CAR_Public/120726.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 147

                             Headlines

ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Trial for Weekend Arrest Class Action Likely
AMYLIN PHARMA: Being Sold to Bristol-Myers for Too Little
APPLE INC: Consumers Face Long Wait for $52MM Tied to E-book Case
AUTOLIV INC: Faces 8 Class Suits Over Antitrust Law Violations
CANADA: Suit vs. B.C. Medical Services Commission May Proceed

CARGILL MEAT: Hannaford Stores Received Recalled Beef Products
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend ADA Violation Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Employees' Suit Remanded to Appeals Court
CISCO: Class Action Lawyer to Appeal $2-Million Award to State
COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Unit Still Defends Consumer Class Suit

COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Arbitration Ordered in Visa-Related Suit
DEER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Class Action Over License Agreements
EXETER HOSPITAL: Hepatitis C Outbreak Suspect Arrested
FACEBOOK INC: Appeals Court to Decide on Click Marketers' Suit

FLOYD COUNTY, GA: To Pursue Class Action Over Transfer Taxes
FORBES REGIONAL: Found Negligent by Court in Colonoscope Suit
HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Royalties
HEARTWARE INT'L: Awaits Hearing Results in Stockholders' Suit
HORIZON BLUE: Appellate Court Approves Class Action Settlement

INDEPENDENT BANK: Faces Suit Over Proposed Merger With Central
MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition-Related Suit
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $10 Million
MURPHY OIL: Faces Overtime Class Action in North Carolina
PEREGRINE FINANCIAL:  Another Investor Files Class Action

PRUCO LIFE: Appeal From Dismissal of "Phillips" Suit Pending
SONY CORP: Class Suits Alleging Antitrust Law Violations Pending
SONY CORP: Defends Suits Over 2011 Cyber-Attack on Units' Sites
STARR RESTAURANTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Florida
STATE FARM: Judge Dismisses Car Parts Antitrust Class Action

SYNGENTA CROP: Awaits Oct. 22 Atrazine Settlement Fairness Hearing
THOMAS M. COOLEY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Job Stats
THOMAS M. COOLEY: Fraud Class Suit vs. 12 Schools Still Pending
UNION PACIFIC: Defendant Railroads Appeal Order Certifying Class
UNITED LIFE: Settles Consumer Fraud Lawsuit for $900,000


                          *********

ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Trial for Weekend Arrest Class Action Likely
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca S. Green, writing for The Journal Gazette, reports that
while Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries has admitted the jail's old
weekend arrest system violated inmates' constitutional rights, a
federal case arising from the issue appears to be headed for
trial.

Filed in February 2010 by LeTasha Myatt, the class-action case
alleges Mr. Fries violated her Fourth Amendment rights when she
was arrested in September 2009.  She alleged Mr. Fries' policies
violated the rights of all those arrested without warrants on the
weekends and held more than 48 hours without having a judge review
the cases.

The 48-hour time limit was set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991.

Weeks after the case was filed, Mr. Fries and Allen County
Superior Court changed the jail's policies, bringing in criminal
division judges and magistrates, as well as Circuit Court Judge
Tom Felts, on a rotating schedule of Saturdays to review cases
brought in on Friday nights.

In court documents filed in the case, Mr. Fries admitted the
jail's earlier policies violated inmates' Fourth Amendment rights
guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures.  He also
admitted the change in policy was in direct response to the
lawsuit filed by Myatt.

By January 2011, both sides were ironing out how much the
violations would cost the county as they determined who made up
the lawsuit's class of plaintiffs -- which was anyone arrested
without a warrant between Feb. 29, 2008, and March 20, 2010, as
well as anyone caught up in court holidays during that period.

The Allen County Sheriff's Department was to pay for notifying the
class members, according to court records.  The deadline for class
members to submit claims was last September, according to court
documents.

Depositions of some of the class members were scheduled for this
spring, and a mediation session was scheduled between the two
parties before mediator John W. Whiteleather in June.

But on June 26, Mr. Whiteleather filed a letter with the court
saying that the two sides were so far apart, they were unable to
reach a settlement.

"Frankly, the difference between the ending position of the
parties was quite significant," he wrote.

In a report to the court filed last week, Ms. Myatt's attorneys
wrote that both sides were so far apart, "the case needs to be set
for trial and will probably proceed in that direction," according
to court documents.

Ms. Myatt's attorneys argue that the class members are entitled
not just to compensatory "loss of wages"-type damages but also to
compensatory damages for "loss of liberty," according to court
documents.

Similar cases were filed by Ms. Myatt's attorneys at the time
against the LaGrange County Sheriff's Department and the Whitley
County Sheriff's Department.  Those lawsuits are still pending.


AMYLIN PHARMA: Being Sold to Bristol-Myers for Too Little
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Amylin Pharmaceuticals is
selling itself too cheaply to Bristol-Myers Squibb, for $5.3
billion or $31 a share, according to a shareholders class action
in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Halberstam v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01787 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/23/DrugMerger.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1516 South Bundy Drive, Suite 309
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Richard Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025


APPLE INC: Consumers Face Long Wait for $52MM Tied to E-book Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for paidContent.org, reports that a
group of more than thirty states have bagged $52 million from
publishers as part of a price fixing investigation involving
Apple.  More money is on the way.  While state leaders say the
money is for overcharged consumers, legal and antirust experts say
the arrangement is unusual.

The tens of millions at stake raise questions about the political
and business motives behind the deal, and could provide more
fodder for critics who question government decisions in the high-
profile e-book case.

This investigation offers a closer look at the case's many moving
parts and, in the last section, an estimate of when (or if) any of
the money will make it to e-book readers themselves.

The conspiracy case is bitter and complicated but, at its heart,
turns on whether Apple and five publishers broke antitrust laws by
introducing a commission-style pricing system for e-books in early
2010.  The new pricing system was a response to Amazon selling
e-books below cost.

The publishers' Apple partnership soon touched off a wave of class
action lawsuits over alleged price-fixing as well as
investigations by the Justice Department and state governments.
The controversy crested this spring when the Justice Department
formally sued Apple and five publishers for violating the Sherman
Act.

Three of the publishers promptly settled and agreed to change
their pricing policies but Apple and two other publishers, Penguin
and MacMillan, are fighting the case in court.  The court
proceedings (including the settlement talks) are a sprawling
affair scheduled to take years.  The case has become especially
complicated, however, due to the overlapping roles of the Justice
Department, the state governments and the class action lawyers.

The Justice Department, you see, is only asking Apple and the
publishers to change their pricing -- not to pay out any money.
It is the state governments and the lawyers who are after cash.
They have competing lawsuits to shake civil damages out of Apple
and the publishers.

While class action lawsuits are commonplace, the one filed by the
state governments is not.  The states' case is based on a power
called parens patriae ("parent of the nation") that lets them sue
on behalf of their citizens.

Connecticut and Texas initiated the civil lawsuit in April and
more than thirty other states and Puerto Rico since decided to tag
along.  The dozen or so states sitting it out are mostly in the
west.  Their attorneys general have not joined in because state
laws require the governor or legislature's permission to do so or,
possibly, because they disagree with the lawsuit.

For the states that are taking part, the initial lawsuit paid
immediate dividends.  In April, the Connecticut attorney general
held up a trophy in the form of a $52 million settlement with
publishers Hachette and Harper Collins which will be used to pay
"consumer restitution."  A third publisher, Simon & Schuster,
settled soon after.  The details of the Simon & Schuster deal have
yet to be released but, if it's consistent with the previous
settlements, that publisher will also pay tens of millions.

If Connecticut's prize was an immediate win for the states, it was
a direct loss for the class action lawyers.  These lawyers, who
filed dozens of cases on behalf of Americans across the country,
will not be able to collect if the defendants have already paid
once to the state governments. (Right now, the class action
lawyers still have a hope of collecting from Apple and the two
holdout publishers -- unless they too decide to settle with the
states).

Steve Berman, a prominent lawyer who is leading the class action
suit, argues that the states' deal will ultimately shortchange
consumers.  He said via e-mail:

"If you were a defendant would you want to negotiate with the law
firm that was a lead counsel in the largest settlement in history
(tobacco) . . . or would you prefer to negotiate with some
relatively young and inexperienced assistant attorneys general?
That's an easy one, and we are disappointed the attorneys general
took the bait."

Parens patriae suits have been around forever but are still quite
rare.  The most prominent ones involve mass torts related to
pollution or industry.

In the case of something like overpriced e-books, Mr. Berman says
the job is better left to class action lawyers like him who have
experience grinding the most money out of big companies like Apple
and the publishers.  So why did the states decide to file a parens
patriae case in the first place?

"The reason the state is stepping in is it's great politically for
the attorney general," says Daniel Gifford, an anti-trust
professor at the University of Minnesota, who adds that he has
"never seen anything like [the e-book suit] before."

Connecticut's ambitious former attorney general, Richard
Blumenthal, was the impetus for the state investigations.  He
announced an investigation in mid-2010 when e-book pricing was a
big news issue even though the Justice Department appears to have
been investigating the situation at the same time.  Mr. Blumenthal
is now a US Senator and the mop-up work has fallen to his
successor and has also been taken-up by the attorneys general of
Texas and Ohio.

