CAR_Public/120807.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 155

                             Headlines

ALTRIA GROUP: Still Defends 16 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Two Medical Monitoring Suits v. Unit Still Pending
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Judge Disciplines Two Class Action Lawyers
AUTHENTEC: Being Sold to Apple for Too Little, Suit Claims
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Milberg LLP Files Securities Class Action

BURCH EQUIPMENT: Recalls 188,902 Cantaloupes Due to Health Risk
BUSCH'S FRESH: Recalls Deli Products With Peeled Yellow Onions
C.R. BARD: Still Defends Numerous Product Liability Lawsuits
CHINA NORTH: 2nd Circuit Overturns Fraud Class Action Dismissal
CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Remain Pending

CJA AND ASSOCIATES: Moukawsher & Walsh Files Class Action
COINSTAR INC: Appeal in "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Class Suit Pending
COINSTAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Unit's Bid to Dismiss Privacy Suit
COINSTAR INC: Awaits Aug. 10 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement
COINSTAR INC: "Piechur" Suit Dismissal Bid Pending

COLONIAL HOME: Sued for Breaching Home Warranty Contract
CONAGRA FOODS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Action on Nov. 30
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Awaits OK of Settlement of Unpaid Wages Suits
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Membership Class Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Consumer Watchdog Opposes Class Action Settlement

FIRST AMERICAN: Still Defends Suits Over Business Practices
FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Denied in Defective Transmissions Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Denied Motion to Amend Shareholder Suit
HSBC FINANCE: Still Awaits Final Ruling in Securities Suit
HSBC FINANCE: Faces Class Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance

HSBC FINANCE: Hearing in Six Debt Cancellation Suits on Oct. 1
HSBC FINANCE: Signed MOU to Settle Antitrust MDL 1720 in July
HUMAN GENOME: Defends Class Suit Over GSK's Unsolicited Offer
HUMAN GENOME: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Maryland
IMAX CORP: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada

IMAX CORP: Settlement of Securities Class Suit Approved in June
KENOSHA BEEF: Recalls 37,600 Lbs. of Bacon Cheeseburger Patties
KOSMOS ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas Over IPO
KROGER CO: Sued Over Aflatoxin-Contaminated Pet Food
MANNKIND CORP: Settled Consolidated Securities Suit for $16-Mil.

MCKESSON CORP: AWP-Related Class Litigation Now Concluded
MF GLOBAL: Trustee to Join Class Actions Over Missing Funds
MICROSOFT CORP: Awaits B.C. Suit Hearing Scheduled This Fall
MIDAS LIN: Recalls 16,400 Patio Bistro Sets Sold at Lowe's
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Cops' Pension Cuts

PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Clients Sue Wasendorf For $200MM Theft
SEARS ROEBUCK: Recalls 795,000 Kenmore(R) Dehumidifiers
SUNTECH POWER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SYMANTEC CORP: Judge Halts Class Action Over "Scareware"
US STEEL: Must Face Class Action Over Drug and Alcohol Testing

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Defends Suits Over Fuel & Environmental Charges
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Remaining Claims Pending in ERISA Class Suit
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Anda Faces New TCPA-Violation Class Suit
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: FTC's Appeal in AndroGel(R) Suit Denied
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Sup. Ct. Allows Review of Cipro Suit

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Consolidated N.J. Securities Suit
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Force-Placed Insurance
ZYNGA INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action

* Korean Consumer Advocacy Group Mulls Class Action v. Banks

                          *********

ALTRIA GROUP: Still Defends 16 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
from 16 class action lawsuits alleging that the uses of the terms
"Lights" and "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade
practices, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages.  These class
actions have been brought against Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-
owned subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), and, in
certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on
behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights.  Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the
statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory
provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory
directives, and the First Amendment.

As of July 23, 2012, a total of sixteen such cases were pending in
the United States.  Four of these cases were pending in U.S.
federal courts.  The other cases were pending in various U.S.
state courts.  In addition, a purported "Lights" class action is
pending against PM USA in Israel.

In the one "Lights" case pending in Israel (El-Roy), hearings on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification were held in November
and December 2008, and an additional hearing on class
certification was held in November 2011.

