CAR_Public/120731.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 31, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 150

                             Headlines

60 EAST: Continues to Defend Class Suits Pending in N.Y.
250 WEST: Class Action Lawsuits Still Pending in N.Y. Court
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Torque Converters
ANDATEE CHINA: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Going Private Proposal
APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From Settlement of Suit vs. JNI Pending

BUONA VITA: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
BURLINGTON COAT: Fined $1.5-Mil. Over Drawstrings in Kids' Wear
CENTENE CORP: Faces Securities Law-Violation Suit in Missouri
CORELOGIC INC: Continues to Defend FCRA Suit vs. Teletrack
CORELOGIC INC: Ninth Circuit Refuses to Review Class Cert. Order

DOLLAR TREE: Still Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Discrimination Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Assistant Managers' Suits in 5 States
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Associates' Class Action Suit in Illinois
DUKE ENERGY: Gardy & Notis Files Class Action in N.C.

E.I. DUPONT: Discovery in Ohio Drinking Water Suit Ongoing
E.I. DUPONT: Recorded $490-Mil. Charge for Imprelis(R) Claims
FANNIE MAE: Montgomery County Files Class Action Over Taxes
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 500,000 Escape SUVs Due to Sticking Pedals
GEMB LENDING: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK

HEATHCO LLC: Recalls 7,800 Motion Sensing Security Lights
JPMORGAN: Faces RICO Class Action in California
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Class Action Over Card Fee Hikes
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Latinos Testify in Class Action v. Arpaio
NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York

OF LENDING: Homeowners File Class Action Over Refinance Fraud
PICCADILLY FINE: Recalls 79 Lbs. of Chicken and Yam Pie Products
SUNRISE PROPANE: Class Action Over Plant Explosion Certified
T & K LP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
TALBOTS INC: Signs MOU to Settle TLB Merger-Related Class Suits

TICKETMASTER: Corey McMillan to Join Class Action Settlement
TRIAGE STAFFING: Sued for Hiring Suspect in Hepatitis C Exposure
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Inaccessible POS Devices/Terminals
WAL-MART STORES: Disability Rights Advocates File Class Action
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $335-Mil. Expense for Embraco Matters

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
YUM! BRANDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit Pending
YUM! BRANDS: Final Hearing on "RGM" Suit Settlement on Aug. 17
YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in "Hines" Class Suit Set for August 20
YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in Wage & Hour Suit vs. Unit Set for Aug. 3

YUM! BRANDS: Opt-In Period in "Smith" Suit Will Close August 23
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell to Answer "Rosales" Amended Complaint
YUM! BRANDS: Unit Wants Class in "Whittington" Suit Decertified

* No. of Federal Securities Class Actions Down in 1st Half of 2012


                          *********

60 EAST: Continues to Defend Class Suits Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. continues to defend itself
against five class actions in New York alleging breach of
fiduciary duty, according to the Company's May 18, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company was originally organized as a partnership on September
25, 1958. On October 1, 1958, the Company acquired fee title to
One Grand Central Place (the Building), formerly known as the
Lincoln Building, at the address 60 East 42nd Street, New York,
New York and the land thereunder.  On November 28, 2001, the
Company converted to a limited liability company under New York
law and is now known as 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C.  The
conversion did not change any aspect of the assets and operations
of the Company other than to protect its participants from
liability to third parties.  The Company's members are Peter L.
Malkin and Anthony E. Malkin, each of whom also acts as an agent
for holders of participations in his respective member interest in
the Company.  The Members in the Company hold senior positions at
Malkin Holdings LLC, One Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd Street,
New York, New York, which provides supervisory and other services
to the Company and to Lessee.

The Company Registrant does not operate the Property.  It leases
the Property to Lincoln Building Associates L.L.C. (Lessee)
pursuant to an operating lease as modified (the Lease), which is
currently set to expire on September 30, 2033.  Lessee is a New
York limited liability company whose members consist of, among
others, entities for the benefit of members of Peter L. Malkin's
family.

Five putative class actions have been brought by Participants in
Registrant and several other entities supervised by Malkin
Holdings that own fee or leasehold interests in various properties
located in New York City, the first of which was filed March 1,
2012.  As now pending in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, each Class Action challenges the proposed consolidation of
those and other properties supervised by Malkin Holdings into a
real estate investment trust (the REIT) and the initial public
offering of shares in Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland
corporation which intends to qualify for U.S. tax purposes as a
REIT. The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin Holdings, Malkin
Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., Malkin
Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp.,
Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, Estate of Leona M. Helmsley,
Empire State Realty OP, L.P., and the REIT (Defendants) for breach
of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, alleging, inter alia, that the terms of the transaction are
unfair to the Participants and overly favorable to Malkin Holdings
and related parties. The complaints seek money damages and
injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction.  On April
3, 2012, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the actions and for
appointment of co-lead counsel. Defendants filed a response
consenting to consolidation, and taking no position with respect
to appointment of co-lead counsel. The motion was scheduled to be
heard by the court on June 21, 2012.

The Class Actions are in a very preliminary stage, with no
responses to the complaints having been filed to date. Defendants
have stated they believe the Class Actions are without merit and
intend to defend them vigorously.


250 WEST: Class Action Lawsuits Still Pending in N.Y. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Five putative class action lawsuits involving 250 West 57th St.
Associates L.L.C. alleging breach of fiduciary duty are pending,
according to the Company's May 18, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

250 West is a New York limited liability company organized as a
joint venture on May 25, 1953.  On September 30, 1953, 250 West
acquired fee title to the building known as 250 West 57th Street,
formerly known as the Fisk Building, and the land thereunder
located at 250-264 West 57th Street, New York, New York (the
Property).  On November 30, 2001, 250 West converted to a limited
liability company under New York law and is now known as 250 West
57th St. Associates L.L.C.  The conversion did not change any
aspect of the assets and operations of the Company other than to
protect its participants from future liability to a third party.
The Company's members are Peter L. Malkin and Anthony E. Malkin,
each of whom also acts as an agent for holders of participations
in their respective member interests in the Company.  The Members
in the Company hold senior positions at Malkin Holdings LLC, One
Grand Central Place, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York,
which provides supervisory and other services to the Company and
Lessee.

The Company does not operate the Property.  It leases the Property
to Fisk Building Associates L.L.C. (the Lessee) under a long-term
net operating lease dated May 1, 1954 (the Lease). In 1985, the
Participants in the Company consented to the Company's Agents
granting Lessee four options to extend the Lease, in each case for
an additional 25 year renewal period, the last expiring in 2103,
all on the same terms as the original lease.  The Agents intend to
grant such options on behalf of Registrant, subject to Lessee's
compliance with such consents.  Such options have been granted by
the Agents and exercised by Lessee as to (a) the first renewal
period from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2028, and (b)
the second renewal period from October 1, 2028 through September
30, 2053.  The Participants in the Company have consented to the
granting of options to the Lessee to extend the lease for two
additional 25-year renewal terms expiring in 2103. Lessee is a New
York limited liability company whose members consist of, among
others, Anthony E. Malkin and entities for the benefit of members
of Peter L. Malkin's and Anthony E. Malkin's family.

Five putative class actions have been brought by Participants in
the Company and several other entities supervised by Malkin
Holdings that own fee or leasehold interests in various properties
located in New York City, the first of which was filed March 1,
2012.  As now pending in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, each Class Action challenges the proposed consolidation of
those and other properties supervised by Malkin Holdings into a
real estate investment trust (the REIT) and the initial public
offering of shares in Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland
corporation which intends to qualify for U.S. tax purposes as a
REIT.  The plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin Holdings,
Malkin Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C.,
Malkin Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp.,
Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, Estate of Leona M. Helmsley,
Empire State Realty OP, L.P., and the REIT (Defendants) for breach
of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, alleging, inter alia, that the terms of the transaction are
unfair to the Participants and overly favorable to Malkin Holdings
and related parties.  The complaints seek money damages and
injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction.  On April
3, 2012, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the actions and for
appointment of co-lead counsel.  Defendants filed a response
consenting to consolidation, and taking no position with respect
to appointment of co-lead counsel.  The motion was scheduled to be
heard by the court on June 21, 2012.

The Class Actions are in a very preliminary stage, with no
responses to the complaints having been filed as of May 18, 2012.
Defendants have stated they believe the Class Actions are without
merit and intend to defend them vigorously.


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Torque Converters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Honda 2005-09 Odysseys have
defective torque converters that interfere with acceleration or
maintaining speed, a class action claims in Kern County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Witkowski, et al. v. American Honda
Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. S-1500-CV 277259 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Kern Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/26/HondaCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          Neda Roshanian, Esq.
          Michael Coats, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com
                  neda@yablonovichlaw.com
                  michael@yablonovichlaw.com


ANDATEE CHINA: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Going Private Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andatee China Marine Fuel Services Corporation continues to defend
itself against shareholder lawsuits relating to a going private
proposal, according to the Company's May 18, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a number of class action
lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by or on behalf of current shareholders against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Individual
Defendants") in connection with a contemplated "going private"
proposal by the Company's Chief Executive Officer and majority
shareholder, An Fengbin.  These lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
violated fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the
value of the Company to its public shareholders in a change of
control transactions.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified damages and other relief, including, without
limitation, to enjoin the Individual Defendants from consummating
the Proposed Transaction.