At the same time, the political winds are changing.  Last week, US
Senator Charles Schumer penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal
saying the New York publishers and Apple did nothing wrong, and
urging the Justice Department to back off before it smothers the
digital publishing industry. (At the state level, however, New
York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, signed onto the multi-
million dollar suit against the publishers.  Mr. Schneiderman's
office did not reply to questions about how the money would be
disbursed.)

The states' lawsuit may be politically driven and redundant (don't
forget there is the class action case too) but that doesn't
necessarily mean it's a bad idea.  The states may demand lower
legal fees than class action lawyers who typically collect 25
percent of the jackpot.  This could mean more money overall for
consumers.

The state governments could also bring a quicker end to the whole
process.  Bert Foer, the president of the American Antitrust
Institute, says the three publishers' motivations for settling
with the states was to "make this go away as soon as possible."

Mr. Foer, however, is skeptical about the state governments'
overall role in the process.  He says the class action system was
already poised to address any harm to consumers.  Mr. Foer adds
that the states will almost certainly take a cut of the settlement
to cover legal expenses, including outside lawyers, in the same
way as a class action law firm would do.

Even though two of the publishers have signed a settlement to pay
$52 million and a third (Simon & Schuster) is poised to top up
that amount, it's unlikely the money will flow to consumers
anytime soon.

Beth Farmer is a law professor at Penn State and a former attorney
with the New York attorney general's office where she worked on
antitrust cases.  She points out that the proposed $52 million
settlement still has to be approved by the court, that consumers
have to be notified and so on.  None of this is likely to happen
while the cases against Apple and the holdout publishers drag on.

"[Consumers] need complete information before they can make an
informed decision, I think, and mid-way through the case is
premature.  Also, the notice and claims process is going to be
complicated and it wouldn't be efficient for the states to do that
multiple times," said Ms. Farmer by e-mail.

For now, the states are scheduled to file for a preliminary
approval of the settlement with the three publishers in late
August.  That filing (if it is not delayed) will lead to a period
in which groups, including the class action lawyers, can file
objections.  Based on Ms. Farmer's comments and the fluid nature
of the larger case, it would be a surprise if Judge Denise Cote
gives a go-ahead.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department's case, which partially serves
as the linchpin of the other lawsuits, is taking on a chaotic
quality.  The department has already missed a deadline to publish
more than 800 comments filed in response to its proposed
settlement.  At the same time, political support for the
settlement may be weakening as figures like Senator Schumer weigh
in and as Justice Department staffers wait to find out if they
will have a new boss come November.

Finally, the retail market for e-books is rapidly evolving.  While
a grand conspiracy between Apple and publishers may once have
seemed a great threat to e-book buyers, some have suggested the
Justice Department should have targeted Amazon and its giant
market share instead.  Others argue that the market for digital
publishing is changing so rapidly that the government should
simply step back from attempting to regulate it all.

As for that $52 million, e-book readers should not hold their
collective breath about getting a $5 check anytime soon.  The
settlement money is tangled in a complicated political and legal
process that makes it unlikely payment will arrive in the next two
years -- if at all.


AUTOLIV INC: Faces 8 Class Suits Over Antitrust Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. is facing eight purported class action lawsuits
alleging antitrust law violations, according to the Company's July
20, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 6, 2012, the Company entered into a plea agreement with
the U.S. Department of Justice that was approved by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June
21, 2012.  Under the terms of the agreement, the Company pled
guilty to two counts of antitrust law violations involving a
Japanese subsidiary and paid a fine of $14.5 million in July 2012.
The DOJ will not otherwise prosecute Autoliv or any of its
subsidiaries or present or former directors, officers or employees
for the matters investigated.  Three employees in the sales
organization are excluded from the non-prosecution provision of
the agreement, but no decision has been communicated by the DOJ to
the Company regarding these employees.  The Company will continue
to cooperate with the DOJ in the DOJ's investigation of other
suppliers to the automotive vehicle industry.  The Company
previously accrued $14.5 million related to the DOJ investigation
in the first quarter 2012.

The Company is currently subject to civil litigation alleging
anti-competitive conduct.  Notably, the Company, several of its
subsidiaries and its competitors have been named as defendants in
a total of eight purported antitrust class actions in federal
courts in the United States.  The following cases were each filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan: Zirulnik v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., was filed on June 6,
2012, A1A Airport & Limousine Service, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. et
al. and Frank Cosenza v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. were each filed on
June 8, 2012, Meetesh Shah v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. was filed on
June 12, 2012, Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al. v.
Autoliv, Inc., et al. and Richard W. Keifer, Jr. v. Autoliv, Inc.
et al. were each filed on June 26, 2012, and Findlay Industries,
Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. was filed on July 12, 2012.  Melissa Barron
v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. was filed on July 11, 2012, in the
Northern District of California.  Additional related cases may be
filed in the future.

Plaintiffs in the cases allege generally that the defendants have
engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices of
occupant restraint systems or components thereof in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws and various unfair or deceptive
trade practice statutes.  Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and various purported classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of occupant restraint systems and purchasers or lessees
of vehicles in which such systems have been installed, injunctive
relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiffs in
these cases make allegations that extend significantly beyond the
plea.

The Company denies these overly broad allegations and intends to
actively defend itself against the same.  While it is probable
that the Company will experience a loss as a result of these
cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently
cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has
been recorded as of June 30, 2012.


CANADA: Suit vs. B.C. Medical Services Commission May Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Rusland, writing for Cowichan News Leader, reports that it's
not the money but the principle of providing health care for
everyone that matters most to Cowichan ER doctor Jim Halvorson.

The nine-year physician at Cowichan District Hospital received the
green light July 12 from B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Elaine
Adair for his class-action lawsuit to proceed against B.C.'s
Medical Services Commission.

A trial date hasn't been set, but Dr. Halverson's a patient guy --
he launched proceedings against the province in October 1998 on
behalf of himself and all other physicians treating B.C.
residents.

He seeks compensation for medical services rendered to B.C.
patients between July 23, 1992, to April 30, 1996 for which he
claims Victoria has refused to pay.

Dr. Halvorson estimates the total value of claims may exceed $100
million, including about $108,000 he reckons he's still owed for
treating hundreds of patients.

"Several weeks after you submitted your claim, they'd say 'This
person has not paid their premiums so we're not covering them.'

"I resubmitted (claims) to MSP and they denied payment again," he
said, while taking hay off his Quamichan Lake farm.  "This is an
administrative law argument."

He launched proceedings -- initially footing legal bills himself
-- against Victoria in October 1998.

Dr. Halvorson claims the province failed to uphold the concept of
universal medical care for all residents, a concept enshrined in
the Canada Health Act, and in B.C.'s Medicare Protection Act.

"The provincial government broke its own laws by placing this
burden on the backs of physicians," he says in a press release.

The July 19 statement from the Health Ministry's Kristy Anderson
to the News Leader Pictorial states: "The government has a
publicly funded health-care system that is available to all
British Columbians.  No-one will ever be denied essential medical
care in emergency situations.

"With respect to this case, the decision made on July 12 was at
the agreement of both parties," Ms. Anderson says.

"The parties agreed, at government's recommendation, to focus the
issue on the period from 1992-1996, and if during that period the
Medical Services Commission had the lawful authority to de-enrol
individuals from MSP."

Despite the court-approved period in question, affecting thousands
of physicians, Dr. Halvorson alleges Victoria may have been out of
compliance as far back as 1988.

The ministry declined further comment while the case is before the
courts.

Dr. Halvorson's landmark case is being handled by the law firm
Grant Kovaks Norell.  It's delaying its fees pending the case's
outcome.

"It is simply unfair," McGill Medical School grad Dr. Halverson
said, "that the province has received money from the federal
government to cover these individuals, then has refused to pay the
physicians who treated them.  We want to right that wrong with
this lawsuit."

Provincial internal documents, he says, estimate that, at times,
up to 363,000 eligible B.C. residents were not being insured by
MSP due to unpaid premiums.

Doctors nevertheless provided treatment to uninsured residents at
considerable personal cost, he says.

"As an ER doctor, if they have something wrong with them I'm
ethically bound to treat them.

"Funding was provided by the federal government to cover all B.C.
residents," he said.  "The government gave funds to hospitals, but
not to doctors if (patients) hadn't paid their premiums.  It
struck me this was unprincipled, and just wrong."

The decision of Justice Adair marks a long class-certification
process that started in 2000 before Madam Justice Wendy Baker.

Justice Baker's refusal to certify the case was overturned by the
Court of Appeal in 2003, his release says.

Class certification is a procedural requirement before the matter
can proceed to a hearing on its merits.

Dr. Halvorson is the class-representative plaintiff for all class
members.


CARGILL MEAT: Hannaford Stores Received Recalled Beef Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that Hannaford stores in Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire, New York and Vermont received ground beef products
that have been recalled by Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/kG0Zco, in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Continues to Defend ADA Violation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed by Maurizio Antoninetti in Southern
California, according to the Company's July 20, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In 2006, Maurizio Antoninetti filed a lawsuit against the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, primarily claiming that the height of the serving line
wall in the Company's restaurants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, or ADA, as well as California disability laws.
On December 6, 2006, Mr. Antoninetti filed an additional lawsuit
in the same court making the same allegations on a class action
basis, on behalf of himself and a purported class of disabled
individuals, and a similar class action was filed by James Perkins
in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 7, 2008.