                          The Good Case

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and
dismissed the case.  In August 2007, the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court's grant
of PM USA's motion for summary judgment on federal preemption
grounds and remanded the case to district court.  The district
court stayed the case pending the United States Supreme Court's
ruling on defendants' petition for writ of certiorari, which was
granted in January 2008.  The case was stayed pending the United
States Supreme Court's decision.  In December 2008, the United
States Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred
by federal preemption.  Although the Court rejected the argument
that the FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the
descriptors that the state law claims were barred as a matter of
federal law, the Court's decision was limited: it did not address
the ultimate merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the
action as a class action, or other state law issues.  The case was
returned to the federal court in Maine and consolidated with other
federal cases in the multidistrict litigation proceeding.  In June
2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice after the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

                Federal Multidistrict Proceeding
                   and Subsequent Developments

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through July 23, 2012, twenty-four purported "Lights"
class actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases,
Altria Group, Inc.  These cases were filed in 14 states, the U.S.
Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.  All of these cases
either were filed in federal court or were removed to federal
court by PM USA and were transferred and consolidated by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the
United States District Court for the District of Maine for
pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine.  These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants.  Plaintiffs sought appellate review of
this decision but, in February 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for
leave to appeal.  Later that year, plaintiffs in thirteen cases
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their cases.  In April
2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang,
Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district courts in which the
lawsuits originated.

In Phillips, which is now pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, defendants filed on
June 14, 2012, a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on
plaintiffs' class action consumer sales practices claims and a
motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' state
deceptive trade practices claims.

                    "Lights" Cases Dismissed,
              Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

To date, in addition to the district court in the MDL proceeding,
15 courts in 16 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM
USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class
certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action
allegations.  Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan
after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under
the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.  In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines.  The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008.  The Supreme Court of
Illinois has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a
certified class in the Price case.  In Louisiana, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a
purported "Lights" class action brought in Louisiana federal court
(Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the FCLAA.  In New York, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court
in Schwab that denied defendants' summary judgment motions and
granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all United States residents that purchased cigarettes in the
United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights."  In July
2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with
prejudice.  In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009.
The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory
review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought
review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a
class.  Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies
case with prejudice.  In August 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal
district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM
USA in the Cleary case.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class.  In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory
exemption.  In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's
motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the
Oregon Court of Appeals.  Argument was held in April 2010.

In Curtis, on May 30, 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed
the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA on
the remaining consumer protection claims, concluding this
litigation.

                       Other Developments

In December 2009, the state trial court in the Carroll (formerly
known as Holmes) case (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion
for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.  In January 2011, the trial court
allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting
class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as
additional defendants.  In July 2011, the parties stipulated to
the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI.
The stipulation is signed by the parties but not yet approved by
the trial court.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in the Miner (formerly known as Watson) case that
denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as
opposed to federal, trial court.  The Supreme Court rejected
defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal
court under the "federal officer" statute.  The case was removed
to federal court in Arkansas and the case was transferred to the
MDL proceeding.  In November 2010, the district court in the MDL
proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court.  In December
2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against
Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice.

                         The Price Case

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in
January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages
and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.  In December
2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  In November 2006, the United
States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of
certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison
County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed
the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA.  Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate."  PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed.  In
March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois.  In
February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review.  As a result,
the case has returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment.  In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended
petition, which PM USA opposes.  Subsequently, in responding to PM
USA's opposition to the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the
trial court to reinstate the original judgment.  A hearing on PM
USA's opposition to plaintiffs' amended petition is scheduled for
August 21, 2012.

In June 2009, the plaintiff in an individual smoker lawsuit
(Kelly) brought on behalf of an alleged smoker of "Lights"
cigarettes in Madison County, Illinois state court filed a motion
seeking a declaration that his claims under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act are not (i) barred by the exemption in that statute
based on his assertion that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision
in Price is no longer good law in light of the decisions by the
United States Supreme Court in Good and Watson, and (ii) preempted
in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good.
In September 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion as to
federal preemption, but denied it with respect to the state
statutory exemption.

