CAR_Public/120719.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 19, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 142

                             Headlines

AMERICAN TAXI: Accused of Charging Excessive Credit Card Fees
BARRE, VT: Tenants Seek to Appeal Water Bill Ruling
BATTAT INC: To Pay $0.4MM Fine for Not Reporting Toy Set Defects
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Securities Class Action in Calif.
CHINA EDUCATION: Securities Suit Claims vs. Hsu and Yizhao Pending

DEM ENTERPRISES: Asked to Arbitrate Employee Claims Under FAA
DISCOVER CARD: Protection Fee Product Suits Settlement Approved
DYNEGY INC: Still Awaits Order on Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bids
FEDEX CORP: Awaits Sup. Ct. Court Decision in "Anfinson" Suit
FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Independent Contractors' Suits

FEDEX CORP: Wage and Hour Law Violation Suits Still Pending
FEDEX CORP: Gets Final Okay of Paystub-Related Suit Settlement
FEDEX CORP: Settled "Rascon" Suit vs. Unit for Immaterial Amount
FEDEX GROUND: Kansas Supreme Court Asked to Classify Drivers
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued for Chevrolet Equinox Deceptive Advertising

GROUP HEALTH: Agrees to Cover ABA Therapy Under Settlement
HARPERSVILLE, AL: Judge Issues Opinion on Ticket Fines
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Faces Two Suits Over Sinus Buster Products
HUGHES TELEMATICS: Agrees to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
JTEKT CORP: Conspired to Fix Auto Bearings' Prices, Suit Says

JPMORGAN: Ohio AG Files Motion to Lead "Whale" Fraud Class Action
JPMORGAN: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action in New York
LINKEDIN CORP: Class Action Over Browsing Histories Dismissed
MARRIOTT INT'L: To Seek Summary Judgment in "England" Suit
MASTERCARD INC: Signs Interchange Fee Suits' Deal for $790-Mil.

MEAT & LIVESTOCK: Live Cattle Exporters Mull Class Action
MICROSOFT ONLINE: Sued for Overcharging Cost-Per-Click Ads
MILLER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
MOUNTAIN STATE: Sued for Misrepresenting DMS Program
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Three Florida Football Players Join Class Action

PCS EDVENTURES!: Shareholder Suit Settlement Paid in February
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeals Ct. Revives Camel Cash Class Action
SRS LABS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in California
THERABIOGEN INC: In Talks to Settle "Conde" Suit for $21,000
THOMAS M. COOLEY: Kurzon LLP Files Defamation Suit in New York

UNI-DIG: Clinton Township Files Class Action Over Stench
VISA INC: Signs MOU to Settle Interchange Fee Suits for $4-Bil.
VISA INC: Penalties Under Global Settlement Add Up to $7.25BB
WARNER MUSIC: Parties to Confer in August on Class Cert. Issue
WARNER MUSIC: Suits Over Digital Music Sales Royalties Pending

WARNER MUSIC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Cournoyer" Suit


                          *********


AMERICAN TAXI: Accused of Charging Excessive Credit Card Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Bates, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Taxi Dispatch, Inc., Joseph Zayed, Jace
Rosenbrock and William Price, Case No. 2012-CH-26375 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., July 13, 2012) is brought on behalf of taxi cab
drivers contracted by ATDI, who have been:

   (a) suspended/terminated and denied dispatch services, without
       a hearing or arbitration in compliance with the Landau
       Agreed Order; and

   (b) forced to use only the ATDI credit card process system
       and pay ATDI excessive fees or be suspended/terminated.

On June 29, 2012, Mr. Bates relates, Defendants Joseph Zayed and
Jace Rosenbrock demanded that the Plaintiff and the Class sign a
document entitled "American Taxi Dispatch, Inc. Re: Credit Card
Process," or their contract would be suspended without dispatch
service or terminated, and agreed to only use the ATDI credit card
processing program in their taxi cabs.  Mr. Bates contends that
ATDI's fees for credit card transactions are excessive compared to
other credit card processing systems.

Mr. Bates is a resident of Kane County, Illinois, and an
independent contractor taxi cab driver, who owns two taxi cabs.
He entered into a contract with ATDI in March 2012.

ATDI is an Illinois corporation.  The Individual Defendants are
residents of Cook County, Illinois, and are officers of ATDI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 North LaSalle St., Suite 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950
          E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Langendorf, Esq.
          ROBERT A. LANGENDORF & ASSOCIATES
          134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1515
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5933
          E-mail: rlangendorf@comcast.net


BARRE, VT: Tenants Seek to Appeal Water Bill Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Vermont woman who had to haul
jugs of water while on crutches after her landlord's failure to
pay the water bill prompted a shutoff by the city of Barre is
hailing a federal court decision saying she should have had a
chance to appeal.

Vermont Legal Aid brought the class-action case for Brenda Brown
and similarly situated tenants and got a mixed ruling from U.S.
District Judge Christina Reiss.

The judge rejected Legal Aid's claims that tenants should have
been allowed to establish accounts in their own names when a
landlord defaults on the water bill.

But the ruling issued on July 12 did say the city must give the
tenants notice and a chance to appeal.


BATTAT INC: To Pay $0.4MM Fine for Not Reporting Toy Set Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Battat Incorporated, of Plattsburgh, New York, has agreed to pay a
civil penalty of $400,000.  The penalty agreement has been
accepted provisionally by the Commission (4-0).

The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that Battat
knowingly failed to report the defect and hazard associated with
Magnabild Magnetic Building Sets to CPSC immediately, as required
by federal law.

The Magnabild was a magnetic building set labeled for ages three
and up.  Small magnets inside the building pieces can fall out,
and if found by young children, can be swallowed or aspirated.  If
more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract to each
other, connect, and cause intestinal perforations or blockages,
which can be fatal.

CPSC staff alleged that Battat received its first report of
magnets coming loose from the Magnabild in October 2005.  CPSC
staff contacted Battat in July 2007.  When the firm reported to
CPSC on October 12, 2007, Battat had received 16 reports of
magnets coming out of the Magnabild and two reports of children
ingesting the non-magnetized steel balls.

CPSC staff alleges that Battat was aware of the dangers posed to
children by the ingestion of magnets by this time, in part because
of the March 2006 recall of the Rose Art Magnetix Building Set,
which involved one death, four serious injuries, and 34 incidents
involving small magnets.

Further, between November 2006 and July 2007, CPSC: 1) re-
announced the Rose Art Magnetix Building Set recall due to
additional serious injuries to children; 2) issued a "Magnet
Safety Alert" warning parents of the risk of serious injury and
death to children from magnet ingestion; and 3) announced five
separate recalls for several million toys containing magnets due
to the potential for magnet liberation.

CPSC staff alleges that Battat knew about the CPSC's efforts and
the risks posed to children by the magnets falling out of the
Magnabild and failed to report the dangerous defect immediately to
the CPSC, as required by federal law.  Despite being aware in
April or May 2006 of the possibility that small magnets could
cause intestinal injury, Battat did not report until October 2007
after three requests from staff.  In that report, however, Battat
failed to inform CPSC of the defect and resulting potential hazard
in two additional models of the product.

Battat and CPSC announced a voluntary recall of 125,000 Magnabilds
on January 23, 2008.  The recall was expanded to include 7,000
more Magnabilds on March 13, 2008.  Magnabilds were sold
nationwide from August 2004 to February 2008 for between $20 and
$40.  There were no injuries associated with magnets falling out
of the Magnabild.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails
to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,
regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, Battat denies CPSC staff
allegations that its Magnabild toys could create an unreasonable
risk of serious injury or death or contained a defect that could
create a substantial product hazard, or that Battat violated the
reporting requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act.

Pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSC must consider
the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the business of
the person charged, including how to address undue adverse
economic impacts on small businesses.  Battat is a small business
as set forth in the Small Business Administration guidelines
regarding size of business.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Faces Securities Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bridgepoint Education, which
is "primarily online," goosed its stock price by concealing
accreditation problems at its Ashford University campus,
shareholders say in a Superior Court class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Franke v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-01737 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/16/CollegeStock.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Brett M. Weaver, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West A Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com
                  brettw@johnsonandweaver.com


CHINA EDUCATION: Securities Suit Claims vs. Hsu and Yizhao Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated putative securities class action lawsuit against
China Education Alliance, Inc., remains pending in a California
court, according to the Company's May 15, 2012 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company is presently involved in two putative class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.  The first action, Apicella v. China Education
Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS)(JCx), was filed on
December 2, 2010; the second action, Clemens v. China Education
Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09987 (JFW) (AGRx), was filed on
December 28, 2010.  On March 2, 2011, both actions were
consolidated in In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS) (JCx) (C.D. Cal.).  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that the Company, Xiqun Yu,
Zibing Pan, Susan Liu, Chunqing Wang, James Hsu, Liansheng Zhang,
and Yizhao Zhang are liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 for allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions in the Company's public
filings between 2008 and 2010 and in an investor conference call
in December 2010.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint also
asserted claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against the individual defendants as persons who allegedly
controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions were made.  The Court denied
the company's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint
on October 11, 2011, and granted (with leave to replead) James
Hsu's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on
November 14, 2011.  On December 5, 2011, the plaintiffs in the
class action filed a Consolidated Second Amended Complaint
alleging claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against the Company, Xiqun Yu, Zibing
Pan, Susan Liu, and Chunqing Wang, and alleging claims under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Xiqun
Yu, Zibing Pan, Susan Liu, Chunqing Wang, James Hsu, Liansheng
Zhang, and Yizhao Zhang.  The Company answered the Consolidated
Second Amended Complaint on January 5, 2012.  On April 6, 2012,
the court dismissed the claim against Liansheng Zhang but denied
motions to dismiss the claims against James Hsu and Yizhao Zhang,
the only other defendants served so far.