The foregoing matters are in the early stages of their respective
proceedings.  The Company anticipates that actions similar to the
above-mentioned actions may be filed in the future.

Andatee China Marine Fuel Services Corporation --
http://www.andatee.com-- through its subsidiaries, engages in
production, storage, distribution, and trading of blended marine
fuel oil for cargo and fishing vessels in the Peoples Republic of
China.  The Company also produces blended marine fuel according to
customer specifications.  Its blend of marine diesel oil is used
as substitute for the traditional diesel oil.


APPLIED MICRO: Appeals From Settlement of Suit vs. JNI Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation acquired JNI Corporation
in October 2003.  In November 2001, a class action lawsuit
was filed against JNI and the underwriters of its initial and
secondary public offerings of common stock in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, case no. 01 Civ 10740
(SAS).  The complaint alleged that defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with
JNI's public offerings.  This lawsuit was among more than 300
class action lawsuits pending in this District Court that have
come to be known as the "IPO laddering cases."  Pursuant
to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC
92 (SAS), in mid-2009 a settlement was reached in all of the
cases.  In October 2009, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the case.  The
settlement did not have a material impact on the Company.  The
Court subsequently issued a final judgment.  Several appeals of
the settlement and judgment were filed between October 29 and
November 4, 2009.

Should the settlement be overturned on appeal and the final
judgment vacated, the Company says it could be exposed to
additional liabilities and such liability, if any, could not be
reasonably estimated at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 17, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012.

Applied Micro Circuits Corporation -- http://www.apm.com--
provides semiconductor solutions for data center, enterprise,
telecom, and consumer/small medium business markets. The company
designs, develops, markets, and supports integrated circuits used
for processing, transporting, and storing information. It offers
physical layer products that convert high-speed serial formats to
low-speed parallel formats and vice versa; framer and mapper
products, which transmit and receive signals to and from the
physical layer in a parallel format and are used in high-speed
optical network infrastructure equipment; and embedded computing
products that are deployed in various critical applications. The
company also provides server processor products for computing and
networking applications; packet processing products, which are
programmable processors that receive and transmit signals to and
from the framing layer and perform the processing of packet and
cell headers; and cell switching products that switch information
in the proper priority and to the proper destinations. Its
products are used in wireline and wireless communications
equipment, such as wireless access points, wireless base stations,
multi-function printers, enterprise and edge switches, blade
servers, storage systems, residential and smart energy gateways,
core switches, routers, and transport platforms. The company
offers its solutions in the United States, Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Europe, China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and other Asian
countries. Applied Micro Circuits Corporation was founded in 1979
and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


BUONA VITA: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
meatballs and various other frozen, ready-to-eat meat and poultry
products that have been recalled by Buona Vita, Inc.

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/bkEeo6,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.

    Retailer Name                     City and State
    -------------                     --------------
    Aracely's Restaurant and Market   Antioch, California
    EZ Stop Deli and Grocery          Berkeley, California
    Whispering Tree Market            Chula Vista, California
    S & B Foods                       Compton, California
    The Great Impasta/Pasta Stores    Danville, California
    Mikey's Market and Deli           Fremont, California
    La Playa Market                   Inglewood, California
    Village Market                    Irvine, California
    Food For You Market               Los Angeles, California
    Lisa's Market                     Ontario, California
    Delgaudios Market                 Pacoima, California
    Saddleback Market                 Palmdale, California
    JJ & F Market                     Palo Alto, California
    European Mini Mart                Rancho Cordova, Calif.
    B & A Market                      San Diego, California
    Bi Rite Market                    San Diego, California
    Alamo Square Market               San Francisco, California
    Buchanan Food Mart                San Francisco, California
    Golden Gate Market                San Francisco, California
    Potrero Market                    San Francisco, California
    Rutily's Market                   San Francisco, California
    Mike and Ken's Grocery            South San Francisco, CA
    LA Ranch Market                   Stanton, California
    Genesee Country Store             Golden, Colorado
    Eastside Marketplace              Providence, Rhode Island
    Sunny Flea Market                 Houston, Texas
    Holt's Market                     Longview, Washington
    Quikway Market                    Woodland, Washington


BURLINGTON COAT: Fined $1.5-Mil. Over Drawstrings in Kids' Wear
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., of Burlington, New
Jersey, has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,500,000.  The
settlement agreement
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12235.pdf]has been
provisionally accepted by the Commission (4-0).

The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that from 2003 to
2010, Burlington knowingly failed to report immediately to CPSC,
as required by federal law, that it had sold many different
children's sweatshirts and jackets with drawstrings at the neck.
Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings, including
sweatshirts, sweaters, and jackets, poses strangulation and
entanglement hazards
[http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2012/05/drawstrings-not-allowed/]to
children that can result in serious injury or death.  The
settlement also resolves CPSC staff allegations that from 2008 to
2012, contrary to federal law, Burlington knowingly sold or had in
its store inventories many of these garments after they had been
recalled.

The penalty is the highest that CPSC has ever assessed for
violations involving children's upper outerwear with drawstrings.

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

CPSC began warning about drawstring dangers in the early 1990s.
The agency issued guidelines in 1996 about drawstrings in
children's upper outerwear.  Those guidelines were incorporated
into an industry voluntary standard in 1997.  In 2006, CPSC's
Office of Compliance announced
[http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/drawstring.pdf]that children's upper
outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded
as defective and presenting a substantial risk of injury to young
children.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation
[http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/drawstrings.html]that designated as
substantial product hazards children's upper outerwear in sizes 2T
to 12 (or extra-small to large) with neck or hood drawstrings, and
children's upper outerwear in sizes 2T to 16 (or extra-small to
extra-large) with certain waist or bottom drawstrings.

The sweatshirts and jackets that are the subject of the penalty
were sold by Burlington Coat Factory stores throughout the
country. Beginning in 2007, CPSC and the garments' manufacturers
and distributors, as well as Burlington in 2010, announced the
recalls listed in the chart below of children's garments with
drawstrings covered by the penalty.  In agreeing to the
settlement, Burlington denies CPSC staff allegations that it
knowingly violated the law.

  Manufacturer/Importer/
   Distributor/Retailer                                    # of
     (link to recall)       Product                        Units
  ----------------------    -------                        -----
  5 Star Apparel            Mecca children's hooded       11,500
                            jackets with drawstrings

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10193.html

  Allura Imports            Girls' hooded sweatshirts      3,700

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10050.html

  Baycreek                  Hooded sweatshirts             1,900

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10144.html

  Bobens Trading            Girls' hooded sweatshirts      3,900
                            with drawstrings

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10140.html

  Brand Evolution           Locks All Over boys' hoody,    2,800
                            All Over Skaters boys' hoody
                            and Rock Mask boys' hoody

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10158.html

  Bubblegum USA             Girls' hooded jackets with       900
                            drawstrings

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10179.html

  Burlington Coat Factory   12 brands of hooded jackets   10,000
                            and sweatshirts

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10347.html

  Byer California           Girls' cargo pocket jackets      600

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10161.html

  Fashion Options           Boys' velour warm-up sets      5,400

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10047.html

  Franshaw                  Children's hooded jackets      2,400

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10143.html

  Haselson International    Children's hooded             23,000
  Trading                   sweatshirts with drawstrings

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10170.html

  Hind Fashions             Boys' hooded jackets             200

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10244.html

  Jason Evans               Boys' fleece & flannel zip    18,300
                            hooded sweatshirts with
                            drawstrings

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10080.html

  Jason Evans               Children's hooded jackets      1,300

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09213.html

  KOMAN Sportswear          Boys' hooded sweatshirts      13,300
                            and warm-up sets

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09289.html

  Liberty Apparel           Jewel brand girls' hooded     12,000
                            sweatshirts

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08146.html

  Liberty Apparel           Jewel girls' hooded            2,300
                            sweatshirts with drawstrings

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10178.html

  Lollytogs                 Rim Rocka boys' hooded        23,000
                            jackets and Pelle Pelle
                            girls' hooded jackets

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10250.html

  North-Sportif             hooded jackets and               360
                            reversible vests                 360

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10185.html

  Regaliti                  Girls' hooded jackets with     3,600
                            drawstrings

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10160.html

  S. Rothschild & Co.       Girls' coats                  13,500

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10246.html

  Ten West Apparel          Boys' hooded jackets              75

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10152.html

  Trendset Originals        Girls' hooded jackets
                            Marci & Me brand               2,400
                            Shampoo brand                unknown

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10201.html

  Weeplay Kids              Hooded sweatshirts with       11,800
                            drawstrings

  http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10142.html


CENTENE CORP: Faces Securities Law-Violation Suit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in Missouri,
according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In June 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  The lawsuit
alleges, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from
February 7, 2012, through June 8, 2012, that the Company and
certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making
false or misleading statements principally concerning the
Company's fiscal 2012 earnings guidance.  According to the
complaint, these allegedly materially false statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's
securities, which subsequently dropped following the announcement
of its revised fiscal 2012 earnings guidance on June 11, 2012.
The Company believes the case is without merit and plans to
vigorously defend its position.