               State Trial Court Class Certifications

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
Massachusetts (Aspinall), Minnesota (Curtis), Missouri (Larsen)
and New Hampshire (Lawrence). Significant developments in these
cases include:

   * Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court affirmed the class certification order.  In August 2006, the
trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and
granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute.  On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review.  In December 2008,
subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good,
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order
requesting that the parties advise the court within 30 days
whether the Good decision is dispositive of federal preemption
issues pending on appeal.  In January 2009, PM USA notified the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that Good is dispositive of
the federal preemption issues on appeal, but requested further
briefing on the state law statutory exemption issue.  In March
2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order
denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs'
cross-motion.  In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial
summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from
the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.  In
March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion.

   * Curtis: In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied PM
USA's petition for interlocutory review of the trial court's class
certification order.  In October 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, filed in February
2009, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice.  In October 2009, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment as to
all consumer protection counts and, in December 2009, dismissed
the case in its entirety.  In December 2010, the Minnesota Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case and
affirmed the trial court's prior certification of the class under
Minnesota's consumer protection statutes.  The Court of Appeals
also affirmed the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.  PM
USA's petition for review with the Minnesota Supreme Court was
granted in March 2011.  On May 30, 2012, the Minnesota Supreme
Court vacated the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision and affirmed
the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of PM USA on the
consumer protection claims, finding that the plaintiffs' claims
under Minnesota's consumer protection law were barred by the State
Settlement Agreement signed in 1998 by Minnesota.  This litigation
has now concluded.

   * Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed
the class certification order.  In December 2009, the trial court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during
which potential class members can qualify to become part of the
class.  The class period remains 1995 - 2003.  In June 2010, PM
USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs'
request for punitive damages was denied.  In April 2010,
plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of
liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.  The
plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.  In June 2011, PM
USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the
plaintiffs' claims.  In August 2011, the trial court granted PM
USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs
could not present a damages claim based on allegations that
Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds.  The trial
court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions.  Trial
in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011 the court
declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict.  The
court has scheduled a new trial to begin on January 21, 2013.

   * Lawrence: In November 2010, the trial court certified a class
consisting of all persons who purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes
in the state of New Hampshire at any time from the date the brand
was introduced into commerce until the date trial in the case
begins.  PM USA's motion for reconsideration of this decision was
denied in January 2011.  In September 2011, the New Hampshire
Supreme Court accepted review of the class certification decision.
Argument was heard on June 7, 2012.


ALTRIA GROUP: Two Medical Monitoring Suits v. Unit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two medical monitoring class action lawsuits against Altria Group,
Inc.'s subsidiary remain pending, according to the Company's July
26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Two purported medical monitoring class actions are pending against
Altria Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Philip Morris USA
Inc. ("PM USA").  These two cases were brought in New York
(Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York) and Massachusetts
(Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts) on behalf of each state's
respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the
Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been
diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a
physician for suspected lung cancer.  Plaintiffs in these cases
seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of
action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing
members of the purported class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to
identify and diagnose lung cancer.  Plaintiffs in these cases do
not seek punitive damages.  A case brought in California (Xavier)
was dismissed in July 2011, and a case brought in Florida
(Gargano) was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in August 2011.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part
PM USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim.  In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and
medical monitoring claims.  In January 2011, the district court
granted PM USA's motion, dismissed plaintiffs' claims and declared
plaintiffs' motion for class certification moot in light of the
dismissal of the case.  The plaintiffs have appealed that decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Argument before the Second Circuit was heard in March 2012.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury.  The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court.  The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings.  In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim.  In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate
review of the class certification decision.  The petition was
denied in September 2010.  As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a
28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of
$190 million.  In April 2011, plaintiffs moved to amend their
class certification to extend the cut-off date for individuals to
satisfy the class membership criteria from December 14, 2006, to
August 1, 2011.  The district court granted this motion in May
2011.  In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for summary
judgment and to strike affirmative defenses.  In October 2011, PM
USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was
denied in March 2012.  A trial date has not been set.

The Company says evolving medical standards and practices could
have an impact on the defense of medical monitoring claims.  For
example, the first publication of the findings of the National
Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in June
2011 reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths among certain
long term smokers receiving Low Dose CT Scanning for lung cancer.
Since then, various public health organizations have begun to
develop new lung cancer screening guidelines.  Also, a number of
hospitals have advertised the availability of screening programs.
Other studies in this area are ongoing.