DEM ENTERPRISES: Asked to Arbitrate Employee Claims Under FAA
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Thomas Okechukwu; and Billy E. Wyble,
Jr., on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. DEM
Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation, doing business as ABC
Chauffeured Limousines, Case No. 4:12-cv-03654 (N.D. Calif., July
12, 2012), the Petitioners ask the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California for an order compelling the
Respondent, DEM Enterprises, to submit to arbitration pursuant to
the Federal Arbitration Act.

In accordance with the FAA, the Petitioners put the Respondent on
notice on February 24, 2012, and June 26, 2012, that it was
required to submit to arbitration as outlined in the parties'
arbitration agreement, Richard A. Hoyer, Esq., at Hoyer &
Associates, in San Francisco, California -- rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com --
tells the Court.  However, he asserts, the Respondent has declined
to arbitrate.

The Petitioners were each employed by DEM Enterprises and signed
an employment contract.  The contract, drafted by the Respondent
and signed by each new employee, includes a clause in regards to
arbitration.

The Respondent cannot plausibly deny the existence of the
arbitration agreement, nor the terms of the clause, Mr. Hoyer
contends.  He adds that neither can the Respondent claim
unconsionability or unfairness, as again, the Respondent is the
entity, which drafted the terms of the agreement.

Hence, the Petitioners ask the Court to compel the Respondent to
submit to arbitration, to appoint a neutral arbitrator, and to
leave the decision to the arbitrator as to whether to hold
individual arbitrations, consolidated individual arbitrations, or
a class arbitration.

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
          HOYER & ASSOCIATES
          Michael S. Sorgen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL S. SORGEN
          240 Stockton Street, Ninth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 956-1360
          Facsimile: (415) 956-6342
          Facsimile: (415) 276-1738
          E-mail: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
                  msorgen@sorgen.net


DISCOVER CARD: Protection Fee Product Suits Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Card Execution Note Trust disclosed in its July 16, 2012,
Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the monthly distribution period June 1, 2012, to June 30,
2012, that its settlement agreement resolving eight putative class
action lawsuits over its protection fee product received final
approval on May 10, 2012.

As previously reported, there were eight putative class action
cases pending in relation to the sale of Discover's payment
protection fee product.  Each of these lawsuits challenges
Discover's marketing practices with respect to marketing its
payment protection fee product to its cardmembers under various
state laws and the Truth in Lending Act.  The plaintiffs seek
monetary remedies including unspecified damages and restitution,
attorneys' fees and costs, and various forms of injunctive relief
including an order rescinding the payment protection fee product
enrollments of all class members.  All of the cases have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.  In June 2011, Discover and class counsel entered
into a preliminary global settlement of all of the pending class
actions.


DYNEGY INC: Still Awaits Order on Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bids
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on two competing
motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the
class action lawsuit initiated by Charles Silsby, according to the
Company's July 13, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On March 28, 2012, Mr. Charles Silsby ("Silsby") filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit, styled Silsby v. Icahn, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-02307(JGK), in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Dynegy, Robert Flexon,
Chief Executive Officer, Clint C. Freeland, Chief Financial
Officer, and Mr. Carl C. Icahn (collectively, the "Defendants").
Mr. Silsby alleges that Dynegy and Messrs. Flexon and Freeland
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder in making certain statements
regarding the transfer of Dynegy Coal Holdco LLC by Dynegy Gas
Investments, LLC ("DGIN") to Dynegy.  Mr. Silsby further alleges
that Messrs. Flexon, Freeland, and Icahn are liable for such
violations as control persons of Dynegy pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  Mr. Silsby seeks to bring these claims on
behalf of a putative class comprising all persons who acquired
Dynegy common stock between September 2, 2011, and March 9, 2012.

On April 26, 2012, the district court approved the parties'
stipulation adjourning the Defendants' time to respond to Mr.
Silsby's complaint without date, in light of anticipated motions
to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and the filing of an
amended complaint.  On May 29, 2012, two competing motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed.  The
district court has not ruled on these motions.  Dynegy believes
the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously contest
this lawsuit.

Two additional putative shareholder actions have been filed in
state courts: Zahariades v. Elward et al., No. 7539 (Del. Ch.
filed May 17, 2012) and Nicolle v. Flexon et al., No. CC-12-02703-
A (Tex. Dallas Co. filed May 4, 2012).  Dynegy also believes that
the claims asserted in these actions are without merit and intends
to vigorously contest them.


FEDEX CORP: Awaits Sup. Ct. Court Decision in "Anfinson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is awaiting a Washington Supreme Court decision
in the class action lawsuit captioned Anfinson v. FedEx Ground,
according to the Company's July 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May
31, 2012.

In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not
part of a multidistrict litigation involving FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground") was certified as a class action by a
Washington state court.  The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a
class of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in
Washington from December 21, 2001, through December 31, 2005, and
allege that the class members should be reimbursed as employees
for their uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay.  In
March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson case was held, and the
jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding that all
320 class members were independent contractors, not employees.
The plaintiffs appealed the verdict.  In December 2010, the
Washington Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further
proceedings, including a new trial.  The Company filed a motion to
reconsider, and this motion was denied.  In March 2011, the
Company filed a discretionary appeal with the Washington Supreme
Court, and in August 2011, that petition was granted.  The
Washington Supreme Court heard oral arguments in February 2012.


FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Independent Contractors' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
involving its subsidiary brought by independent contractors,
according to the Company's July 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May
31, 2012.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground") is involved in
numerous class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been
certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and
other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's
owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than
independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.  The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.  On
December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee).  In sum, the court has now ruled on the Company's
summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx
Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation
cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the
owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the
law of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana,
Kansas (the court previously dismissed without prejudice the
nationwide class claim under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust
administrative remedies), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and
Wisconsin.  The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these
20 cases.  The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case
in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not
make a determination with respect to the correctness of the
district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to
the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits.
Specifically, in the five cases in Arkansas, California, Florida,
and Oregon (two certified cases), the court's ruling granted
summary judgment in FedEx Ground's favor on all of the certified
claims but did not decide the uncertified claims.  In the three
cases filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire, the court ruled
in favor of FedEx Ground on some of the claims and against FedEx
Ground on at least one claim.  In May 2012, the Oregon district
court dismissed the two Oregon cases, but in June 2012, the
plaintiffs in both cases filed notices of appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.  In June 2012, the Kentucky district
court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on certain of the plaintiffs'
claims, thereby reducing the Company's potential exposure in the
matter.

Other contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of
the multidistrict litigation are in varying stages of litigation.

With respect to the state administrative proceedings relating to
the classification of FedEx Ground's owner-operators as
independent contractors, during the second quarter of 2011, the
attorneys general in New York and Kentucky each filed lawsuits
against FedEx Ground challenging the validity of the contractor
model.  In January 2012, FedEx Ground settled the lawsuit filed by
the Kentucky Attorney General for an immaterial amount, and in
April 2012, the lawsuit was dismissed.

While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by
the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had
been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, the
Company believes that it significantly improves the likelihood
that the Company's independent contractor model will be upheld.
Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors, however, could, among other things,
entitle certain of the Company's contractors and their drivers to
the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-
and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and
benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to
the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-
operators in certain jurisdictions.

The Company believes that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are
properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx
Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the Company's
independent contractors.  While it is reasonably possible that
potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such changes to the
independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators
could be material, the Company cannot yet determine the amount or
reasonable range of potential loss.  A number of factors
contribute to this.  The number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits
continues to change, with some being dismissed and others being
added and, as to new plaintiffs, discovery is still ongoing.  In
addition, the parties have not yet conducted any discovery into
damages, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to
plaintiff.  Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted
considerably by future rulings on the merits of certain claims and
FedEx Ground's various defenses, and on evidentiary issues.  In
any event, the Company does not believe that a material loss is
probable in these matters.


FEDEX CORP: Wage and Hour Law Violation Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according to the
Company's July 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing
various class-action allegations of wage-and-hour violations.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they
were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime or
were not provided work breaks or other benefits.  The complaints
generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or
both.  The Company does not believe that a material loss is
reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters.


FEDEX CORP: Gets Final Okay of Paystub-Related Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court granted final approval of FedEx Corporation's
settlement of a class action lawsuit over noncompliant paystubs,
according to the Company's July 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May
31, 2012.

A federal court in California ruled in April 2011 that paystubs
for certain employees of Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx
Express") in California did not meet that state's requirements to
reflect pay period begin date, total overtime hours worked and the
correct overtime wage rate.  The ruling came in a class action
lawsuit filed by a former courier seeking damages on behalf of
herself and all other FedEx Express employees in California that
allegedly received noncompliant paystubs.  The court certified the
class in June 2011.  The court ruled that FedEx Express was liable
to the State of California and was prepared to rule as to whether
FedEx Express was liable to class members who could prove they
were injured by the paystub deficiencies.  The judge did not
decide on the amount, if any, of liability to the State of
California or to the class, but had wide discretion.  Prior to any
decision on the amount of liability, the Company reached an
agreement to settle this matter for an immaterial amount in
October 2011, subject to approval by the court.  The court granted
final approval of the settlement in July 2012.


