CAR_Public/120725.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 25, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 146

                             Headlines

BEAR STEARNS: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 19
BHP BILLITON: Faces More Class Actions Over U.S. Shale Assets
CARGILL MEAT: Recalls 29,339 Lbs. of Ground Beef Products
CINERGY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over False Infomercial Ads
CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suits Get Class Certification

DOMINION EAST: Settles Class Action Over Fairport Explosions
EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Still Pending in California
EBAY INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Suit vs. StubHub Remains Pending
ELECTIONS ONTARIO: Merchant Law Group Files Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Sued for Allegedly Intercepting E-mails

HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over E-Book Royalties
HOME DEPOT: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
JPMORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Practices
LECROY CORP: Robins Geller Voluntarily Dismisses Class Action

LIME ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action in Illinois
LIME ENERGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
LIME ENERGY: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Class Action Trial v. Sheriff Commences
MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Settles Class Actions Over LabCorp Acquisition

MOUNTAIN STATE: Sued for Concealing Accreditation Problems
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: ResCap Awaits OK of "Mitchell" Suit Deal
NEW FRONTIER: Faces Class Suit Over Longkloof Acquisition Offer
NORTHERN LEASING: Sup. Court Grants Motion to Decertify Class
PELLA WINDOWS: Accused of Misclassifying Installers in Illinois

PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Officers Sued for Misappropriating Funds
PRESIDENTIAL LIFE: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
PULTE HOMES: Lawyers Provide Update on Stucco Class Action
RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sued in Calif. Over Bogus Claims on Bracelet
TRAVELERS COS: Appeal From "Safeco" Suit Settlement Order Pending

TRAVELERS COS: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Deal Approval Pending
TRAVELERS COS: Appeals in Asbestos-Related Suits Remain Pending
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Suit Over Property in Redwood City


                          *********

BEAR STEARNS: ERISA Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 19
------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on
July 20 issued a statement regarding the In re Bear Stearns
Companies ERISA Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES              Master File
No.: 08 MDL No. 1963 (RWS)
ERISA LITIGATION      ERISA Action: No. 08
Civ. 2804 (RWS)

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE FOLLOWING CLASS:

(A) ALL PERSONS, WHO HAVE BEEN PARTICIPANTS IN THE BEAR STEARNS
COMPANIES INC.  EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, OR THE PREDECESSORS
OR SUCCESSORS THERETO, AT ANY TIME BETWEEN AUGUST 1, 2007 AND
MARCH 20, 2012 AND WHOSE ACCOUNTS INCLUDED INVESTMENTS IN BEAR
STEARNS STOCK, AND (B) AS TO EACH PERSON WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 1.45 OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, HIS,
HER, OR ITS BENEFICIARIES, ALTERNATE PAYEES, REPRESENTATIVES AND
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE FOREGOING, THE SETTLEMENT CLASS SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS OR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT
FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILY, BENEFICIARIES, ALTERNATE PAYEES,
REPRESENTATIVES OR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST WHO THEMSELVES ARE
MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR OWN PLAN
ACCOUNTS (COLLECTIVELY, THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
THIS IS A COURT-ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE.
THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.
YOU HAVE NOT BEEN SUED.

A proposed Settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal
court in the above-captioned class action lawsuit alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), in connection with the
Plan identified above.  The terms of the Settlement are contained
in the Class Action Settlement Agreement, dated March 20, 2012, a
copy of which is available at
http://www.BearStearnsERISAsettlement.comor by contacting Co-Lead
Class Counsel identified below.  Capitalized terms used in this
Publication Notice and not defined herein have the meanings
assigned to them in the Settlement Agreement.

The proposed Settlement provides for a payment of $10,000,000 (ten
million dollars) to settle all claims against all Defendants.
Under the proposed Settlement, the Net Proceeds, which will
consist of the Settlement Fund less certain amounts described in
the Settlement Agreement, including expenses associated with Class
Notice, Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses and Named
Plaintiff Case Contribution Awards, taxes and other costs related
to the administration of the Settlement Fund and implementation of
the Plan of Allocation, will be paid to the Plan and will be
allocated among qualifying members of the Settlement Class in
accordance with the Plan of Allocation to be approved by the
Court.

If you qualify, you may receive such an allocation. You do not
need to submit a claim or take any other action unless you wish to
object to the Settlement.  The United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York authorized this Notice.

THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 12:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
TO DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
INCLUDING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT THAT HAS BEEN MAILED TO SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS AND
EXPLAINS HOW CLASS MEMBERS CAN OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT IS
AVAILABLE AT BEARSTEARNSERISASETTLEMENT.COM.  IN ADDITION,
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL HAVE ESTABLISHED A TOLL-FREE NUMBER, 866-905-
8101, AND EMAIL ADDRESS, INFO@BEARSTEARNSERISASETTLEMENT.COM, TO
ASSIST IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT.  YOU MAY
ALSO CONTACT CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL AT:

Lynn Lincoln Sarko    Joseph H. Meltzer
Derek W. Loeser        Peter H. LeVan, Jr.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.  KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 280 King of Prussia Road
Seattle, WA 98101   Radnor, PA 19087
Facsimile: 206-623-3384       Facsimile: 610-667-7056

Please direct questions to Co-Lead Class Counsel, and not to the
Court or to Defendants' Counsel.

DATED: JULY 20, 2012

By Order of the Court


BHP BILLITON: Faces More Class Actions Over U.S. Shale Assets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big News Network.com reports that Washington global mining and
energy major BHP Billiton, which is engaged in shale production
ventures in the Midwest, is again facing pressure in the U.S.
courts over charges by landowners in Arkansas that energy
companies are short-changing them.

Several class action suits have been filed by local residents
claiming that the drilling injection of liquids into underground
shale formations, a process known as fracking, has caused tremors
and damaged the environment.

Some of the landowners are also contesting the payment received
for leasing the land for fracking and gas production.

In the latest class action suit, filed in June, a couple Denny and
Diane Brown from eastern Arkansas have accused five energy
companies, including BHP, of wrongfully deducting from their
royalties the costs of extracting and transporting gas produced on
their land.

In documents filed in the U.S. District Court in eastern Arkansas,
the Browns claim that under the original lease agreement signed
with Basin Management in 2005, the royalties were to be paid to
landowners on a gross basis.

But instead, the energy companies are wrongfully deducting costs
that the companies claim are part of the process of "enhancing"
the value of the gas.

The Browns claim XTO Energy, which operates the facilities on
their land, Basin Management, Chesapeake and BHP have "wilfully
withheld payments without just cause or through bad faith".

Basin assigned the Browns' lease to Chesapeake Exploration, and
Chesapeake later pooled its assets in the region with XTO Energy
and BP America Production. BHP acquired Chesapeake's assets in
early 2011.

The Browns now want their case widened to include other landowners
in Arkansas whose leases have similar terms.

The impairment charge, which could come within weeks, would
recognize the slide in U.S. gas prices amid a glut in production.
In a statement issued to BusinessDay, BHP said it hoped the matter
would be resolved quickly.