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Judge Disciplines Two Class Action Lawyers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Jones, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Washington state has publicly disciplined two
attorneys from a prominent plaintiffs' firm for claiming
unreasonable expenses while handling a securities class action.

U.S. District Judge Justin Quackenbush issued an order of reproval
on July 24 against attorney Joy Bull, who, according to the order,
resigned as a partner from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd at the
firm's request.

The order issued a lesser sanction, an admonition, against John
Grant, still a partner at the firm.

The two attorneys were lead counsel for a plumbers pension fund in
a 2007 case against Ambassadors Group Inc., a publicly traded
student exchange company in Spokane, Wash. The case settled last
year for $7.5 million.

The attorneys originally claimed about $223,000 in expenses but
revised that figure to $114,137 after Judge Quackenbush questioned
the amount, according to an opinion he issued in May.  Following
that revision, the judge and his staff took a closer look at other
expenses claimed by the firm.

Some of the more troubling expenses, the judge wrote in May,
included a $400 claim for a "pre-mediation" dinner for four that
included two $70 bottles of wine and a $60 tip.  It is unclear
which Robbins Geller attorneys claimed those expenses.  Also cited
was a $1,676 first-class ticket for an investigator's air travel
and another first-class plane ticket costing more than $2,100.

The attorneys ultimately revised the original $223,000 in claimed
expenses to $99,845.

In censuring Ms. Bull, Judge Quackenbush noted that an Oregon
federal judge had denied expense claims that she filed in a second
case.  "Ms. Bull's experience in similar matters in other courts,
including a finding of misleading statements . . . should have
caused Ms. Bull to avoid ever again being in the position of
having to defend unsubstantiated or misleading expense claims," he
wrote.  Even though Ms. Bull retired on July 31 at the request of
Robbins Geller management, he continued, it was unclear whether
she would continue to practice.

A person answering the phone at Robbins Geller did not provide
forwarding contact information and said that Ms. Bull "would not
be taking calls on the case."  An attorney representing Ms. Bull
did not return a phone call.

In issuing an admonition against Mr. Grant, Judge Quackenbush
wrote that he found him "less culpable." In claiming the expenses,
Mr. Grant relied on figures provided by Bull, the judge wrote, but
still had an ethical duty to investigate their accuracy.

Mr. Grant did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Judge Quackenbush did not sanction the law firm itself.  He found
no pattern by its attorneys of misrepresenting or falsifying
expenses and said the firm took appropriate steps when they
learned of the problem.  Those steps included holding special
partner and employee meetings to make sure claims for expenses
were truthful and accurate.

Based in San Diego, Robbins Geller focuses on securities class
actions and has about 140 lawyers.  Donald Curran, an attorney at
Delay, Curran, Thompson, Pontarolo & Walker in Spokane, Wash.,
represented the firm in the sanctions matter.

"The firm is very pleased with the judge's decision that
exonerates them of any sanctions," Mr. Curran said.


AUTHENTEC: Being Sold to Apple for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AuthenTec is selling itself
too cheaply to Apple, through an unfair process, for $356 million
or $8 a share, shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Milberg LLP Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP has filed a federal securities class action against
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The action (3:12-cv-01841), filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, is on
behalf of purchasers of Bridgepoint common stock between May 3,
2011 and July 12, 2012, inclusive.

Milberg LLP has created a Web site --
http://www.BridgepointEducationLawsuit.com-- that seeks to answer
common questions about shareholder class actions.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did
not employ sufficient plans, procedures and practices to help
students finish their academic programs; (2) the Company failed to
provide adequate resources, thus preventing its students from
moving forward to acceptable levels; (3) the Company's Ashford
University failed to uphold an ample number of faculty and
programs, resulting in meager instruction and low completion rates
by students; (4) the Company had insufficient review measures such
that shortfalls in completion rates were not appropriately
recognized and corrected; (5) Ashford University failed to
preserve an empowered and independent governing board; and (6) as
a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading.