FEDEX CORP: Settled "Rascon" Suit vs. Unit for Immaterial Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation settled the class action lawsuit captioned
Rascon v. FedEx Ground for an immaterial amount in June 2012,
according to the Company's July 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May
31, 2012.

In August 2010, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not
part of the multidistrict litigation against FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground") was certified as a class action by a
Colorado state court.  The plaintiff in Rascon represents a class
of single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Colorado
who drove vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds at any time
from August 27, 2005, through the present.  The lawsuit seeks
unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and attorneys'
fees and costs, under Colorado law.  The Company's applications
for appeal challenging this class certification decision have been
rejected.

The Company settled this matter for an immaterial amount, subject
to court approval, in June 2012.


FEDEX GROUND: Kansas Supreme Court Asked to Classify Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has asked the
Kansas Supreme Court to determine whether FedEx drivers are
employees or independent contractors in a case that will likely
have far-reaching implications for shipping carriers nationwide.

In 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated more than 70 class actions brought by FedEx drivers
before U.S. District Judge Robert Miller in Indiana.

The plaintiffs, current and former drivers, claimed that they were
employees rather than independent contractors under the laws of
the states in which they worked and under federal law.

Craig v. Fedex, a 479-member class seeking relief under ERISA and
the Kansas Wage Payment Act, became the "lead" case.  Drivers
sought repayment of all costs and expenses they paid during their
FedEx employment, as well as overtime wages.

Though Judge Miller sided with FedEx in finding that the drivers
were independent contractors, the judge remanded the remaining
cases for further proceedings.

FedEx fought to have Judge Miller conclude the remaining claims
himself, but the 7th Circuit affirmed.

Meanwhile the drivers appealed Judge Miller's ruling on the
merits, arguing that he misapplied Kansas and federal law.

Here, the 7th Circuit declined to intervene and said that the
ruling turns on application of Kansas law.

"Perhaps the Kansas public policy tips the scales in favor of
finding employee status for purposes of the KWPA in close cases
such as this," the unsigned opinion states.  "We cannot be sure,
and the Kansas Supreme Court is in a far better position to
provide a definitive answer on this controlling question of state
law than are we."

The court noted that there are an increasing number of independent
contractors in the United States.

"This case will have far-reaching effects on how FedEx runs its
business, not only in Kansas but also throughout the United
States," the decision states.  "And it seems likely that employers
in other industries may have similar arrangements with workers,
whether delivery drivers or other types of workers."

"There are several economic incentives for employers to use
independent contractors and there is a potential for abuse in
misclassifying employees as independent contractors."

The 7th Circuit certified several questions to the state high
court on July 12.

"Given the undisputed facts presented to the district court in
this case, are the plaintiff drivers employees of FedEx as a
matter of law under the KWPA?" the court asked.

Noting precedent from the Northern District of Indiana that said
drivers can acquire more than one service area, the court also
asked "is the answer to the preceding question different for
plaintiff drivers who have more than one service area?"

The 7th Circuit has asked state supreme courts to weigh in on
cases with some frequency in the past two years.

In American Federation of Teachers v. Board of Education of the
City of Chicago, the Illinois Supreme Court weighed in on whether
tenured teachers laid off for economic reasons had the right to be
rehired when openings arose.

And in George v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the
Indiana Supreme Court found that the ticket-distribution plan for
the Men's Final Four did not constitute a "lottery" under state
law.

The 7th Circuit subsequently adopted both courts' opinions.

A copy of the decision in Craig, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc., No. 10-3115 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/16/fedex.pdf


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued for Chevrolet Equinox Deceptive Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that General Motors advertised and
sold the 2012 Chevrolet Equinox as containing the "MyLink"
technology system, though the Equinoxes sold in late 2011 and
early this year did not have it, a class action claims in Superior
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Brewer v. General Motors, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 37-2012-00100642 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/16/Chevy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Barry, Esq.
          Angela J. Smith, Esq.
          Dana R. Turner, Esq.
          ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP
          10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 348-1005


GROUP HEALTH: Agrees to Cover ABA Therapy Under Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Janet Horne at The Seattle
Times, Group Health Cooperative has agreed to cover Applied
Behavioral Therapy to treat autism and autism spectrum disorders
under a class-action settlement now under review by a King County
Superior Court judge.

The lawsuit, filed in 2010 by the law firm Sirianni Youtz
Spoonemore, covers about 800 Group Health members, and is one of
six similar pending lawsuits brought by the firm against
Washington insurers, seeking neurodevelopmental and behavioral
therapies for developmental disabilities.

"The court process is moving us toward a determination of
appropriate coverage following the passage of the mental health
parity laws at the state level," Group Health's president and CEO,
Scott Armstrong, said in a statement.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a boy with autism whose
parents sought the therapy.  The boy's mother, Clara Chan, said:
"This agreement paves the way for many children with autism to
have access to this essential therapy."

Rick Spoonemore, one of the family's lawyers, commended Group
Health, saying the agreement "set the standard for coverage of ABA
therapy by which all other insurers will be judged."


HARPERSVILLE, AL: Judge Issues Opinion on Ticket Fines
------------------------------------------------------
WBRC reports that a Shelby County judge has issued a harsh opinion
against Harpersville City Council members and the company they
hired to collect ticket fines.

Judge Hub Harrington scolded the council and company for
reinstating "debtor prisons" against the poor, which were outlawed
in the country in the 19th century.

Birmingham attorney Bill Dawson filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of four people arrested, fined and in some cases jailed
without legal defense.

According to the suit, the people who were arrested in
Harpersville for speeding and could not pay the fines because they
didn't have the money were in some cases put in jail and then
charged additional fees by the collection company.

Mr. Dawson said that one of his clients in the class action suit
spent 24 months in jail and owes $10,000 for traffic and license
fines that began a decade ago.

The problem, according to Mr. Dawson, is that many of these
collection companies says they will help the defendant pay their
fines while charging them more fees.

"We filed a lawsuit in behalf of these individuals and a class of
others to make sure their constitutional rights were protected and
that people who don't have money or who are indigent are not
jailed are unduly harassed and paying these, what we think are
outrageous fees," Mr. Dawson said.


HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Faces Two Suits Over Sinus Buster Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits
alleging its Sinus Buster(R) products are improperly marketed,
according to the Company's July 13, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 30, 2012.

On May 16, 2012, plaintiff David Delre, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit,
Civil Action No. 12-2429, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, and the Company,
alleging, among other things, that their Sinus Buster(R) products
are improperly marketed, labeled and sold as homeopathic products,
and that these allegations support claims of fraud, unjust
enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties and alleged
violations of various state and federal statutes.  The Company
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against the allegations in the complaint.  The Company
cannot predict the outcome of the action.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiff Mathew Harrison, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, brought a class action lawsuit,
Civil Action No. 12-2897, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, against Wayne Perry, Dynova
Laboratories, Inc., Sicap Industries, LLC, Walgreens Co. and the
Company, alleging, among other things, that their Sinus Buster(R)
products are improperly marketed, labeled and sold as homeopathic
products, and that these allegations support claims of fraud,
unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties and
alleged violations of various state and federal statutes.  The
Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the complaint.  The
Company cannot predict the outcome of the action.


HUGHES TELEMATICS: Agrees to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUGHES Telematics, Inc. disclosed in its July 13, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
has reached an agreement in principle to settle a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit brought in the Superior Court of
DeKalb County, Georgia captioned Terrel L. Pochert v. HUGHES
Telematics, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 12CV8202-3 (the
"Stockholder Action").

The Stockholder Action names as defendants the Company, Verizon
Communications Inc., Apollo Global Management, LLC, Verizon
Telematics Inc. and the individual members of the Company's board
of directors.  The Stockholder Action alleges claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty, arising from the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
June 1, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Verizon
Communications Inc. ("Parent"), Verizon Telematics Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Sub"), and the Company, pursuant to
which Parent via merger will acquire all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of the Company (other than Dissenting Shares (as
defined in the Merger Agreement), shares owned by the Company,
Parent or their subsidiaries, and Earnout Shares (as defined in
the Merger Agreement)) for $12.00 per share in cash (the
"Merger").

Although the Company and the other defendants believe the
Stockholder Action is entirely without merit, the defendants
agreed in principle to settle the Stockholder Action solely to
avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation,
and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing.  The defendants
and the named plaintiff in the Stockholder Action will seek to
enter into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to
the DeKalb County Superior Court for final approval.  The
stipulation of settlement will provide for, among other things,
the conditional certification of the Stockholder Action as a non
opt-out class action pursuant to Georgia Civil Practice Act
Section 9-11-23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2), with the class consisting
of all persons who held shares of common stock, beneficially or of
record, including their respective successors in interest,
successors, predecessors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs,
assigns or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them,
and each of them, except the defendants and their affiliates, at
any time during the period from and including
June 1, 2012, through the date of consummation of the Merger.

The stipulation of settlement will provide for the release of any
and all claims arising from the Merger, subject to court approval.
The release will not become effective until the stipulation of
settlement is approved by the DeKalb County Superior Court, and
there can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the DeKalb County
Superior Court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into the stipulation.  The settlement will not
affect the consideration to be received by the Company's
stockholders in the Merger or the timing of the anticipated
closing of the Merger.