"We can confirm that BHP Billiton has been named in a class action
lawsuit regarding royalty payments associated with oil and gas
development of the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas," BHP said.

"The determination of royalty payments is defined in the lease
agreements.  BHP Billiton honors the terms of the lease agreements
and we prefer to work with the royalty owner to resolve any
disagreement over interpretation."

BHP Billiton on July 18 reported success in its drilling campaign
in liquids-rich shales acquired along with last year's $15 billion
takeover of Petrohawk Energy, but analysts say it could come too
late to avoid a write-down on its U.S. shale assets.

BHP's June quarter production report noted the successful
integration and development of its U.S. onshore shale liquids and
gas assets contributed to a 40 per cent increase in petroleum
production in the 2012 financial year, to 22 million barrels of
oil equivalent (mboe), compared with 2011.

June quarter figure petroleum production was 56 mboe, including a
10 per cent increase in onshore U.S. liquids production, to 3.8
million barrels, meaning overall production growth was flat
compared with the March quarter.

BHP said by the end of June more than 80 per cent of its onshore
U.S. drilling activity was focused on the liquids-rich Eagle Ford
shale and Permian Basin, both acquired in the Petrohawk takeover
in August 2011.


CARGILL MEAT: Recalls 29,339 Lbs. of Ground Beef Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Cargill Meat Solutions, a Wyalusing, Pennsylvania establishment,
is recalling 29,339 pounds of fresh ground beef products that may
be contaminated with Salmonella Enteritidis, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The products subject to recall, sold wholesale and for further
processing include:

   * 14 pound chub packages of "Grnd Beef Fine 85/15", packed 3
     chubs to approximate 42-pound cases.

The products subject to recall bears the establishment number
"EST. 9400" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  While the use-by
date has passed and these products are no longer available for
retail sale, FSIS and the company are concerned that some product
may be frozen in consumers' freezers.  These products were
produced on May 25, 2012, and were shipped to distribution centers
in Connecticut, Maine and New York for further distribution.

It is important to note that the above listed products were
repackaged into consumer-size packages and sold under different
retail brand names.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on FSIS' Web site at:

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp

FSIS became aware of the problem during the course of an ongoing
investigation of a multi-state outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis
involving 33 case-patients from seven states (MA, ME, NH, NY, RI,
VA, VT-preliminary data, subject to change).  Working in
conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), Vermont Department of Health, New York State Department of
Health, and New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets,
FSIS was able to link illnesses in five case-patients to the
ground beef products produced at this establishment based on
epidemiologic and traceback investigations, as well as in-store
reviews.  Illness onset dates among these five case-patients
ranged from June 6, 2012, to June 13, 2012.  Two of the five case-
patients were hospitalized.  Leftover product with no packaging
information collected during the course of this investigation by
the Vermont Department of Health tested positive for Salmonella
Enteritidis with the outbreak strain.  This outbreak strain of
Salmonella Enteritidis is drug sensitive, meaning antibiotics can
be effective in treating patients who need them.  FSIS is
continuing to work with CDC and public health partners on the
investigation.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses.  Salmonella infections can be life-threatening,
especially to those with weak immune systems, such as infants, the
elderly, and persons with HIV infection or those undergoing
chemotherapy.  The most common manifestations of salmonellosis are
diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours.
Additional symptoms may be chills, headache, nausea and vomiting
that can last up to seven days.  Individuals concerned about an
illness should contact a health care provider.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F.  The only
way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high
enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that
measures internal temperature.

Consumers who have questions are encouraged to call the Company's
consumer information line at (888) 812-1646.  Media with questions
regarding the recall can contact Michael Martin, the Company's
media contact, at (316) 291-2126.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


CINERGY HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over False Infomercial Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that sanctions
and fines from five states didn't stop Cinergy Health from using
"false and misleading infomercial advertisements" to push its
"major medical coverage that in reality is extremely limited," a
class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiffs Harry and Rhonda Wiedenbeck sued Cinergy, American
Medical and Life Insurance Co., and the National Congress of
Employers.  Cinergy is based in Tallahassee, Fla., the other
defendants in Madison.

Cinergy markets itself through American Medical and Life, offering
major medical coverage with no exclusions for pre-existing
conditions, but "consumers do not get the benefits or coverage
advertised, and for which they paid," the Wiedenbecks say.

They claim the three defendants "intentionally played upon the
vulnerabilities of people who either could not qualify for, or
could not afford, traditional 'major medical' health insurance
coverage by falsely presenting the American Medical policies as a
low cost way to obtain such coverage."

The Wiedenbecks say the companies habitually deny, delay and
underpay claims -- a pattern which is "the subject of numerous
consumer complaints in Wisconsin and elsewhere," it says.

They claim the pattern involves "a) making it difficult for policy
holders to determine which entity or which person within which
entity was responsible for responding to or answering questions
about claims; b) routinely denying claims by misapplication of the
pre-existing condition limitation; c) singling out and misusing
billing and diagnosis code information to misclassify claims as
either excluded or subject to significant payment limitations
under the policy; d) delaying response to claims and policy holder
calls for weeks and months."

They say the companies bank on policyholders' accepting rejection
of their claims, and assume that even if policyholders are
especially persistent they will not have the legal resources to
fight the pattern of denial, delays and underpayments.

One or all three of the alleged conspirators were sanctioned in
New York, Arkansas, Florida and Maine for their misleading
infomercials -- the same ads that run in Wisconsin -- according to
the complaint.

"Based on these same infomercials, in April 2011, the Maine Bureau
of Insurance revoked Cinergy's right to sell insurance in Maine,
and fined it $600,000," the complaint states.  "The Bureau also
ordered Cinergy that Cinergy provide a full accounting as to all
premiums paid and compensation received.  Maine's Superintendent
of Insurance based the revocation and fine significantly upon an
infomercial titled 'Real Health Insurance,' with subsequent screen
shots stating, 'All Medical Conditions Accepted.'  Just like the
infomercials run in Wisconsin.  She further deemed the ads to be
deceptive and misleading to Maine consumers: 'For consumers,
"real" health insurance means the type of health insurance
consumers ordinarily think of when they hear the words "health
insurance" -- major medical insurance coverage.' Additionally, she
found that Cinergy's misrepresentation of the terms of coverage
was intentional."

And that's not all, the complaint states: "In yet another state,
American Medical was sanctioned and fined $700,000 for fraudulent
sales practices.  In July 2009, The New York State Insurance
Department, based in large part on the misrepresentations made in
these same style infomercial ads as were shown in Wisconsin,
ordered American Medical to cease selling these policies in New
York.  Examples of fraudulent ads included (a) advertising 'no
annual limits of deductibles for surgery,' when in fact there were
limitations on coverage such as $100 per visit for five doctor
visits per year, and (b) advertising 'most pre-existing conditions
are accepted' without disclosing that there would be zero coverage
for pre-existing conditions for a period of six months."