On July 9, 2012, Bridgepoint disclosed that Ashford University was
denied accreditation by the Accrediting Commission for Senior
Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges ("WASC").  In response, shares fell $7.25 per share,
or 33.72%.

On July 13, 2012, the Company disclosed that Ashford University
received a letter from the Higher Learning Commission ("HCL") of
the Northern Central Association of schools and Colleges requiring
it "to provide certain information and evidence of compliance with
HCL accreditation standards."  In response, shares fell $3.20 per
share, or 24.67%.

If you purchased Bridgepoint common stock during the Class Period
you may, no later than September 11, 2012, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead
plaintiff is a class member that represents other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your share in any recovery will not be
affected by serving as a lead plaintiff, however, lead plaintiffs
make important decisions that could affect the overall recovery
for class members.  You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to
recover.  You may retain Milberg LLP, or other attorneys, for this
action, but do not need to retain counsel to recover.  If this
action is certified as a class action, class members will be
automatically represented by Court-appointed counsel.

If you wish to discuss this matter with us, please contact the
following attorney:

          Jeff Westerman, Esq.
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          E-mail: contactus@milberg.com


BURCH EQUIPMENT: Recalls 188,902 Cantaloupes Due to Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burch Equipment LLC, North Carolina is expanding their recall that
was initiated on July 28th, 2012.  The firm is voluntarily
recalling 13,888 cases of whole Athena variety cantaloupes (9
cantaloupes per case) and 581 bins (110 cantaloupes per bin) of
Athena variety cantaloupes due to the potential for being
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.  Melons affected by this
recall total 188,902.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The whole Athena variety cantaloupes were shipped between July
15th and July 27th and distributed to retail stores operating in
FL, GA, IL, MD, NC, NJ, NY, PA, SC and VA.  The whole cantaloupes
are identified by a red label reading Burch Farms referencing PLU
# 4319.  All cantaloupes involved in the recall were grown by
Burch Farms, however some of the cantaloupes may have been
identified with a "Cottle Strawberry, Inc." sticker referencing
PLU #4319.  Cottle Farms is not involved in this recall.  The
Athena variety cantaloupe is the most commonly grown in the east.
Cantaloupes from Burch Farms were shipped to retail establishments
in both corrugated boxes (9 cantaloupe per case) and in bulk bins.

Burch Equipment LLC is requesting any consumer that may have one
of these cantaloupes to discard the product.

There have been no illnesses reported to date.  FDA and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture are working with Burch
Equipment LLC following a random sample of an Athena variety
cantaloupe testing positive for Listeria monocytogenes.  The
recall expansion is based on unsanitary conditions found at the
cantaloupe packing shed during the FDA's ongoing inspection that
may allow for contamination of cantaloupes with Listeria
monocytogenes.

Questions can be directed to Burch Equipment LLC at 910 267 5781
Monday through Friday, (9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) or e-mail
burch@intrstar.net


BUSCH'S FRESH: Recalls Deli Products With Peeled Yellow Onions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Busch's Fresh Food Market is announcing the voluntary recall of
products processed between the dates of July 20 through July 27,
2012, that contain onions produced by Gills Onions of Oxnard,
California.  The recall is in connection with an expanded
voluntary recall announced by Gills Onions, LLC of their Peeled
Whole Yellow Onions due to possible contamination with Listeria
Monocytogenes.

All of the following products involved in this voluntary recall
have been cooked and generally Listeria Bacteria are killed in the
cooking process.  However, since the Company cannot guarantee
that, it is exercising extreme caution and asking that all
products should be discarded or returned for a full refund or
replacement.  The products being voluntarily recalled are:

   * Busch's Baked Mostaccioli
   * Busch's Chicken Wet Burrito
   * Busch's Green Chili Chicken Enchiladas
   * Busch's Jambalaya with shrimp
   * Busch's Down Home Lasagna
   * Busch's Chicken Shepherd's Pie
   * Busch's Spaghetti and Meatballs
   * Busch's Chicken Quesadillas
   * Busch's Sweet Potato Cakes
   * Busch's Original Potato Cakes
   * Busch's Sweet Baby Ray's Barbeque Meatballs
   * All Busch's Food Bar Soups

Busch's Fresh Food Market has received no confirmation of illness
associated with the consumption of these products.  Anyone
concerned about an illness should contact their healthcare
provider immediately.