As part of the settlement, the Company has agreed (a) to make
certain additional disclosures related to the Merger (the
"Supplemental Disclosures"), and (b) not to object, based on
untimeliness, to a written demand for appraisal from a stockholder
who desires to exercise appraisal rights under Section 262 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law if such demand is delivered by no
later than July 23, 2012.  The Supplemental Disclosures supplement
the disclosure contained in the definitive information statement
filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") on June 26, 2012, and mailed to the Company's
stockholders on or about that date, and should be read in
conjunction with the disclosures contained in the information
statement, which in turn should be read in its entirety.


JTEKT CORP: Conspired to Fix Auto Bearings' Prices, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Barron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JTEKT Corporation, Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp., NSK Ltd.,
Schaeffler AG, AB SKF, NTN Corporation and NTN USA Corporation,
Case No. 3:12-cv-03651 (N.D. Calif., July 12, 2012) arises out of
an alleged long-running conspiracy from at least January 1, 2004,
until such time as the Defendants' unlawful activities ceased,
among Defendants and their co-conspirators, with the purpose and
effect of rigging bids for and fixing, raising, maintaining and
stabilizing prices of automotive bearings sold indirectly to the
Plaintiff and other indirect purchasers throughout the United
States of America.

As a result of the Defendants' bid-rigging and price-fixing
conduct, she and class members have been injured in their business
and property by paying more for Automotive Bearings, and the
vehicles containing them, than they would otherwise have paid in
the absence of the Defendants' conspiracy, Ms. Barron contends.
She adds that prices of Automotive Bearings were raised to
supracompetitive levels by the Defendants and their co-
conspirators.

Ms. Barron is a resident of California, who indirectly purchased
one or more Automotive Bearings manufactured and sold by one or
more of the Defendants during the Class Period.

JTEKT is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
business in Osaka, Japan.  Nachi-Fujikoshi is a Japanese
corporation with its principal place of business in Toyama, Japan.
NSK is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business
in Tokyo, Japan.  Schaeffler AG ("Schaeffler") is a German
corporation with its principal place of business in
Herzogenaurach, Germany.  AB SKF is a Swedish corporation with its
principal place of business in Goteborg, Sweden.  NTN Corporation
is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in
Osaka, Japan.  NTN USA is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Mount Prospect, Illinois.  Each of
the Defendants -- directly or through its subsidiaries --
manufactured, marketed and sold Automotive Bearings that were
purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Sarah Crowley, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
                  adam@gba-law.com
                  sarah@gba-law.com


JPMORGAN: Ohio AG Files Motion to Lead "Whale" Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Hart, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Ohio Attorney
General Mike DeWine filed a motion seeking to lead a proposed
class-action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. involving the
activities of a U.K. trader known as the "London Whale."

Ohio pension funds lost more than $27.5 million due to the alleged
fraud, Mr. DeWine's office said on July 14 in a statement.
Spokesman Dan Tierney, speaking in a telephone interview, said the
state is seeking lead plantiff status in the case because of "the
size of the losses."

On July 13, JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon
said its chief investment office has had $5.8 billion in losses on
the trades so far, and that figure may climb by $1.7 billion in a
worst-case scenario.  One trader, Bruno Iksil, amassed positions
in credit derivatives so big and market-moving he became known as
the London Whale.

Ohio said its pension fund managers were given "false and
misleading information" that hid the true nature of the bank's
trades.  The suit was filed on behalf of the Ohio Public Employee
Retirement System, the School Employees Retirement System of Ohio
and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio.

JPMorgan spokesman Joe Evangelisti declined to comment when
reached via e-mail by Bloomberg News on July 14.

Class-action status allows plaintiffs more leverage in
negotiations with defendant banks.  Lead plaintiffs direct the
litigation on behalf of the class, determining strategy while
usually reaping the largest share of any verdict or settlement.

                        Four Class Actions

Ohio is seeking to lead a class action initiated by Louisiana,
Mr. Tierney said, one of four class actions that have been filed.

Public pension funds in Oregon and Arkansas as well as a Swedish
national pension fund are seeking to join the Louisiana lawsuit,
the Ohio statement said.

In June, JPMorgan was sued by the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees Retirement System for alleged securities fraud tied to a
trading loss of at least $2 billion.  The state claimed the
biggest U.S. bank and top officials misled investors about its
risk management and financial condition from February 2010 to May
2012.

The case is Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System
v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 12-cv-4729, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


JPMORGAN: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on July 13,
2012 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against
JPMorgan Chase & Co.  JPMorgan, unbeknownst to its customers, has
directed its clients into its own JPMorgan funds even when those
funds were not suitable investments.  JPMorgan did so to earn
increased fees at the expense of their clients.  As a result of
Defendant's conduct, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Manhattan district
attorney, and officials in New Jersey and Delaware are
investigating Defendant's sales practices.  All current or former
JPMorgan clients who invested in JPMorgan mutual funds from
January 1, 2007 through the present are eligible to participate in
the suit.

The lawsuit seeks to recover (1) all fees paid to JPMorgan in
connection with purchases of JPMorgan's proprietary funds and
investments, (2) all ongoing management fees collected by JPMorgan
on client portfolios that contained positions in JPMorgan
proprietary funds and investments, (3) all other fees that
JPMorgan received as a results of its clients' investments in
JPMorgan proprietary funds and investments, and (4) compensatory,
consequential, and punitive damages recoverable at law, equity, or
under N.Y. GBS Law Sections 349 and 350.

If you invested in a JPMorgan fund from January 1, 2007 to the
present, please contact Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. at 888-554-3529 or
info@gelaw.com.

Grant & Eisenhofer -- http://www.gelaw.co-- represents investors
and shareholders internationally in securities class actions,
corporate governance actions and derivative actions.

Grant & Eisenhofer has been named one of the country's top
plaintiffs' law firms by The National Law Journal for the past six
years.


LINKEDIN CORP: Class Action Over Browsing Histories Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a class action alleging that LinkedIn
illegally disclosed browsing histories of users to advertisers.

Lead plaintiffs Kevin Low and Alan Masand claimed in a 2011 that
the Web site shared their browsing histories with "advertisers,
Internet marketing companies, data brokers, web tracking
companies, and other third parties."

The complaint in San Jose, Calif., says LinkedIn shares users'
profiles and their browsing history without permission.

"This information gave the third parties the ability to correlate
plaintiffs' actual identities with their broader Internet browsing
histories," the amended complaint states.  "Plaintiffs' browsing
histories include visits to Web sites that they consider private,
including political, religious, and health-related Web sites.  Had
they known of these practices and been given the choice,
plaintiffs would not have disclosed this information to the third
parties.  Plaintiffs were embarrassed and humiliated by the
disclosure of their personally identifiable browsing history.
Moreover, plaintiffs' browsing histories and personal identities
are valuable personal property with a market value."

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh largely dismissed the complaint last
week.

LinkedIn did not act as a "virtual filing cabinet" and did not
violate the Stored Communications Act, the 27-page decision
states.

The plaintiffs failed to show that LinkedIn was responsible for "a
serious invasion of a privacy interest," and they also could not
prove the Web site was liable for breach of contract, false
advertising, or any other claims related to the alleged use of
their information by third parties.

"Although plaintiffs theorize that third parties could de-
anonymize this data, it is not clear that anyone has actually done
so, or what information, precisely, these third parties have
obtained," Judge Koh wrote.

While the court dismissed eight claims with prejudice, it rejected
LinkedIn's claims that the class lacked standing.

The plaintiffs cannot amend their complaint.

A copy of the Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Low v. LinkedIn Corporation, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-01468 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/16/linkedinorder.pdf


MARRIOTT INT'L: To Seek Summary Judgment in "England" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. intends to file a motion for summary
judgment in the fall of 2012 in the class action lawsuit commenced
by Robert J. England, et al., according to the Company's July 12,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 15, 2012.

On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the
"plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that
certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the
plaintiffs and other current and former employees for fiscal years
1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those
set forth in the awards, various other purported ERISA violations,
and various breaches of contract in connection with the awards.
The plaintiffs seek damages, class attorneys' fees and interest,
with no amounts specified.  The action is proceeding in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt
Division) and Robert J. England, Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and
Michael P. Steigman are the current named plaintiffs.  The parties
currently are engaged in limited discovery concerning the issues
of statute of limitations and class certification.

The Company anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment in
the fall of 2012.  The Company and the Stock Plan have denied all
liability, and while the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the claims being made by the plaintiffs, the Company can
give no assurance about the outcome of this lawsuit.  The Company
currently cannot estimate the range of any possible loss to it
because an amount of damages is not claimed, there is uncertainty
as to whether a class will be certified and if so as to the size
of the class, and the possibility of the Company's prevailing on
its statute of limitations defense may significantly limit any
claims for damages.


MASTERCARD INC: Signs Interchange Fee Suits' Deal for $790-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle for a total of $790 million the multidistrict litigation
pending in New York relating to interchange fees, according to the
Company's July 16, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On July 13, 2012, MasterCard Incorporated (the "Company") and its
operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated
("MasterCard International" and, together with the Company,
"MasterCard"), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") to settle the current U.S. merchant class litigation in the
Eastern District of New York in case captioned MDL 1720.
Separately, MasterCard has also reached an agreement in principle
to settle all claims brought by the individual merchant
plaintiffs.