In the individual Antoninetti action, the district court entered a
ruling in which it found that although the Company's counter
height violated the ADA, the Company provided the plaintiff with
an equivalent facilitation, and awarded attorney's fees and
minimal damages to the plaintiff which the Company has accrued.
The Company and the plaintiff appealed the district court's ruling
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on July
26, 2010, the appeals court entered a ruling finding that the
Company violated the ADA and did not provide the plaintiff with an
equivalent facilitation, and remanded the case to the district
court.  On March 21, 2012, the district court reaffirmed its
original award of minimal damages to the plaintiff and denied
further injunctive relief.

On July 18, 2012, the district court ordered a final judgment
awarding the plaintiff a portion of the attorney's fees and costs
originally sought.

The Company says it lowered the height of its serving line walls
throughout California some time ago, which makes injunctive relief
in these cases moot, and has the lower serving line walls in a
significant majority of its restaurants outside of California as
well.  The Company will vigorously defend the class action cases,
including by contesting certification of a plaintiff class.  It is
not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of,
or any additional potential liability from, these cases.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Employees' Suit Remanded to Appeals Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced on behalf of Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc.'s employees was remanded back to the appeals court for
reconsideration in light of a recent California Supreme Court
decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, according
to the Company's July 20, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
in California alleging violations of state laws regarding employee
record-keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and
related practices with respect to its employees.  The case
originally sought damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf
of a purported class of the Company's present and former
employees.  The court granted the Company's motion to deny
certification of the purported class, and the California Court of
Appeal affirmed that decision.  The Court of Appeal decision was
appealed to the California Supreme Court, which vacated the Court
of Appeal decision and remanded the case back to the Court of
Appeal for reconsideration in light of the California Supreme
Court's recent decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior
Court.

Due to the pending appeal and the uncertainties of litigation, the
Company says it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of, or any potential liability from, this
case.


CISCO: Class Action Lawyer to Appeal $2-Million Award to State
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Dickson, writing for Jacksonville.com, reports that a lawyer
in a class-action suit says he will ask the Georgia Supreme Court
to take up a lower court decision awarding $2 million-plus from
the estate of the late Fairley Cisco to the state rather than to
fuel customers Cisco cheated.

The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that Camden County Superior
Court Judge Anthony Harrison was correct in ruling that a $2.75
million settlement with Mr. Cisco's heirs was state property by
virtue of a civil racketeering suit the District Attorney's Office
filed in March 2008.  Cisco died of a heart attack April 8, 2010,
a month before he was to stand trial on fraud and bribery
conspiracy charges.

A month before the racketeering suit was filed, Brunswick lawyer
Nathan Williams and other lawyers filed a class-action suit in
U.S. District Court with six plaintiffs, including two trucking
companies.  One of them, trucker Jimmy Williams of Jacksonville,
told the Times-Union that he believes he was cheated out of
$10,000 over three years when he fueled up at Cisco for weekly
trips to Virginia.

The suit sought to recoup money that Mr. Cisco cheated from
customers at his stores off Interstate 95 by deliberately
calibrating his pumps to give customers less fuel than they paid
for.

The Georgia Agriculture Department shut down Mr. Cisco's truck
stop at Exit 1 and a truck stop and convenience store at Exit 6
Feb. 12, 2008, when inspectors found customers were shorted about
1 quart of fuel for every 5 gallons the pump gauges said was
dispensed.

"I'm sure in some form or fashion, it's not over," Mr. Williams
said on July 19 of the Court of Appeals ruling.

The ruling means whatever is left of the $2.75 million settlement
will go to government agencies rather than the fuel customers who
lost money, Mr. Williams said.  District Attorney Jackie Johnson
said on July 18 that thousands had been paid to customers with
claims, but Mr. Williams said there are many more.

He also decried the state's decision to not repay diesel customers
because there were no electronic records that the diesel pumps
were rigged.

Department of Agriculture inspectors said that they were, and
individual customers, truckers and others ought to have the
opportunity to go through their own records and file claims,
Mr. Williams said.

Also, the state had fewer requirements under the civil
racketeering suit to find customers, Mr. Williams said.  Under the
federal court rules, there must be advertising in a national
newspaper and other attempts to inform possible plaintiffs of the
class-action suit, he said.

Ms. Johnson, who argued the case this year before the Court of
Appeals, said the lawyers in the class action suit hadn't done
enough to find customers who lost money.

Mr. Williams said he and the other lawyers had to wait to see what
the outcome of the racketeering suit would be and the state had
seized all the assets.

Ms. Johnson said it would be up to Harrison to disperse the
remaining funds to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the
District Attorney's Office, the Kingsland police, Camden County
and others.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Unit Still Defends Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Holdings Corporation's subsidiary continues to defend
itself from a class action complaint alleging violation of
consumer finance laws, according to the Company's May 10, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

CompuCredit Corporation and five of its other subsidiaries are
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit entitled Knox, et
al., vs. First Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5-CV-0445, filed
in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, on
February 8, 2005. The plaintiffs allege that in conducting a so-
called "payday lending" business, certain subsidiaries within the
Company's Retail Micro-Loans segment (the operations of which were
sold in October 2011, subject to the Company's retention of
liability for this litigation) violated various laws governing
consumer finance, lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan
brokering. The plaintiffs further allege that CompuCredit
Corporation was the alter ego of the subsidiaries and is liable
for their actions. The plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to
$75,000 per class member, and attorney's fees. These claims are
similar to those that have been asserted against several other
market participants in transactions involving small-balance,
short-term loans made to consumers in North Carolina.  On January
23, 2012, among other orders, the trial court denied the
defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company is
vigorously defending this lawsuit.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, CompuCredit Holdings Corporation --
http://www.compucredit.com/ -- provides credit and related
financial services and products to underserved consumer credit
market in the United States. The Company contracts with third-
party financial institutions to purchase the receivables relating
general purpose consumer credit cards issued by financial
institutions on a daily basis.  It was founded in 1996.


COMPUCREDIT HOLDINGS: Arbitration Ordered in Visa-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted on March 5, 2012, CompuCredit Corporation's motion to
compel arbitration of individual claims under the Unfair
Competition Law, in a class action complaint relating to the
marketing of Aspire Visa card, according to the Company's May 10,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

CompuCredit Corporation is named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit entitled Wanda Greenwood, et al. vs. CompuCredit
Corporation and Columbus Bank and Trust, No. 4:08-cv-4878, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The plaintiffs allege that in marketing and managing
the Aspire Visa card the defendants violated the federal Credit
Repair Organizations Act and California Unfair Competition Law.
The class includes all persons who within the four years prior to
the filing of the lawsuit were issued an Aspire Visa card or paid
money with respect thereto.  The plaintiffs seek various forms of
damage, including unspecified monetary damages and the voiding of
the plaintiffs' obligations. On January 10, 2012, the U.S. Supreme
Court ordered that the claims related to the Credit Repair
Organizations Act are subject to arbitration.  On March 5, 2012,
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration of the
individual claims under the Unfair Competition Law, so all claims
are now ordered to be arbitrated on an individual basis.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, CompuCredit Holdings Corporation --
http://www.compucredit.com/ -- provides credit and related
financial services and products to underserved consumer credit
market in the United States. The Company contracts with third-
party financial institutions to purchase the receivables relating
general purpose consumer credit cards issued by financial
institutions on a daily basis.  It was founded in 1996.


DEER CONSUMER: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deer Consumer Products, Inc., continues to await a court ruling on
its motion to dismiss a purported securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On April 29, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 31, 2009, and March 21, 2011, James Rose v. Deer Consumer
Products, Inc. et al, was filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. The court has not
yet certified the class action status. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as
well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the Section
20(a) control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The factual
assertions in the complaint, based expressly on the published
statements at issue in the lawsuit captioned Deer Consumer
Products, Inc. v. Alfred Little, et al., Index No. 650823/2011,
consist primarily of allegations that the defendants made
materially false or misleading public statements concerning the
Company's financial condition in 2010 and 2009. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating to the
purported inflation in the price of the Company's common stock
during the class period. A consolidated amended complaint was
filed on September 6, 2011, with essentially the same allegations.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which motion is
fully briefed and has been taken under submission by the Court.
The Company strongly denies the allegations in the complaint. The
Company believes this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit and
will contest it vigorously. The Company plans to pursue all legal
remedies available to it if the complaint is not withdrawn in its
entirety.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing.

Deer Consumer Products, Inc. -- http://deerinc.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, engages in the design, manufacture, and sale of
small home and kitchen electronic appliances. It also operates as
an original design manufacturer and original equipment
manufacturer. The Company was formerly known as Tag Events Corp.
and changed its name to Deer Consumer Products, Inc. in September
2008.  The Company is based in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of
China.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Class Action Over License Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Fogel, writing for Venture Beat, reports that attorneys
have reached a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit
against video game publisher Electronic Arts.  The suit claims the
gaming giant violated antitrust and consumer protection laws, and
overcharged consumers for its football titles.

Originally filed in 2008, the case alleges that EA violated
antitrust and consumer protection laws by establishing exclusive
license agreements with the National Football League (NFL), the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the Arena
Football League (AFL).  The agreements gave EA the right to
produce football games using teams, players, and other assets from
the three organizations.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, EA has to set up a $27
million fund for consumers who bought Madden NFL, NCAA Football,
or AFL titles.  It also can't sign an exclusive license agreement
with the AFL for five years, and can't renew its current agreement
with the NCAA (which expires in 2014) for at least five years as
well.