CORELOGIC INC: Continues to Defend FCRA Suit vs. Teletrack
----------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed
against its subsidiary, according to the Company's July 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack"), one of the Company's
subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been
furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a
permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., and seeks to
recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost of lawsuit.  On
September 20, 2011, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing.  That
motion was denied on March 7, 2012.  The Company has denied the
allegations and is defending against this claim vigorously;
however, the Company may not be successful.  At this time, the
Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the
potential range of damages, if any.


CORELOGIC INC: Ninth Circuit Refuses to Review Class Cert. Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to review
the class certification order in the lawsuit involving a
subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc., according to the Company's
July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against Washington Mutual Bank
("WaMu") and First American eAppraiseIT ("eAppraiseIT") alleging
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The complaint was largely based on the complaint filed by the New
York Attorney General and alleged conspiracies between WaMu and
eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially
inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that
WaMu could then sell in the secondary market.  Plaintiffs
subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu and on
March 9, 2009, and August 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all claims
against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification.  On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification.

On April 25, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion
and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after
June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with
appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT.  CoreLogic
Valuation Services, LLC ("CVS"), as the successor to eAppraiseIT,
intends to seek appeal of that decision.  On July 12, 2012, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class
certification order.

CVS intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, the
Company may not be successful.  At this time the Company cannot
predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range
of damages, if any.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on an appeal from the dismissal
of a gender discrimination lawsuit in Virginia, according to the
Company's May 17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

In 2009, 34 plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint in a federal
court in Virginia, alleging gender pay and promotion
discrimination under Title VII.  In 2010, the case was dismissed
with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.  The appeal has been fully briefed by the
parties and oral arguments were conducted in January 2012.  The
parties await a decision of the appellate court which is expected
by late spring or summer of 2012.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in the matter. The
Company does not believe the matter will have a material effect on
its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot give
assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
effect on its results of operations for the period in which they
are resolved.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage-and-
hour lawsuit in California, according to the Company's May 17,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

In April 2011, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, instituted a class action in
a California state court primarily alleging a failure by the
Company to provide meal breaks, to compensate for all hours
worked, and to pay overtime compensation.  The Company removed the
case to federal court which denied Plaintiffs' motion for remand
of the case to state court.  The case presently awaits a
scheduling order.  There is no trial date.

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

The Company will vigorously defend itself in the matter. The
Company does not believe the matter will have a material effect on
its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot give
assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
effect on its results of operations for the period in which they
are resolved.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Assistant Managers' Suits in 5 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits
filed by assistant store managers in Georgia, Colorado, Florida,
Michigan and Illinois, according to the Company's May 17, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

In the summer and fall of 2011, collective action lawsuits were
filed against the Company in six federal courts by different
assistant store managers, each alleging he or she was forced to
work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suits were filed in Georgia, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and
Illinois.  Plaintiffs also assert various state law claims for
which they seek class treatment.  The Georgia suit sought
statewide class certification for those assistant store managers
similarly situated during the relevant time periods.  The state-
based claims have been dismissed and only the federal claims
remain and, on the Company's motion, the case was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The
Florida, Colorado, Michigan and Illinois cases seek nationwide
certifications for those assistant store managers similarly
situated during the relevant time periods.  The Illinois case also
includes a purported class of all other hourly store associates,
making the same allegations on their behalf.  The Company has
commenced its investigation and has filed motions to dismiss and
motions to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia in
these four cases.  No rulings on these motions have been made to
date.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion with the federal court Multi-
District Litigation Panel to consolidate all these and other
related cases, which motion was denied. To date, the only cases in
which class certification motions have been filed are the Illinois
and Colorado actions.  None of the cases have been assigned a
trial date.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in the matter. The
Company does not believe the matter will have a material effect on
its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot give
assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
effect on its results of operations for the period in which they
are resolved.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Associates' Class Action Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., has been sued by three of its associates in
Joliet, Illinois, according to the Company's May 17, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

Around May 1, 2012, three associates who were formerly employed at
the Company's distribution center in Joliet, Illinois, filed a
Rule 23 class action lawsuit in federal court in Illinois alleging
that at the time of their termination of employment, they failed
to receive compensation for their accrued paid time off.  They
brought this case on behalf of themselves and those former
associates similarly situated.  The Company has just begun its
investigation of the allegations contained in the Complaint.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in the matter. The
Company does not believe the matter will have a material effect on
its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot give
assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
effect on its results of operations for the period in which they
are resolved.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DUKE ENERGY: Gardy & Notis Files Class Action in N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
on behalf of all persons who exchanged shares of Progress Energy,
Inc. common stock for shares of Duke Energy Corporation common
stock in connection with the merger between Progress and Duke.

Duke filed documents with the SEC that described the terms of the
merger on July 7, 2012 and stated that Progress CEO William
Johnson would be the CEO of the combined Company and Duke CEO
James Rogers would be the Chairman of the Board.  The lawsuit
alleges that Duke failed to disclose, and misrepresented that
Rogers, not Johnson, would serve as the CEO of the combined
Company after the merger.  On July 3, 2012, Duke announced that
Johnson had resigned by agreement and Rogers had been president
and CEO of the combined Company.  Defendants knew the Registration
Statement contained misleading statements and omitted material
facts about Mr. Johnson's role as CEO of the combined Company.

The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff
and a class of all other investors who acquired shares of Duke
common stock as part of the merger exchange.  The defendants in
the case are Duke and members of its board of directors.  The
legal claims are based on violations of the Securities Act of
1933. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members and is represented by the law firm of Gardy & Notis, which
prosecutes shareholder class actions nationwide.

If you were a Progress shareholder whose shares were exchanged for
new Duke stock as part of the merger, you may, no later than
September 24, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff for the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  You must meet certain legal requirements to serve as
a lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, to learn how you can
join the class, or to obtain a copy of the complaint filed in the
lawsuit, please contact Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. at Gardy & Notis,
LLP at 201-567-7377 or jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

CONTACT: Gardy & Notis, LLP
         Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
         Telephone: 201-567-7377
         E-mail: jsarnelli@gardylaw.com
         Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com


E.I. DUPONT: Discovery in Ohio Drinking Water Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. E. I. du Pont
de Nemours and Company, was filed in West Virginia state court
alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility
had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from
exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts ("PFOA") in
drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents.  In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The Company is also funding a series of
health studies by an independent science panel of experts (the "C8
Science Panel") in the communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate
available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists,
as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA
and human disease.  The Company expects the C8 Science Panel to
complete these health studies through October 2012 at a total
estimated cost of $33 million.

In December 2011, the C8 Science Panel concluded that there is a
probable link, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, which
includes preeclampsia.  In April 2012, the C8 Science Panel
announced its probable link determinations regarding cancer and
adult onset diabetes.  The C8 Science Panel found a probable link
between exposure to PFOA and two categories of cancer (kidney and
testicular).  A panel of medical experts will determine an
appropriate medical monitoring protocol, if any, as a result of
these findings.  If a medical monitoring protocol for any of these
diseases is defined, DuPont is required to fund a medical
monitoring program to pay for such medical testing.  Plaintiffs
may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those
human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determines a
probable link exists once the C8 Science Panel completes its work.

In January 2012, the Company put $1 million in an escrow account
as required by the settlement agreement.  The Company will
reassess its liability based on the medical monitoring panel's
determination since costs are not reasonably estimable until a
medical monitoring protocol, if any, is identified.  The Company
will continue to reassess its liability based on the C8 Science
Panel's future probable link findings, if any, and associated
medical monitoring protocols, if any.  Under the settlement
agreement, the Company's total obligation to pay for medical
monitoring cannot exceed $235 million.  In addition, the Company
must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the
level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the
Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

An Ohio action brought by the LHWA is currently in discovery.  In
addition to general claims of PFOA contamination of drinking
water, the action claims "imminent and substantial endangerment to
health and or the environment" under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).  DuPont denies these claims and is defending
itself vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it could
incur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to the matters
for which it has established accruals, a range of such losses, if
any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


E.I. DUPONT: Recorded $490-Mil. Charge for Imprelis(R) Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company disclosed in its July 24,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it had
recorded charges of $490 million related to claims over
Imprelis(R).

The Company has received claims and been served with multiple
lawsuits alleging that the use of Imprelis(R) herbicide caused
damage to certain trees.  The lawsuits seeking class action status
have been consolidated in federal court in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. In addition, about 60 individual actions have been
filed in state court in various jurisdictions.  DuPont is seeking
to remove these cases to federal court.

In August 2011, the Company suspended sales of Imprelis(R) and in
September began a process to fairly resolve claims associated with
the use of Imprelis(R).  The deadline for property owners to file
claims was February 1, 2012, although DuPont continues to receive
claims at a declining rate which it expects to consider as part of
the claims resolution process.  However, the Company believes that
the number of unasserted claims is limited due to the fact that
sales were suspended in August 2011 and the product was last
applied during the 2011 spring application season.