The MOU sets out a binding obligation to enter into a settlement
agreement (the "Class Settlement Agreement") in the form attached
to the MOU.  The settlement is subject to: (1) the successful
completion of certain appendices, (2) the successful negotiation
of a settlement agreement with the individual merchant plaintiffs,
(3) final court approval of the class settlement and (4) any
necessary internal approvals for the parties.

MasterCard's share of the cash portion of the settlements will
total $790 million on a pre-tax basis.  As a result, MasterCard
will incur an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in its second
quarter 2012 financial statements.  MasterCard had previously
recorded a $770 million charge in its fourth quarter 2011
financial statements.  MasterCard's financial obligation was based
upon the allocation of financial responsibility that was set out
in the judgment and settlement sharing agreements that were
executed in February 2011 by the Company, MasterCard International
and, as applicable, Visa, Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa
International Service Association and MasterCard's customer banks
that are parties thereto.  Pursuant to those agreements,
MasterCard's responsibility is for 12% of a global settlement of
the matter.  The $790 million obligation represents MasterCard's
12% share of the class settlement set forth in the Class
Settlement Agreement of $6.05 billion, along with its 12% share of
the cash portion settlement with the individual merchant
plaintiffs.

The Class Settlement Agreement includes the following terms, among
others:

   * U.S. merchant class members will receive a 10 basis points
     reduction in default credit interchange rates for a period
     of eight months, which will be effected by MasterCard
     withholding this amount from U.S. issuers;

   * MasterCard would be required to modify its No Surcharge Rule
     ("NSR") to permit U.S. merchants to surcharge MasterCard
     credit cards, subject to certain limitations set forth in
     the Class Settlement Agreement. The specifics of the
     modification to the NSR and the circumstances in which
     surcharging could occur include, among other things,
     disclosure requirements for merchants who choose to
     surcharge, a cap on the level of the surcharge, and
     limitations on when a merchant can surcharge MasterCard
     credit cards if it accepts other brands that limit the
     ability of the merchant to surcharge;

   * MasterCard would agree to negotiate in good faith with any
     lawful merchant buying group in an effort to reach a
     commercially reasonable agreement; and

   * The settlements will provide MasterCard and its customer
     financial institutions with a broad release of all claims
     that were alleged, or could have been alleged by the
     merchants concerning MasterCard's interchange structure and
     merchant acceptance rules, as well as the future effect of
     MasterCard's existing rules and practices.

                        Company Statement

     PURCHASE, New York -- July 13, 2012 -- MasterCard
Incorporated (NYSE: MA) has agreed to a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to settle the current U.S. merchant class
litigation.  The MOU has been executed by all of the defendants
-- which include MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks -- and the
court-appointed class counsel for the merchants.  Separately,
MasterCard has reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims brought by the individual merchant plaintiffs.

     After execution of both settlement agreements and upon final
approval of the class settlement by the court, MasterCard will
have resolved all pending U.S. merchant litigations concerning the
company's interchange structure and merchant acceptance rules.

     "Our decision to settle is based on our belief that
MasterCard and our stakeholders are best served by an amicable
resolution," said Noah Hanft, MasterCard's General Counsel and
Chief Franchise Integrity Officer.  "Although we have strong
defenses to all claims, a settlement avoids years of litigation
and uncertainties that are inherent in such cases.  We believe
that today's settlements should resolve all issues with the
merchant community."

     MasterCard's share of the cash portion of the settlements
will total $790 million on a pre-tax basis.  As a result, the
company will incur an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in its
second quarter 2012 financial statements.  MasterCard had
previously recorded a $770 million charge in its fourth quarter
2011 financial statements.

     U.S. merchant class members will receive a 10 basis points
reduction in credit interchange rates for eight months, which will
be implemented by MasterCard withholding this amount from U.S.
issuers.  In addition, the settlement agreement requires that
MasterCard negotiate in good faith with any lawful merchant buying
group in an effort to reach a commercially reasonable agreement.

     MasterCard will also be required to make modifications to its
No Surcharge Rule to allow U.S. merchants the ability to impose
checkout fees on credit cards, subject to certain conditions that
are intended to protect cardholders.  Merchants have agreed to
provide consumers with disclosures and limit the level and
circumstances in which they may impose checkout fees on a
cardholder which are designed to avoid unfair, unexpected or
exorbitant fees.

     There are also provisions in the settlement that prevent
MasterCard cardholders from being unfairly targeted with checkout
fees relative to cardholders of competing credit card networks
such as American Express, Discover and PayPal, should those
networks enforce rules that restrict surcharging. State laws that
may limit or prohibit surcharging are not impacted by this
agreement.

     "We know that merchants care about their customers and
anticipate that they will not impose checkout fees, particularly
because the value merchants derive from card acceptance far
exceeds their costs," said Hanft.  "However, throughout the
litigation and as a condition for resolution, the merchant
plaintiffs sought a change to the current rule and we focused our
efforts in settlement negotiations to ensure consumer safeguards
were included."

     The settlements will provide MasterCard and its customer
financial institutions with a broad release of all claims that
were alleged, or could have been alleged by the merchants
concerning MasterCard's interchange structure and merchant
acceptance rules, as well as the future effect of MasterCard's
existing rules and practices.  In agreeing to the settlement,
MasterCard in no way admits to any improper conduct with respect
to the plaintiffs' allegations.  All business and rule practice
changes will occur after preliminary approval of the settlement,
most likely in late 2012 or early 2013.

     The merchant litigations and the impact to MasterCard are
described in more detail in the company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2011.

                        About MasterCard

     MasterCard (NYSE: MA), http://www.mastercard.com/,is a
global payments and technology company.  The Company operates the
world's fastest payments processing network, connecting consumers,
financial institutions, merchants, governments and businesses in
more than 210 countries and territories.  MasterCard's products
and solutions make everyday commerce activities -- such as
shopping, traveling, running a business and managing finances --
easier, more secure and more efficient for everyone.


MEAT & LIVESTOCK: Live Cattle Exporters Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for Stock & Land, reports that Meat and
Livestock Australia (MLA) and LiveCorp are the targets of a
potential class action from live cattle exporters seeking
financial compensation for the suspension of the trade to
Indonesia last year.

The claim was detailed in an article in the Law Society Journal's
July 2012 edition but it didn't specify the amount being sought or
name the exporters making the claim.

In the article, Norman Hunt of Hunt Partners said exporters are
considering a case against the two industry bodies, alleging they
"knew of the inhumane treatment of animals in Indonesian
abattoirs".

He said MLA and LiveCorp did nothing to remedy the situation or
let their levy paying members know that the "time bomb was
ticking".

The resultant export ban left farmers with several issues, he
said, including lost income after they had to dump cattle onto the
Australian market at discount prices and endure a subsequent fall
in property prices, with live cattle exports to Indonesia having
fallen "drastically".

Mr. Hunt pointed to the dramatic and emotive reaction to the ABC
Four Corners May 30 program which sparked the month-long trade
suspension by the Gillard government on July 6.

He said the event was a "huge failure" of the statutory funded
bodies MLA and LiveCorp, highlighting a report published in
May 2010 on the Indonesian trade which depicted, "every inhumane
export practice which Four Corners used as their template/script,
going to every abattoir discussed".

"The federal government had seen the report and was urging
MLA/LiveCorp to fix it, which, when the "time bomb" exploded, they
were able to do in just a couple of months," he wrote, adding "It
gets worse".

"In 2009, MLA carried out a review of the levies struck and set
aside $186,000 to deal with animal welfare issues and $750,000 to
deal with media responses.

"They knew something might happen and were prepared to spend more
on media spin that fixing the problem -- a sad illustration of
priorities.

"In my view, there is a very arguable case that the directors of
MLA and LiveCorp breached their duties as directors of
corporations especially set up to look after live cattle
exporters' interests.

"The farmers felt, to some extent, that the public outcry was
aimed at them but . . . it is also overlooked that farmers are
close to their animals and do not tolerate mistreatment on their
own properties. "

MLA said they were aware of Mr. Hunt's claims but no legal notice
has been served upon them in relation to the matter.

An MLA spokesperson said they would focus on continuing to support
the trade through training of supply chains to help them comply
with the new government regulated Exporter Supply Chain Assurance
System (ESCAS).

The Australian Livestock Exporters' Council declined to comment.

A spokesperson for Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig said it would
be inappropriate to comment on any matters that may be subject to
action before the courts.

Shadow Agriculture Minister John Cobb said he would not be drawn
into a discussion about whether such a legal claim would be
successful, but said it was "drawing a long bow" to suggest MLA or
LiveCorp knew about inhumane treatment of Australian animals prior
to the ban and did nothing about it.

He said "some things become obvious after the fact".

"I'm not sure what taking out a class action against a statutory
body is going to achieve.

"It's important to rebuild the business and restore confidence
that producers lost when the Labor government made a knee-jerk
reaction to shut the trade down."

The potential class action against MLA and LiveCorp contrasts with
two other legal challenges directed against the federal government
for the snap suspension, listed under contingent liabilities in
this year's budget papers.

One claim is being handled by lawyer Trent Thorne of Queensland
legal firm McCullough Robertson on behalf of three clients and
falls under the scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by
Defective Administration (CDDA).