                          About Busch's

Busch's Fresh Food Market, which celebrates its 37th anniversary
this year, is a locally-owned Michigan company that blends the
best of today's freshness, selection and quality with the personal
service and wholesomeness of a neighborhood grocer.

In addition to fresh produce, local and organic choices, deli and
bakery items made from scratch, USDA Choice meat, fresh seafood
and an extensive beer and wine collection, Busch's offers popular
national brands, imported specialty foods and convenient meal
solutions.

Busch's proudly supports charitable organizations and
schoolchildren in the communities it serves.  In addition, Busch's
offers MyWay, a personalized shopping program that provides online
ordering and advance notice of sale prices.

Learn more about Busch's Fresh Food Market at
http://www.buschs.com/


C.R. BARD: Still Defends Numerous Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. continues to defend numerous product liability
lawsuits pending in U.S. and Canada, according to the Company's
July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

As of July 19, 2012, approximately 1,710 federal and 905 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 2,755
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and four putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, have been filed or asserted against the Company with
respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia
repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product
Claims").  One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates ten
previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical
monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages,
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  Approximately 890 of the state lawsuits,
involving individual claims by a substantially equivalent number
of plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The Company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005.

In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in
federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the Company in the MDL proceeding.  The first MDL trial was
completed in April 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the Company
based on the jury's finding that the Company was not liable for
the plaintiff's damages.  The second MDL trial was completed in
August 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff of $1.5
million.  On June 30, 2011, the Company announced that it had
reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms
to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims.
Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs.  In addition, the Company
continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law
firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product
Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims
that do not settle, including through litigation.  Additional
trials are scheduled throughout the second half of 2012.  Based on
these events, the Company recorded to other (income) expense, net,
a charge of $184.3 million ($180.6 million after tax) in the
second quarter of 2011, which recognized the estimated costs of
settling all Hernia Product Claims, including asserted and
unasserted claims, and costs to administer the settlements.  The
charge excludes any costs associated with pending putative class
action lawsuits.  The Company cannot give any assurances that the
actual costs incurred with respect to the Hernia Product Claims
will not exceed the amount of the charge together with amounts
previously accrued.  The Company cannot give any assurances that
the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled,
including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class
action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.

As of July 19, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 1,035 plaintiffs have been
filed or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the Company's surgical continence products for
women, principally its Avaulta(R) line of products.  In addition,
a putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in Kentucky state court (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's
Health Product Claims").  The Women's Health Product Claims
generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of
the products.  The putative class action, which has not been
certified, seeks (i) medical monitoring, (ii) compensatory
damages, (iii) punitive damages, (iv) a judicial finding of defect
and causation and/or (v) attorneys' fees.  With respect to certain
of these claims, the Company believes that one of its suppliers
has an obligation to defend and indemnify the Company.  In October
2010, the JPML transferred the Women's Health Product Claims
involving solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts
nationwide into an MDL for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.  In February 2012, the JPML expanded the scope of and
renamed the MDL pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia to include lawsuits
involving all women's surgical continence products that are
manufactured or distributed by the Company.  In total,
approximately 805 of the Women's Health Product Claims are pending
in federal courts and have been or will be transferred to the MDL
in West Virginia, with the remainder of the Women's Health Product
Claims in other jurisdictions.  Trial dates have been scheduled in
the MDL beginning in February 2013.  The first trial in one of
these other jurisdictions was completed in July 2012 and resulted
in a judgment against the Company of approximately $3.6 million.
The Company intends to appeal this decision.  The Company does not
believe that this verdict is representative of the potential
outcomes of other Women's Health Product Claims.  While the
Company intends to vigorously defend the Women's Health Product
Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.

As of July 19, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 60 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products.  In addition, a
putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in California state court on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged
to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").  The putative class action, which has not been
certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive damages;
(iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (iv)
attorneys' fees.  The first Filter Product Claim trial was
completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the Company
based on the finding that the Company was not liable for the
plaintiff's damages.  The Company expects additional trials of
Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months.
While the Company intends to vigorously defend the Filter Product
Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.