The Company has established review processes to verify and
evaluate damage claims.  There are several variables that impact
the evaluation process including the number of trees on a
property, the species of tree with reported damage, the height of
the tree, the extent of damage and the possibility for trees to
naturally recover over time.  Upon receiving claims, DuPont
verifies their accuracy and validity which often requires physical
review of the property.

At June 30, 2012, DuPont had recorded charges of $490 million
related to the Imprelis(R) matter, which included charges of $265
million and $315 million recorded during the second quarter and
year-to-date 2012, respectively.  It is reasonably possible that
additional charges could result related to this matter.  While
there is a high degree of uncertainty, total charges could range
as high as $575 million.  DuPont has submitted and will continue
to submit requests for payment to its insurance carriers for costs
associated with this matter in excess of $100 million.


FANNIE MAE: Montgomery County Files Class Action Over Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that county officials in southwest
Ohio have filed a class action lawsuit against two mortgage giants
they say owe millions in unpaid taxes.

Montgomery County filed a federal lawsuit on July 25 that says
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wrongfully claimed various exemptions
to avoid paying transfer taxes to state counties.

Transfer taxes are owed to a county when a deed is recorded.  The
lawsuit claims the companies didn't pay transfer taxes involving
banks that foreclosed on homes and new homeowners.  Officials say
both companies filed for exemptions as government entities and
other inapplicable exemptions for an unspecified time.

The lawsuit involves most state counties.  Summit County has filed
an individual case.

A Fannie Mae representative says the company cannot comment on
pending litigation.  A Freddie Mac representative could not be
immediately reached.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 500,000 Escape SUVs Due to Sticking Pedals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Ferran of ABC News reports that The Ford Motor Company is
recalling nearly half a million Escape model compact sport utility
vehicles amid concerns over a potentially deadly problem with
sticking accelerator pedals.

The new recall, which affects 2001 to 2004 models that have 3-
liter, V-6 engines with cruise control or approximately 484,600
vehicles, was ordered after safety inspectors discovered the
accelerator's speed control cables could become stuck on an engine
cover when the pedal is almost fully depressed, according to a
recall notice by the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration.

The recall comes after ABC News' Phoenix affiliate, KNXV, launched
an investigation into a Ford Escape crash that claimed the life of
17-year-old Saige Bloom.  The Arizona teen lost control of her
vehicle and crashed on a local road in January.

Moments before that crash, Ms. Bloom's mother, who was driving in
another car behind her daughter, made frantic calls to 911 saying,
"She cannot stop.  We're coming to a red light and I don't know
what to do for her," KNXV reported.

The younger Bloom plowed into another car and rolled three times.
She later died of her injuries.

According to KNXV, an inspector hired by the Bloom family later
discovered the vehicle's speed control cable had broken and become
lodged under the engine cover, meaning the throttle was stuck at
near full speed.

Ford spokesperson Marcey Zwiebel told ABC News that the issue does
not spontaneously cause the vehicle to accelerate, but the
accelerator can only get stuck after the driver has pressed the
pedal all the way, or most of the way down.

Marcey Zwiebel also said that the Company has only recently been
able to investigate the vehicle involved in Ms. Bloom's death, but
said Ford's internal investigation was not solely based on that
single incident.

"We had a volume of data to review and analyze in order to ensure
our investigation was thoroughly and properly implemented," Ms.
Zweibel said.

In a customer information sheet, Ford said that most dealerships
will not have the parts to permanently fix the problem just yet
but said customers should go to their local dealership for an
"interim repair, which will disable the speed control system on
your vehicle to eliminate the possibility of a stuck throttle..."

"This temporary repair will allow you to continue driving your
vehicle until parts for the permanent repair are available," the
information sheet says.


GEMB LENDING: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge granted
preliminary approval to a settlement, and certified the underlying
class, involving claims against GEMB Lending, E*Trade Financial,
Thor Credit Corp., and CCB Credit Services.

A copy of the Preliminary Approval Order in Baker v. GEMB Lending
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-05261 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/26/GEMB.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
          Nancy Barron, Esq.
          Amy Tay, Esq.
          KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP
          445 Bush St., 6th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 632-1900

               - and -

          Alexander B. Trueblood, Esq.
          TRUEBLOOD LAW
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 443-4139


HEATHCO LLC: Recalls 7,800 Motion Sensing Security Lights
---------------------------------------------------------

   * Electrical Shock Hazard Cited
   * Sold Exclusively at Home Depot

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
HeathCo LLC, of Bowling Green, Kentucky, announced a voluntary
recall of about 7,800 Motion Sensing Security Lights.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Internal wiring can be damaged during installation, bulb
replacement or adjustment, posing an electric shock hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Heath(R)/Zenith 270 degree Motion Security
Lights with model number SL-5414-WH.  It replaces a standard
outdoor wall mounted light fixture and is designed to turn on when
motion is detected at night.  The product has two cone-shaped
lightbulb receptacles attached to a round mounting plate.  A
small, rectangular motion sensor is attached to the mounting plate
between the lightbulb receptacles.  The unit is made of aluminum
and plastic.  It comes in white only.  The brand name and model
number are on a label located on the back of the motion sensor.  A
picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12236.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Home Depot Stores from September 2011 through April
2012 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the light, turn off power
to the unit at the circuit breaker or fuse panel and contact
HeathCo for a free replacement light fixture.  For additional
information, contact HeathCo toll-free at (855) 833-8657 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, e-mail
hzproductnotice@heathcollc.com, or visit the Company's Web site at
http://www.heath-zenith.com/hzproductnotice/


JPMORGAN: Faces RICO Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that RICO class actions in Federal
Court claim Citibank and JPMorgan Chase "conceal the unlawful
assessment of improperly marked-up or unnecessary third-party fees
for default-related services, cheating borrowers who can least
afford it."

A copy of the Complaint in Ellis, et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co., et al., Case No. 12-cv-03397 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/26/JPMorganCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles Class Action Over Card Fee Hikes
--------------------------------------------------------
ABCNews.com reports that under a court settlement filed last week
in San Francisco, JPMorgan Chase will pay $100 million to credit
card holders who saw their minimum monthly payments hiked from 2
percent to 5 percent between 2008 and 2009.

A class-action lawsuit, filed three years ago, argued that the
increase was improper, and that it violated commitments made by
the bank to induce cardholders to switch their balances to Chase
from other lenders.

Those commitments, says Howard Dvorkin, CPA, a founder of
ConsolidatedCredit.org, included interest rates that were supposed
to remain "fixed" until balances were paid in full.  "They said
come to us and we'll fix your interest rate for the life of the
loan, until it's paid off," says Mr. Dvorkin.

In 2008 and 2009, however, the bank raised rates, triggering an
increase in late payment penalties from hard-squeezed borrowers.
Late payment also could trigger a penalty interest rate of 29.29
percent.

"Your promotional rate that got you to the bank, they didn't
honor," says Mr. Dvorkin.  "A client would go delinquent, and
triggering penalty and late fees, and your interest rate could go
to 30 percent.  Do I think this was part of an evil master plan?
No.  Do I think it was aggressive? Yes. And now they're paying the
penalty for it."

Chase's view, according to the proposed settlement, which still
must be approved by a judge, was that raising payment minimums was
"a reasonable and sensible response to unprecedented economic
turmoil and impending regulatory changes" -- meaning the credit
card reform act of 2009.

The proposed settlement includes a complex allocation plan for
divvying up the $100 million between members of the class.  Class
members get a flat payment of $25 plus a pro-rata share of the
settlement fund (after legal fees and costs have been deducted).
The plan gives $72 as a representative amount.  "At the end of the
day," says Mr. Dvorkin, "it's the lawyers who make the money."
A spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase, contacted by ABCNews.com,
declined to comment on the settlement.

Darryl Dahlheimer, program director of LSS Financial Services, a
provider of credit counseling advice, views the settlement as a
warning to borrowers: most consumers, he says, have no concept how
long it will take them to pay off a credit card balance if all
they're paying is the monthly minimum.  On LSS's Web site is a
calculation tool called the Scrooge-O-Meter they can use to see
the awful truth.

"Let's say you've got a $10,000 balance on your card," says
Mr. Dahlheimer.  "And say your interest rate is 18 percent.
That's a realistic, non-teaser rate.  If you pay the minimum of 2
percent or $200 a month, it'll take you 94 months" -- upwards of 8
years to pay it off.

"If someone feels trapped by rising payments," he advises,
"there's a whole industry called consumer credit counseling that
has a product called a debt management plan, creditor-approved,
for helping them pay back their debt.  If your foot's in a bear
trap, there's a bear trap remover."

But there are many for-profit "counseling" firms that may extract
high fees for their help or take your money and do little.  Some
pay off your debts but loan you the money, sometimes at high
interest rates.  Your local Consumer Credit Counseling Service is
a non-profit group that assists consumers with debt problems.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Latinos Testify in Class Action v. Arpaio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that personal
stories about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's officers' treatment of Latino
citizens took center stage on July 25 in the federal class action
trial.

Daniel Magos, a 67-year-old maintenance worker, tearfully
described feeling "humiliated, worthless, defenseless" after he
was pulled over and searched by a sheriff's deputy while on his
way to a job site.

When the deputy pulled over Mr. Magos and his wife, who was riding
in the front passenger seat, he "was yelling at us, and he never
addressed us in a civil manner," Mr. Magos said.

The deputy told Mr. Magos, a Chihuahua-born U.S. citizen, that he
had pulled him over because there was no license plate on his
trailer, but Mr. Magos said the deputy could not have seen the
back of the trailer when he made a U-turn to pull him over.

"The deputy asked me if I was carrying any drugs, any weapons, or
any bazookas in my truck," Mr. Magos said.  "I told him I was not
carrying any bazookas or drugs, but I told him I was carrying a
handgun."

The deputy told Mr. Magos to get out of the truck so that he could
search him.

"I asked him why I was being searched, and he said I was being
searched for weapons and drugs," Mr. Magos said.  "I told the
deputy if he searched me it was against my consent.

"He searched my underarms, my sides, my groin area," Mr. Magos
said, choking back tears.

After the search, the deputy told Mr. Magos he was free to go, and
apologized for "yelling and screaming and scaring us on the stop."

Mr. Magos, who is not a named plaintiff in the class action, was
not cited for a traffic violation.

"After his apology, he told me that stop had nothing to do with
racial profiling," Mr. Magos said.  "I told him that was exactly
what that was."

The court also heard testimony from Velia Meraz and Manuel Nieto
Jr., both U.S. citizens and plaintiffs, who claim sheriff's
deputies followed them to their family business on March 28, 2008
after a deputy threatened to charge them with disorderly conduct
when they refused to leave a gas station.

"We went to the gas station right down the street from the shop to
buy some Gatorade and some cigarettes," Mr. Nieto said.  At the
station, he said that he and his sister, Ms. Meraz, spotted a
sheriff's deputy with two detainees at the gas pumps.

Mr. Nieto, 37, who was driving, said the deputy approached his
sister on the front passenger side of her black Chevy Suburban and
said, "You need to leave now."

Mr. Nieto said he asked the deputy, "What did we do wrong?" and
the deputy responded, "You need to leave now or I'm going to
arrest you for disorderly conduct."

Mr. Nieto said he and his sister left the gas station immediately
and returned to their auto shop, then heard sirens.

Ms. Meraz, 39, said that on their way out of the gas station, she
yelled to the detainees in Spanish, "Don't sign anything you don't
understand, and provide your names only."

When they reached the auto shop, Mr. Nieto testified, he saw "a
motorcycle officer in back of us.  It was chaos."

Mr. Nieto, who weeks before the incident had been released from
prison on a burglary charge, said he was scared, so he called 911
from inside of the SUV.  When the motorcycle deputy approached his
door and told him to get out of the vehicle, Mr. Nieto said he was
on the phone with 911, and the deputy told him, "I don't care who
you are on the phone with, get out of the vehicle."

The motorcycle deputy pulled Mr. Nieto out of the car, and "within
seconds I had two or three other officers or posse members on top
of me."

"I was being harassed, I feared for my life," Mr. Nieto said.

While Mr. Nieto was on the ground, Ms. Meraz had slowly got out of
the SUV and was standing at the front of the shop with her father
came outside and asked deputies, "What's going on? What's wrong?
Why are you guys doing that to him?"

When their father said, "Those are my children, they're U.S.
citizens," the deputies backed off, Ms. Meraz said.

Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz were not cited after they provided
deputies with identification.

Michael Kikes, the motorcycle deputy who pulled over Nieto and
Ms. Meraz, told a different story on the stand.

Mr. Kikes said he went to the gas station after receiving an
"anxious type of radio transmission."

Mr. Kikes said that when he tried to pull over the SUV, Mr. Nieto
did not pull over to the right, but turned left into his family
business despite Mr. Kikes' requests over the motorcycle's P.A.
system to pull over.

Mr. Kikes said he kept asking Mr. Nieto to "step out of the
vehicle," and once he got him out, he took him to the back of the
vehicle, where he handcuffed him while he checked his
identification.

"He never obeyed or wanted to respond to us in any shape of form,"
Mr. Kikes said.  He said he never touched Mr. Nieto except to help
him out of the vehicle and to sit him on the rear bumper.

Mr. Kikes denied that he racially profiled Mr. Nieto's, claiming
that the windows of the Suburban were tinted and that he was
focusing on Mr. Nieto's eyes and his motions.

The trial was set to continue on July 26.

Testimony is expected to conclude on Thursday, Aug. 2.


NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action against New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action (12 Civ. 5724), filed in United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, is on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased New Oriental American Depositary Shares
("ADS") between July 21, 2009 and July 17, 2012, inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages caused by defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against
the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased New Oriental securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 21, 2012 to ask
the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

New Oriental provides private educational services, primarily in
China.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically the Company
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly consolidated
into its financial statements the earnings of a variable interest
entity and its wholly-owned subsidiaries; (2) a significant number
of the Company's schools and learning centers were not company-
owned, but were rather operated by numerous franchisees; (3) the
Company improperly consolidated franchisees' financial results to
its financial statements; (4) the schools that conduct EDU's
operations are state property, and not owned by EDU; (5) upfront
franchise and other fees had inflated the Company's cash balances;
(6) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls;
and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On July 17, 2012, the Company disclosed that the Securities and
Exchange Commission "had issued a formal order of investigation"
as to whether the Company appropriately consolidated the earnings
of Beijing New Oriental Education & Technology (Group) Co., Ltd.,
a variable interest entity of the Company, and its wholly-owned
subsidiaries.  On this news, EDU's ADS plummeted $7.64 per ADS or
more than 34%, to close at $14.62 per ADS on July 17, 2012.

On July 18, 2012, independent stock research firm Muddy Waters,
LLC issued an analyst report with a strong sell rating, predicting
that the Company "will have a significant restatement, and that
its auditor will resign."  On this news, EDU's ADS declined an
additional $5.12 per ADS or more than 35%, to close at $9.50 per
ADS on July 18, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  It has offices in New York and Chicago.


OF LENDING: Homeowners File Class Action Over Refinance Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Finney, writing for ABC 7, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against a now defunct Alameda County
company accused of bilking distressed homeowners out of millions
of dollars.

O.F. Lending offered its clients a chance to get their homes out
from under water.  The company said it had come up with a way to
refinance at current market value.  Many of those who bought into
the program now say they were victims of fraud.

"I am really hurt.  It has hurt my trust in people," said Robin
Samuels of Felton.

"We were very angry, very upset, very angry, a little ashamed,"
said Benjamin Ostroff of Novato.

Messrs. Ostroff and Samuels are two homeowners who each paid
thousands of dollars to O.F. Lending for a chance to get what the
company called "a short pay refinance."  A lawsuit filed on
July 25 in Alameda County Superior Court accused O.F. Lending of
bilking homeowners out of millions of dollars.

"The fraud is telling my clients, 'I can do the short pay
refinance and save you hundreds of thousands of dollars,' to
demand upfront payments, take that money, allegedly put it in a
trust account, but when it's time to pay the clients when OF
Lending is unsuccessful, tell them that there's no money in the
trust account," said David Tubman, a plaintiff attorney.

Bill Hogarty is the man identified as the CEO of O.F. Lending.
That company has been shut down by the Department of Real Estate.
Mr. Hogarty filed for bankruptcy and listed his clients with O.F.
Lending as creditors.  Federal bankruptcy trustees have challenged
that bankruptcy filing.

The complaint accuses Mr. Hogarty of illegally accepting loan
modification fees, not placing funds in a trust account, and
instead using the funds for personal benefit.  He is accused of
doing this with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.

"These people put money in good faith, hoping, wishing to save
their homes.  Three of them have lost their homes to date.  We
want some compensation for that," said Mr. Tubman.

O.F. Lending's attorney was not available for comment, but in
court filings stated that his client denied taking advance fees
for short pay refinances between 2009 and 2011.  He also denies
Mr. Hogarty had any knowledge the money wasn't put into a trust
account.  For O.F. Lending's former clients, it has been an
emotional rollercoaster.

"It's awful.  I just wanted it done," said Molly Ostroff of
Novato.

The Samuels sued O.F. Lending in small claims court and won.  The
Ostroffs are one of 21 families named in the class action lawsuit.


PICCADILLY FINE: Recalls 79 Lbs. of Chicken and Yam Pie Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Piccadilly Fine Foods, a Santa Clara, California, establishment,
is recalling approximately 79 pounds of chicken and yam pie
products that may include a curry paste containing shrimp, a known
allergen not declared on the product label, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall are:

   * Shipping cases containing 24 "Top Nosh Farmer's Market
     Chicken and Yam with Coconut Curry Pies."

   * Individual 5.5 ounce "Top Nosh Farmer's Market Chicken and
     Yam with Coconut Curry Pies."

Each package label bears the establishment number "P-9216" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.  Additionally each package bears the
lot code 184-12.  The lot code is stamped on the label side of the
shipping cases and ink-jetted on the plastic film overwrap of each
individual pie.  The products were produced on June 29, 2012, and
sold to a San Jose, California-area distributor for further
distribution.  When available, the retail distribution list(s)
will be posted on FSIS' Web site at:
www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine label review
and occurred as a result of a temporary change in the ingredient
formulation for the product.  FSIS and the company have not
received reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these
products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a
healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks (including at
restaurants) to verify recalling firms notify their customers of
the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the
product is no longer available to consumers.