The CDDA can be applied if a Minister, or an authorized officer,
forms an opinion that an official of an agency acting in the
course of their duty has directly caused the applicant to suffer
detriment as a result of defective administration.

Another class action on behalf of 21 individual producers and live
exporters is being handled by law firm Minter Ellison.

The basis of that claim is understood to center on trade
suspension being a "negligent decision" that lacked proper
consultation between the Minister, the Department and other senior
government ministers.

In commenting on the new claim, Mr. Thorne said it was "way off
the mark" to point the finger and blame MLA and LiveCorp for any
losses caused by the trade ban.

He said it wasn't MLA's job to be an "animal welfare cop" in live
export markets where no legal jurisdiction exists.

Ultimately, Minister Ludwig made a decision to shut down the
trade, not the two industry bodies, he said.

"To say that MLA or LiveCorp "knew" what was happening is a false
premise to start with," he said.

"I struggle to see what case there is here and the finger is being
pointed at the wrong party."

Mr. Thorne said MLA's charter was to make incremental animal
welfare improvements in Indonesia, having achieved many positive
outcomes over 10 years, which animal welfare groups overlooked.

He said animal welfare conditions had improved from the archaic
conditions that MLA first started working with.

Mr. Thorne said the 2010 report compiled by respected veterinarian
Dr. Ivan Caple -- referred to in Mr. Hunt's claim -- looked at
conditions in the Indonesian market and referred to animal welfare
issues, giving an overall positive finding, while highlighting
some issues.

He said the government was aware of any issues via that export
report and were in a position to act appropriately if they had
concerns.


MICROSOFT ONLINE: Sued for Overcharging Cost-Per-Click Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Microsoft overcharged for its
adCenter "cost-per-click Internet advertising center," a business
claims in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC v.
Microsoft Online, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01181 (W.D. Wash.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/16/Microsoft.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley P. Thoreson, Esq.
          FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
          1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
          Seattle, WA 98101-3299
          Telephone: (206) 447-4400
          E-mail: thorb@foster.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Angelovich, Esq.
          Brad E. Seidel, Esq.
          Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
          3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway
          Building B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333

               - and -

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  mgyandoh@ktmc.com


MILLER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Energy Resources, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's July 16, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2012.

In August 2011, several purported class action lawsuit were filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.  The lawsuits made similar claims,
and have been consolidated into one case, styled In re Miller
Energy Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The lawsuit names
the Company, along with several of its current and former
executive officers, Scott Boruff, Paul Boyd, Ford Graham, David
Hall, and Deloy Miller, as defendants.  The Plaintiffs allege two
causes of action against the defendants: (1) violation of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case seeks money damages against
the Company and the other defendants, and payment of the
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  The Company has filed a Motion to
Dismiss the case.

Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case, the
Company says it currently cannot assess the probability of losses,
or reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to this
matter.


MOUNTAIN STATE: Sued for Misrepresenting DMS Program
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Mountain State University, a private school, used
misrepresentations to lure students into its online Diagnostic
Medical Sonography program.

A copy of the Complaint in Mullis v. Mountain State University,
Case No. 12-cv-03158 (S.D. W. Va.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/16/OnlineCollege.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harry F. Bell, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan W. Price, Esq.
          THE BELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
          30 Capitol Street
          P.O. Box 1723
          Charleston, WV 25326-1723
          Telephone: (304) 345-1700
          E-mail: hfbell@belllaw.com
                  jwprice@belllaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Howlett, Esq.
          Dean M. Googasian, Esq.
          THE GOOGASIAN FIRM, P.C.
          6895 Telegraph Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138
          E-mail: thowlett@googasian.com
                  dgoogasian@googasian.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Three Florida Football Players Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Schoffel, writing for Tallahasse.com, reports that claiming
that the National Football League hid and misrepresented the long-
term effects of concussion-related injuries, three former Florida
State football players are taking part in a class-action lawsuit
against the league.

Carl Simpson, Corey Fuller and Dexter Carter are among 19
plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed on July 12 by Louisiana-
based attorney Darriel C. McCorvey.

Their case is one of many lawsuits being filed by former NFL
players around the country, and like the others will be
consolidated into one federal class action that has been assigned
to the Eastern District Court in Philadelphia.

Mr. Simpson, a defensive lineman, played six years in the NFL
(1993-98).  Mr. Fuller, a defensive back, played 10 seasons.  And
Carter, a running back, played seven years.


PCS EDVENTURES!: Shareholder Suit Settlement Paid in February
-------------------------------------------------------------
PCS Edventures!.com, Inc. disclosed in its July 12, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2012, that all settlement funds, under its
$665,000 settlement of a shareholder class action lawsuit, were
fully paid as of February 29, 2012.

The Company, along with its former chief executive officer and
former chief financial officer, was named in a class action
lawsuit (Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, Case 1:10-cv-00479-CWD).
The class action was brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period
between March 28, 2007, and August 15, 2007.  In September, the
Company announced that it had entered into an agreement to settle
the class action lawsuit, subject to further proceedings and
approval by the Court.  While the Company denies the allegations
made in the class action lawsuit, the settlement was entered to
eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation.  On
October 5, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement, and approved the notices that were sent to potential
class members.  At the Settlement Fairness Hearing on
February 22, 2012, the Court gave final approval to the settlement
and entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With
Prejudice.  The class action was settled for $665,000 with the
Company's insurance carrier providing most of the settlement
funds.  In accordance with the Court ordered settlement, all
settlement funds were paid on or before February 29, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeals Ct. Revives Camel Cash Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that an appeals court on
July 13 revived a potential class action lawsuit against Reynolds
American Inc. over the cancellation of its "Camel Cash" customer
loyalty program.

Subsidiary R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company urged consumers to buy
Camel cigarettes, save Camel Cash certificates included in the
packs, enroll in the program and redeem the certificates for
merchandise featured in RJR catalogs, according to the opinion.

RJR ceased redeeming the certificates in 2006, making the
unredeemed Camel Cash worthless.  Ten individuals who joined the
program sued, and a lower court judge dismissed the case.

However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
on July 13 revived the litigation, saying RJR must defend some
claims including breach of contract. The 9th Circuit sent the case
back to a federal court in Los Angeles for further proceedings.

An RJR representative could not immediately be reached for
comment.

The case in the 9th Circuit is Amanda Sateriale et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 11-55057.


SRS LABS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
SRS Labs, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle a merger-related class action lawsuit filed in California,
according to the Company's July 16, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization, dated as of April 16, 2012 (as that agreement may
be amended in accordance with its terms, the "Merger Agreement"),
by and among SRS, DTS, Inc., DTS Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of DTS, and DTS LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of DTS
(the "Merger Proposal"), which provides for a merger in which SRS
will become a wholly owned subsidiary of DTS (the "Merger").

Two putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported SRS
stockholders challenging the Merger.

The first putative class action lawsuit, captioned Williams v. SRS
Labs, Inc., et al. Case No. 30-2012-00565660-CU-BTCXC, was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange
(the "California Court"), purportedly on behalf of the public
holders of SRS common stock against SRS, DTS and the members of
the SRS board of directors (collectively, the "Defendants"),
alleging, among other things, that the directors of SRS, aided and
abetted by SRS and DTS, breached their fiduciary duties to the SRS
stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger (the
"California Litigation") and seeking, among other things, to
enjoin the Defendants from completing the Merger pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement absent implementation of a process
to obtain a potentially higher price and/or to require additional
disclosures by SRS.

The second putative class action lawsuit, captioned Fong v. SRS
Labs, Inc., et al. Case No, 7481-VCN, was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court")
purportedly on behalf of the public SRS stockholders against DTS,
DTS Merger Sub, Inc., DTS LLC, SRS and the members of the SRS
board of directors, alleging, among other things, that the
directors of SRS, aided and abetted by the other defendants,
breached their fiduciary duties to the SRS stockholders in
connection with the proposed Merger (the "Delaware Litigation")
and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement absent implementation of any and all methods to obtain a
potentially higher price for stockholders or, if the Merger is
consummated, to rescind the Merger and award actual and punitive
damages.  The Delaware Litigation has been stayed by the Delaware
Court pending the resolution of the California Litigation, and
upon entry of a final order in the California Litigation, the
plaintiff in the Delaware Litigation will seek dismissal of the
Delaware Litigation.

After filing the California Litigation and engaging in certain
discovery, plaintiff's counsel indicated to Defendants' counsel
that they believed additional disclosures should be made available
to the SRS stockholders.

On July 16, 2012, the Defendants and the plaintiff in the
California Litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU"), agreeing in principle to settle the California
Litigation in exchange for Defendants' agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures.  The MOU contemplates that the parties
will prepare a definitive stipulation of settlement, which will be
subject to court approval.  If approved by the California Court,
it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of
the Defendants from all claims that were or could have been
asserted challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to the
Merger, the Merger Agreement or the disclosures made in connection
therewith, and that the California Litigation will be dismissed
with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SRS has agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger in a supplement to
the Proxy Statement.  In return, the plaintiff has agreed to the
dismissal of the California Litigation with prejudice and to
withdraw and/or refrain from filing any and all motions seeking to
enjoin or otherwise challenging the Merger.  In addition, the MOU
contemplates that plaintiff's counsel will petition the California
Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount
not to exceed $400,000, to be paid by SRS or its insurers or
successors.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately reach agreement on a definitive stipulation of
settlement or that the California Court will approve the proposed
settlement, even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation of settlement.  In such event, the proposed settlement
as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to SRS
stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger or the timing
of the special meeting of SRS stockholders scheduled for Friday,
July 20, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time), at the Company's
principal executive offices located at 2909 Daimler Street, Santa
Ana, California 92705, to consider and vote upon a proposal to
adopt the Merger Agreement, among other things.

The Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously
deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the facts and
claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the
California Litigation, including that they have committed any
violations of law or breaches of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted
any violations of law or breaches of fiduciary duty, acted
improperly in any way or have any liability or owe any damages of
any kind to the plaintiffs or to the purported class, and
specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure is
required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or
that the directors of SRS failed to maximize stockholder value by
entering into the Merger Agreement.  The settlement contemplated
by the MOU is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of
wrongdoing or liability by any Defendant.

However, to avoid the risk of delaying the Merger, and to provide
additional information to the SRS stockholders at a time and in a
manner that would not cause any delay of the Merger, the
Defendants agreed to the settlement.  The parties considered it
desirable that the California Litigation be settled to avoid the
substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction
of continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the
California Litigation.


THERABIOGEN INC: In Talks to Settle "Conde" Suit for $21,000
------------------------------------------------------------
TheraBiogen, Inc. disclosed in its July 16, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended February 29, 2012, that it is negotiating a settlement for
$21,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit filed by Jimmy Conde.

The Company has been sued in California in a purported class
action regarding allegations that the product packaging should be
modified.  The Company says it has reviewed the packaging with
Registrar Corp., which helps businesses comply with U.S. FDA Drug
registration and listing requirements by providing Registration,
U.S. Agent and Compliance Assistance for U.S. and Non-U.S.
Companies in the Drug Industry.  Registrar Corp's Drug Labeling
and Ingredient Review service helps companies determine their
drug's likely classification and compliance with applicable
labeling requirements.  All products packaging and labeling was
reviewed by and received approval from Registrar before going to
market.  Mr. Jimmy Conde is the plaintiff and alleges that the
Company's product's package labeling is inadequate.

The Company says that even though it believes the lawsuit is
without merit, it is attempting to negotiate a modest settlement
that may include minor additions to the packaging labels.  The
litigation has been moved to Federal Court and the Company is
negotiating a settlement agreement in the amount of $21,000 which
is fully dependent upon the Company's ability to pay this amount,
the agreement of the parties and approval by the Court.  No
assurances can be given as to the outcome of this litigation or
its impact upon the Company or its business.


THOMAS M. COOLEY: Kurzon LLP Files Defamation Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 16, 2012, Kurzon LLP commenced an action in New York
Supreme Court, New York County against Thomas M. Cooley Law School
and its Dean and President, Don LeDuc for false and defamatory
statements made about the Firm.

Cooley sued the Firm in July 2011 as part of an effort to stifle
attorney David Anziska's investigation of Cooley's post-graduate
employment statistics.  Thereafter, in a misguided effort to
prevent the filing of a class action lawsuit against it, Cooley
made false and defamatory statements to the public about the Firm
through its Dean and President.

Managing Partner of Kurzon LLP, Jeff Kurzon -- Jeff@Kurzon.com --
said, "While most law schools around the country are committing
themselves to greater transparency and helping students find post-
graduate employment, Cooley is spending money on lawyers to harass
opponents with 'defamation' actions based on false allegations."

Kurzon further opined, "Through Cooley's malicious and careless
actions, the Firm has been defamed and we are enforcing our
rights.  Hopefully this action will help set the record straight
and Cooley will pay for the harm that it caused."

Kurzon LLP is a New York based commercial litigation and corporate
transactional law firm.


UNI-DIG: Clinton Township Files Class Action Over Stench
--------------------------------------------------------
Christina Hall, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that
Clinton Township filed a class action against Uni-Dig.

Reduce the smell of decomposing yard waste, or stop composting.

That's what Clinton Township is hoping a Macomb County Circuit
Court judge will order in a lawsuit the township filed against
Uni-Dig, a dirt and recycling business on Quinn Road.

"What we're requesting is public abatement of this nuisance, the
stench and things of that sort," township attorney Charles Towner
said.

The complaint, filed July 3, also states that the site -- zoned
light industrial -- does not allow for composting operations under
the township ordinance.

It states that Uni-Dig has not requested or received approval to
conduct a composting operation by special land use or other
appropriate means.

Renee Michaels, manager at Uni-Dig, said she has not been served
with the lawsuit and could not comment.  Since last year, when
complaints started to pour in, Uni-Dig has said that it was doing
its best to control any smell from its property and that other
companies in the area could be contributing to any odor.

According to the lawsuit, the township has received hundreds of
complaints from residents and local businesses of noxious odors
emanating from the site.

A few residents have filed civil lawsuits against Uni-Dig seeking
class-action status -- which attorney Josh Lushnat said was
certified June 4 in one of the cases.  He said the class-action
status is to include residents and businesses within a 3/4-mile
radius of Uni-Dig.

"The goal is to bring some relief to the neighborhood,"
Mr. Lushnat said.  "Allow these people to enjoy their residences
and not worry about being outside that day and have full access to
their property."

Last year, the township cited Uni-Dig in district court for
failing to eliminate the smell.  Uni-Dig pleaded no contest to
misdemeanor blight, paid an $895 fine and was to abate the odor.

This year, it pleaded no contest to contempt of a court order for
not doing so and paid a $300 fine, according to district court
records in the township's lawsuit.

According to the company's reports included in the lawsuit, Uni-
Dig responded to complaints by screening and spraying odor control
and not loading trucks.

Township Supervisor Bob Cannon said officials don't want to shut
down Uni-Dig, but want to get compliance.  He said in previous
years, Uni-Dig could abate the smell if a complaint came in.  But,
he said, there is more yard waste than before and when the wind
blows, the odor spreads.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has cited Uni-Dig
for having too much yard waste at its site.  Uni-Dig sought a
variance to allow more yard waste at the property, where MDEQ has
not confirmed odor violations.  MDEQ denied the variance request.


VISA INC: Signs MOU to Settle Interchange Fee Suits for $4-Bil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle for
approximately $4 billion a multidistrict litigation over
interchange fees, according to the Company's July 16, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 13, 2012, Visa Inc. (the "Company"); its wholly owned
subsidiaries Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa USA") and Visa International
Service Association; MasterCard Incorporated; MasterCard
International Incorporated; various U.S. financial institution
defendants; and the Class Plaintiffs signed a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") which, subject to certain conditions,
obligates the parties to enter into a settlement agreement in the
form attached to the MOU (together with the MOU, the "Settlement
Agreement") to resolve the claims of the class plaintiffs (the
"Class Plaintiffs") in the matter styled In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, No.
05-MD-1720 (JG) (JO) (the "Multi-District Litigation").  The
claims originally were brought by a class of U.S. retailers in
2005.

The settlement agreement for the Class Plaintiffs includes, among
other terms:

   * A comprehensive release from participating class members for
     liability arising out of claims asserted in the litigation,
     and a further release to protect against future litigation
     regarding interchange and the other U.S. rules at issue in
     the Multi-District Litigation.

   * Settlement payments from all defendants in the amount of
     approximately $6.05 billion, with the Company's share of the
     settlement representing approximately $4 billion.  The
     Company's share will be paid from the previously funded
     litigation escrow account established pursuant to the
     Company's retrospective responsibility plan (the
     "Retrospective Responsibility Plan").  More information on
     the Retrospective Responsibility Plan is available in
     Company's filings with the SEC.

   * Distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10
     basis points of default interchange across all credit rate
     categories for a period of eight consecutive months, which
     otherwise would have been paid to issuers and which
     effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of
     time.  This effective reduction will be distributed by a
     process designed to ensure that all class retailers, large
     and small, are able to receive the reduction.  The eight
     month period for the reduction would begin within 60 days
     after completion of the court-ordered period during which
     individual class members may opt out of this settlement, or
     approximately mid-2013.

   * Modifications to the Company's rules to permit retailers to
     impose a surcharge on credit transactions subject to a cap
     and a level playing field with other general purpose card
     competitors.  The rule changes on surcharging likely will be
     implemented in early 2013.

   * Agreement that the Company will meet with merchant buying
     groups that seek to negotiate interchange rates collectively
     (e.g. independent drug stores).  The Company retains
     discretion to accept or reject a proposal based on whether
     the Company believes it is commercially reasonable.

A final settlement agreement is subject to conditions, including
(a) requisite corporate approvals, (b) reaching agreement on
certain appendices to the Settlement Agreement regarding class
notice, claims, and other procedures, (c) reaching negotiated
settlements with the individual plaintiffs whose claims were
consolidated with the Multi-District Litigation for pre-trial
proceedings (the "Individual Plaintiffs'), and (d) court approval.
There can be no assurances that negotiated settlements can be
reached with the Individual Plaintiffs or that the other
conditions will be satisfied.

                       Individual Claims

The Company and the Individual Plaintiffs in the Multi-District
Litigation have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
Individual Plaintiffs claims against the Company.  The agreement
in principle must be reduced to a written settlement agreement
that is agreeable to all parties, and that settlement agreement
will be subject to customary conditions, including all requisite
corporate approvals.  Until this agreement in principle is reduced
to a written settlement agreement and the appropriate conditions
are satisfied, no assurance can be provided that the Company will
be able to resolve the Individual Plaintiffs claims as
contemplated by the agreement in principle.