Without those exclusive agreements, could EA potentially lose the
AFL and NCAA franchises to another publisher? Wedbush Securities
analyst Michael Pachter thinks it's unlikely.  "Take-Two
Interactive was burned by Major League Baseball, and only Konami
and Take-Two make sports games (soccer and NBA, respectively),"
Mr. Pachter tells GamesBeat via e-mail.  "Nobody wants to compete
with [Electronic Arts]."

The proposed settlement still needs approval by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California before it's
final.


EXETER HOSPITAL: Hepatitis C Outbreak Suspect Arrested
------------------------------------------------------
Joey Cresta, writing for Seacoastonline.com, reports that an
attorney representing 90 individuals in a potential class-action
lawsuit against Exeter Hospital said the arrest of a suspect is
good news for those infected during the recent hepatitis C
outbreak.

David M. Kwiatkowski, 32, a former Exeter Hospital technician who
has hepatitis C, is charged with taking and abusing controlled
substances using syringes that were then used in the treatment of
patients at the hospital.

"I think it's one step closer to the end, although it's only one
step in a marathon," attorney Peter McGrath of Concord said.

Mr. McGrath said, because federal prosecutors are involved, the
criminal case should move more quickly toward resolution.  The
criminal case will also help him with the civil litigation by
providing him with a plethora of information he will use in
representing his clients, he said.

"They do a lot of our work for us," he said of the federal
prosecutors.

The hepatitis C outbreak has spurred two dozen lawsuits, including
the possible class-action suit.  Mr. McGrath's suit alleges
negligent supervision on the part of Exeter Hospital and involves
roughly 30 people who still do not know whether they have
hepatitis C and another 30 or 40 who do not have the virus but are
still suffering, Mr. McGrath said.

"Even (those who tested negative) are enduring a lot of pain and
suffering," he said.

The hospital has until Aug. 7 to answer the complaint Mr. McGrath
filed and a hearing will likely take place in Rockingham Superior
Court sometime in September, he said.


FACEBOOK INC: Appeals Court to Decide on Click Marketers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that a federal
appellate court agreed last week to decide whether two pay-per-
click marketers who are suing Facebook should be allowed to
proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the social networking
service.

The marketers -- Fox Test Prep and Steven Price, who operates the
car site DriveDownPrices.com -- are seeking to overturn U.S.
District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton's decision that the
marketers aren't entitled to class-action status.  Judge Hamilton,
a judge in the Northern District of California, ruled in April
that the marketers hadn't shown that "common questions
predominate" -- a necessary condition for class-actions.  Her
ruling allows the marketers to proceed individually, but doing so
tends to be prohibitively expensive for small companies.

Federal appellate courts don't appear to have previously ruled on
whether pay-per-click marketers can bring class-actions stemming
from alleged overcharging.

Several trial judges have confronted that question, but have
reached different conclusions.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the
Northern District of California ruled that search marketers that
sued Google about ads on parked domains and error pages -- which
people tend to visit after mistyping a URL -- were not entitled to
class-action status.  Judge Davila said in his ruling that class-
action status wasn't appropriate because the marketers' cases
required individualized evaluation.

But in 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder in the
Central District of California allowed pay-per-click marketers to
proceed in a click fraud lawsuit against IAC's Citysearch.  That
case was settled last year, according to court records.

The lawsuit against Facebook dates to 2009, when Price, Fox Test
and other pay-per-click marketers sued the social networking
service for allegedly charging them for invalid clicks.  Two years
ago, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, Calif.,
decided that Facebook's contract with marketers disclaimed
liability for clicks that were "fraudulent" in the sense that the
clicker had dubious intentions.

But Judge Fogel ruled that the disclaimer didn't apply to clicks
that were "invalid" -- such as when technical problems prevented
users from reaching a landing page.

In her ruling denying class-certification, Judge Hamilton said
that the marketers hadn't shown a "uniform method for
distinguishing, on a classwide basis, between 'invalid' clicks and
'fraudulent' clicks."

In May, the marketers asked the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal Judge Hamilton's order.


FLOYD COUNTY, GA: To Pursue Class Action Over Transfer Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Wagner, writing for Rome News-Tribune, reports that Floyd
County is going after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for real estate
transfer taxes the federally backed mortgage companies contend
they don't have to pay.

The County Commission approved a representation agreement with law
firm Pierce-Gabriel Partners LLC of Alpharetta following a closed
meeting on July 19.

A suit seeking class action status could be filed shortly in
federal court, according to County Attorney Tommy Manning, who is
listed as one of the co-counsels in the action.  The action could
potentially involve all 159 counties in the state.

"This has been stirring for several years," Superior Court Clerk
Barbara Penson said.  "When these cases were fought and won in
Michigan and Nevada, it sort of woke everyone up across the
country."

At issue is the real estate transfer tax paid whenever property is
sold.  In Georgia, the rate is $1 for every $1,000 of the sales
price.

Illinois, with essentially the same tax rate, and Florida, at $7
per $1,000, are among other states where claims are under way
against the Federal Home Mortgage Co. (Freddie Mac) and the
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae).

"Under the thinking that they are government lending agencies,
they've been exempt from paying the transfer tax," Ms. Penson
said.  "But they're not federal.  They're privately owned mortgage
companies like Chase and the others."

Daniel Massey, Superior Court clerk for Chatham County in
Savannah, took the lead in a similar class-action suit filed
earlier this month.  Ms. Penson said she's also been approached by
other firms.

The Pierce-Gabriel agreement is on a contingency basis: The firm
will be paid out of any recovered funds.  Ms. Penson said it's too
early to say how much money is involved.

"It will take mounds of research," she said.  "This dates back to
at least 2003, and potentially longer than that.  But at $1 per
$1,000, the transfer tax on one $220,000 house would be $220."

In addition to Manning and Andrew Garner in Rome, law firms in
Chicago, Dallas and Enid, Okla., also are associated with Pierce-
Gabriel as co-counsels in the action.


FORBES REGIONAL: Found Negligent by Court in Colonoscope Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy McConnell Schaarsmith, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
reports that after deliberating for less than an hour, a jury in
Allegheny County Common Pleas Court has decided that Forbes
Regional Hospital in Monroeville was negligent in failing to
properly clean and sterilize colonoscopes used on more than 225
patients in 2004 and 2005.

The decision in the class-action lawsuit, which also names Forbes'
parent corporation, West Penn Allegheny Health System, as a
defendant was reached on July 19 before Senior Judge R. Stanton
Wettick Jr.  It sets the stage for individual jury trials to
decide what, if any, damages should be awarded to those patients
for their pain and suffering, inconvenience and "loss of life's
pleasures," said David Paul, one of the attorneys who tried the
case.

Most of his clients will never again be able to enter a hospital
or a doctor's office and feel completely comfortable, he said.
"It's the mental anguish of realizing over and over again that you
were subjected to a colonoscopy with a dirty scope," Mr. Paul
said. "There's a psychic harm to realizing you will never again
trust another hospital."

Dan Laurent, spokesman for the West Penn system, declined to
comment on the decision.

After discovering the errors, Forbes Regional's CEO urged affected
patients to be tested for bloodborne communicable diseases despite
the low risk of contracting them, then undergo a second round of
testing six months later.  The hospital paid for the tests.
None of the patients contracted a disease as a result of their
exposure.

In February 2003, the manufacturer of Forbes Regional's
colonoscopes, Olympus America, sent the hospital's recall officer
a warning that some models contained an auxiliary water channel
that needed to be cleaned and sterilized with special equipment
from the manufacturer to protect patient safety.  The recall
officer sent the warning to the head nurse in charge of the
hospital's gastrointestinal lab, asking if the hospital was using
those scopes, but it was not.


HARLEQUIN ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Harlequin
Books cheats its 1,000 romance writers of royalties by using a
bogus "licensing" agreement with its own Swiss subsidiary tax
havens, three romance novelists claim in a federal class action.

The lead plaintiffs are Barbara Keiler, author of "Blooming All
Over" and "Right Place, Wrong Time"; Mona Gay Thomas, author of
"The Heart's Desire" and "His Secret Duchess"; and Linda Barrett,
who wrote "Love, Money and Amanda Shaw" and "Apple Orchard."

Harlequin, the world's largest publisher of romance novels,
releases more than 110 titles a month in 34 languages, in 114
international markets on six continents, according to the
complaint.  Its stable includes more than 1,200 authors, the
plaintiffs say.

According to the complaint, Harlequin Enterprises set up two Swiss
subsidiaries, co-defendants Harlequin Books S.A. and Harlequin
Enterprises B.V., "for tax purposes," even though these companies
have no publishing functions.

S.A. and B.V. are both foreign language equivalents of Inc. The
complaint refers to Harlequin Books and Enterprises, together, as
Harlequin Switzerland.

"This action concerns publishing agreements entered into from 1990
to 2004 between plaintiffs and the other class members and
Harlequin Switzerland," the complaint states.

"Although defendant Harlequin Enterprises has at all times been
the publisher of Harlequin books, and defendant Harlequin
Switzerland does not perform any publishing functions, for tax
reasons Harlequin Enterprises required the plaintiffs to enter
into the publishing agreements, which it drafted, with Harlequin
Switzerland as the 'publisher.'  Harlequin Switzerland's sole role
was to sign the publishing agreements prepared by Harlequin
Enterprises and then to send out royalty statements and payments
in its name.  Plaintiffs at all times dealt with Harlequin
Enterprises as the publisher of their works.

"The 1990-2004 standard form publishing agreements provided that
the plaintiffs were to be paid 50% of the net receipts of the
'publisher from the exercise, sale, or license of digital rights
to their works.  Since Harlequin Enterprises is, and has always
been, the 'publisher,' and its net receipts amount to at least 50%
of the cover price of the e-books, plaintiffs are entitled to
receive 50% of those net receipts.

"Harlequin Enterprises has nonetheless claimed that it had to
obtain a 'license' from Harlequin Switzerland to publish
plaintiffs' e-books.  Harlequin Enterprises has claimed that
plaintiffs' 50% royalty should therefore be based on the net
receipts of Harlequin Switzerland from this 'license,' which
amounts to only 6% to 8% of the e-books' cover price."

The authors say the publishing agreements gave Harlequin
Switzerland the "sole and exclusive right to execute, sell,
license or sublicense" copyrights.

"Although the publishing agreements named Harlequin Switzerland as
the 'publisher,' at no relevant time has Harlequin Switzerland
performed any traditional publishing functions," the complaint
states.

Nevertheless, the authors claim, this agreement allowed the
Toronto-based parent company to slice away the bulk of their
promised 50 percent royalty.

"In 2011, Harlequin Enterprises sent written communications to
plaintiffs and the other class members in which it took the
position that royalties for e-books were covered by the AOR [All
Other Rights] Clause in the Publishing Agreements and that the
authors' 50% royalty was to be calculated based on the net amount
received by Harlequin Switzerland, from a 'license' that Harlequin
Enterprises claims Harlequin Switzerland granted to it to publish
the e-books," the complaint states.  "Harlequin Enterprises
claimed in those communications that the net amount received by
Harlequin Switzerland was 6% to 8% of the cover price of the e-
books, and that the royalties owed to plaintiffs and to other
class members were therefore 50% of that amount, or 3% to 4% of
the cover price.

"Under the publishing agreements, defendants have been paying
plaintiffs and the other class members e-book royalties of 3% to
4% of the cover price based on the net amount received by
Harlequin Switzerland from the claimed 'license' granted to
Harlequin Enterprises, far less than what plaintiffs and the other
class members would have been paid if their royalties were based,
as they should have been, on the net amount received by Harlequin
Enterprises."

The writers seek damages for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

They are represented by David Wolf of New York City and Michael
Boni, with Boni & Zack, of Bala Cynwyd, Pa.


HEARTWARE INT'L: Awaits Hearing Results in Stockholders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
HeartWare International, Inc., is awaiting results of the
July 25, 2012 hearing to consider final approval of a settlement
agreement resolving a stockholder class action complaint filed
against the Company, according to HeartWare's May 10, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On June 27, 2011, HeartWare International, Inc. and HeartWare,
Inc., along with HeartWare's directors, certain officers and a
significant stockholder, were named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts state court by two
other Series A Preferred Stockholders on behalf of all holders of
Series A Preferred Stock.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary and contractual obligations to
Series A Preferred Stockholders by preventing them from receiving
a payment of the liquidation preference in connection with certain
corporate transactions, including a transaction in 2005 in which
HeartWare, Inc. was acquired by HeartWare Limited, a subsidiary of
HeartWare International, Inc.  The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, interest, costs and limited equitable relief.  The
Company does not believe that it, its subsidiaries or any of its
directors, officers or stockholders have abrogated the rights, or
in any way failed to satisfy obligations owed to, any of its
stockholders, including holders of Series A Preferred Stock.  On
September 12, 2011, the defendants served on plaintiffs a motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

On February 3, 2012, counsel for plaintiffs and defendants entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the matter.
Defendants have agreed to pay up to $1.1 million to participating
putative class members in exchange for a full and unconditional
release of all claims asserted in the litigation, including any
and all claims arising from any right to receive a payment upon
any liquidation or deemed liquidation event that has arisen or may
arise in the future.  The Company expects insurance to fund a
significant portion of the settlement amount, although coverage is
not assured.

On March 22, 2012, the parties filed with the court a stipulation
of settlement formalizing the settlement agreement.  The court had
scheduled a hearing to be held on July 25, 2012 to consider final
approval of the settlement following notice to putative class
members.

HeartWare International, Inc. -- http://www.heartware.com.au-- a
medical device company, develops and manufactures miniaturized
implantable heart pumps or ventricular assist devices (VAD) for
the treatment of advanced heart failure in the United States and
internationally.  The Company offers HeartWare Ventricular Assist
System, which includes a VAD, or blood pump, patient accessories,
and surgical tools designed to provide circulatory support for
patients in the advanced stage of heart failure.  It is also
developing the MVAD, a miniaturized blood pump, intended for
chronic heart failure patients.  The Company is headquartered in
Framingham, Massachusetts.


HORIZON BLUE: Appellate Court Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a settlement against Horizon
Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey over delayed payments to
doctors has won appellate court approval.  Objectors had
challenged the deal, which includes $4.7 million in legal fees and
costs, because it paid nothing to the class of more than 18,000
doctors and arguably too much to the firm that brought the suit.


INDEPENDENT BANK: Faces Suit Over Proposed Merger With Central
--------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit arising
from its proposed merger with Central Bancorp, Inc., according to
the Company's July 20, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 20, 2012, Independent Bank Corp. (NASDAQ: INDB)
("Independent"), parent of Rockland Trust Company, and Central
Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: CEBK) ("Central"), parent of Central Bank,
issued a joint press release reporting that Independent and
Central had become aware of the filing of a complaint on July 17,
2012, in Superior Court in Middlesex County, Massachusetts,
against Central Bancorp, Inc., each of the directors of Central
Bancorp, Inc., and Independent Bank Corp., which purports to be a
class action filed on behalf of the holders of Central common
stock in connection with the previously announced proposed merger
of Central with and into Independent (the "Merger").

Independent and Central believe the factual allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intend to defend vigorously
against the allegations in the complaint.

                  About Independent Bank Corp.

Independent, which has Rockland Trust Company as its wholly-owned
commercial bank subsidiary, has approximately $5.1 billion in
assets.  Rockland Trust offers a wide range of commercial banking
products and services, retail banking products and services,
business and consumer loans, insurance products and services, and
investment management services.  To find out why Rockland Trust is
the bank "Where Each Relationship Matters(R)", visit
http://www.RocklandTrust.com/.

                  About Central Bancorp., Inc.

Central is the holding company for Central Bank, whose legal name
is Central Co-Operative Bank and which was founded in 1915 as a
Massachusetts chartered co-operative bank to provide savings
deposits and originate mortgage loans.  Central Bank is a full-
service community banking operation that provides a variety of
deposit and lending services -- including savings and checking
accounts for retail and business customers, mortgage loans for
constructing, purchasing and refinancing residential and
commercial properties, and loans for education, home improvement
and other purposes.  Central Bank operates nine full-service
offices in the Massachusetts communities of Somerville, Arlington,
Burlington, Chestnut Hill, Malden, Medford, Melrose, and Woburn
(two branches).


MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle three putative class action lawsuits arising from the
proposed acquisition of MEDTOX by Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings, according to the Company's
July 20, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. has 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.  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 (the "Ramsey County Court") 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.

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

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, MEDTOX has provided supplemental
disclosures to the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A
filed by MEDTOX with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with its special stockholders meeting to be held on
July 31, 2012.

                Litigation Related to the Merger

The Company signed an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
June 3, 2012, with Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, a
Delaware corporation, and Mercer Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of LabCorp.

On June 6, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company and its directors in the District Court,
Second Judicial District, Ramsey County, of the State of Minnesota
("Ramsey County Court").  The lawsuit is captioned John Siciliano
v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. et al.  In the lawsuit, plaintiff
alleges generally that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction by, among
other things, carrying out an unfair process and agreeing to a
transaction that was unfair to the Company's stockholders and that
the Company aided and abetted its directors' breach of fiduciary
duty.  Plaintiff purports to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the
public stockholders of the Company and seeks equitable relief to
enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and
fees and costs, among other relief.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit.

On June 12, 2012, a second putative class action lawsuit was
commenced against the Company, its directors, LabCorp and Merger
Sub in Ramsey County Court.  The lawsuit is captioned Carol A.
Kiel v. Richard Braun et al.  In the lawsuit, plaintiff alleges
generally that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the transaction by, among other things,
agreeing to a transaction that was unfair to the Company's
stockholders, that provisions of the merger agreement unlawfully
preclude the Company's directors from further soliciting potential
buyers and that the Company, LabCorp and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the Company's directors' breach of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiff purports to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company and seeks equitable relief to enjoin
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or
awarding rescissory damages, damages and fees and costs, among
other relief.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit.

On June 21, 2012, a third putative class action lawsuit was
commenced against the Company, its directors, LabCorp and Merger
Sub in Ramsey County Court.  The lawsuit is captioned Louis
Perlman v. Medtox Scientific, Inc. et al.  In the lawsuit,
plaintiff alleges generally that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction by,
among other things, agreeing to a transaction that was unfair to
the Company's stockholders, that provisions of the merger
agreement unlawfully preclude the Company's directors from further
soliciting potential buyers and that the Company, LabCorp and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company's directors' breach of
fiduciary duties.  Plaintiff purports to bring the lawsuit on
behalf of the public stockholders of the Company and seeks
equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission
of the merger and/or awarding rescissory damages, damages and fees
and costs, among other relief.  The Plaintiff was a director of
the Company from July 1996 through September 1998.  The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit.

On June 26, 2012, each of the plaintiffs in the actions filed a
joint motion in Ramsey County Court to (i) consolidate the three
foregoing actions and all later-filed actions filed in the same
court arising out of the same facts and circumstances, (ii)
appoint plaintiffs Perlman, Siciliano and Kiel as lead plaintiffs
in the consolidated action and (iii) appoint plaintiffs' counsel
in the initial actions in various capacities as lead counsel,
members of an executive committee and as liaison counsel in the
consolidated action.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

On July 6, 2012, the plaintiffs in the action filed a single
amended complaint.  The allegations in the complaint were similar
to those included in the previously filed complaints, but the
plaintiffs also alleged the Definitive Proxy Statement omitted and
misrepresented certain information regarding the third party
solicitation process, data and inputs regarding financial
valuation exercises and certain matters regarding the financial
projections.

On July 19, 2012, counsel for the parties in the actions (the
"Minnesota Litigation") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the
Minnesota litigation, which includes the supplementation of the
Definitive Proxy Statement that this Supplement constitutes and
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the
defendants in the Minnesota Litigation.  The proposed settlement
is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an
appropriate stipulation of settlement and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the Ramsey County Court.  Counsel for the
named plaintiffs in all of these actions have agreed to stay the
actions pending consideration of final approval of the settlement
in the Ramsey County Court.  Assuming such approval, the named
plaintiffs in all actions would dismiss their respective lawsuits
with prejudice against all defendants.

In connection with the settlement agreed upon in the MOU, the
parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.  The
Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Ramsey County Court will approve the settlement as stipulated by
the parties.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.  The settlement will
not affect the amount of the merger consideration that MEDTOX
stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger, or modify any
other terms of the merger agreement.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the lawsuits and specifically deny that any
further supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law.  Plaintiffs disagree.  Because
it will eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense
of further litigation and will permit the merger to proceed
without risk of injunctive or other relief, the defendants have
agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement, which includes
making the supplemental disclosures.

                         About MEDTOX(R)

MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, is
a provider of high quality specialized laboratory testing services
and on-site/point-of-collection testing (POCT) devices.  The
Company also supports customers with complete logistics, data and
program management services.  MEDTOX is a leader in providing
esoteric laboratory testing services to hospitals and laboratories
nationwide.  This includes both central laboratory and bio-
analytical testing for pharmaceutical clinical trials.  MEDTOX
develops and manufactures diagnostic devices for quick and
economical on-site/point-of-collection analysis for drugs-of-abuse
and therapeutic drugs, and provides employment drug screening and
occupational health testing.  For more information see
http://www.medtox.com/

                        About LabCorp(R)

Laboratory Corporation of America(R) Holdings, an S&P 500 company,
is a pioneer in commercializing new diagnostic technologies and
the first in its industry to embrace genomic testing.  With annual
revenues of $5.5 billion in 2011, over 31,000 employees worldwide,
and more than 220,000 clients, LabCorp offers more than 4,000
tests ranging from routine blood analyses to reproductive genetics
to companion diagnostics.  LabCorp furthers its scientific
expertise and innovative clinical testing technology through its
LabCorp Specialty Testing Group:  The Center for Molecular Biology
and Pathology, National Genetics Institute, ViroMed Laboratories,
Inc., The Center for Esoteric Testing, Litholink Corporation,
Integrated Genetics, Integrated Oncology, DIANON Systems, Inc.,
Monogram Biosciences, Inc., Colorado Coagulation, and Endocrine
Sciences.  LabCorp conducts clinical trials testing through its
LabCorp Clinical Trials division.  LabCorp clients include
physicians, government agencies, managed care organizations,
hospitals, clinical labs, and pharmaceutical companies.  For more
information see http://www.labcorp.com/


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Settles Shareholder Litigation for $10 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. disclosed in its July 20, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
it settled for $10 million a shareholder litigation pending in
Delaware.

On July 20, 2012, the parties applied for preliminary approval of
a proposed settlement of the purported class action and
shareholders' derivative complaints pending against MoneyGram
International, Inc. (the "Company"), Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P.
("THL"), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. ("Goldman") and each of the
Company's directors captioned In re MoneyGram International, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6387-VCL (the "Action").  The
terms of the proposed settlement are set forth in a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement entered into on July
19, 2012, and are subject to preliminary and final approval by the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court").

The Stipulation provides for a settlement payment of $10.0
million, to be distributed pro rata to certain shareholders, net
of any attorneys' fees awarded by the Court.  The Company, THL,
Goldman, the Company's directors and other parties have agreed to
share financial responsibility for funding the settlement payment
as follows: (i) the Company will contribute $3.5 million; (ii) the
Company's insurer will contribute $2.75 million under the
Company's director and officer liability policy; (iii) THL and the
individuals nominated by THL as directors of the Company (the "THL
Directors") will waive all future rights to receive cash or equity
compensation from the Company for services by the THL Directors or
any other directors nominated by THL, and the Company will
contribute $2.0 million toward the settlement payment in
recognition of such waiver; (iv) Goldman has agreed to waive
reimbursements of $1.0 million of legal fees and expenses
associated with the Company's 2011 recapitalization (the
"Recapitalization"), and the Company will contribute this amount
toward the settlement payment; and (v) other parties with rights
related to the Recapitalization have agreed to waive reimbursement
of $750,000 of legal fees and expenses, and the Company will
contribute this amount toward the settlement payment.

The Stipulation includes a release of claims with respect to the
allegations in the Action or relating to the Recapitalization.
The parties have asked the Court to set a hearing to consider
final approval of the settlement and entry of judgment.  If the
settlement is approved, the Action will be dismissed with
prejudice on the merits.


MURPHY OIL: Faces Overtime Class Action in North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Murphy Oil stiffs its gas
station employees for overtime, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Stovall, et al. v. Murphy Oil, USA,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00450 (E.D.N.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/23/MurphyOil.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1269
          5. W. Hargett Street, Suite 404
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Doggett, Esq.
          DOGGETT LAW OFFICES
          434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2350
          Raleigh, NC 27601-1787
          Telephone: (919)828-6688
          E-mail: Eric@DoggettLawOffices.com


PEREGRINE FINANCIAL:  Another Investor Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Offner, writing for wcfcourier.com, reports that another
investor caught in the downfall of Cedar Falls-based Peregrine
Financial Services has filed a suit against the bankrupt futures
trading firm over allegedly mishandling funds.

Beau Wolinsky of Danville, Ky., is seeking class-action status in
a lawsuit recently filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against PFG's Russell Wasendorf Sr., Russell
Wasendorf Jr., Neil J. Aslin, Brenda Cuypers and Susan Mary
O'Meara and others referred to in court papers as John Does 1-10.
The suit is the latest filed in the wake of Wasendorf Sr.'s July 9
suicide attempt, which triggered an investigation that discovered
some $200 million was missing from an account that held PFG's
segregated client funds.

PFG, which did business as PFG Best, has since filed for
bankruptcy.  FBI agents arrested Mr. Wasendorf Sr. for allegedly
making false statements to regulators.

Mr. Wasendorf is scheduled to make his a court appearance in a
detention and preliminary hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in
Cedar Rapids, where he is being held in the Linn County Jail.

In the suit filed on July 17 by attorney Robert Foote of St.
Charles, Ill.  Mr. Wolinsky, president and chief executive officer
of Danville-based K.C. Capital Management Inc., states he
maintained an account at PFG, that he has lost money and other
assets deposited at PFG and believes that his money and other
assets were commingled by PFG with PFG's own funds or otherwise
converted by PFG.

The filing notes that it represents a "minimum" of hundreds of PFG
customers.

The action was filed four days after customer Michael LaSalvia of
Naperville, Ill., filed a similar class-action suit against PFG,
leveling similar charges.

Mr. Wolinski's action lists Mr. Wasendorf Sr. as Peregrine's CEO
and sole owner, Wasendorf Jr. as president and chief operating
officer, Mr. Aslin as vice chairman, Ms. Cuypers as chief
financial officer and Ms. O'Meara as chief compliance officer.

The John Does named in the suit include others at PFG whose names
are not known.


PRUCO LIFE: Appeal From Dismissal of "Phillips" Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois.
The complaint makes claims of breach of contract, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and violation of Illinois law on behalf of a class
of Illinois residents whose death benefits were settled by
retained assets accounts and seeks damages and disgorgement of
profits.  In January 2011, the case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  In
March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop Prudential Financial
as a defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company as a
defendant.  The matter is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential
Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company.  In April 2011, a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.  In November
2011, the complaint was dismissed and the dismissal appealed in
December 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 20, 2012,
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


SONY CORP: Class Suits Alleging Antitrust Law Violations Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2009, Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Optiarc
America Inc., received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") seeking information about its optical disk drive
business.  Sony understands that the DOJ and agencies outside the
United States are investigating competition in optical disk
drives.  Subsequently, a number of purported class action lawsuits
were filed in certain jurisdictions, including the United States,
in which the plaintiffs allege that Sony Corporation and certain
of its subsidiaries violated antitrust laws and seek recovery of
damages and other remedies.  Based on the stage of these
proceedings, the Company says it is not possible to estimate the
amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any, that might
result from adverse judgments, settlements or other resolution of
these matters.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 20, 2012,
Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.


SONY CORP: Defends Suits Over 2011 Cyber-Attack on Units' Sites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation is defending class action lawsuits arising from a
2011 cyber-attack on its subsidiaries' Web sites, according to the
Company's July 20, 2012, Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2012.

Beginning in early 2011, the network services of
PlayStation(R)Network, Qriocity(TM), Sony Online Entertainment LLC
and Web site of other subsidiaries came under cyber-attack.  As of
June 27, 2012, Sony has not received any confirmed reports of
customer identity theft issues or misuse of credit cards from such
cyber-attacks.  However, in connection with certain of these
matters, Sony has received inquiries from authorities in a number
of jurisdictions, including orders for reports issued by the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan as well as the
Financial Services Agency of Japan, formal and/or informal
requests for information from Attorneys General from a number of
states in the United States and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,
various U.S. congressional inquiries and others.

Additionally, Sony Corporation and/or certain of its subsidiaries
have been named in a number of purported class actions in certain
jurisdictions, including the United States.  Based on the stage of
these inquiries and proceedings, the Company says it is not
possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of possible loss,
if any, that might result from adverse judgments, settlements or
other resolution of all of these matters.


STARR RESTAURANTS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Starr Restaurants Hotel Group
dba Hilton Hotel stiffs cooks for overtime, a class action claims
in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Valsin v. Starr Restaurants Hotel
Group, LP d/b/a Hilton Hotel, Case No. 12-cv-61449 (S.D. Fla.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/23/Hilton.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com
                  gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


STATE FARM: Judge Dismisses Car Parts Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on July 20 quashed a putative class action accusing
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and other insurers of
violating antitrust laws by conspiring to supply inferior repair
parts, finding the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert for
evaluating car parts is unreliable.

U.S. District Judge James Ware ruled that since the proposed class
failed to provide an admissible methodology for categorizing car
parts, as was required by a previous court order, its renewed move
for class certification is denied with prejudice.


SYNGENTA CROP: Awaits Oct. 22 Atrazine Settlement Fairness Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that the $105 million proposed settlement in a class
action lawsuit over the weed killer atrazine may only be a few
months away from a final fairness hearing, but attorneys involved
in the case said it took more than a year of negotiating to reach
this point.

St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery, who represents the water
providers that sued Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta AG, laid
out the lengthy negotiation process during a May 30 hearing on a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, according to a
70-page transcript of the hearing filed late last month in the
federal court in Benton.

The proposed settlement stems from a class action lawsuit brought
in 2010 by the city of Greenville and various water providers in
six Midwestern states that claimed atrazine, a commonly used
agricultural herbicide, ran off farm fields and into their
drinking water supplies.

Mr. Tillery originated the litigation in 2004 by filing six
separate class action suits in Madison County against
manufacturers of atrazine.

During the May hearing, U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert posed
more than a dozen questions to Mr. Tillery and Michael Pope, the
Chicago attorney representing the defendants.  Questions ranged
from complicated topics, such as the formula that will be used to
compensate water providers, to ones that appeared to be joking in
nature, like whether attorneys who phoned into the hearing fell
asleep listening to Messrs. Tillery and Pope.

Mr. Tillery said although negotiations began more than a year ago
with the matter before Judge Philip Frazier, the process
encountered a few speed bumps along the way.

"[D]iscussions then continued into the spring and then stopped.
And then started in earnest in September and stopped in October.
Started in December, continued through the winter, intermittent
stops, starts, based upon where we were," Mr. Tillery told Judge
Gilbert.  "It took literally months and months. And I should add
that until one hour before the call to you advising that, Mr. Pope
and I were still at odds over one issue."

He said that despite negotiating several class action settlements
over the years, the one in the Syngenta case "was by far the most
protracted, difficult one I have ever been in my career."

After Mr. Tillery discussed the back-and-forth between him and
Mr. Pope in the case that spurred millions of dollars in legal
costs, Judge Gilbert asked Mr. Tillery if "you guys have made up
now?"

"Well, not really. I mean, we do," Mr. Tillery started to say,
before Mr. Pope jumped in and said, "For purposes of settlement,
we'll agree to that."

"I mean, we do the best we can," Mr. Tillery added.  "But I'll
tell you over the weekend, I'm telling you after we filed this, I
mean, Mike and I spent our holiday weekend discussing this stuff
and unfortunately issues that -- you know, but we're
professionals. We're too old not to be."

Mr. Tillery told the court that the proposed settlement would
resolve all pending litigation over the claims, including matters
in Madison County that include other companies besides Syngenta,
such as Dow AgroSciences and Drexel.

"But it's important for the Court to understand that Syngenta has
basically bought and paid for this claim on a nationwide basis,"
Judge Gilbert said.

Mr. Pope, however, offered Judge Gilbert a different term to
explain the settlement.

"[W]e bought peace I think is a better way to put it, your Honor,"
Mr. Pope said.

The "peace" the Syngenta defendants agreed to pay for will settle
claims of more than 1,800 water providers.

Mr. Tillery said the settlement, however, is "not designed to
release claims that would be associated with a truck carrying
atrazine driving across the country and spills and it dumps a
bunch of chemical into a river system or a lake."

"That's a point source, and we have defined that using federal
standards for point source contamination," Mr. Tillery explained.
"In other words, this settlement is designed to encompass the
anticipated, directed, and federally approved, state-approved use
of this particular product."

Mr. Tillery also said the "settlement has no impact on a
consumer's ability to bring any kind of other action.  It only
relates to these individuals, for example, a personal injury claim
is not encompassed in this."

Additionally, he pointed out that "contribution claims are
not affected if, if an entity is sued over some other aspect."

Negotiations in the case, Mr. Tillery said, also included an
agreement over the usage of public records and information
obtained through discovery in an effort to create a combined
database to identify class members.

"And since this case, since earnest, very, very time consuming
lengthy meetings started taking place in the spring, early spring,
we were able to secure an agreement to get as much information as
possible," he said.  "That's allowed us to meld databases together
to allow us to go through publicly available and information from
Syngenta."

That aspect of the negotiations led plaintiffs' attorneys "to
identify 1,887 community water systems that have discovered
atrazine in their water," Mr. Tillery said.

Under the proposed settlement discussed at the May hearing, each
of these water systems would be sent notice of the settlement.
Notice would also be printed in publications targeted at potential
plaintiffs, such as the American Waterworks Association Magazine.

Responding to a question from Judge Gilbert as to whether there
could be more plaintiffs, Mr. Tillery said attorneys combed
through information dating back to 1993 to look for plaintiffs and
didn't believe so, but note that "it is conceivable" that there
are more out there.

As such, he said the proposed settlement provides community water
systems the chance to test their water systems for atrazine and if
appropriate, file claims up until late August.

"Well, conceivably somebody learning of this settlement could be
tested this summer.  And they could be tested, particularly in
June because of the levels of atrazine that oftentimes occur in
this month," Mr. Tillery said.  "And even though they have never,
ever had had atrazine detection in their history, they could avail
themselves of these benefits, and even though we do not have a
record of their existence."

The purpose of allowing this, he said, "was to reach out to get
all of them if they wanted in.  It was not to exclude anybody."

Under the proposed settlement, claimants would receive a fixed
payment of $5,000 to help cover the cost of testing for atrazine
(two tests per year at $250 each for 10 years) and a pro-rata
share of the remaining balance of the settlement fund.

"There's no reversion; all the money is used for the class
members," Mr. Tillery said.  "So, in other words, depending on
some of these, I'm guessing, that of 1,800-plus, some of them
simply won't make a claim.  They just won't . . . We can't make
them file one if they don't want to."

The pro-rata fund will be based on the providers that file claims,
Mr. Tillery said, adding that the settlement amounts could go down
"if more claims are filed that we're not aware of, water providers
that we are not aware of who can prove they have sustained harm."

Each water provider's pro-rata share "will be based on an
allocation score as a percentage of the total of all of the
community water systems allocation scores," Mr. Tillery said.

He explained that the scores are based on the average of each
claimant's' highest daily atrazine test results for the year as
well as an age-weighting formula that basically increases "the
allocations to claimants who have had high levels in more recent
years."

Like the overall negotiation process, Mr. Tillery said coming up
with this formula took some time and help from consultants and
experts.

"[I}t took literally weeks of work to do this, to come up with
this model that is common and very objective and where everybody
can put their number in and it treats everybody correctly and
fairly," he said.

Judge Gilbert asked whether the formula also takes into account
the population served by the water provider, "So like American
Water would get a bigger slice of the pie than Evansville,
Illinois?"

Mr. Tillery said the formula does take population served into
account.  He also said while a large amount of the roughly 1,900
potential class members have had very few detections of atrazine
in their systems at very modest amounts, there are "157 community
water systems in this group that would receive between $20,000 and
$50,000" for their claims.

He also said that under the formula provided in the proposed
settlement, 96 water providers would receive between $50,000 and
$100,000, 151 water systems would receive between $100,000 and
$500,000; 14 systems would get between $500,000 and $1 million and
one system, which has had "constant problems," would receive more
than $1 million.

"The allocation is fair because it ensures that every class member
who submits a valid claim will receive a portion of the settlement
fund while providing a proportionally larger share to those who
are most affected by the presence of atrazine," Mr. Tillery said.