The Wiedenbecks claim the defendants operated the same way in
Wisconsin.

Neither plaintiff had major medical insurance, but had major
health issues, making them "precisely the kind of prospects" the
defendants targeted, according to the complaint.

The Wiedenbecks say they were "pursued for the purpose of
maximizing the amount of money received in premium and 'dues'
payments and minimizing the amount of money paid out in claims,
all with the objective of securing undeserved revenue from
unsuspecting consumers."

They say they called Cinergy after seeing its infomercial.  Harry
Wiedenbeck says he made it clear that he wanted "major medical"
coverage for his family.

"The Cinergy representative did nothing to correct Mr.
Wiedenbeck's misperception concerning the nature of the American
Medical policy, continuing to mislead him about the nature of the
coverage consistent with the infomercial and Cinergy's marketing
scheme, and encouraged him to purchase the product, obtaining his
credit card number and obtaining his authorization to
automatically charge the credit card for the monthly premium,"
according to the complaint.

The Wiedenbecks say they discovered the true nature of the plan
they had bought when Rhonda Wiedenbeck's hospital stay for stroke
symptoms was not paid for, on the basis that it was for a "mental
health" condition.

The Wiedenbecks say they couldn't pay the out-of-pocket costs on
time and calls they made to Cinergy and American Medical were left
unanswered, so the bill was sent to collections.

They seek actual damages and punitive damages for fraud and bad
faith.

They estimate the class damages to exceed $5 million.

A copy of the Complaint in Wiedenbeck, et ux. v. Cinergy Health,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00508 (W.D. Wis.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/20/Cinergy.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynn R. Laufenberg, Esq.
          LAUFENBERG, STOMBAUGH & JASSAK, S.C.
          115 S. 84th Street, Suite 250
          Milwaukee, WI 53214
          Telephone: (414) 935-5480
          E-mail: lrl@lauflaw.com

               - and -

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP
          6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard, Building C-101
          Austin, TX 78730
          Telephone: (512) 372-8100
          E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com


CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Suits Get Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated lawsuits filed against CSX Corporation's subsidiary
alleging antitrust law violations was certified as a class action
in June 2012, according to the Company's July 19, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2012.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company's principal operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc.
("CSXT") and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging
that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract
and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.  The lawsuits seek unquantified
treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as
well as attorneys' fees and other relief.  In November 2007, the
class action lawsuits were consolidated and are now pending in
federal court in the District of Columbia.

On June 21, 2012, the court certified the case as a class action.
The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' claims,
rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the
case as a class.  The defendant railroads have petitioned the
appeals court to review the certification decision.  CSXT believes
that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and applied
lawfully and that the case is without merit.  Accordingly, the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously.  However, penalties
for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and an unexpected
adverse decision on the merits could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity in that particular period or for the full year.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Florida, is a leading
transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-
truck transload services.  The Company's transportation network
spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern states
and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports.


DOMINION EAST: Settles Class Action Over Fairport Explosions
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Read, writing for The News-Herald, reports that Dominion
East Ohio gas company has settled a class action lawsuit over a
series of fires that ravaged Fairport Harbor last year.

Village residents William Bonczek and Kenneth Workman filed the
suit through the DiCello Law Firm in Mentor after the Jan. 24,
2011, explosions.

Messrs. Bonczek and Workman claimed Dominion could have prevented
the incident, which destroyed 10 buildings -- eight homes, one
garage and an entire apartment complex.

On July 20, seven attorneys involved in the dispute met for an
hour and a half before agreeing in open court to a final
settlement approved by Lake County Common Pleas Judge Richard L.
Collins Jr.

"It is fair, adequate and also reasonable," Judge Collins said of
the agreement.

There were no objections to the settlement by any member of the
public.

According to the settlement:

* Dominion will pay up to $500,000 to people who were affected by
the incident.

* Dominion will pay up to $250,000 to the plaintiffs' attorneys
for "reasonable costs of administration and notice."

* If the claims are less than $500,000, the difference will be
refunded to the defendant.

* The agreement becomes void if the parties make "defaming"
remarks about Dominion or its parent companies in public or to the
media.

* Dominion continues to deny any liability from the incident,
which was blamed on two failed gas pressure regulators.

* Those who owned, leased or rented residential or commercial
property and incurred unreimbursed expenses such as evacuation
costs, lost wages and property loss must submit claim forms to The
DiCello Law Firm.  The lawyers will decide on a case-by-case basis
who is eligible for settlement payments.

* Any claim for an amount already reimbursed by The East Ohio Gas
Co. or any insurance company will not be considered valid.

The lawsuit alleged Dominion was negligent in maintaining and
operating its natural gas system.  Dominion estimated the amount
of real estate and personal property damages totaled about $1.2
million.

According to Dominion, 1,505 residents were evacuated that day.
There were no reported injuries.


EBAY INC: Class Suits vs. PayPal Still Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc.; and Moises
Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court in
the Northern District of California.  These lawsuits contain
allegations that eBay Inc.'s subsidiary, PayPal, improperly held
users' funds or otherwise improperly limited user's accounts.
These lawsuits seek damages as well as changes to PayPal's
practices among other remedies.  A determination that there have
been violations of laws relating to PayPal's practices could
expose PayPal to significant liability.  Any changes to PayPal's
practices resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to
incur significant costs and to expend product resources, which
could delay other planned product launches or improvements and
further harm the Company's business.

The Company says if PayPal is unable to provide quality customer
support operations in a cost-effective manner, PayPal's users may
have negative experiences, PayPal may receive additional negative
publicity, its ability to attract new customers may be damaged and
it could become subject to additional litigation.  As a result,
current and future revenues could suffer, losses could be incurred
and its operating margins may decrease.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 19, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


EBAY INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Suit vs. StubHub Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from an appellate court ruling in a class
action lawsuit filed against a subsidiary of eBay Inc. remains
pending, according to the Company's July 19, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub
sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert
tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were
resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale
price law (which has been subsequently amended).  In February
2011, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, concluding that immunity under the Communications
Decency Act did not apply.  The trial court further held that
StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade
practices statute as it pertained to the two named plaintiffs, and
certified its decision for immediate appeal to the North Carolina
Court of Appeals.

In February 2012, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned
the lower court's decision.  The plaintiffs are appealing the
appellate court ruling.

Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressed
concern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company's
sites.  Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have in
the past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBay
by venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessful
ticket buyers.  Such litigation could result in damage awards,
could require the Company to change its business practices in ways
that may be harmful to its business, or could otherwise negatively
affect its tickets business.


ELECTIONS ONTARIO: Merchant Law Group Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
A province-wide class action was launched on July 20 against
Elections Ontario regarding the loss of personal information of as
many as 2.4 million Ontario voters, contained on two USB keys lost
by Elections Ontario officials in April 2012.