Consumers and reporters with questions about the recall should
contact the company's Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
Coordinator, David Hansen, at (408) 246-1200.

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


SUNRISE PROPANE: Class Action Over Plant Explosion Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
Stevensons LLP on July 26 disclosed that the action arising out of
the explosion at the Sunrise Propane distribution plant located on
Murray Road in Toronto, Ontario on August 10, 2008 was certified
as a class action.

The Court has determined that the matter can proceed through the
courts as a class action which is a critical step in obtaining
justice for the many innocent victims of this tragedy", said
Harvin Pitch counsel to Stevensons LLP.  Class Counsel in this
matter is Theodore P. Charney -- tedc@falconercharney.com -- of
Falconer, Charney LLP, Harvey Strosberg and Sharon Strosberg of
Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Mr. Pitch.

"We are determined to obtain justice for those whose lives were
altered by this terrible event," said Theodore P. Charney.  "We
believe the ruling brings us closer to resolving this matter."

"In order to ensure that class members are kept up to date on
developments in the class action as well as determining the value
of a class member's claim, it is important to register with Class
Counsel at www.sunrisepropaneclassaction.com," said Richard
Bogoroch of Bogoroch and Associates.

The certification order allows the matter to proceed against the
defendants, including Sunrise Propane Energy Group Inc., The
Technical Standards and Safety Authority, and a number of
suppliers to Sunrise Propane.

The explosion forced the evacuation of approximately 12,500
residents and caused over C$25 million dollars in property damage.


T & K LP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 2, 2012, the California labor law firm Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against T & K,
L.P., a company who owns and operates several Taco Bell stores in
the state of California, alleging T&K failed to compensate their
employees for all hours worked, including work that was required
to be performed off the clock.  Martinez, et al. vs. T & K L.P.,
Case No. M118459 is currently pending in the Monterey County
Superior Court for the State of California.

Specifically, the wage and hour class action Complaint alleges
that T&K required their employees to handle monetary transactions
throughout the business day and that when the restaurant's cash
register suffered a loss on any given day, the Plaintiff and other
California Class Members were allegedly responsible for making up
the cash shortages via a deduction in their wages regardless of
fault.  Additionally, the Complaint further states that T&K
threatened the Plaintiff and other California Class Members with
disciplinary action if they were unable to make up the cash
shortages.

Moreover, the Complaint also asserts that T&K "fails and continues
to fail to correctly record all hours worked by the Plaintiff and
other California Class Members."  As a result, the Complaint
claims that these employees have been underpaid throughout their
employment with T&K.

Norman B. Blumenthal, managing partner of Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik stated, "Responsible employers know that it's illegal to
make your employees pay for cash shortages.  Unfortunately, not
all employers are responsible and end up taking unfair advantage
of their employees."

The employment law firm Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik represents
many California workers in lawsuits involving California Labor
Code violations against their current or former employers.


TALBOTS INC: Signs MOU to Settle TLB Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Talbots, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's July 24, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

As previously disclosed, certain class action lawsuits have been
filed in connection with the proposed merger (the "Merger")
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
May 30, 2012, among The Talbots, Inc. (the "Company"), TLB
Holdings LLC ("Parent") and TLB Merger Sub Inc. (the "Purchaser").

On July 23, 2012, the parties to In re The Talbots, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7513-CS, pending
before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court") and the parties to Brodt v. The Talbots, Inc., Case No.
1:12-cv-00853-UNA, pending before the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware (collectively, the "Actions") entered
into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") providing for a
settlement, subject to Court approval, of the Actions.  The
settlement provided for in the MOU, if approved by the Court, will
resolve all of the allegations and claims asserted by the
plaintiffs in the Actions against the Company, each member of the
Company's board of directors, Sycamore Partners, L.P., Parent and
Purchaser (the "Defendants"), and will further provide for the
release and settlement by the plaintiffs and the class of the
Company's stockholders of all claims, against the Defendants
and/or any of their respective families, parent entities,
controlling persons, associates, predecessors, successors,
affiliates or subsidiaries, and each and all of their respective
past or present officers, directors, shareholders, principals,
representatives, employees, attorneys, financial or investment
advisors, consultants, accountants, investment bankers, commercial
bankers, entities providing fairness opinions, underwriters,
brokers, dealers, advisors or agents, heirs, executors, trustees,
general or limited partners or partnerships, limited liability
companies, members, managers, joint ventures, personal or legal
representatives, estates, administrators, predecessors, successors
and assigns, that are related, directly or indirectly, to the
proposed Merger or the allegations that were asserted or could
have been asserted in the Actions.

In connection with the settlement, the Defendants deny that they
have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any
violation of law or engaged in any alleged unlawful or wrongful
act whatsoever, and expressly maintain that they diligently and
scrupulously complied with any fiduciary, disclosure and all other
legal duties.  In connection with the MOU, the Company has agreed
to provide certain supplemental disclosures which are set forth in
the Schedule 14D-9/A filed by the Company with the SEC on July 24,
2012.


TICKETMASTER: Corey McMillan to Join Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Pollstar reports that an Arkansas man who took Ticketmaster to
court last year over ticket fees will join the settlement of a
similar class-action suit in Los Angeles following the dismissal
of his case.

U.S. District Judge James Moody dismissed Corey McMillan's suit
July 24 and ruled it can't be refiled.

Mr. McMillan sued TM and Live Nation after he bought four tickets
to see Jason Aldean at Verizon Arena in North Little Rock and was
irked over ticket charges.  His complaint alleged the company's
fees violated the state's trade practices law.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, a number of objectors have come forward
to urge Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman to reject the
settlement agreement for a class-action suit filed by a group of
consumers in 2003 that raised hell over TM's processing fees and
UPS charges.

It seemed both sides had finally reached a deal last November
after years of "extensive, contentious, arm's-length
negotiations."

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, people who purchased
tickets between Oct. 21, 1999, and Oct. 19, 2011, would receive
credits to their TM accounts of $1.50 per purchase for up to 17
transactions.  Additionally, people who opted in to a UPS subclass
in the suit would be entitled to $5 credits per transaction to be
used for future delivery fees.

But it now appears that some class members feel they're getting
the short end of the stick in the settlement, which they say
favors attorneys over the class.

Attorneys would receive about $15 million in fees and $1.5 million
in costs under the agreement, according to court documents
obtained by the National Law Journal.

"You should not force class members to do business with the
defendant in order to receive a benefit," lawyer Robert Chojnacki
argued in court.  "Here the class counsel gets $15 million in cash
and class members get coupons."

The deal would also reportedly provide $20,000 each to two class
representatives and $45 million in payments to a group of
charities should TM credits go unredeemed.

The judge has yet to issue a ruling on the matter.


TRIAGE STAFFING: Sued for Hiring Suspect in Hepatitis C Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that despite
his questionable employment history, a staffing agency hired the
roaming hospital technician who is suspected of exposing an untold
number of hospital patients to hepatitis C by reusing syringes
after injecting himself with drugs, a class action claims in
Federal Court.

Five named plaintiffs sued Triage Staffing in a class action, and
another man sued it in a separate complaint.

David Kwiatkowski was arrested on federal charges.  He is
suspected of stealing syringes filled with fentanyl, a painkiller,
from the cardiac catheterization lab in Exeter Hospital in New
Hampshire, injecting himself, refilling the syringes with
something else and replacing them.

"As of July 13, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services has announced that 32 people, including
Mr. Kwiatkowski and Mr. Fowler, associated with the Exeter
Hospital cardiac catheterization laboratory have tested positive
for hepatitis C," according to Mr. Fowler's individual complaint.

Triage Staffing is the only defendant in both cases.

Triage Staffing "employs and places health care workers known as
'travelers,'" the class action states.  "Triage hires these
'travelers' and places them to work at hospitals around the United
States on a contract basis for short durations of time, often
approximately 13 weeks.  Such 'travelers' often provide short-term
staffing assistance to hospitals that Triage contracts with.

"Upon information and belief, Triage hired one David Kwiatkowski
as a traveling cardiac catheterization laboratory technician and,
in March 2011, placed Mr. Kwiatkowski at Exeter Hospital in
Exeter, New Hampshire."

The class claims that Triage hired Mr. Kwiatkowski despite his
questionable record:

"Upon information and belief, prior to arriving at Exeter
Hospital, staff members at some of the hospitals where
Mr. Kwiatkowski had previously worked reported that
Mr. Kwiatkowski often told stories about himself that later proved
to be false.  For example, Mr. Kwiatkowski frequently claimed
that:

"a. he played baseball at the University of Michigan;

"b. his fiancee had died under tragic circumstances; and

"c. he suffered from cancer.

"Upon information and belief, prior to coming to Exeter Hospital,
Mr. Kwiatkowski was terminated by another hospital for falsifying
information on a timesheet.

"Upon information and belief, prior to coming to Exeter Hospital,
on at least two occasions, needles were found in a restroom
outside the cardiac catheterization laboratory at a hospital where
Mr. Kwiatkowski worked.  After Mr. Kwiatkowski left that hospital,
no further such incidents occurred.

"Upon information and belief, prior to coming to Exeter Hospital,
Mr. Kwiatkowski was involved in a drug diversion incident when he
worked as a contract employee in 2008:

"a. A hospital employee observed Mr. Kwiatkowski enter an
operating room, lift his shirt, put a syringe in his pants, move
his arms quickly near a medication cart, and exit the room.  A
subsequent review of the narcotics in the room showed that a
syringe containing Fentanyl, a potent opioid narcotic with a high
abuse potential, was missing and that it had been replaced by a
syringe containing a different liquid (which was later found not
to be Fentanyl).

"b. Mr. Kwiatkowski was acting erratically and was sweating.

"c. Mr. Kwiatkowski agreed to be searched shortly after the
discovery and three empty syringes bearing Fentanyl labels were
found on his person.  An empty morphine sulfate syringe and a
needle were later found in his locker.

"d. A drug test found Fentanyl and other opiates in Mr.
Kwiatkowski's system.

"Upon information and belief, Mr. Kwiatkowski tested positive for
hepatitis C in June 2010."

The accusations have been front-page news throughout New England
last week.

The class claims that "in October 2011, after Mr. Kwiatkowski had
been working in its cardiac catheterization laboratory for six
months, Exeter Hospital hired Mr. Kwiatkowski as a full-time
cardiac catheterization laboratory technician.

"Upon information and belief, in or about May 2012, medical staff
at Exeter Hospital learned that several patients had tested
positive for Hepatitis C.  Further investigation revealed that all
of these patients had undergone recent procedures in Exeter
Hospital's cardiac catheterization laboratory.

"Upon information and belief, in June 2012, Mr. Kwiatkowski fled
the state of New Hampshire and was subsequently admitted to a
psychiatric hospital in Massachusetts.

"As of July 13, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services has announced that 32 people, including
Mr. Kwiatkowski and Mr. Fowler, associated with the Exeter
Hospital cardiac catheterization laboratory have tested positive
for hepatitis C.

"Over 1,200 patients, associated with Exeter Hospital in New
Hampshire have been tested and 32 patients have been identified
who are infected with the same strain of hepatitis C as Mr.
Kwiatkowski.

"On July 24, 2012, the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services announced that over 6,000 more Exeter Hospital
patients will be tested for hepatitis C."

CNN reported on Kwiatkowski's employment history, claiming that
Triage had placed him at a long list of hospitals, including
Oakwood Hospital in Trenton, Mich.; Saint Francis Hospital in
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center; the
Southern Maryland Hospital in Clinton, Md.; Johns Hopkins;
Maryland General Hospital in Baltimore; Hays Medical Center in
Hays, Kan.; and the Houston Medical Center in Warner Robins, Ga.

Mr. Kwiatkowski faces federal charges of obtaining controlled
substances by fraud and tampering with a consumer product,
according to CNN and wire reports.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for negligent
hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent
entrustment.

They are represented by Domenic Paolini, with Paolini and Haley,
which also represents the man who filed the individual complaint.

A copy of the Complaint in French, et al. v. Triage Staffing Inc.,
Case No. 12-cv-00255 (D. Neb.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/26/HepC1.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Domenic Paolini, Esq.
          PAOLINI & HALEY PC
          28 State Street, 37th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109-1775
          Telephone: (617) 951-0300
          E-mail: dpaolini@paoliniandhaley.com


WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Inaccessible POS Devices/Terminals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Independent Living, Inc., Janet Brown, and Lisa Kilgore
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-03885 (N.D. Calif., July 25,
2012) arises out of Wal-Mart's policy and practice of continuing
to use inaccessible point of sale ("POS") devices that deny
persons in wheelchairs and scooters equal access to the benefits
and services of those terminals.

The lawsuit challenges ongoing discrimination by Wal-Mart based on
its refusal to provide accessible POS terminals for consumers with
mobility disabilities, who use wheelchairs and scooters, at many
of Wal-Mart's retail stores throughout California, the Plaintiffs
contend.  They allege that POS terminals at multiple Wal-Mart
stores are mounted at inaccessible heights so that customers, who
use wheelchairs or scooters, have to struggle to process their
payment securely or cannot see the display screens or
independently use the terminals.

CIL is a non-profit organization headquartered in Berkeley,
California, and is the first service and advocacy organization
founded by and for persons with disabilities.  Ms. Brown is a
resident of Pittsburgh, California, while Ms. Kilgore is a
resident of San Pablo, California.  Both ladies have mobility
disability.  They are using wheelchairs and regularly visits a
Wal-Mart store in their area.

Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation with stores throughout
California.  Wal-Mart is the world's largest retailer and private
employer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence W. Paradis, Esq.
          Kevin Knestrick, Esq.
          Christine Chuang, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: general@dralegal.org

               - and -

          Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
          Catha Worthman, Esq.
          Julia Campins, Esq.
          LEWIS FEINBERG LEE RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
          476 9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824
          E-mail: blee@lewisfeinberg.com
                  cworthman@lewisfeinberg.com
                  jcampins@lewisfeinberg.com

               - and -

          Arlene Mayerson, Esq.
          Shira Wakschlag, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND, INC.
          3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210
          Berkeley, CA 94703
          Telephone: (510) 644-2555
          Facsimile: (510) 841-8645
          E-mail: amayerson@dredf.org
                  swakschlag@dredf.org


WAL-MART STORES: Disability Rights Advocates File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that disability rights advocates filed a federal
lawsuit on July 25 against Walmart, claiming the retail giant
refuses to make payment machines accessible to customers who use
wheelchairs and scooters.

The plaintiffs allege that Bentonville, Ark.-based Walmart
knowingly placed point-of-sale terminals beyond the reach of
disabled customers at many of its more than 200 stores in
California -- in violation of state law and the U.S. Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The lack of accessible payment devices makes it difficult or
impossible for disabled customers to independently pay for goods
with a credit or debit card, according to the lawsuit.  Many must
ask cashiers to read the charges, enter their personal
identification number or PIN or sign on their behalf to authorize
the transaction.

The plaintiff's attorney Bill Lann Lee said Walmart "should be an
industry leader, not a defender of discrimination."

"Point-of-sale machines are the wave of the future in American
retail.  They should be accessible, convenient and secure to use
for all customers," Mr. Lee said.

Walmart spokeswoman Ashley Hardie could not comment on the lawsuit
itself, but she said the company is committed to serving customers
with disabilities.

"Our goal is that every point-of-sale machine be accessible within
the regulations of the (Americans with Disabilities Act) and
California law," she said.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco by
the Berkeley-based Center for Independent Living and two disabled
individuals.  They are represented by the groups Disability Rights
Advocates and Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

"I feel unsafe when I check out at Walmart," said plaintiff Janet
Brown, a wheelchair user from Pittsburg.  "I can't reach the
payment device on my own, read the display screen, enter my PIN or
sign the screen to complete the transaction.  I have to share my
private PIN with the cashier, which I hate to do."

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit so
that it could cover all disabled people who have had trouble using
payment devices at Walmart stores in California.

The lawsuit, which attorneys say is the first of its kind, seeks
unspecified damages and the installation of accessible payment
machines at the company's California stores.

Hard-to-reach credit-card readers are common at retail stores
throughout the world, but disability advocates say they are
launching their campaign to change that by targeting Walmart, said
Arlene Mayerson, directing attorney at the Disability Rights
Education & Defense Fund.

"Why Walmart? Because they are the biggest retailer in the world,"
Ms. Mayerson said.  "They should be able to do it right."


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $335-Mil. Expense for Embraco Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation disclosed in its July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it has incurred, in the
aggregate, charges of approximately $335 million in connection
with antitrust lawsuits and investigations relating to its Embraco
business in Brazil.

Beginning in February 2009, the Company's compressor business
headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations
of the global compressor industry by government authorities in
various jurisdictions.  In 2011, Embraco sales represented
approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales.

Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and
other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and
concluded their investigations.  In connection with these
agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust law
with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from 2004
through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments.

Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009,
Embraco has been named as a defendant in related antitrust
lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection
with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009.  Several other
compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the government
investigations have also been named as defendants in the
litigation.  United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf
of purported purchasers and containing class action allegations
have been combined in one proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Lawsuits containing
class action allegations are also pending in Canada.  Additional
lawsuits may be filed by purported purchasers.

In connection with these agreements and other Embraco antitrust
matters, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate, charges of
approximately $335 million, including fines, defense costs and
other expenses.  These charges have been recorded within interest
and sundry income (expense).  At June 30, 2012, $174 million
remains accrued, with installment payments of $149 million, plus
interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at
various times through 2015.

The Company says it continues to work toward resolution of ongoing
government investigations in other jurisdictions, to defend the
related antitrust lawsuits and to take other actions to minimize
its potential exposure.  The final outcome and impact of these
matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be
brought in the future are subject to many variables, and cannot be
predicted.  The Company establishes accruals only for those
matters where it determines that a loss is probable and the amount
of loss can be reasonably estimated.  While it is currently not
possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs
which the Company may incur in connection with these matters, such
costs could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, liquidity, or results of operations.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending against numerous
class action lawsuits in various jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada relating to certain of its front load washing
machines.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege
violations of state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and
breach of warranty.  The complaints generally seek unspecified
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages.  The Company
believes these lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend them.  At this point, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a possible range of loss, if any.

In addition, the Company is currently defending a number of other
class action lawsuits in federal and state courts related to the
manufacturing and sale of its products and alleging claims which
include breach of contract, breach of warranty, product defect,
fraud, violation of federal and state consumer protection acts and
negligence.  The Company is also involved in various other legal
actions arising in the normal course of business.  The Company
disputes the merits of these lawsuits and actions, and intends to
vigorously defend them.  Management believes, based upon its
current knowledge, after taking into consideration legal counsel's
evaluation of such lawsuits and actions discussed, and after
taking into account current litigation reserves, that the outcome
of these matters currently pending against Whirlpool should not
have a material adverse effect, if any, on the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


YUM! BRANDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class decertification in the class action lawsuit
commenced by Moeller, et al. against a subsidiary of YUM! Brands,
Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's July 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 16, 2012.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell Corp. was named as the defendant
in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et
al. v. Taco Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell
has discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs
or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the
"Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the
"CDPA").  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the
District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its
implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco
Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf
of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per
offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class.  Plaintiffs contend
that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a
definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant
to be the subject of a trial.  The exemplar trial for that
restaurant began on June 6, 2011.  The trial was bifurcated and
the first stage addressed whether violations existed at the
restaurant.  Twelve alleged violations of the ADA and state law
were tried.  On October 5, 2011, the court issued its trial
decision.  The court found liability for the twelve items, finding
that they were once out of compliance with applicable state and/or
federal accessibility standards.  The court also found that
classwide injunctive relief is warranted.  The court declined to
order injunctive relief at this time, however, citing the pendency
of Taco Bell's motions to decertify both the injunctive and
damages class.  In a separate order, the court vacated the date
previously set for an exemplar trial for damages on the single
restaurant.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its
ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.  The Supreme Court held
that the class in that case was improperly certified.  The same
legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case,
and Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class on August 3,
2011.  During the exemplar trial, the court observed that the
restaurant had been in full compliance with all laws since March
2010, and Taco Bell argues in its decertification motion that, in
light of the decision in the Dukes case, no damages class can be
certified and that injunctive relief is not appropriate,
regardless of class status.  On October 19, 2011, plaintiffs filed
a motion to amend the certified class to include a damages class.
Briefing on Taco Bell's motion to decertify and plaintiffs' motion
to amend the class is complete.  No hearing has been scheduled by
the court.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws.  The costs associated with addressing
these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results
of operations.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary
damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.


YUM! BRANDS: Final Hearing on "RGM" Suit Settlement on Aug. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing in connection with YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by
restaurant general managers is scheduled for August 17, 2012,
according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 16, 2012.

On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in
Orange County Superior Court.  On August 7, 2006, another putative
class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.
was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.  Both lawsuits were
filed by a Taco Bell restaurant general manager ("RGM") purporting
to represent all current and former RGMs and Market Training
Managers (MTMs) who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in
California since August 2002.  The lawsuits allege violations of
California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal
period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and
penalties.  The cases were consolidated in San Diego County as of
September 7, 2006.

On January 29, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' class
certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of
RGMs and MTMs but denied class certification on the meal period
claims.  The court ruled that the case would be tried to the bench
rather than a jury.  Trial testimony began on
February 14, 2012.

On June 1, 2012, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding setting forth the terms upon which the parties
agreed to settle this matter.  On June 4, 2012, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.
The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for August 17, 2012.  The
incremental costs associated with the settlement were recorded in
the quarter ended June 16, 2012.


YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in "Hines" Class Suit Set for August 20
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to decertify the class in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Domonique Hines against a YUM! Brands, Inc.
subsidiary will be heard on August 20, 2012, according to the
Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2012.

On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique
Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state
court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging
various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal
break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff is a former non-managerial
KFC restaurant employee.  KFC filed an answer denying plaintiff's
claims and allegations and removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on October
29, 2009.  Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in May
2010, and the District Court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
a class on the meal and rest break claims but denied the motion to
certify a class regarding alleged off-the-clock work in October
2010.  On November 1, 2010, KFC filed a motion requesting a stay
of the case pending a decision from the California Supreme Court
regarding the applicable standard for employer provision of meal
and rest breaks.  In January 2011, the District Court stayed the
entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme Court
in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego.

Subsequent to the California Supreme Court's decision in April
2012, the stay was vacated.  On May 25, 2012, KFCC filed a motion
to decertify the class in light of the Brinker decision.  KFC's
motion will be heard on August 20, 2012.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be
predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any potential
loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Hearing in Wage & Hour Suit vs. Unit Set for Aug. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for August 3, 2012, in the consolidated
wage and hour class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of YUM!
Brands, Inc., according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 16, 2012.

Taco Bell Corp. was named as a defendant in a number of putative
class action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200.  Plaintiffs also seek penalties
for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act and statutory "waiting
time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair
Business Practices Act.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a California
state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010, the court approved the
parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the
vacation and final pay claims on December 30, 2010, and the class
certification hearing took place in June 2011.  Taco Bell also
filed a motion to stay the proceedings until the California
Supreme Court ruled on two cases concerning meal and rest breaks,
and the court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the meal and rest
break claims on August 22, 2011.  On September 26, 2011, the court
issued its order denying the certification of the remaining
vacation and final pay claims.

On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling
in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego
concerning meal and rest breaks.  Thereafter, the court vacated
the stay and ordered the parties to file briefs concerning
certification of a class for the meal and rest break claims.  A
hearing is scheduled for August 3, 2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Opt-In Period in "Smith" Suit Will Close August 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
The opt-in period in the class action lawsuit commenced by Mark
Smith against a YUM! Brands, Inc. subsidiary will close on
August 23, 2012, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 16, 2012.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleged that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.
On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in
addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserted state-law class
action claims under the laws of sixteen different states.  Pizza
Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.
On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion
with respect to plaintiffs' state law claims, but allowed the FLSA
claims to go forward.  Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, and the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion April 21, 2012.  The opt-in period will
close on August 23, 2012.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell to Answer "Rosales" Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary is preparing to answer the third
amended complaint in the class action lawsuit filed by Marisela
Rosales, according to the Company's July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 16, 2012.

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.  Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or
transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The state court granted Taco
Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010.  After the
denial of class certification in the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend her lawsuit,
which plaintiff filed and served on January 4, 2012.

Taco Bell filed its responsive pleading on February 8, 2012, and
plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 15, 2012.
Taco Bell again filed a responsive pleading and thereafter
plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on June 11, 2012.  Taco
Bell intends to answer the Third Amended Complaint and begin
discovery.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Unit Wants Class in "Whittington" Suit Decertified
---------------------------------------------------------------
YUM! Brands, Inc. disclosed in its July 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 16, 2012, that its subsidiary plan to seek
decertification in the class action lawsuit commenced by Jacquelyn
Whittington.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours worked in a day.  The Company has been
dismissed from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its
answer on September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class
discovery, which is currently on-going.  On September 16, 2011,
plaintiffs filed their motion for conditional certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The plaintiffs did not move
for certification of a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law.

The court heard the motion on January 10, 2012, granted
conditional certification and ordered the notice of the opt-in
class be sent to the putative class members.  The notice was sent
to class members on February 24, 2012, and the opt-in period ended
on May 21, 2012.  Approximately 488 individuals submitted opt-in
forms.  After further discovery, Taco Bell plans to seek
decertification of the class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


* No. of Federal Securities Class Actions Down in 1st Half of 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry B. Burr, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
S&P 500 companies were named in 10 of 88 federal securities class-
action filings in the first six months of 2012, compared to eight
of 94 filings in the same period last year, according to a report
by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse
and Cornerstone Research.

Overall, the 88 federal securities class actions represent a 6%
decline from the first half of last year.

For the first six months of 2012, a total of $249 billion of
defendant companies' market value was lost from the trading day
with the highest market capitalization during the class-action
period to the trading day immediately following the end of the
class-action period, the report, "Securities Class Action Filings
- 2012 Mid-Year Assessment," said.  By contrast, the loss was $256
billion in the first half of last year.

"Looking over the horizon, the LIBOR-litigation industry is
clearly a sector to watch for years to come," Joseph Grundfest,
clearinghouse director, said in a joint statement with Cornerstone
about the report.  "The magnitude of the potential exposures and
the complexity of the underlying damages claims will likely
generate large amounts of litigation activity in many geographies.
Much of that litigation activity will occur away from the U.S.
class-action securities fraud sector, but more lawsuits are
virtually assured."

The decline in total filings in the first half of the year was
primarily because of a big drop in Chinese reverse-merger filings
as well as in merger-and-acquisition filings, the statement said.

In the past six months, CRM filings were down 79% to five and M&A-
related filings were down 67% to seven, the report said.

Through a process known as a reverse merger, or reverse takeover,
Chinese and other non-U.S. companies gain access to U.S. equity
markets "when an existing U.S.-listed shell company acquires a
non-listed firm, at which point the target firm's shareholders
take control of the combined entity," according to information in
another Stanford report.


                           *********

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  * * *