When asked if he had anything else to add, Mr. Pope said
Mr. Tillery did a good job of summarizing the important issues,
including one over continuing jurisdiction in the case once the
settlement is approved.

"All I would add is that, on behalf of my client, this is a good
settlement, it is a resolution of complicated litigation that
still has a long way to go, so there is still a lot of expenses
further that would be incurred if we did not reach settlement
agreement," Mr. Pope said.

A final fairness hearing over the proposed settlement has been set
for Oct. 22 in Benton.  It appears that the only motion that
remains pending in the case is one from the plaintiffs' attorneys
seeking a court order for the payment of $1,000 from the
settlement fund to the settlement administrator.


THOMAS M. COOLEY: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Job Stats
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian McVicar, writing for mlive.com, reports that a federal judge
on July 20 dropped a class action lawsuit against Thomas M. Cooley
Law School by former students who alleged they were misled by the
school's post-graduate employment reports.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist granted Mr. Cooley's motion to
dismiss, saying that while the school's employment and salary
figures were "vague and incomplete," the students should have
relied on more than statistics when making their decision to
enroll.

"Plaintiffs and prospective students should have approached their
decision to enter into law school with extreme caution given the
size of the investment," Judge Quist wrote.  "With red flags
waiving and cautionary bells ringing, an ordinary prudent person
would not have relied on the statistics to decide to spend
$100,000 or more."

The lawsuit was filed in August 2011 by a group of graduates who
said they were misled by salary and job-placement rates included
in the report.

In a statement, Mr. Cooley President and Dean Don LeDuc said he
was pleased with the decision.

"We are committed to graduating law students who are ready to
practice law, and their success in a tough job market is our
success too," he said.  "We have always been in compliance with
American Bar Association and National Association for Law
Placement employment reporting standards."

The lawsuit, which sought $300,000 in damages, focused around four
figures in Mr. Cooley's employment report.

In the report, the average starting salary for all graduates was
listed at $54,796; the percentage of graduates employed was listed
at 76 percent; the number of 2010 graduates was listed at 934, and
the number of graduates with known employment status was tallied
at 780.

The graduate's complaint said that Mr. Cooley violated the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act, or MCPA, and was guilty of fraud
and negligent misrepresentation.

In a 20-page opinion granting Mr. Cooley's motion to dismiss,
Judge Quist wrote that the MCPA applies to "providing goods,
property, or service primarily for personal, family or household
purposes."  Because of that, "the MCPA did not apply because the
plaintiff purchased the services for a business or commercial
purpose," he wrote.

He also acknowledged that Mr. Cooley's employment reports are
"meaningless" and "inconsistent, confusing, and inherently
untrustworthy."

For example, the statistic showing that 76 percent of graduates
are employed is not "objectively false," he said.  But it does not
differentiate between part-time, full-time, legal or non-legal
jobs.

Despite that, "it would be unreasonable for Plaintiffs to rely on
two-bare bones statistics in deciding to attend a bottom-tier law
school with the lowest admission standard in the country," he
wrote, adding that the students did not at any point attempt to
seek information to clarify questions related to the employment
report.


THOMAS M. COOLEY: Fraud Class Suit vs. 12 Schools Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal's Karen Sloan reports that the attorneys
behind a spate of class actions accusing law schools across the
country of fraud are 0 for 2.

A federal judge in Michigan on July 20, 2012, dismissed a lawsuit
against the Thomas M. Cooley Law School the attorneys brought on
behalf of 12 graduates who claimed that the school misrepresented
its employment statistics to lure students.

In March, a New York trial judge tossed a similar lawsuit against
New York Law School.  That ruling is under appeal, and fraud class
action against 12 additional law schools are pending.

"Obviously, we're disappointed, but we're very proud of the work
we've done," said Jesse Strauss, Esq., who along with attorneys
David Anziska, Esq., and Frank Raimond, Esq., are coordinating the
law school lawsuits around the country.  "There's been a sea
change in the quality of employment information.  I don't think
we're the only reason that happened, but I think we've been a
factor.  Still, I hope we're going to be able to move some money
to the people who have mortgaged their future on these degrees."

Cooley president and dean, Don LeDuc, said in a prepared statement
that the school was pleased with U.S. District Judge Gordon
Quist's decision.

"We are committed to graduating law students who are ready to
practice law, and their success in a tough job market is our
success too," he said.  "We have always been in compliance with
American Bar Association and National Association for Law
Placement employment reporting standards."

The plaintiffs in the Cooley litigation alleged that the school
violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and committed
fraud by offering incomplete and misleading job and salary
figures.  In its motion to dismiss, Cooley's lawyers argued that
the school complied with ABA and NALP guidelines, and that the
MCPA does not apply to educational purchases.  Cooley defeated a
charge of violating the MCPA in 2009 by arguing that educational
activities were exempt.

But the plaintiffs had reason for hope after a June 5 hearing in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on
Cooley's motion to dismiss.  Judge Quist said in a partial ruling
that the ABA and NALP's reporting requirements "are a floor, not a
ceiling," and that Cooley could go beyond those requirements,
although he later struck that comment from the ruling.

In his final ruling, Judge Quist found that the MCPA does not
protect education purchases because they are not "goods, property,
or service primarily for personal, family, or household purposes."
A law degree is used to establish a career in law, which falls
under the definition of a purchase made for business or commercial
purposes, said Cooley general counsel, James Thelen, Esq.

Mr. Strauss said he is contemplating an appeal, most likely on the
MCPA issue.

Judge Quist also rejected the plaintiffs' fraud claims, ruling
that the figures Cooley provided for the percentage of graduates
employed and average starting salary were "inconsistent, confusing
and inherently untrustworthy," but not fraudulent.

"Plaintiffs and prospective students should have approached their
decision to enter law school with extreme caution given the size
of the investment," Judge Quist wrote, citing a similar finding by
New York County, N.Y., Supreme Court Judge Melvin Schweitzer.

Mr. Thelen said it seemed disingenuous for the plaintiffs to claim
that they chose to attend Cooley solely on the basis of two job
statistics for a class of students who graduated a year before the
plaintiffs would enroll.

Mr. Strauss disagreed.  "It seems to me that these judges are
imposing an extra layer of diligence on people going to law
school," he said.  "I don't think that's fair."

Kyle McEntee, executive director of the nonprofit Law School
Transparency, called Judge Quist's decision on the fraud counts a
"dangerously narrow reading of what it means to mislead somebody."

"What makes employment information tend to mislead is that the
school knows it will be understood differently than its literal
meaning," Mr. McEntee said.  "Understanding whether somebody was
actually misled requires understanding the context of the
statement, which includes the person's knowledge and beliefs."

It remains to be seen how Judge Quist's ruling would affect the
dozen pending fraud cases.  Nearly all of the defendant law
schools have filed motions to dismiss.  Mr. Strauss said he always
assumed that the cases would be resolved by appellate courts.

"We're in this for the long term," he said.  "We didn't think
these cases would wrap up in a year."


UNION PACIFIC: Defendant Railroads Appeal Order Certifying Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad
Company, and other Class I railroads have asked the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia to review a ruling certifying
a class of shippers that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge,
according to Union Pacific Corporation's July 20, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Twenty small rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the
same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in
various federal district courts against the Company and four other
Class I railroads in the U.S (one railroad was eventually dropped
from the lawsuit).  The original plaintiff filed the first of
these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14,
2007, and the additional plaintiffs filed claims in district
courts in various states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama,
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  These lawsuits allege
that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing
common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

The Company received additional complaints following the initial
claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30.  In
addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and seeking to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.  These
complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel
surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Subsequently, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints against the Company's
subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UPRR") and three
other Class I railroads.

One additional shipper filed a separate anti-trust lawsuit during
2008.  Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the action
without prejudice.

On October 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with
respect to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss.  In a
ruling on November 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with
respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, and pretrial
proceedings are underway in that case.  On December 31, 2008,
Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers
based upon state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.  He also ruled, however, that these plaintiffs
could proceed with their claim for injunctive relief under the
federal antitrust laws, which is identical to a claim by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The indirect purchasers appealed
Judge Friedman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.  On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's
ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various
state laws.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications.  On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision certifying a
class of plaintiffs to be represented by the eight named
plaintiffs.  The class includes all shippers that paid a rate-
based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for
rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 1, 2008.  This is a procedural ruling, and, therefore, it
does not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and
does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove
the allegations made by the plaintiffs.  On July 5, 2012, the
defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court
review the class certification ruling.

The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge
programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws.  The
Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and it
will vigorously defend its actions.  Therefore, the Company
currently believes that these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on any of its results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity.


UNITED LIFE: Settles Consumer Fraud Lawsuit for $900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Sokolove Law, LLC on July 19 disclosed that two large insurance
companies have agreed to pay $900,000 to settle a class-action
consumer fraud lawsuit that claimed they improperly promoted
dental insurance to 1,600 Oklahoma nursing home residents on
Medicaid.

The class action alleges that United Life Insurance and Sterling
Health Services sold dental insurance to nursing home residents
who either did not know they purchased the insurance or had no
teeth, according to DrBircuspid.com.  The lawsuit also alleges
that the policies provided coverage that patients already had
through their Medicaid plans.

Under the settlement, each claimant will receive a full
reimbursement of the money he or she spent on the dental insurance
policies.

                           *********

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  * * *