In most product liability litigations of this nature, including
the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims and
the Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of
claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the
products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the
absence of any injury.  In many of these cases, the Company has
not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the
plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is
unable to fully evaluate the claims.  The Company expects that it
will receive and review additional information regarding the
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product
Claims, the Filter Product Claims and related matters as these
cases progress.

The Company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well
as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are
or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability
insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers.
In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights
with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has
occurred with respect to certain claims.  When this occurs, the
Company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its
insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of
its insurance policies, and accordingly, will record receivables
with respect to amounts due under these policies, when recovery is
probable.  Amounts recovered under the Company's product liability
insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage limits and
may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to
claims.  In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay
claims or that coverage will otherwise be available.

The Company's insurance coverage with respect to the Hernia
Product Claims has been depleted.  In connection with the Hernia
Product Claims, the Company is in dispute with one of its excess
insurance carriers relating to an aggregate of $25 million of
insurance receivables.

In connection with the Women's Health Product Claims, the Company
is in dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating
to an aggregate of $50 million of insurance coverage.

Founded in 1907 and headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey, C.
R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- and its subsidiaries
design, manufacture, package, distribute, and sell medical,
surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The
Company markets its products to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities.


CHINA NORTH: 2nd Circuit Overturns Fraud Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision released on Aug. 1, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the dismissal of the
securities fraud class action complaint in In re China North East
Petroleum Holdings, Ltd.  The district court had held that Lead
Plaintiff Acticon AG could not demonstrate economic loss because
the share price of China North's securities eclipsed Acticon's
purchase price on several days after the end of the Class Period.
In reversing, the Second Circuit held that the lower court's
decision was contrary to the well-established "out of pocket"
measure of damages and 90 day "bounce back" provision of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").

"We are gratified by the Second Circuit's decision," says
Pomerantz partner Jeremy Lieberman, who argued the case before the
Second Circuit.  "This case represented an unprecedented fraud
upon investors, including misappropriation of $39 million to
accounts controlled by corporate insiders.  The Second Circuit's
decision clarifies that the traditional "out of pocket" measure
for calculating damages remains undisturbed by the Supreme Court's
decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 F.3d 336
(2005).  Most significantly, the decision allows thousands of
investors who have been defrauded by Defendants' overt fraud to
have their day in Court."

The Complaint, filed on January 14, 2011, alleged that Defendants
stole at least $39 million from the Company for personal use while
simultaneously misleading investors regarding the Company's
financial results.  Moreover, the Complaint alleges that
Defendants failed to record substantially diminished values of the
Company's oil field assets, as well as warrant-related expenses
and impairments, all of which resulted in a restatement that wiped
out previously reported earnings.

The District Court's dismissal was based on grounds that since
China North's price twelve days after the close of the Class
Period exceeded Acticon's average purchase price during the Class
Period, and that since Acticon had failed to sell its shares on
those post Class Period days, Acticon had suffered no economic
loss.

In reversing, the Second Circuit found the district court's
reasoning "inconsistent with the traditional out-of-pocket measure
of damages, which calculates economic loss based on the value of
the security at the time that the fraud became known, and with the
PSLRA's bounce-back provision, which refines the traditional
measure by capping recovery based on the mean price over the look-
back period."  The Court further reasoned that "it is improper to
offset gains that the plaintiff recovers after the fraud becomes
known against losses caused by the revelation of the fraud if the
stock recovers value for completely unrelated reasons."

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


CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano),
filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The
Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women
in hiring into various service sales representative positions
across all divisions of Cintas.  On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit.  The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in
favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the
Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales
representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of
Michigan.  Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants
for service sales representative positions outside of the state of
Michigan were dismissed.  Similarly, any claims brought by the
EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of
the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit.