For the quarter ending June 30, 2012, the Company intends to
record a litigation charge of approximately $4.1 billion, which
will increase its total FAS 5 reserve for the litigation covered
by the Retrospective Responsibility Plan from $285 million to
approximately $4.4 billion, to reflect the Class Plaintiffs
Settlement Agreement and management's current estimate to resolve
the Individual Plaintiffs' claims.

As previously disclosed, on February 7, 2011, the Company entered
into the Omnibus Agreement Regarding Interchange Litigation
Judgment Sharing and Settlement Sharing, among the Company, Visa
U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, MasterCard
International Incorporated and various financial institutions (the
"Omnibus Agreement").

                        Company Statement

     SAN FRANCISCO, California -- July 13, 2012 -- Visa (NYSE: V),
MasterCard and U.S. financial institution defendants have signed a
memorandum of understanding to enter into a settlement agreement
to resolve the Class Plaintiffs' claims in the multi-district
interchange litigation (MDL).  The claims originally were brought
by a class of U.S. retailers in 2005.  Visa also has reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the claims brought against Visa
by a group of individual retailers (the Individual Plaintiffs) in
the same MDL litigation.  The proposed settlement payments for
both the Class and Individual claims would be approximately $6.6
billion, of which Visa's share would represent approximately $4.4
billion.  Visa's share will be paid from the litigation escrow
account established pursuant to Visa's Retrospective
Responsibility Plan.  More information on the plan is available in
the Company's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission at http://www.sec.gov/.

     The settlement agreement with the Class Plaintiffs includes,
among other terms:

     * A comprehensive release from participating class members
       for liability arising out of claims asserted in the
       litigation, and a further release to protect against
       future litigation regarding interchange and the other U.S.
       rules at issue in the MDL litigation.

     * Distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10
       basis points of default interchange across all credit rate
       categories for a period of eight consecutive months, which
       otherwise would have been paid to issuers and which
       effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of
       time.  This effective reduction will be distributed by a
       process designed to ensure that all class retailers, large
       and small, are able to receive the reduction.  The eight
       month period for the reduction would begin within 60 days
       after completion of the court-ordered period during which
       individual class members may opt out of this settlement,
       or approximately mid-2013.

     * Modifications to Visa's rules to permit retailers to
       impose a surcharge on credit transactions subject to a cap
       and a level playing field with other general purpose card
       competitors.  The rule changes on surcharging likely would
       be implemented in early 2013.

     * Agreement that Visa will meet with merchant buying groups
       that seek to negotiate interchange rates collectively
       (e.g., independent drug stores). Visa retains discretion
       to accept or reject a proposal based on whether the
       Company believes it is commercially reasonable.

     For the quarter ending June 30, 2012, Visa intends to record
a litigation charge of approximately $4.1 billion, which will
increase its total FAS 5 reserve for the litigation covered by the
Retrospective Responsibility Plan from $285 million to
approximately $4.4 billion, to reflect the Class Plaintiffs'
Settlement Agreement and management's current estimate to resolve
the Individual Plaintiffs' claims.

     Additional information about these settlements can be found
on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
and available at http://www.sec.gov/,as soon as accepted and
processed by the SEC.

     "We believe settling this case is in the best interests of
all parties," said Joseph W. Saunders, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Visa Inc.  "We are comfortable with the
terms, which we do not anticipate will impact our current
guidance. Visa is well positioned to help drive the migration to
electronic payments in the U.S. and globally."

     Consistent with commitments Visa made at the time of its
restructuring, the settlements are subject to approval by Visa USA
voting members representing two-thirds of membership proportion.

     "This agreement should remove the distraction of litigation
for all parties," said Joshua R. Floum, General Counsel of Visa
Inc.  "We will go forward with a focus on helping retailers grow
their businesses and providing them with efficient and valuable
payment options."

     Visa remains in a "quiet period" which will extend until the
Company's fiscal third quarter 2012 earnings are released on
July 25, 2012.

                           About Visa

     Visa is a global payments technology company that connects
consumers, businesses, financial institutions and governments in
more than 200 countries and territories to fast, secure and
reliable digital currency.  Underpinning digital currency is one
of the world's most advanced processing networks -- VisaNet --
that is capable of handling more than 20,000 transaction messages
a second, with fraud protection for consumers and guaranteed
payment for merchants.  Visa is not a bank and does not issue
cards, extend credit or set rates and fees for consumers.  Visa's
innovations, however, enable its financial institution customers
to offer consumers more choices: pay now with debit, ahead of time
with prepaid or later with credit products.  For more information,
visit http://www.corporate.visa.com/.


VISA INC: Penalties Under Global Settlement Add Up to $7.25BB
-------------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that under the settlement to resolve
the seven-year-old case against credit card giants Visa and
MasterCard for allegedly fixing card-use fees, the two will have
to cut their so-called 'swipe' fees for eight months.

This could give merchants $1.2 billion in relief on top of $6
billion for past damages, says the report.  They will have to
allow merchants to impose a surcharge on credit card transactions,
subject to a cap.  Law firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Cires, which
represented about seven million merchants in the suit, said that
penalties for the two and other card-issuing banks added up to
$7.25 billion -- $6.05 billion for past damages and the $1.2
billion for relief.

Also involved in the settlement are card-issuing banks including
JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Capital
One and others.  Visa said its total payouts would be $4.4
billion, which appeared to include settlements from separate
individual suits over the same issue that were not part of the
class-action suit.

"The reforms achieved by this case and in this settlement will
help shift the competitive balance from one formerly dominated by
the banks which controlled the card networks to the side of
merchants and consumers," said Craig Wildfang, lead Robins, Kaplan
lawyer in the case for the merchants.

But American Bankers Association president Frank Keating blasted
the idea saying, "Let's be clear -- retailers, not consumers,
benefit from the resolution," he said.  "This settlement even
provides merchants with the ability to impose 'checkout fees' on
customers just for using credit cards."


WARNER MUSIC: Parties to Confer in August on Class Cert. Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging conspiracy
in the pricing of digital music downloads will confer at the end
of August 2012, on a class certification briefing schedule, for a
determination by the District Court as to whether class treatment
is appropriate, according to Warner Music Group Corp.'s May 15,
2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking
information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music.
Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the case as to all defendants, including the Company.
However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the
judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further
proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court
granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.
Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain, for the class of Internet Music purchasers.
The parties have filed amended pleadings complying with the
court's order, and the case is proceeding into discovery, which
was scheduled to be substantially completed by May 31, 2012. The
parties are scheduled to confer at the end of August 2012, on a
class certification briefing schedule, for a determination by the
District Court as to whether class treatment is appropriate. The
case will proceed into discovery, based on a schedule to be
determined by the District Court. The Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these suits. Regardless of the merits of the claims,
this and any related litigation could continue to be costly, and
divert the time and resources of management.


WARNER MUSIC: Suits Over Digital Music Sales Royalties Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class action lawsuits against Warner Music Group Corp.
over improper calculation of royalties from sales of digital music
remain pending, according to the Company's May 15, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California.
The lawsuits, which were brought by various recording artists, all
allege that the Company has improperly calculated the royalties
due them for certain digital music sales under the terms of their
recording contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these
claims on their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on
behalf of other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their
claims on a previous ruling that held another recorded music
company had breached the specific recording contracts at issue in
that case through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording
artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of
the major record companies. Here too, plaintiffs seek to have the
interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to
their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable
response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be
appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel
moved to consolidate the various actions. On April 23, 2012, the
court issued an order setting out a more orderly process for
dealing with the various cases. It set May 24, 2012 for a Case
Management Conference for all five actions, and set the same day
as the hearing date for the Plaintiffs' various outstanding
motions. In addition, the Court removed the Company's motion to
dismiss from the calendar, with new dates to be set on or after
May 24, 2012.

No other dates have been set in the litigation. The Company
intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable
to predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of the merits of
the claims, this and any related litigation could continue to be
costly, and divert the time and resources of management.


WARNER MUSIC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Cournoyer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. is awaiting a court approval of a
settlement entered in a class action lawsuit captioned Cournoyer
v. Warner Music Group Corp. et al., according to the Company's
May 15, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company awaits a decision on the application for approval by
the Supreme Court for the State of New York of the previously
disclosed settlement of the claims filed against, inter alia, the
Company and its directors in 2011 on behalf of a class of the
Company's shareholders in the action entitled Cournoyer v. Warner
Music Group Corp. et al., Index No. 651367/2011 (the "Cournoyer
Action"). The Cournoyer Action, as well as two related actions,
were brought in connection with the Plan of Merger, dated as of
May 6, 2011, (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company,
AI Entertainment Holdings LLC (formerly Airplanes Music LLC), a
Delaware limited liability company ("Parent") and an affiliate of
Access Industries, Inc. ("Access"), and Airplanes Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Merger Sub"), on July 20, 2011 (the "Closing Date"),
Merger Sub merged with and into the Company with the Company
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

The settlement did not involve any monetary payment to the class
of shareholders. Instead, the Company agreed to publicly disclose
additional information about the Merger in a filing that it made
with the SEC on June 13, 2011.


                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *