly 1,000 bondholders of more
than 400 bonds.  They say bondholders lost their millions because
Bank of the Cascades, trustee for the bondholders, "utterly failed
to fulfill its obligations to the bondholders."

They say the bonds were to be invested in individual income-
producing real estate projects, but Bank of the Cascades gave the
entire $23.5 million to a single company, DBSI Realty Corp., which
"had no assets, no investments, no independent income and, in
fact, was prohibited from receiving bond proceeds under the terms
of the offering documents."

In return, the Firkins say, the bank "obtained 'security' in a
number of leases to which DBSI Realty was not even a party.  As
difficult as this may be to believe, these are the facts found by
the United States Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware."
They claim that DBSI Realty was just a "shell corporation" that
served as paymaster for the DBSI group, and did not invest in real
estate projects, which was "the purpose specified in the Offering
Circulars and Indentures for use of the bond proceeds."

They say that the bank, "by disbursing all of the bond proceeds to
DBSI Realty, a company with no investments, no assets and no
income, defendant left the bondholders with nothing."

They add: "defendant and DBSI pretended that the loans to DBSI
Realty were securitized when, in fact, they were not."

Hard to believe as it may be, that "defendant would disburse $23.5
million in bond proceeds in return for nonexistent, perhaps even
fraudulent, security, a federal bankruptcy judge found this to be
precisely the case in an opinion issued on May 12, 2010," the
complaint states.

The Bank of Cascades is the only defendant.

A copy of the Complaint in Firkins, et ux. v. Bank of Cascades,
Case No. 1116658 (Idaho Dist. Ct., Ada Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/02/CascadesBank.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip H. Gordon, Esq.
          Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
          GORDON LAW OFFICES
          623 West Hays Street
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 345-7100
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey Bestor, Esq.
          4204 Maple Terrace
          Chevy Chase, MD 20815
          Telephone: (240) 463-8503
          E-mail: gbesq@bestorlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven T. Webster, Esq.
          WEBSTER BOOK, LLP
          300 N. Washington St. Suite 404
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: 888-987-9991


BANNER: Feb. 2012 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Colson Hicks Eidson, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran &
Berman, Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, and Stone, Pigman, Walther,
Wittmann released a summary notice of Banner Class Action
Settlement.

You may be entitled to receive a settlement payment if you are a
member of the class consisting of:

All persons or entities with claims, known and unknown, against
Banner or its Insurers arising from, or otherwise related to,
Chinese Drywall purchased from, supplied, distributed, marketed,
used, sold and/or delivered by Banner.

This Notice is only a summary.  A more detailed Class Notice may
be obtained from Class Counsel Ervin Gonzalez, Colson Hicks
Eidson, 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse, Coral Gables, FL 33134,
telephone number (305) 476-7400.

Capitalized terms in this Notice have the same meaning as those
defined in the Banner Amended Settlement Agreement dated August 8,
2011.  The Settlement is posted on the District Court's Chinese
Drywall MDL Web site at
http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/Drywall/Drywall.htm,the CPSC Web
site, and the Florida Department of Health Web site.

Description of the Settlement

The Settlement is intended to resolve claims brought against
Banner, as well as Chartis, FCCI, Hanover, and Maryland Casualty,
for Banner's purchase, supply, distribution, marketing, use, sale
and/or delivery of Chinese Drywall that was used in the
construction of properties in the United States.  Banner
distributes drywall products manufactured by other companies.
Plaintiffs have filed complaints against Banner, its Insurers, and
others to recover the costs of remediating properties damaged by
Chinese Drywall and other damages.  Banner and its Insurers deny
any wrongdoing whatsoever.  The Settlement will only resolve
claims against Banner and its Insurers.

The Court has conditionally certified the class for settlement
purposes only.  The Court has not determined the merits of any
claims or defenses of the parties.  The Settlement will become
effective only upon final approval by the Court.

If approved, Banner's Insurers will establish Settlement Funds of
$53,081,572.30, which will be allocated to pay for costs of
remediating Affected Properties and other damages.  The Settling
Defendants are not permitted to receive any Settlement Funds,
except as subrogees of Class Members.

All Class Members who receive in excess of the MMSEA dollar
threshold in effect at the time the Settlement is Final must
provide the Insurers with their full name, date of birth, social
security number, and gender, as well as any other information
necessary for the Insurers to comply with their reporting
obligations under the Medicare, Medicaid & SCHIP Extension Act of
2007.

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, common benefit attorneys, and
private counsel for Class Members are seeking, in the aggregate,
attorneys' fees of no more than 32% of the Settlement Funds, plus
reasonable expenses, including the costs of Notice.  The
Petitioning Attorneys may seek a fee of 10% from those entities
who recover from the Settlement Funds, are not represented by the
PSC, have private counsel, and have actively pursued this
Litigation.  The allocation of attorneys' fees between and amongst
the Petitioning Attorneys shall be determined by the Court.
Co-Class Counsel is entitled to petition the Court for
reimbursement of reasonable expenses and an award of attorneys'
fees at an agreed hourly rate consistent with her normal hourly
rate for all time directly related to the Class Settlement.

Opt-Out Notices

Class Members may opt out of the Class.  If you elect to opt out,
you will be excluded from sharing in the Settlement Funds.  The
procedure for electing to opt out is set forth in detail in the
Class Notice.  Opt-out notices must be post-marked on or before
December 18, 2011.

Fairness Hearing

A Fairness Hearing will be held in Courtroom C-456 of the United
States Courthouse, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, at
9:00 a.m. Central Time, on February 3, 2012, to determine whether:
the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
finally approved; the Class should be finally certified; and the
Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as to Banner and its
Insurers.

At the Fairness Hearing, Class Members may object to the
Settlement, provided that the procedure for objection set forth in
the Class Notice is followed.  To object, you must submit your
written objections on or before December 18, 2011.

Any Class Member who does not timely object to the Settlement
shall be deemed to have waived all objections.

Effect of Final Court Approval

If the Settlement is approved, the Litigation will be dismissed
with prejudice as to Banner and its Insurers.  Litigation will
continue against other defendants.  Unless you opt out of the
Settlement, upon Court approval you will be bound by the
Settlement, including the judgment of dismissal.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Labor Law-Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a
lawsuit against Brinker International, Inc., in California
Superior Court alleging violations of California labor laws with
respect to meal and rest breaks.  The lawsuit seeks penalties and
attorneys' fees and was certified as a class action in July 2006.
On July 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeals decertified the
class action on all claims with prejudice.  On October 22, 2008,
the California Supreme Court granted writ to review the decision
of the Court of Appeals.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend its position.  It is not possible at this time
to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 29, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 29, 2011.


BROOKLYN FEDERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Investors Bancorp Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., is facing a purported class action
lawsuit over its proposed merger with Investors Bancorp, Inc.,
according to the Company's August 30, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 24, 2011, a shareholder represented by the law firm of
Brower Piven, a Professional Corporation, filed a purported class
action lawsuit against Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc., BFS
Bancorp, MHC, Brooklyn Federal Savings Bank and their directors,
and Investors Bancorp, Inc., Investors Bancorp, MHC ("Investors
MHC"), and Investors Savings Bank ("Investors Bank," and
collectively, "Investors").  The Lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties and obligations to the Company's common stockholders (other
than the MHC, the "Public Stockholders"), and that Investors
participated, aided and abetted in the alleged breaches, by
failing to obtain the highest available value for the Company and
take steps to maximize its value when facilitating its acquisition
by entering into the agreement and plan of merger, dated
August 16, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), under which Brooklyn
Bancorp is expected to merge with and into Investors Bancorp (the
"Merger") and the Public Stockholders are to receive cash
consideration of $0.80 per common share.

The Lawsuit seeks, among other things, an injunction against the
Company and the other defendants from consummating the Merger
under the current terms of the Merger Agreement, rescissory and
compensatory damages and attorney's fees.  The Company believes
the Lawsuit is without merit and plans to vigorously defend
against it.


CACI INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion for Final Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
CACI International Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to implement a Court of Appeals mandate and for entry of final
judgment, according to the Company's August 29, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2011.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Saleh, et al. v. Titan Corp.,
et al., filed a twenty-six count class-action complaint on
June 9, 2004, originally on behalf of seven named Plaintiffs and a
class of similarly situated Plaintiffs, against a number of
corporate Defendants and individual corporate employees.  The
complaint, originally filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California, named CACI International
Inc., CACI, INC.-FEDERAL, and CACI N.V. as Defendants, along with
Titan Corporation.  The complaint also named CACI Premier
Technology, Inc. employee Stephen A. Stefanowicz as a Defendant.

Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Defendants formed a
conspiracy to increase demand for interrogation services in Iraq
and violated U.S. domestic and international law.  Plaintiffs
seek, inter alia, declaratory relief, a permanent injunction
against contracting with the government, compensatory damages,
treble damages and attorney's fees.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint several times and
the action was ultimately transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.  In March 2006,
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding several new
counts, adding CACI Premier Technology, Inc. as a Defendant,
dropping CACI, N.V. as a Defendant, and adding two former CACI
Premier Technology employees, Timothy Dugan and Daniel Johnson, as
Defendants.  On June 29, 2006, the Court entered an Order granting
the Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to numerous
claims, and granting the motions of the three individual
Defendants to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Finally,
the Court consolidated the Saleh and Ibrahim actions for discovery
purposes only.

On August 4, 2006, the CACI Defendants filed a summary judgment
motion.  On November 6, 2007, the Court issued its order denying
CACI's motion for summary judgment.  On December 6, 2007, the
Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to have the action proceed as a
class action.  On December 17, 2007, the Court certified its
November 6, 2007 Memorandum Order denying CACI's motion for
summary judgment for interlocutory appeal.  On January 2, 2008,
CACI filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit asking for acceptance of an
interlocutory appeal of the Court's November 6, 2007 Memorandum
Order.  On January 4, 2008, CACI filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit from the Court's November 6, 2007 Memorandum Order.

On December 17, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint.
On January 4, 2008, CACI filed a motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint.

On December 21, 2007, the Court granted Titan's motion for entry
of a final judgment of the November 6, 2007 Memorandum Order as to
Titan, and on January 17, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit from that final judgment in favor of Titan.

CACI filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit to pursue an interlocutory appeal
of the decision denying its summary judgment motion.  In February
2008, the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia granted CACI's motion to have all trial court proceedings
adjourned until all appeals in the action are resolved.  On March
17, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit granted CACI's request for an interlocutory
appeal.

On July 28, 2008, CACI submitted its brief to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding
its interlocutory appeal of the decision denying its summary
judgment motion.  On October 17, 2008, CACI filed its brief in
support of its intervention in Plaintiffs' appeal of the November
2007 decision by the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia granting Titan's summary judgment.  On February 10,
2009, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit held a hearing on both
appeals and took the matters under advisement.

On September 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit reversed the decision of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to
CACI and dismissed the remaining claims against CACI.  On
January 25, 2010, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for a
rehearing en banc.  On April 26, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court to
review the September 11, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals.
On June 28, 2010, CACI filed its brief in opposition to the
certiorari petition.  On October 4, 2010, the Supreme Court of the
United States invited the United States Solicitor General to file
a brief expressing the views of the United States on Plaintiffs'
petition for certiorari.  The Solicitor General subsequently filed
a brief recommending that the Supreme Court decline to review the
September 11, 2009 Court of Appeals decision.  On June 27, 2011,
the United States Supreme Court issued an Order denying
Plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari.  On August 12,
2011, CACI filed a motion in the district court to implement the
mandate of the Court of Appeals and for entry of final judgment
with respect to all Plaintiffs named in the Fourth Amended
Complaint.  That motion remains pending.


DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Alberta Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
DFC Global Corp. continues to defend lawsuits pending in Alberta,
Canada, filed by former customers, according to the Company's
August 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011.

DFC Global Corp. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1990.  Prior
to August 2011, the Company's corporate name was "Dollar Financial
Corp."  The Company operates its store networks and Internet
businesses through its direct and indirect wholly-owned foreign
and domestic subsidiaries.

In 2003, Gareth Young, a former customer, commenced a
representative action (the "Young Litigation") against the
Company's wholly owned indirect Canadian subsidiary, National
Money Mart Company ("NMM"), Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and two
other individual defendants in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta, Canada on behalf of a class of consumers.  The
allegations are substantially similar to class action lawsuits
filed in Ontario and British Columbia.  The action seeks
restitution and damages, including punitive damages.  In 2004, NMM
served Mr. Young a demand for arbitration.  In July 2010, Dollar
Financial Group, Inc. and the individual defendants in the case
were dismissed.

In 2006, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced a purported
class action against Dollar Financial Group, Inc., NMM, and
several of the Company's franchisees in the Court of Queen's Bench
of Alberta, Canada, on behalf of a putative class of consumers who
obtained short-term loans from NMM in Alberta (the "Day
Litigation" and, together with the Young Litigation, the "Alberta
Litigation").  The allegations and relief sought in the Day
Litigation action are substantially the same as those in the Young
Litigation, but relate to a claim period that commences before and
ends after the claim period in the Young Litigation and excludes
the claim period described in the Young Litigation.  In 2007, a
demand for arbitration was served on the Day action plaintiffs; in
April 2010, plaintiffs' indicated that they would proceed with the
claims in the Alberta Litigation; NMM and the franchisees have
filed motions to enforce the arbitration clause and to stay the
actions.

Neither of the actions comprising the Alberta Litigation has been
certified to date as a class action.  The Company intends to
defend these actions vigorously.


DFC GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Manitoba Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------
DFC Global Corp. continues to defend a lawsuit pending in
Manitoba, Canada, commenced against its subsidiary, according to
the Company's August 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30,
2011.

DFC Global Corp. is a Delaware corporation formed in 1990.  Prior
to August 2011, the Company's corporate name was "Dollar Financial
Corp."  The Company operates its store networks and Internet
businesses through its direct and indirect wholly-owned foreign
and domestic subsidiaries.

In 2004, an action was filed against the Company's wholly owned
indirect Canadian subsidiary, National Money Mart Company ("NMM")
in Manitoba, Canada, on behalf of a purported class of consumers
who obtained short-term loans from NMM.  The allegations are
substantially similar to class action lawsuits filed in Ontario
and British Columbia.  The action has not been certified to date
as a class action.  If the action proceeds, NMM intends to seek a
stay of the action on the grounds that the plaintiff entered into
an arbitration and mediation agreement with NMM with respect to
the matters which are the subject of this action.  The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Brickey" Suit Will Not Proceed as Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit commenced by Tammy Brickey, et al., against Dollar
General Corporation will not proceed as a class action lawsuit
following the court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider the order denying class certification, according to the
Company's August 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 29,
2011.

On May 18, 2006, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled
Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra Cogswell and
Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General
Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-cv-06084-
DGL, originally filed on February 9, 2006, and amended on May 12,
2006 ("Brickey")).  The Brickey plaintiffs seek to proceed
collectively under the Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class
under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North Carolina wage and hour
statutes on behalf of, among others, assistant store managers who
claim to be owed wages (including overtime wages) under those
statutes.  On February 22, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs'
class certification motion in its entirety and ordered that the
matter proceed only as to the named plaintiffs.  On March 22,
2011, the plaintiffs moved the court for reconsideration of its
Order denying their class certification motion.  On March 30,
2011, the plaintiffs' reconsideration motion was denied, and the
plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling.  The case will proceed now
only as to the named plaintiffs, and the Company does not expect
the outcome to be material to its financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Fact Discovery Deadline in "Richter" Suit in Nov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for fact discovery in the lawsuit commenced by Cynthia
Richter is on November 30, 2011, according to Dollar General
Corporation's August 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 29,
2011.

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v.
Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-
01537-LSC) ("Richter") in which the plaintiff alleges that she and
other current and former Dollar General store managers were
improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 15,
2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the
court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store
managers.  The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion.  On
March 23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class.  On December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000
current or former Dollar General store managers, and approximately
3,860 individuals opted into the lawsuit.  In May 2011, the court
entered an amended scheduling order that governs, among other
things, deadlines for fact discovery (November 30, 2011) and the
filing of the Company's anticipated decertification motion
(October 14, 2011) and any potentially dispositive motions
(December 16, 2011).  The court's scheduling order establishes a
trial date of May 21, 2012.  The Company does not anticipate a
ruling on its decertification motion before January 2012.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action
treatment.  The Company has obtained summary judgment in some,
although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff
store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

The Company is vigorously defending the Richter matter.  However,
at this time, it is not possible to predict whether Richter
ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively, and no
assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its
defense of the action on the merits or otherwise.  Similarly, at
this time, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims asserted in Richter.
For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss in the matter; however, if the Company is
not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of Richter
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Womack" Suit Settlement to be Filed This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation expects its proposed settlement
resolving the lawsuit commenced by Wanda Womack, et al., will be
filed with the court by the end of September 2011, according to
the Company's August 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 29,
2011.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Janet Calvert
v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH ("Calvert")), in
which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was
paid less than male store managers because of her sex, in
violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII") (now captioned, Wanda
Womack, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH).
The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional
plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males
because of their sex, and to add allegations that the Company's
compensation practices disparately impact females.  Under the
amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under
the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back
wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked
the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current
and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act.  The
Company opposed plaintiffs' motion.  On November 30, 2007, the
court conditionally certified a nationwide class of females under
the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General as store managers
between November 30, 2004, and November 30, 2007.  The notice was
issued on January 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was
sent were required to opt into the lawsuit by March 11, 2008.
Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into the lawsuit.

On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification
relating to their Title VII claims.  The Company filed its
response to the certification motion in June 2010.  Briefing has
closed, and the motion remains pending.  The Company's motion to
decertify the Equal Pay Act class was denied as premature.  If the
case proceeds, the Company expects to file a similar motion in due
course.

The parties agreed to mediate this action, and the court stayed
the action pending the results of the mediation.  The mediation
occurred in March and April 2011, and the Company has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the matter on behalf of the
entire putative class.  The proposed settlement, which still must
be submitted to and approved by the court, provides for both
monetary and equitable relief.  Under the proposed terms, the
Company will pay $15.5 million into a fund for the class members
that will be apportioned and paid out to individual members (less
any additional attorneys' fees or litigation costs approved by the
court), upon submission of a valid claim.  It will pay an
additional $3.25 million for plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.  Of
the total $18.75 million anticipated payment, the Company expects
to receive reimbursement from its Employment Practices Liability
Insurance ("EPLI") carrier of approximately $15.9 million, which
represents the balance remaining of the $20 million EPLI policy
covering the claims.  In addition, the Company has agreed to make
certain adjustments to its pay setting policies and procedures for
new store managers.  If the settlement is approved, the Company
expects to implement the new pay policies and practices no later
than April 2012.  At this time, the Company expects the proposed
settlement to be filed with the court by the end of September 2011
and anticipates the court's ruling sometime during the fall of
2011.  Because it deemed the settlement probable and estimable,
the Company accrued for the net settlement as well as for certain
additional anticipated fees related thereto during the 13-week
period ended April 29, 2011, and concurrently recorded a
receivable of approximately $15.9 million from its EPLI carrier.

At this time, although probable it is not certain that the court
will approve the settlement.  If it does not, and the case
proceeds, it is not possible at this time to predict whether the
court ultimately will permit the action to proceed collectively
under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under Title VII.  Although
the Company intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances
can be given that it would be successful in the defense on the
merits or otherwise.  At this stage in the proceedings, the
Company cannot estimate either the size of any potential class or
the value of the claims raised in this action if it proceeds.  For
these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss in such a scenario; however, if the Company
is not successful in defending this action, its resolution could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
statements as a whole.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend "Gaer" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 11, 2010, a securities class action complaint captioned
Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and the Company's subsequent press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  On November 10,
2010, the Court granted the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System's motion to serve as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  On
January 10, 2011, the lead plaintiff and the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed an Amended Class
Action Complaint with the Court alleging similar violations of
Section 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and adding one
additional individual defendant and other underwriters from the
Company's initial public offering.  The Company believes that the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

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


EXTREME NETWORKS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The cases were consolidated and
the litigation is now captioned as In re Extreme Networks, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The operative
amended complaint names the Company as defendants; six of the
Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including
its former CEO; and several investment banking firms that served
as underwriters of its initial public offering and October 1999
secondary offering.  The complaint alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not
disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain
customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  The parties to the lawsuits have reached a
settlement, which was approved by the Court on October 6, 2009.
Extreme Networks is not required to make any cash payments in the
settlement.  The Court subsequently entered a final judgment of
dismissal.  Certain objectors have appealed the judgment.  If the
appeal is successful, the Company intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously, but, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the matter at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 30, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended July 3, 2011.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Spark Plugs
---------------------------------------------------------
Leading Miami trial law firm Colson Hicks Eidson filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on August 26, 2011, on behalf of Plaintiff
Eduardo Pezzi and similarly situated Florida class members against
Defendant Ford Motor Company.

The complaint alleges that Ford used defective spark plugs that
were covered by Ford's Technical Service Bulletin 08-7-6 in Ford
F-150 trucks, Ford Mustangs, Ford Explorers, Ford Expeditions,
Lincoln Navigators, Lincoln Mark LTs, and Mercury Mountaineers
model years 2004 to 2008.

According to the suit, the defective plugs break or snap during
the removal process, leaving a substantial portion of the
defective plug lodged in the cylinder head, substantially
increasing the costs of changing spark plugs.  Class members have
been required to spend hundreds, and in many instances, thousands
of dollars more than they should have to pay to remove the broken
spark plugs and in some cases, repair damage to the engines caused
by the removal process.

"In addition to these excessive maintenance costs, the defective
spark plug problem may also reduce the value of the vehicles.
Ford has known about this problem for years, even to the point of
designing a special procedure to help its technicians reduce
problems during the spark plug removal process.  Despite its
knowledge, Ford did not disclose the defects to class members or
fix the defective spark plugs prior to their sale or lease," says
Lewis S. "Mike" Eidson, lead counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
"This action seeks to force Ford to take appropriate steps to
compensate these class members for their excessive maintenance
costs, consequential damages and the reduced value of their
vehicles.  In addition the action also seeks to have Ford
implement an immediate design change to eliminate the problem of
broken spark plugs in the affected vehicles.  Changing spark plugs
is supposed to be a simple, inexpensive, and routine maintenance
procedure costing on average $150, taking a couple of hours
instead of thousands of dollars and days of maintenance as
happened to Mr. Pezzi."

The suit further alleges Ford knew about the defect and issued at
least three Technical Service Bulletins concerning the defective
spark plugs and related engine defects.  After receiving
complaints from U.S. customers, the company developed its own
special tool and procedure to remove the defective plugs, and even
after a replacement spark plug was developed, it continued to
manufacture, sell and lease the covered vehicles with the defects
alleged in the class action providing no notice to Plaintiff or
class members about the defective spark plugs and related engine
defects.  More than 240,000 of these covered vehicles were sold or
leased in Florida.

Lewis S. (Mike) Eidson, founding partner at Colson Hicks Eidson,
is a nationally recognized authority on automotive recalls.
Mr. Eidson, at age 29, and his partners, tried and won the first
case alleging that the Ford Pinto fuel system was defective.  He
was also on the plaintiff's steering committee in the Toyota
defective electronic throttle case, Chrysler Minivan latch case
that led to the recall of 4 million vehicles, and was national
co-lead counsel in the Ford Explorer/ Firestone tire litigation.
For more information call 305.476.7400 or visit
http://www.colson.com

                     About Colson Hicks Eidson

The Law Firm of Colson Hicks Eidson is a trial firm with more than
35 years of experience handling local, national and international
litigation.


FULL TILT: Lawyers File Motion to Withdraw From Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
eGaming Review reports that Jeff Ifrah and David Deitch, the
lawyers representing eight 'Team Full Tilt' players in their
ongoing class action lawsuit, have filed a motion for leave to
withdraw as attorneys of record with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The decision comes at an interesting time, with Messrs. Ifrah and
Deitch (both partners at Ifrah PLLC) having previously filed a
motion to dismiss the eight pros -- plus five companies affiliated
to Full Tilt -- from the June 30 suit.  That motion has yet to be
acted upon by the court, and Mr. Ifrah has told eGaming Review
that a decision is unlikely before October.

Dated Aug. 31, their motion states that: "[C]ontinued
representation of Defendants would create unreasonable difficulty
for us to carry out our employment effectively and would result in
an unreasonable financial burden to our law firm."

However, Washington DC-based Mr. Ifrah told eGaming Review that
neither the overhanging federal indictments, nor the new class
action brought last month by Canadian poker players Zayn Jetha and
Donald Whelan, had any bearing on his and Mr. Deitch's decision.

Earlier, Mr. Ifrah responded to players' questions on the Two Plus
Two poker forums, and his activity was followed by a second
official Full Tilt statement in the month of August.

The operator confirmed in that statement that a number of
investors were still in discussions regarding a multi-million
dollar takeover, although bwin.party co-CEO Jim Ryan revealed on
Aug. 31 that his company was not one of those looking at investing
in Full Tilt Poker.

Full Tilt's hearing in front of the Alderney Gambling Control
Commission (AGCC) is still scheduled to resume on Sept. 15,
however no details of the venue or start-time have been provided
by the regulator.

A spokesperson for the AGCC told eGaming Review on Sept. 2 that
further information about the hearing is likely to emerge this
week.


HARRIS CORP: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 16
------------------------------------------------------
A settlement fairness hearing is scheduled for September 16, 2011,
in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
Delaware, according to Harris Corporation's August 29, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended July 1, 2011.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. (now known as Aviat Networks, Inc.)
("HSTX"), the Company's former operating segment, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, including certain
current Harris officers, were named as defendants in a federal
securities class action complaint filed on September 15, 2008, in
the United States District Court (the "Court") for the District of
Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on behalf
of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX securities from
January 29, 2007, to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of
Stratex Networks, Inc. ("Stratex") who exchanged shares of Stratex
for shares of HSTX as part of the combination between Stratex and
the Company's former Microwave Communications Division to form
HSTX.  Similar complaints were filed in the Court on October 6,
2008, and October 30, 2008.  The complaints were consolidated in a
slightly expanded complaint filed on July 29, 2009, that, among
other things, added Harris Corporation as a defendant.  This
action relates to public disclosures made by HSTX on January 30,
2007, and July 30, 2008, which included the restatement of HSTX's
financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters of its
fiscal 2008 (the quarters ended March 28, 2008, December 28, 2007,
and September 28, 2007) and for its fiscal years ended June 29,
2007, June 30, 2006, and July 1, 2005, due to accounting errors.
The consolidated complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act, and sought, among other relief, determinations
that the action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  On June 21,
2011, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving a
settlement between the parties.  A settlement fairness hearing is
scheduled for September 16, 2011.

The Company does not expect the settlement to have a material
impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows.


JDS UNIPHASE: Received $0.3-Mil. From Nortel Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
JDS Uniphase Corporation received approximately $0.3 million in
cash during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011 in connection with a
settlement of class action lawsuits against Nortel Networks
Corporation, according to the Company's August 30, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended July 2, 2011.

In February 2001, the Company received approximately 65.7 million
shares (the "Nortel Shares") of Nortel Networks Corporation
("Nortel") common stock in connection with the sale of its Zurich,
Switzerland subsidiary to Nortel.  Beginning in February 2001,
Nortel has been involved with two class action lawsuits on behalf
of persons who purchased Nortel common stock during the class
period.  The Company began selling the Nortel Shares in 2001 and
had sold all of its holdings by July 2005.

In December 2007, the Company was notified by the settlement
administrator that its Proof of Claim and Release submitted in
relation to the case had been accepted.  The initial distribution
of cash and common shares to participants in the settlement was
approved in March and April of 2008.  The Company continues to
periodically receive payments related to the settlement, including
approximately $0.3 million in cash during the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2011 and approximately $3.4 million in cash during the
third quarter of fiscal 2010.


MYLIFE.COM INC: Class Action Over Fake Name Scam Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a district
judge refused to throw out allegations that MyLife.com is a scam,
bolstering the claims of four people who say the people searching
service uses fake names.

John Clerkin, Veronica Mendez, Cynthia McCrary and Cody Brock
consolidated their claims against MyLife.com Inc. and a venture
capital firm, claiming that the Web site's list of people
'searching for you' generated fake names.

"Plaintiffs point to a testimonial posted on the Internet by an
individual who registered on the Web site as 'sfsf sdgfsdgs,'" the
court order states.  "The Web site reported to that individual
that seven people were looking for 'sfsf sdgfsdgs.'  Plaintiffs
cite another individual's Internet testimonial stating that,
irrespective of the zip code entered, the Web site indicated that
'Grovia Paxton' was residing in that zip code area and was looking
for the individual."

Judge Claudia Wilken granted a motion by Oak Investment Partners,
which invested $25 million in MyLife.com, to declare that it was
not liable for the alleged scam being perpetrated by the Web site.

"Plaintiffs allege only that Oak Investment Partners provided $25
million to MyLife.  Even if true, this is not sufficient to
support conspiratorial or aider-and-abettor liability against Oak
Investment Partners.  This allegation does not suggest that Oak
Investment Partners shared a common plan with MyLife, which is
necessary to support liability as a co-conspirator," Judge Wilken
said.

But Judge Wilken declined to grant the defendants' motion to
dismiss the four plaintiffs' class allegations and state Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims.

The defendants said the CLRA claims failed because Ms. McCrary and
Mr. Brock did not receive a solicitation for the MyLife.com by
e-mail and instead only saw an ad for the site.

Judge Wilken rejected that argument, holding that the "Defendants
point to a general allegation that MyLife violated the CLRA by
'disseminating false solicitations representing that 'someone' is
looking for the recipient.'  However, plaintiffs did not allege
that this was the sole manner in which MyLife violated the CLRA.
Thus, Ms. McCrary's and Mr. Brock's specific allegations and this
general allegation are not inconsistent, and their CLRA claims
need not be dismissed."

Judge Wilken likewise refused to throw out claims that
MyLife.com's presentation of its pricing plans duped subscribers
into full memberships when they believed they were only paying for
a trial.

"While the monthly rates are displayed in bold and relatively
large print, it is not evident that a subscriber will be charged
immediately for the full amount for an entire membership term,"
the judge said, adding that language used at the MyLife site "can
be viewed as ambiguous and susceptible to multiple meanings."

Judge Wilken stated that plaintiffs could move forward with claims
under the California's Unfair Competition Law, a common count for
money had and received, and unjust enrichment and common
restitution.

The judge also declined to strike a section of the consolidated
complaint that listed third-party complaints about the MyLife
Web site, finding them "neither immaterial nor impertinent" to the
consumers' claims.

A copy of the Order Granting Defendant Oak Investment Partners'
Motion to Dismiss and Denying Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss
and Motion to Strike in Clerkin, et al. v. MyLife.com, Inc., et
al.; McCrary v. MyLife.com, Inc.; and Brock v. MyLife.com, Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-00527 (N.D. Calif.) is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/02/MyLife.pdf


NATIONAL A-1: Men File Class Action Over Ladies Free Promotion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that men filed a
class action against the organizers of a Sex Expo in Los Angeles
who made them pay $44 to get into a promotional event, while women
got in free.

Lead plaintiff Glenn Samuels says he parted with $44 to get into
the Exxxotica Expo at Los Angeles Convention Center, while women
breezed in por nada.  He seeks class damages for civil rights
violations.

"Despite the many State of California anti-discrimination
statutes, unanimous California Supreme Court opinions, California
Attorney General and Department of Fair Employment and Housing
actions, and California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
regulations -- all prohibiting California businesses from treating
patrons unequally based on their sex, defendants brazenly
advertised, employed, or aided the Ladies Free promotion, which
treated male and female patrons unequally based solely on the
patrons' sex," he says in his Superior Court complaint.

An ad for the event, attached to the complaint, states: "You heard
right! For the first time ever in Los Angeles we're letting ALL
Chicks in for FREE on Friday, August 26.  We're using Einstein's
most famous quotation: More girls = More fun.  We first did this
last year at our New Jersey even it was a HUGE success.  HUGE!
There were so many girls there, you would have thought you were at
a Jack Johnson concert."

Named as defendants are National A-1 Internet Inc. dba
Hotmovies.com, Always Private Security Services Inc. and Victory
Tradeshow Management.

Mr. Samuels says the "brazenly touted" promotion was "as
offensive, archaic and unlawful as providing free admission to
male patrons, or as offensive, archaic, and unlawful as charging
people of color more than Caucasians for admission into this place
of public accommodation or vice versa, or charging homosexuals
more than heterosexuals for admission, or vice-versa."

He claims that such sexist incentives advance "harmful
stereotypes" and suggest that "women are genetically incapable of
earning as much money as men; women enjoy being subsidized by
strange men at an adult entertainment exhibition at a convention
center; women enjoy being treated like little girls by not being
required to pay full price" and "have little value except to be
used as sexual bait to attract men."

The aggrieved plaintiff notes that "working class men" had to pay
a minimum of $35 while women "from all economic strata, including
wealthy women" were admitted for free.

"Furthermore, on Ladies Free Friday, the national unemployment
rate for men was much higher than it was for women, standing at
about 9.7 percent for men and only 8.6 percent for women," the
complaint states.

Mr. Samuels adds: "The invidious Ladies Free promotion caused
discontent, animosity, harm, resentment and envy among the sexes."

San Diego attorney Alfred Rava filed the class action suit for
"all male patrons" at the event.  Mr. Samuels seeks an injunction
and damages for violations of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, The
Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 and negligence.


NORTH AMERICAN PALLADIUM: To Vigorously Defend Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hill, writing for miningweekly.com, reports that Toronto-
and New York-listed North American Palladium on Sept. 2 said it
was aware that an unnamed claimant intended to launch a class
action lawsuit against it for alleged misrepresentations.

In a thinly worded statement, NAP said it had hired lawyers and
intended to defend itself vigorously against the potential claim.

The company didn't say who had applied to the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice to start a class action suit, or how much it
intended to sue NAP for, only that it was for "alleged
misrepresentations in the company's public disclosure".

It made the announcement after the markets had closed, and a
spokesperson wasn't available to comment.

NAP operates the Lac des Iles palladium mine in northern Ontario,
and also owns the Sleeping Giant gold mine located in the Abitibi
region of Quebec.

Palladium is a silvery white metal used in car exhaust systems to
reduce emissions, and is also used to make white gold for
jewellery.


PEKIN INSURANCE: Judge Mudge Cuts LakinChapman Fee in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge reduced the
LakinChapman firm's fee in a class action settlement from $200,000
to $166,666.

On Aug. 31, the judge decided to award the firm one third of a
$500,000 settlement with Pekin Insurance, rather than 40% as the
firm requested.

He wrote that class counsel did a significant amount of work.

"However, this court must ensure that class recovery is optimized,
while considering this case carefully in the context of its
circumstances as well as other similar actions filed by class
counsel and others in this and other circuits," he wrote.

LakinChapman filed an affidavit of hourly charges totaling
$218,291.45, but Judge Mudge found fault with it.

"Class counsel's affidavit regarding time expended in this matter,
and the hourly rates charged by various attorneys, paralegals and
clerks, is different than the rates detailed in another recent
affidavit filed by said firm regarding their current hourly
rates," he wrote.

"While the court is mindful that rates are subject to change, the
hourly rates for legal services would not have been at those rates
throughout the pendency of this action -- a span of six years
dating back to early 2005," he wrote.

The former Lakin Law firm sued Pekin on behalf of chiropractors
Frank Bemis, Dale Fischer and Thomas Kaltenbronn.

They claimed Pekin broke a promise to steer patients to members of
a preferred provider network in exchange for discounts on payments
it made.

Mediation led to settlement this year, and Judge Mudge granted
preliminary approval in May.

He certified a class of providers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio
and Wisconsin, who submitted bills under workers' compensation or
automobile policies since 1998.

Pekin mailed notices to 8,565 class members.

Four requested exclusion.

At a fairness hearing on Aug. 23, no one objected.

Judge Mudge approved a $2,500 incentive payment for each
plaintiff, and he awarded LakinChapman $7,467.27 in costs.

He didn't grant the firm's fee request, taking it under advisement
for eight days.

His order declared the settlement fair, reasonable and adequate.

"Given recent appellate decisions in this district, and the fact
that a little more than one million dollars was in dispute, the
court further finds that the class counsel's ability to obtain a
mediated settlement of this matter to be commendable, because of
the risks, associated with further motion practices and a trial on
the merits, posed," he wrote.


POWERCOR: Class Action Over Victorian Bushfire Set to Begin
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a class action
brought against a power company by Victorian bushfire survivors in
the state's west was expected to get underway in the city of
Horsham on Sept. 5.

Almost 70 claimants from the region are suing electricity company
Powercor over the Black Saturday bushfires on February 7, 2009.

Bushfire survivors allege that Powercor's negligence led to fallen
power lines sparking the fires at Horsham.

The lead plaintiff, farmer Laurie Thomas, is claiming more than
AUD300,000 in damages over the fire that swept across his
property.

The Horsham fire affected the areas of Vectis and Haven, west and
south of the city, and burnt 2,346 hectares, according to the 2009
Bushfires Royal Commission final report.

There are 67 claimants represented by law firm Maddens Lawyers.

Tim Tobin, SC, will lead the class action which will be presided
over by Supreme Court of Victoria Justice Jack Forrest.

The opening and closing addresses will be streamed live on the
Supreme Court Web site.

The trial is expected to run for six weeks.


SOLYNDRA LLC: Employees File Class Action Over Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Riddell, writing for San Francisco Business Times, reports
that employees of Solyndra filed a class action suit in the U.S.
District Court of Northern California on Sept. 2 against the
company, alleging Solyndra violated state and federal rules that
require companies to give 60 days notice before laying off more
than 50 workers.

Solyndra said on Aug. 31 that it would file for bankruptcy and
shut down, immediately laying off all 1,100 of its workers.  That
day the company filed its WARN notice, a spokesman said.

The plaintiff in the suit is listed as Peter Kohlstadt, a research
and development engineer, on behalf of all laid off workers.

The complaint seeks unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses,
accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401K
contributions and other COBRA benefits.

As the Business Times reported on Sept. 1, there are exceptions in
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act" or WARN
Act" that allow companies to forego that notice.

One of those, the "faltering business" exception in both the
federal and state WARN Acts, says companies have to actively be
seeking to finance or refinance to qualify for the exception.

Solyndra said it worked up to the last minute to find financing to
keep its operation going.  A spokesman said: "We filed the WARN
(notice) Wednesday (Aug. 31) but the reason for this is that we
were actively seeking funding and really working up to the last
minute hoping to avoid making that announcement," said Solyndra
spokesman Dave Miller.

Rene Roupinian, an attorney at Outten & Golden in Manhattan, who
is representing the Solyndra employees now, told the Business
Times Thursday that Solyndra employees may have a case to seek
repayment of wages.

"A company generally does make some preparation for this.  They
put together a letter, they hire security, they do all these
things, but then they say 'We had no ability to give you any more
advance notice than five minutes," Mr. Roupinian said.

Reached on Sept. 3, Mr. Roupinian said when Solyndra files for
bankruptcy -- expected to happen early this week -- that workers
could be stripped of any health care coverage.

"I think they were lulled into believing they had no cause of
action here," Mr. Roupinian said.


SOLYNDRA LLC: Sued Over Termination of 900 Employees in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Braun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Solyndra, LLC, Case No. 3:11-cv-04392 (N.D. Calif.,
September 2, 2011), is brought to collect unpaid wages and
benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 and the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Solyndra is liable under the WARN Act
for its failure to provide him and the other similarly situated
former employees at least 60 days' advance notice of their
termination, as required by the WARN Act.

Mr. Braun was a full-time employee of Solyndra, who reported at
its Fremont, California Facility until his termination without
cause on September 1, 2011.  He argues that he and approximately
900 other similarly situated employees, who worked at Solyndra's
facilities, were terminated without cause by the Defendant.

Solyndra is a California corporation with facilities located at
47700 Kato Road, in Fremont, California, 94538; 47488 Kato Road in
Freemont, California 94538; 1055 Page Avenue in Freemont,
California 94538; 901 Page Avenue in Freemont, California 94538;
and 1201 California Circle in Milpitas, California 95035.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Diego Acevedo
          Amber Chrystal
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
          E-mail: dacevedo@fbm.com
                  achrystal@fbm.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 423
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          J. Cecil Gardner, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
          1119 Government Street
          P.O. Drawer 3103
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
                  vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com
                  jcg@thegardnerfirm.com


STATE OF IOWA: Racial Discrimination Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Eckhoff, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that a
multimillion-dollar class-action racial discrimination lawsuit
against the state of Iowa now is poised for trial in two weeks
after a Polk County judge rejected the state's request to throw it
out of court.

Judge Robert Blink on Sept. 2 rejected arguments from state
lawyers that the Pippen vs. State of Iowa lawsuit should be
declared too large and unconnected to be legally viable because it
mirrors a standard outlined in a recent decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court.

The lawsuit, originally filed by 14 plaintiffs in 2007, has been
amended three times to become a class-action covering an estimated
6,000 blacks who sought employment or promotions with the state
since July 2003.  Documents allege that Iowa has essentially
fostered discrimination by failing to monitor or adapt a system of
multiple policies set up to prevent it.

Iowa attorneys contend in court papers that the Pippen case
closely mirrors a gender discrimination lawsuit captioned Dukes
vs. Wal-Mart, which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected as being too
broad because it attempted to link roughly 1.6 million potential
plaintiffs under a broad attack on a generalized employment
system.

Judge Blink's ruling references an agreement between the two Iowa
sides last fall that split out many of the discrimination claims
so they could be dealt with after the pending broader bench trial.
Under that agreement, the case scheduled to begin this month is
expected to focus on inherent statistical unfairness for blacks
seeking to get hired by the state of Iowa.

"Their protestations not withstanding, defendants seem to be
backpedaling from their agreement to the class certification and
seem to seek to decertify the class on the eve of trial," Judge
Blink wrote.

"They really make no argument based solely on Dukes, only prior
cases cited in Dukes," the judge wrote.  "The law upon (which)
their argument rests was well-settled years before they agreed to
the class certification.  Why did defendants agree to
certification if the plaintiffs' class claim was not viable as a
matter of law . . . as they now argue?"

In a separate ruling, Blink also quashed the plaintiffs' effort to
subpoena Gov. Terry Branstad, former Gov. Chet Culver and nine
current and former state department heads.  Such a request should
have been made earlier, the judge ruled.

The trial, expected to run for roughly three weeks and feature
dozens of witnesses, is scheduled to begin Sept. 12.


STUBHUB INC: Accused of Doing Prohibited Reselling of Tickets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Faboozi, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. StubHub, Inc., and The Phillies, L.P., Case No. 4:11-cv-04385
(N.D. Calif., September 1, 2011) alleges that the Defendants'
activities related to the sale of reissued tickets and the resale
of tickets to Phillies' games on the secondary ticket market are
prohibited by Chapter 8 of Pennsylvania's Statutes governing the
resale of tickets and the California Business and Professions
Code.

The Plaintiff contends that StubHub maintains a Web site that
allows purchasers to acquire tickets to Philadelphia Phillies'
baseball games at Citizens Bank Park that it prints without the
established price or the maximum premium on them, and allows
unlicensed ticket resellers to anonymously sell those tickets for
more than the maximum premium to Phillies' games without
disclosing the established price of the ticket, the maximum
premium or the identity of the seller at the time of sale.  He
adds that StubHub reissues tickets to Phillies' games without
printing the established price or the maximum premium on each
ticket.

Mr. Faboozi is a citizen of New Jersey.

StubHub, a Delaware corporation, is an online marketplace for the
resale of sporting events, including Phillies' games at CBP,
concert, and theater tickets.  Phillies is a limited partnership
that owns and operates the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team and
operate CBP.  Phillies sells tickets for admission to games at
CBP.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          RANDALL S. NEWMAN, P.C.
          37 Wall Street, Penthouse D
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 797-3737
          Facsimile: (212) 797-3172
          E-mail: rsn@randallnewman.net


TIMBERCORP: Judge Criticizes Lawyers in Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New Lawyer reports that lawyers of the 2000 investors who saw
their class action against Timbercorp thrown out of court have
been criticized by a Victorian Supreme Court judge.

In a judgment of more than 300 pages, Justice James Judd
criticized the "scatter-gun" way lawyers ran the class action for
investors, and said the plaintiffs constructed an "elaborate and
sometimes illusive web of allegations".

The investors, who borrowed more than $450 million to invest in
the scheme run by collapsed agribusiness group Timbercorp, are now
likely to be followed up on their debts after the failed class
action.

The Victorian Supreme Court on Sept. 1 denied damages to investors
in Timbercorp scheme.  It also threw out the 2000 investors' aim
to set aside loans from the group that financed their investments.

Justice Judd said the investors have failed to make the argument
that they were not properly informed of the risks threatening
their investments in the company's managed investment schemes.

Macpherson+Kelley principal Ron Willemsen, who led the class
action on behalf of Timbercorp investors, said the decision handed
down by Justice James Judd had come as a major disappointment to
investors who had turned to the court for relief.

Mr. Willemsen suggested the firm is now looking at grounds for
appeal.

"This is an important area of the law that affects thousands of
investors.  We will be closely scrutinizing the judgment to
determine whether there are any available grounds for appeal."

"We understand that many of the investors will be suffering
continued hardship as a result of this decision, especially those
facing ongoing loan obligations without any prospect of a return
from their investments," said Mr. Willemsen.

Justice Judd said evidence given by the two investors leading the
case was "implausible".

He said the evidence "strained to diminish the importance of the
tax benefit derived by them in favor of more laudable long-term
investment objectives".

The judge said: "[The case] was complex, involving numerous
separate claims for primary and accessorial liability. Every
conceivable combination or permutation of statutory duty and
remedy was explored.

"The plaintiff's case was not concisely stated until trial.  That
is often the case, and in some circumstances may be justified.  In
this case, the complexity tended to mask a mercurial case.  Had
the plaintiff been required to narrow and confine his case at a
much earlier stage, much of the complexity could have been
avoided.  While the case became capable of refinement and
simplification, the plaintiff refused to abandon any aspect of his
pleaded case."

However, the judge also praised the cooperation and minimal
interlocutory disputes in the plaintiff's case.  He said "the case
was presented efficiently and within a shorter time frame than was
initially anticipated."  He also acknowledged the industry of
counsel and solicitors in the preparation of the case for trial.

He said, however, "the unwillingness of the plaintiff to confine
and simplify his case was disappointing".

The cost of the proceedings, which took 21 days and involved five
senior counsel representing the investors, Timbercorp, Timbercorp
Finance and the group's directors, are expected to reach $10
million.  Mr. Willemsen told reporters outside the court that the
costs would be divided equally by investors who signed up to the
class action.

The law firm, Macpherson+Kelley, is currently working on 12 class
actions for investors in all Great Southern managed investment
schemes offered during 2005 to 2008, with the trial expected to
begin next August.  Bendigo and Adelaide Bank is facing claims
that its loans are void due to misleading or deceptive conduct on
the part of Great Southern in marketing the investment and loan
package.


TOWERS WATSON: Continues to Defend Consolidated Shareholders Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. continues to defend a consolidated shareholder
lawsuit in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's August 29,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011.

Towers Watson was formed on January 1, 2010, from the merger of
Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. ("Towers Perrin") and
Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. ("Watson Wyatt"), two leading
professional services firms that trace their roots back more than
100 years.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed by certain former
shareholders of Towers Perrin (the "Dugan Action") on November 5,
2009, against Towers Perrin, members of its board of directors,
and certain members of senior management in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in this action are former members of Towers Perrin's
senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various times between
1995 and 2000.  The Dugan plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
former Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from service on or
after January 1, 1971, and who also meet certain other specified
criteria.  The complaint does not contain a quantification of the
damages sought.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of
a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action.
Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain a
quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement
demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on
December 8, 2009, and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a
payment of $800 million to settle the action on behalf of the
proposed class.  Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin
communicate the settlement demand to Watson Wyatt.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May or
June 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the
"Allen Action") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in
substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.
The Company anticipates a fifth plaintiff will be added to this
action.  These plaintiffs are proceeding in their individual
capacities and do not seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 when
Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the
creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO ("eHRO"),
commenced a separate legal proceeding (the "Pao Action") in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania also alleging the same claims in substantially the
same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.  Towers Perrin
contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions ("TPAS")
business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) of
eHRO.  Pao seeks to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service in connection with Towers
Perrin's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who are
excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action.  Towers
Watson is also named as a defendant in the Pao Action.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by each of these
plaintiffs were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value at the
time these individuals separated from employment.  The complaints
allege variously that there either was a promise that Towers
Perrin would remain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action)
or that in the event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs
would receive compensation (Allen and Pao Actions).  Plaintiffs
allege that by agreeing to sell their shares back to Towers Perrin
at book value upon retirement, they and other members of the
putative classes relied upon these alleged promises, which they
claim were breached as a result of the consummation of the Merger
between Watson Wyatt and Towers Perrin.  The complaints assert
claims for breach of contract, breach of express trust, breach of
fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment, and constructive trust, and seek equitable relief
including an accounting, disgorgement, rescission and/or
restitution, and the imposition of a constructive trust.  On
January 20, 2010, the court consolidated the three actions for all
purposes.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties.  By order dated September 30,
2010, the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim
for a constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to all
other claims alleged.  Pursuant to the court's September 30 order,
defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints on
October 22, 2010.  The parties are currently engaged in fact
discovery.  At this stage of the proceedings, the Company has
concluded that, because the parties remain in the relatively early
stages of discovery, a loss is neither probable nor estimable, and
that the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss
or range of loss.

Towers Watson continues to believe the claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intends to continue to defend against them
vigorously.  However, the cost of defending against the claims
could be substantial and the outcome of these legal proceedings is
inherently uncertain and could be unfavorable to Towers Watson.


WELSPUN GROUP: Disputes Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Dues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kumar Shankar Roy, writing for mydigitalfc.com, reports that faced
with a class action lawsuit filed by at least two US employees
over unpaid overtime dues, the $3 billion pipe-to-towels Welspun
Group said it has classified the employees correctly and paid them
according to the US laws and regulations.

The court complaint, accessed by Financial Chronicle, shows that
Matthew Farnsworth and Matthew Moore have filed a collective class
action complaint against Welspun Tubular in the second week of
August 2011.  The aggrieved employees work in Little Rock facility
(in Arkansas) that is capable of producing 350,000 tonnes per
annum of special pipes for oil and gas industry.

As per the complaint, the unit operates 24 hours a day and 7 days
a week with employees having to work in various rotating shifts.
As a result, both the employees have worked 53 hours per week for
six months, the complaint said.  Now, as per Arkansas government
rules, an employer has to pay overtime (one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay) to non-exempt employees for all hours
actually worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.  The two
employees have demanded a jury trial.

A Welspun group spokesperson said: "Welspun Tubular has classified
the employees correctly and paid them according to US laws and
regulations. However, as the matter is sub-judice in a court of
law in the US, Welspun Group would refrain from making any further
comment on the matter and await the court's decision."

E-mails sent to law firms Gregory & LaRue as well as Emerson
Poynter, who are fighting the case on behalf of Farnsworth and
Moore, did not elicit any response on the quantum of compensation
sought.

On contacting the Arkansas department of labor, an official said
the title of the lawsuit (filed in the US district court Eastern
district of Arkansas) indicates that the matter was filed
privately, likely through a private attorney for the plaintiffs.

"If we receive a written wage complaint, we may investigate it or
may refer it to the US department of labor depending on the issues
involved.  The same is true for phone inquiries.  We have no
current complaints against Welspun," said Daniel Knox Faulkner,
attorney at law, Arkansas department of labor.  The USDL that can
exercise federal law has more enforcement tools for manufacturing
facilities.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Still Awaits Deal Approval in Florida Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2009, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., was served with a
putative class action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
alleging company-wide violations of the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act related to the Company's background check
procedures.  The Company denied all allegations raised in the
lawsuit, answered the complaint and filed motions asserting
various defenses to the claims.  On October 21, 2010, the parties
reached a mutually agreed upon resolution of the case.  The
Company says the resolution of this claim will not result in a
material adverse impact on its financial condition or results of
operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 29, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 29, 2011.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in "Conlee" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the putative
class action filed against WMS Industries Inc. by Wayne C. Conlee,
according to the Company's August 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
June 30, 2011.

On May 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee
(the "Conlee lawsuit").  The lawsuit alleges that, during the
period from November 1, 2010, to April 11, 2011 (the date the
Company pre-announced its third quarter fiscal 2011 financial
results), the Company made material misstatements and omitted
material information related to its fiscal year 2011 guidance.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of stockholders who purchased
stock between these dates.  The lawsuit specifically alleges
violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "'34 Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the '34 Act.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages.  On August 4, 2011, the Court granted
plaintiff's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and
plaintiff has 60 days from this order to file an Amended
Complaint, if any.  Defendants have 45 days to answer or otherwise
to respond after an Amended Complaint is filed or after defendants
receive notice that plaintiff will not be filing an Amended
Complaint.

Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defense to
the claims made in the Securities Litigation and intends to
contest the lawsuits vigorously, it is too early in these
proceedings to predict the outcome of the Securities Litigation or
to reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, related to these
lawsuits.


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Deceptively Markets Products, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Chang Wei Lee, an individual; the proposed class; and the general
public as applicable v. XO Communications, LLC; and XO Holdings,
Inc.; and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC468982 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 2, 2011) alleges that the
Defendants entice consumers into purchasing its services and
products with a certain price set forth, and then bills the
consumers for a completely different amount, which includes
charges that the consumer was completely unaware of at the time of
purchase of goods or services and at the time of entering into a
contract with the Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants deceptively, unlawfully,
unfairly and fraudulently markets themselves as cheaper
alternative to some of the other telecom carriers in the business,
such as AT&T and SBC.  He contends that the Defendants' practice
is not happenstance but a systematic-and-continuous business
practice of misrepresenting and failing to inform consumers of the
true price of the Defendants' services and products.

Mr. Lee is a resident of Los Angeles, California.

XO Communications is a Virginia limited liability company, and is
a wholly owned subsidiary of XO Holdings.  The Defendants have
been in the business of researching, designing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, selling, and otherwise placing advanced
communications and networking solutions into the stream of
commerce within the state of California, as well as the entire
country.  Mr. Lee is currently unaware of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Skapik, Esq.
          Stephen J. Liosi, Esq.
          SKAPIK LAW GROUP
          250 West First Street, Suite 330
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 398-4404
          Facsimile: (909) 398-1883


* Miami Solo Practitioner Suspended Over Solicitation Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Miami solo practitioner's law license was suspended for a year on
Sept. 1 by the Florida Supreme Court for improperly soliciting
clients in a proposed class action.

The decision exceeded the 90-day suspension recommended by the
referee for Jane Marie Letwin.  The high court explained the
stiffer punishment was due to her pattern of misconduct.

Ms. Letwin had been disciplined in 2009 for numerous violations,
including failure to respond to interrogatories, failure to appear
at a hearing or answer calls from the court, refusing to produce a
client for deposition, failing to execute on a default judgment
and not paying a sanction against her in federal court.

In the latest instance, Ms. Letwin sent more then 900 letters in
2008 to current and former part-time adult education teachers in
Broward County, Fla., asking them to join a class action suit.
The court concluded the letters were misleading because they
didn't say the class hadn't been certified or label the letter as
advertising.

The language of the letters also implied that recipients had to
retain Ms. Letwin for the court to recognize their claim.

"Given the clear violation and the seriousness of respondent's
prior misconduct, we conclude that under the specific
circumstances of this case, the referee's recommendation is
inadequate and a one-year rehabilitative suspension, followed by
three years of probation and attendance at The Florida Bar's
advertising workshop, is required," the unanimous unsigned opinion
said.

Ms. Letwin also was ordered to pay $2,026 in Bar costs.

The court acknowledged one mitigating factor, the illness and
death of Ms. Letwin's spouse shortly before she sent the letters.

Ms. Letwin did not respond to a call for comment by deadline.


                            *********

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  * * *