"One of the most serious concerns about this situation is the fact
that Elections Ontario admits that the two lost USB keys were not
encrypted or password-protected, and contain personal information
regarding voters in more than 20 ridings across Ontario" said
Steve Osborne of Merchant Law Group LLP, who filed a class action
lawsuit with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice earlier on
July 20.  "There is a substantial risk that the personal
information of millions of voters could be used for identify theft
or other frauds if these USB keys have fallen into the wrong
hands."

The lawsuit seeks, amongst other things, financial compensation
for any individuals whose personal information has been lost as a
result of this occurrence.

Merchant Law Group LLP has twelve offices across Canada, from
Montreal to Victoria.  Merchant Law Group LLP is well known for
their involvement in mass tort and class action cases in Canada,
which include lawsuits involving Kinross Gold Corp., Winners,
Residential Schools, Cellular System Access Fees, Hollinger, and
Maple Leaf Foods.

Anyone who believes they may be eligible to participate in this
class action should provide their contact information online at:
http://merchantlaw.com/classactions/

Steve Osborne -- sosborne@merchantlaw.com -- and other lawyers
from Merchant Law Group can also be contacted at (289) 398-7777.


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Allegedly Intercepting E-mails
---------------------------------------------------
Gary Haber, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that a
Baltimore County man has sued Google Inc. over the Internet search
giant's alleged practice of intercepting e-mails sent to Maryland
residents with Google Gmail accounts.

Matthew C. Knowles alleges in his federal court lawsuit that
Google routinely intercepts messages sent by non-Gmail subscribers
in Maryland to Maryland Gmail subscribers without their knowledge
or consent, which he claims is in violation of the Maryland
Wiretap Act.

The lawsuit, filed July 9 in U.S. District Court in Baltimore,
alleges Mountain View, Calif.-based Google scans the e-mails and
sends "targeted advertisements" to the e-mails' senders.


HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over E-Book Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on July 19 against Harlequin
Enterprises, Ltd., the world's leading publisher of romance
fiction, as well as Harlequin Books S.A., a Swiss corporation, and
Harlequin Enterprises B.V., a Dutch corporation, on behalf of
authors who entered into contracts with the company.

This lawsuit results from Defendant Harlequin Enterprises Limited,
the world's leading publisher of romance fiction, depriving
Plaintiffs and the other authors in the class, of e-book royalties
due to them under publishing agreements entered into between 1990
and 2004.  Harlequin required the authors to enter into those
agreements with a Swiss entity that it created for tax purposes,
and that it dominates and controls.  However, Harlequin, before
and after the signing of these agreements, performed all the
publishing functions related to the agreements, including
exercising, selling, or licensing, or the e-book rights granted by
the authors.  Instead of paying the authors a royalty of 50% of
its net receipts as required by the agreements, an intercompany
license was created by Harlequin with its Swiss entity resulting
in authors receiving 3% to 4% of the e-books' cover price as their
50% share instead of 50% of Harlequin Enterprises' receipts.

What this means to the authors can be illustrated by an e-book
with a hypothetical cover price of $8.00.  The "net receipts" made
by Harlequin Enterprises Limited from the exercise, sale or
license of e-book rights would be at least $4.00, of which authors
would be entitled to $2.00 based on their 50% royalty.  Computing
the "net receipts" based on the "license" between Harlequin's
Swiss entity and Harlequin Enterprises, Plaintiffs' 50% royalty
amounts to only 24 to 32 cents.

The lawsuit alleges, among other claims, that on contracts between
1990-2004: Harlequin breached the terms of their publishing
agreements with authors; Harlequin failed to pay the Plaintiffs
and members of the Class the royalties to which they are entitled
under the publishing agreements; Harlequin Enterprises, Ltd. is
liable for unjust enrichment.

The Harlequin authors are represented by lead counsel, David B.
Wolf, DavidWolfLaw pllc and co-counsel, Michael J. Boni, Boni &
Zack LLC.

                       Harlequin's Response

Harlequin on July 19 disclosed that they have been made aware of a
class action lawsuit brought against them by three former authors.

The publisher said it wishes to make clear that this is the first
it has heard of the proceedings and that a complaint has not yet
been served.

"Our authors have been recompensed fairly and properly for their
work, and we will be defending ourselves vigorously," said Donna
Hayes, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer of Harlequin.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Home Depot makes hourly
employees work off the clock and stiffs them for overtime, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fernandez, et al. v. Home Depot,
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01783 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/20/HomeDepot.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          Valerie Kincaid, Esq.
          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mgrant@initiativelegal.com
                  vkincaid@initiativelegal.com
                  abanerjee@initiativelegal.com


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed on July 20 that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.
alleging that Ignite made false statements of material fact in its
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 10, 2012
initial public offering (the "IPO").  If you purchased your Ignite
shares in the IPO or between May 10, 2012 and July 18, 2012,
inclusive, you may recover your investment losses in the class
action.

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

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

The Complaint alleges that the Ignite's IPO documents contained
false financial statements because the Company improperly
accounted for leases.  The complaint asserts that when the market
learned of this adverse information, the price of Ignite shares
dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 18, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  To join the class action, please visit
the website at http://rosenlegal.com

You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of
The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

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


JPMORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that an elderly couple claims in
Superior Court that JPMorgan Chase Bank threatened foreclosure and
harassed them with 75 phone calls a week demanding money, though
they were current on their payments.  A class action in San Jose
Federal Court claims Chase Bank makes similar unfounded demands
after short sales.

A copy of the Complaint in Canaday, et al. v. Chase Home Finance,
LLC, et al., Case No. CV-120415 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Luis
Obispo Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/20/ThanksJP.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James McKiernan, Esq.
          JAMES MCKIERNAN LAWYERS
          21 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 300
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
          Telephone: (805) 541-5411


LECROY CORP: Robins Geller Voluntarily Dismisses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
LeCroy Corporation on July 20 disclosed that, on July 19, 2012,
the previously announced class action lawsuit filed against LeCroy
in June 2012 by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in the United
States District Court Southern District of New York was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, with prejudice.  Neither
the Plaintiff nor its counsel received any payment in connection
with the dismissal of the case.

The plaintiff's decision voluntarily to dismiss the case followed
a ruling by the court, on July 13, 2012, favorable to LeCroy.  At
the hearing held that day, the court refused either to schedule a
preliminary injunction hearing or to allow the plaintiff to take
expedited discovery, stating in pertinent part as follows:
"[P]laintiff has failed to assert any plausible arguments to
support her claim that the individual defendants failed to include
material information in the definitive proxy statement."

"We are gratified that the Court recognized the weakness in the
plaintiff's claims, which we firmly believe were completely
without merit," stated Thomas H. Reslewic, President and Chief
Executive Officer of LeCroy.

Jordan D. Hershman, Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Group at
Bingham McCutchen LLP, served as lead counsel to LeCroy in the
litigation.


LIME ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 20 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of Lime Energy Co. during the period between May 13,
2010 and July 17, 2012 to recover damages for violations of the
federal securities laws.

To join the Lime Energy class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., or Jonathan
Horne, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in the
U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois.

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

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Lime Energy and its officers and directors, for issuing
materially false and misleading financial information.  The
Complaint alleges that Lime Energy improperly recognized revenue
on non-existent revenue, and in other cases, improperly recorded
revenue earlier than the Company should have.  The Complaint
alleges that, when the market learned of this adverse information,
the price of Lime Energy stock fell over 40%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 18, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free,
at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


LIME ENERGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Lime Energy Co. and certain of its officers for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois under docket number 12 C 5704, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Lime Energy securities between May 13, 2010 and July 17, 2012,
inclusive.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lime Energy securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 18, 2012 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Lime Energy is a provider of clean energy solutions.  The
Company's services include integrated energy engineering,
consulting and implementation of solutions which enable its
customers to reduce their facilities' energy consumption, lower
their operating and maintenance costs and reduce their carbon
footprint.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company was improperly recording revenue; (2) that, as a
result, the Company's revenue and financial results were
overstated; (3) that, as such, the Company's financial statements
were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal
and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 17, 2012, the Company disclosed that the Audit Committee
of the Board of Directors of Lime had determined that the
Company's consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC on
Form 10-K for the periods ended December 31, 2010 and December 31,
2011, and quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2012, may no longer be relied upon.  According to the Company,
the Audit Committee made that determination based on the results
of a partial internal review conducted by the Company's management
which was concluded on July 13, 2012.  The Company further
indicated that, based on the results of that partial internal
review, the Company's management and Audit Committee believe that
some portion of the Company's revenue was improperly recorded.
Specifically, the Company stated that, "[i]n some cases, it
appears that non-existent revenue may have been recorded" and that
"[i]n other cases, it appears that revenue may have been recorded
earlier than it should have been."  Additionally, Lime Energy
indicated that the misreporting may potentially require
restatement of its previously issued financial statements and that
the Company, under the supervision of the Audit Committee and with
the assistance of outside counsel, is conducting an investigation
of the misreporting.

On this news, shares of the Company declined $0.91 per share, or
44.83%, to close on July 17, 2012, at $1.12 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is a law firm
that concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate,
securities, and antitrust class litigation.


LIME ENERGY: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Lime Energy Company on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
the Company during the period from May 14, 2010 through July 16,
2012.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Lime provides clean energy solutions that assist clients in the
achievement of their energy efficiency and renewable energy goals.
On July 17, 2012, the Company announced that its financial
statements for the years ended 2010 and 2011, and for the
quarterly period ended on March 31, 2012, could no longer be
relied upon.  The determination made by Lime's Audit Committee was
based on the results of a partial internal review conducted by the
Company's management which caused the Company to believe that some
portion of the Company's revenue was improperly recorded.
According to the Company's press release, in some instances it
appeared that non-existent revenue may have been recorded and in
other instances it appeared that revenue may have been recorded
earlier than what was appropriate.  Lime expects the misreporting
may potentially require a restatement of the affected financial
statements.

In reaction to the Company's announcement, Lime's stock price
plunged 44.83% to close at $1.12 per share on July 17, 2012.

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

If you purchased Lime stock between May 14, 2010 and July 16,
2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc Grobler at
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Lime common stock during the Class Period of
May 14, 2010 through July 16, 2012, inclusive, and wish to apply
to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf
must be filed with the Court no later than September 18, 2012.
You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.

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


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Class Action Trial v. Sheriff Commences
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that the federal
judge presiding over a civil rights class action against Sheriff
Joe Arpaio kicked off the trial on July 19 by saying he would base
his decision on "facts as they now stand, not as they did two
years ago," though discovery in the case ended in 2010.

Five class representatives claim Mr. Arpaio and his Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office target Latinos by racial profiling.
Mr. Arpaio, 80, is seeking a sixth term in November.

In opening remarks to U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow,
plaintiffs' attorney Stanley Young told the packed courtroom that
a "fundamental value of our nation is equal protection of the
law," and that his clients' "goal is to ensure that the actions of
the MCSO complies with the constitution."

The five named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed more than 4 years
ago, were detained by sheriff's deputies during "so-called 'crime
suppression sweeps'" to enforce Arizona's human-smuggling law by
"using pretextual and unfounded stops, racially motivated
questioning, searches and other mistreatment," according to the
complaint.

Tim Casey, representing Mr. Arpaio, said his clients "believe the
charges of the plaintiffs and their lawyers are unfair."

"There are two sides to every story. If the truth were anything
like what the plaintiffs are suggesting, it would be a very
disturbing picture," Mr. Casey said.  "Race and ethnicity had
nothing to do with the traffic stops."

Most testimony on July 19 focused on the findings of expert Ralph
Taylor, a Temple University professor, who found that Hispanic
names were 34 to 40 percent more likely to be checked by a deputy
during a "saturation patrol" then non-Hispanic names.

"If a name was checked by officers during a saturation patrol it
was highly likely the name was Hispanic," Mr. Taylor said.

Since the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office does not track the race
or ethnicity of people stopped, Mr. Taylor said, he used Census
data to determine the likelihood that a surname checked was
Hispanic or non-Hispanic.

Mr. Taylor said he looked at more than 108,000 traffic incidents
recorded by the Sheriff's Office between Jan. 1, 2007 and Oct. 31,
2009, and found that Hispanics experienced a 22 percent, or 2.6
minute, longer stop length then non-Hispanics.

Tom Liddy, a lawyer for defendants, questioned Mr. Taylor's
practice of selecting what data to be analyzed.

"Is it possible that there was a significant number of traffic
stops that you didn't receive?" Mr. Liddy asked.  "If the deputy
pulled someone over, ran the plate, and did not use radio . . .
would it be reflected?"

Mr. Taylor said that if there was no name listed in the data he
was provided by the plaintiffs, he did not include that incident
in his report.

"Could that piece of information be interesting to anyone,
doctor?" Mr. Liddy asked.

Mr. Taylor conceded that "yes," it could be.

Mr. Taylor claimed there were some variables, such as deputies'
actions during the stops, and the socio-economic status of the
person stopped, that may have contributed to longer or shorter
stop times, or the possibility that a person was stopped if he or
she could not afford to repair their vehicle to keep it up to
code.

The court also heard testimony from David Vasquez, a 47-year-old
IT specialist from Mesa, who said he was pulled over by a
sheriff's deputy in June 2008 for a cracked windshield.

"The first question he asked me is, 'Do you speak English'?"
Mr. Vasquez said.  "I just found it funny that he asked me that
question because I felt like he was singling me out.

"He said he pulled me over for a cracked windshield that doesn't
impair my visibility," Mr. Vasquez said.  "I wouldn't say it was
upsetting so much as being profiled."

Mr. Vasquez said he did not complain to any agencies of his
treatment after the incident.  Mr. Vasquez is not a plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

Mr. Arpaio is expected to testify this week.  The plaintiffs are
not seeking money damages, but an injunction to stop the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office from exceeding its authority, and from
engaging in racial discrimination.

A copy of the First Amended Complaint in Melendres, et al. v.
Arpaio, et al., Case No. 07-cv-02513 (D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/13/ArpaioCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Bodney, Esq.
          Peter S. Kozinets, Esq.
          Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, Esq.
          Isaac P. Hernandez, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          Collier Center
          201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2382

               - and -

          Daniel Pochoda, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
          P.O. Box 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
          Telephone: 602 650-1854

               - and -

          Robin Goldfaden, Esq.
          Monica M. Ramirez, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0770

               - and -

          Kristina M. Campbell, Esq.
          Nancy Ramirez, Esq.
          MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
          South Spring Street, 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 629-2512 x136


MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Settles Class Actions Over LabCorp Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. on July 20 announced that counsel for
MEDTOX and other named defendants have entered into a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) with plaintiffs' counsel in connection with
the three previously announced putative class action lawsuits
filed in Minnesota state court in connection with the proposed
acquisition of MEDTOX by Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, or LabCorp.  The three putative class action lawsuits
that are being settled pursuant to the MOU are the actions pending
in District Court, Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, of the
State of Minnesota under the captions John Siciliano v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc. et al., Carol A. Kiel v. Richard Braun et al.,
and Louis Perlman v. Medtox Scientific, Inc. et al.

Under the terms of the MOU, MEDTOX will (i) provide supplemental
disclosures to the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A
filed by MEDTOX with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
in connection with its special stockholders meeting to be held on
July 31, 2012, with respect to certain matters and (ii) file a
Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC with respect to such
additional disclosures and the MOU.  The MOU reflects the parties'
agreement in principle to resolve the allegations by the settling
plaintiffs against MEDTOX and other defendants in connection with
the proposed acquisition by LabCorp and provides a release and
settlement by the purported class of MEDTOX's stockholders of all
claims against MEDTOX and other defendants and their affiliates
and agents in connection with the proposed acquisition by LabCorp.
The MOU and settlement are contingent upon, among other things,
approval of the Ramsey County Court, further definitive
documentation and consummation of the proposed acquisition.  In
the event that the settlement is not approved and such conditions
are not satisfied, MEDTOX and the other named defendants will
continue to vigorously defend these actions.

MEDTOX and the other named defendants continue to believe that
each of the aforementioned lawsuits is without merit and that they
have valid defenses to all claims made by the applicable
plaintiffs.


MOUNTAIN STATE: Sued for Concealing Accreditation Problems
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mountain State University has
concealed its accreditation problems since 2008, leaving students
with degrees that are "effectively worthless," a class action
claims in Kanawha County Court; 56 nursing students filed
additional, individual lawsuits.

A copy of the Complaint in Burger, et al. v. Mountain State
University, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-C-1293 (W. Va. Cir. Ct.,
Kanawha Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/20/ForProfitCollege.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq.
          Sean P. McGinley, Esq.
          Robert M. Bastress III, Esq.
          DITRAPANO, BARRETT & DIPIERO, PLLC
          604 Virginia Street, East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 342-0133
          E-mail: rob.bastress@dbdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
          WEBB LAW FIRM, PLLC
          108 1/2 Capitol St., Suite 201
          Charleston, WV 25301


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: ResCap Awaits OK of "Mitchell" Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Capital, LLC is awaiting final court approval of its
settlement resolving the "Mitchell Litigation", according to
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc.'s July 19, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As part of their Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, Residential Capital,
LLC and its debtor affiliates are seeking approval of the sale of
substantially all of their assets to (i) Nationstar Mortgage LLC,
as the stalking horse bidder, consisting of the Debtors mortgage
origination and servicing business and certain other mortgage
related assets; and (ii) Berkshire Hathaway Inc., as the stalking
horse bidder, consisting of the Debtors' legacy portfolio, which
consists mainly of mortgage loans held-for sale and other retained
financial assets.  The remaining assets of the Debtors are
expected to be sold, wound down, or otherwise liquidated over
time.  An auction for the assets of the Company is scheduled to be
conducted on October 23, 2012.  It is possible that parties other
than Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. will
ultimately purchase ResCap's assets and business operations.  A
hearing to approve these sales is scheduled to occur in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on
November 5, 2012.

In the statewide class action, known as Mitchell Litigation,
plaintiffs alleged that Mortgage Capital Resources, Inc. (MCR)
violated the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act by charging
Missouri borrowers fees and interest not permitted by the Act.
Residential Funding Company, LLC (RFC) and Homecomings Financial,
LLC, among others, were named as defendants in their role as
assignees of certain of the MCR loans.  Following a trial
concluded in January 2008, the jury returned verdicts against all
defendants, including an award against RFC and Homecomings for
$4.3 million in compensatory damages (plus pre- and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees) and against RFC for $92.0 million in
punitive damages.  In a November 2010 decision, the Missouri Court
of Appeals affirmed the compensatory damages but ordered a new
trial on punitive damages.  Upon remand, ResCap paid $12.8 million
in compensatory damages (including interest and attorneys' fees).
At the end of February 2012, RFC entered into an agreement in
principle to settle all of plaintiffs' remaining claims, including
plaintiffs' already-awarded attorneys' fees on appeal, for a total
of $17.3 million.  The agreement was preliminarily approved on
April 16, 2012.  The hearing on final approval was scheduled on
May 18, 2012.


NEW FRONTIER: Faces Class Suit Over Longkloof Acquisition Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Frontier Media, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit arising
from an unsolicited conditional acquisition offer from Longkloof
Limited, according to the Company's July 19, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2012.

On March 9, 2012, the Company received an unsolicited conditional
acquisition offer from Longkloof Limited, one of the Company's
existing shareholders (Longkloof), for $1.35 per share in cash,
subject to certain conditions.

On March 23, 2012, Mr. Elwood M. White filed a class action
complaint in the Boulder County, Colorado District Court for the
20th Judicial District of the State of Colorado, purportedly on
behalf of the Company's public shareholders, against the Company
and its board of directors.  The complaint alleges that the
individual members of the Company's board of directors have
breached their fiduciary duties owed to its shareholders in
connection with their receipt of Mr. Longkloof's offer on March 9,
2012, to acquire the outstanding shares of common stock of the
Company not already owned by Mr. Longkloof for $1.35 per share.

Mr. White's complaint seeks, among other things, an order allowing
the action to be maintained as a class action and certifying Mr.
White as the class representative and his counsel as class
counsel.  It also seeks to enjoin the Company's board of directors
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
in the best interests of the Company's shareholders, a declaration
that the Company's board of directors has violated their fiduciary
duties, an order directing the Company and its board of directors
to account to the class for any damages sustained because of the
alleged wrongs, and an award to Mr. White of the costs of the
action, including Mr. White's attorneys' and experts' fees.

The Company believes Mr. White's claim is without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend against this matter.


NORTHERN LEASING: Sup. Court Grants Motion to Decertify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., a provider of third-party micro-
ticket equipment leasing services in the United States, on July 19
disclosed that the New York Supreme Court has ruled in favor of
the company, granting the company's motion to decertify a class of
hundreds of thousands of merchants in a breach of contract class
action brought against the company by four lessees.  Judge Martin
Shulman had previously certified the class in April 2009.  The
ruling by Judge Shulman follows a New York State Appellate
Division's September 2011 decision to reverse summary judgment as
to liability on the breach of contract claim.

"Northern Leasing has always prided itself on the fairness of our
business practices and the open dialogue we strive to maintain
with our merchants," said Jay Cohen, chairman and chief executive
officer of Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.

"This opinion, like the Appellate Division's decision in 2011, has
vindicated our confidence in a favorable outcome to our case,"
Mr. Cohen continued.  "We have always felt that the plaintiffs'
claims were without merit."

The plaintiff's claim was essentially that the lessees thought the
four-page lease in the form of a booklet was, in reality, only one
page long and therefore Northern Leasing Systems' enforcement of
the terms on the other three pages constituted a breach of the
contract.  In March 2010, Judge Shulman granted summary judgment
to the plaintiffs under that theory.

However, in September 2011 the New York State Appellate Division
unanimously reversed that decision stating that "questions of fact
exist that preclude granting plaintiffs summary judgment on the
breach of contract claim."

"It will now be necessary to determine what each plaintiff's lease
is comprised of and whether it was reasonable for any plaintiff to
believe the document consisted of only one page," reads the
decision, handed down July 13 by Judge Martin Shulman.

"Again, this necessarily entails individual inquiries into the
circumstances of each plaintiff's lease execution.  Clearly, this
fact-specific inquiry cannot be determined from a review of the
lease's language.  And as a result of the Summary Judgment of the
Appellate Division decision, individual issues now predominate
over common questions of fact or law.  As such, the motion to
decertify the class must be granted," he said.

The court also ruled against the plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on a previously unpleaded unconscionability claim as to
breach of contract.

"This court cannot help but conclude that this claim is 'coming
from out of nowhere' in an attempt to prevent class
decertification," said Judge Shulman.


PELLA WINDOWS: Accused of Misclassifying Installers in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Michaels, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pella Windows and Doors, Inc., Case No. 2012-CH-27672
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 19, 2012) asserts that the Company
failed to classify Pella installers as employees even though there
were no applicable exceptions under the Illinois Employee
Classification Act.

Pella is subject to the IECA; it is an Illinois "contractor"
engaged in "construction" as defined in the IECA, Mr. Michaels
asserts.

The class seeks damages and all other available remedies under the
IECA.

Mr. Michaels is a resident of DuPage County, Illinois.  He was a
Pella installer from September 8, 2008, through December 13, 2009.

Pella is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Pella,
Iowa.  Pella conducts business throughout Illinois, including Cook
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Scott A. Mays, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
                  scott@blockesq.com

               - and -

          William J. Harte, Esq.
          WILLIAM J. HARTE, LTD.
          135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603

               - and -

          Edward T. Joyce, Esq.
          Arthur W. Aufmann, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-2600


PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Officers Sued for Misappropriating Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Gazette reports that a Peregrine Financial Group customer from
Illinois is taking the embattled company's executives to court for
allegedly mishandling client money.

Michael LaSalvia of Naperville is seeking class-action status in a
lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against PFG's Russell Wasendorf, Sr., Russell Wasendorf
Jr., Brenda Cuypers and Susan Mary O'Meara.

The suit was filed July 13 in the wake of Mr. Wasendorf Sr.'s
suicide attempt, which triggered an investigation that discovered
some $200 million was missing from an account that held PFG's
segregated client funds.

PFG has since filed for bankruptcy, and FBI agents arrested Mr.
Wasendorf Sr. for allegedly making false statements to regulators.

Represented by attorney Jeffrey Salas, Mr. LaSalvia's suit accuses
company officials of commingling his funds with those of PFG.

The suit lists both Wasendorfs as chief executive officers of the
commodity futures brokerage.  Ms. Cuypers is mentioned as chief
financial officer and Ms. O'Meara, as compliance director.

The action notes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a U.S.
regulatory agency, has alleged that Wasendorf and PFG failed to
maintain adequate customer funds in segregated accounts, with a
shortfall exceeding $200 million.

The suit also accuses PFG and Wasendorf of filing false reports
with the CFTC regarding the amount of customer segregated funds
held by PFG.

The suit notes the CFTC alleges that the company failed to
maintain "adequate customer funds in segregated accounts since at
least February 2010" and failed to maintain adequate customer
funds in segregated accounts and have misappropriated those
customer funds for purposes other than intended by its customers.

The filing lists three separate dates -- Feb. 28, 2010; March 30,
2011; and July 9, 2012 -- when PFG showed balances exceeding
actual balances by hundreds of millions of dollars, in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act.

The suit alleges PFG's actions adversely affected "at least
hundreds of persons."

"The size of individual damages is small in comparison to the
complexity and scope of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct,"
the action says.

The suit asks for a trial by jury and unspecified damages.


PRESIDENTIAL LIFE: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Presidential Life Corp. is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Athene
Annuity & Life Assurance Co., for $415 million or $14 a share,
shareholders claim in Rockland County Supreme Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Patel v. Presidential Life Corp., et
al., Index No. 034000/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Rockland Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/20/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  srowley@faruqilaw.com


PULTE HOMES: Lawyers Provide Update on Stucco Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Stice, writing for The Island Packet, reports that
hundreds of Sun City Hilton Head homeowners crowded the Bluffton
High School auditorium on July 19 for an update on a class-action
lawsuit claiming rampant defective stucco work in the retirement
community.

Lawyers who hope to represent them said they expect the five-year-
old case to move forward in the courts soon.

Judge J. Michael Baxley allowed the lawsuit, originally filed by
Sun City couple Anthony and Barbara Grazia, to become a class-
action suit in December.  It could ultimately affect more than
4,300 homes.

South Carolina State Plastering LLC, the lead defendant, along
with developer Del Webb Communities Inc., builder Pulte Homes Inc.
and others named in the suit quickly appealed the judge's ruling.

Attorney Michael Seekings of Leath, Bouch & Seekings law firm in
Charleston told the crowd that the appeal should soon be resolved
and there were "signs of hope that this is going to end."

"That's their strategy: Delay, delay, delay," Mr. Seekings said.
"We are prepared to move forward."

If the pending appeal is rejected, plaintiffs' lawyers said the
next step is a notice of the class action that will be sent out to
eligible homeowners.  The homeowners could choose to opt out of
it; if not, they will automatically be included in the class,
Mr. Seekings explained.

Once the number of plaintiffs is finalized, Pulte has a timeframe
to respond to each individual claim of defective stucco under
South Carolina's "Right to Cure Act."

That law requires a homeowner to give 90 days notice of the intent
to file a lawsuit over construction and lays out a timeline for a
contractor or subcontractor to assess the situation and offer
repairs, money or some another solution.

Sun City residents may see people taking pictures of their homes
soon if they haven't already noticed them, Mr. Seekings said.
That's because lawyers are already preparing to send 4,317 "Right
to Cure" notices to Pulte, he said.

A Sun City resident of Astor Fields who requested to remain
anonymous said he has no choice but to join the suit: Pulte denied
his claim requesting repairs to the stucco on his home even though
an inspector he hired pointed out problems, he said.

Defective stucco can cause water intrusion in walls, which leads
to mold.  The resident said his college-aged son has trouble with
his asthma when he sleeps in the home.

"I'm not going to get my house fixed any other way, other than
doing it myself," he said.


RAWLINGS SPORTING: Sued in Calif. Over Bogus Claims on Bracelet
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Rawlings Sporting Goods
pushes its rubber Power Balance Performance Bracelet with bogus
claims "that the piece of rubber, somehow, provides consumers with
increased energy," a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior
Court.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeal From "Safeco" Suit Settlement Order Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Indemnity Company, a subsidiary of The Travelers
Companies, Inc., is one of the Settlement Class plaintiffs and a
class member in a class action lawsuit captioned Safeco Insurance
Company of America, et al. v. American International Group, Inc.
et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.) in which the defendants
are alleged to have engaged in the under-reporting of workers'
compensation premium in connection with a workers' compensation
reinsurance pool in which several subsidiaries of the Company
participate.  On July 26, 2011, the court granted preliminary
approval of a class settlement pursuant to which the defendants
agreed to pay $450 million to the class.  The settlement includes
a plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds among the class
members.  On December 21, 2011, the court entered an order
granting final approval of the settlement, and on February 28,
2012, the district court issued a written opinion regarding its
approval of the settlement.  Three parties who objected to the
settlement have appealed the court's orders approving the
settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 19, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company anticipates that its allocation from the settlement
fund, in the event the court's approval of the class settlement is
affirmed, will be approximately $90 million.  This amount is
treated for accounting purposes as a gain contingency in
accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies, and accordingly has
not been recognized in the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Deal Approval Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated antitrust litigation against insurance brokers and
insurers, including The Travelers Companies, Inc., remain pending,
according to the Company's July 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the Company,
by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.  The plaintiffs alleged that
various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with
various insurers, including the Company, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.  To the extent they were not
originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions
under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.
On August 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the class actions, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers,
including the Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim.  After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to
replead, the court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31,
2007, and the RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with
prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of all Sherman Act and RICO claims
against certain defendants, including the Company, except for
Sherman Act and RICO claims involving the sale of excess casualty
insurance through a single defendant broker, as well as all state
law claims, which they remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.  On October 1, 2010, defendants, including the
Company, filed renewed motions to dismiss the remanded claims.  On
March 18, 2011, the Company and certain other defendants entered
into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit, under
which the Company agreed to pay $6.75 million.  Preliminary
approval of the settlement was granted on June 27, 2011.  On
September 14, 2011, the court conducted a final fairness hearing,
and on March 30, 2012, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

On April 27, 2012, three members of the settlement class appealed
the court's order granting final approval of the settlement to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Those appeals are
pending.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeals in Asbestos-Related Suits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a March 1, 2012 decision finding that conditions to
settlements in asbestos-related lawsuits had not been met remain
pending, according to The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s July 19,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action
lawsuits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed
against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers
(not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court
in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed in
West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims.  The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts.  These lawsuits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.  Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in
these lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Common Law
Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations.
Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were
filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.  Among the contingencies for each of these
settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying
that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related
claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the
bankruptcy court ("the 1986 Orders").

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC ("the Clarifying
Order").  The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other
parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district
court's judgment, which were denied.  TPC and certain other
parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision,
finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and
generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims against TPC.  Further, the Supreme Court
ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the
Clarifying Order.  However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled
on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural
matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties,
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues.  On October 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.  On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme
Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme
Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court
denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on September 2, 2010, and September 3, 2010, respectively,
arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been
met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.  On
September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On December 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.  On
January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to
pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest.  On
January 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's
January 20, 2011 judgment.  On January 24, 2011, certain of the
plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion
of the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment that denied
their request for an order of contempt and for sanctions.

On March 1, 2012, the district court ruled in TPC's favor and
reversed the bankruptcy court, finding that the conditions to the
settlements had not been met, and that TPC is not obligated to pay
the settlement amounts.  The district court also upheld the
bankruptcy court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion for an
order of contempt and for sanctions.  The district court further
ruled that, since TPC is not obligated to go forward with the
settlements, it was unnecessary to address the issue of pre-
judgment interest.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's
March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and
those appeals are pending.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in
Texas state court asserting common law claims.  All such cases
that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.  If any of
those cases becomes active, SPC intends to litigate those cases
vigorously.  SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct
actions in Ohio state court.  Those actions have all been
dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate
courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been
named in individual direct actions in other jurisdictions.

Currently, the Company says it is not possible to predict legal
outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and
litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims.  Any
such development will be affected by future court decisions and
interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation.
Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise
for amounts in excess of the Company's current reserves. In
addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim
adjustment expenses may change.  These additional liabilities or
increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be
reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges
that could be material to the Company's results of operations in
future periods.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Suit Over Property in Redwood City
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Banegas, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., as the
Original Lender; California Reconveyance Company, as the Original
Trustee; Fidelity National Title, Title Company; Chase, as the
Mortgage Servicer; Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., FTN Financial
Capital, Blaylock & Partners, LP, Deutsche Bank Securities, and
Vining-Sparks IBG, LP, as a Joint Book Running Managers; Federal
National Mortgage Association, as PSA Issuer and Administrator;
Capital Research and Management Company, and The Growth Fund of
America, Inc, as PSA Filer; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 5:12-cv-03807 (N.D. Calif., July 20, 2012) is brought by
the Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, injunctive and equitable
relief and for compensatory, special, general and punitive
damages.

The Plaintiff disputes the title and ownership of a real property
that the originating mortgage lender and others alleged to have
ownership, have unlawfully sold, assigned and transferred their
ownership and security interest in a promissory note and deed of
trust related to the Property.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants cannot show proper receipt, possession, transfer,
negotiations, assignment and ownership of the borrower's original
Promissory Note and Deed of Trust, resulting in imperfect security
interests and claims in the Property.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Redwood City, in San Joaquin
County, California.  He asserts that he owned the Property, which
is located at 333 3rd Ave., Redwood City, California.

Washington Mutual is the originator of loans involving the
Property.  Fidelity National Title and California Reconveyance
oversaw the recording and processing of both the Deed of Trust and
Promissory Note.  Bear Stearns, FTN, Blaylock Deutsche Bank and
Vining-Sparks are the present purported securitization seller of a
portion of the mortgage loans.  Capital Research and The Growth
Fund is the present securitization filers of a portion of the
mortgage loans.  Chase is the present purported master servicer of
the mortgage.  Federal National Mortgage is the present purported
PSA issuer of the mortgage.  The Plaintiff does not know the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.  The Plaintiffs argue
that the Defendants are participants in the imperfect
securitization of the Note and Deed of Trust relating to the
Property.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


                           *********

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  * * *