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit,
Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which
was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division.  The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that
Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and
Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative
positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United
States.  The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the
lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.  On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-
American, Hispanic and female failure to hire into service sales
representative positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were
consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The consolidated case
was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v.
Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos).  On March 31, 2009, the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division entered an order denying class certification to
all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits.  Following denial
of class certification, the Court permitted the individual Avalos
and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed separately.  In the Avalos case,
the Court dismissed the remaining claims of the individual
plaintiffs who remained in that case after the denial of class
certification.  On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on
behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case,
filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment
order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Appellate Court has made no determination regarding the merits
of Davis' appeal.  In September 2010, the Court in Serrano
dismissed all private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC
and the 13 individuals it claimed to represent.  The EEOC has
appealed the District Court's summary judgment decisions and
various other rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit.  The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the
EEOC's appeal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 30, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended May 31, 2012.

The Company says the litigation, if decided or settled adversely
to Cintas, may, individually or in the aggregate, result in
liability material to Cintas' consolidated financial condition or
consolidated results of operation and could increase costs of
operations on an ongoing basis.  Any estimated liability relating
to these proceedings is not determinable at this time.  Cintas may
enter into discussions regarding settlement of these and other
lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes
such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.


CJA AND ASSOCIATES: Moukawsher & Walsh Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Moukawsher & Walsh, LLC on Aug. 1 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit against Chicago-based CJA and Associates and Kansas
City, Missouri-based Fidelity Security Life Insurance Company
(FSL).  The lawsuit alleges that CJA and FSL breached fiduciary
duties in duping small business owners into investing millions of
dollars of employee retirement benefit money in FSL annuities when
up to 95% of the initial money invested was being siphoned off in
commissions and fees.  The so-called Section 412 (e)(3) plans are
under attack from the IRS as illegitimate attempts to avoid
federal taxes.  The lawsuit alleges that by advising investment in
these plans CJA and FSL breached federal laws governing advice
given to employee benefit plans.

Purchasers of CJA or FSL Section 412 (e)(3) plans are encouraged
to contact Moukawsher & Walsh, LLC for information concerning the
litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas G. Moukawsher.


COINSTAR INC: Appeal in "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the consolidated "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" class action
lawsuit remains pending, according to Coinstar, Inc.'s July 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.  The plaintiff alleges that, among other
things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and
recording of consumer personal identification information, and
violated the California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly.  A similar
complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to
privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California
resident, John Sinibaldi.  A third similar complaint alleging only
a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by
a California resident, Richard Schiff.  Plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest.  Redbox removed
the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been
consolidated.  At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted
Nicolle DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case.
After Redbox filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the
Schiff case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California but has not been consolidated with
the Mehrens case.  Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi
case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification.

In January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class
certification as moot.  On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff's filed
their notice of appeal.  Appellate briefs have not yet been filed.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Unit's Bid to Dismiss Privacy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on its subsidiary's
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's Redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2710, et seq.  A substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk.
Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced
by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended
complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally
identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of
retention of such information.  Plaintiffs are seeking statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and
interest.  The court has consolidated the cases.  The court denied
Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon
interlocutory appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the district's court's denial of Redbox's motion
to dismiss Plaintiff's claims involving retention of information,
holding that the Plaintiffs could not maintain a lawsuit for
damages under this theory.  On April 25, 2012, plaintiff amended
their complaint to add claims under the Stored Communications Act,
18 U.S.C. Section 2707, and for breach of contract.  On May 9,
2012, Redbox moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  Briefing of
the motion is complete, and it is pending consideration by the
court.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Awaits Aug. 10 Final Approval Hearing on Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc. said in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012, that it is awaiting the August 10, 2012 final
approval hearing of its settlement of a consolidated securities
litigation.

On January 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against Coinstar and certain of its officers.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Five substantially similar complaints were later
filed in the same court.  Pursuant to an order of the court dated
March 14, 2011, these six putative class actions were consolidated
as a single action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  On April 19, 2011, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff and approved
its selection of lead counsel.  A consolidated complaint was filed
on June 17, 2011.  The Company moved to dismiss this complaint on
July 15, 2011.  On October 6, 2011, the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The order dismissed numerous allegations, including
allegations that the Company's October 28, 2010 revenue and
earnings guidance was false and misleading.  The order also
dismissed all claims against three of the Company's officers.  The
court has set a trial date for September 9, 2013.  This case
purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
period from October 28, 2010, to February 3, 2011.  Plaintiffs
allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
during this period of time by, among other things, issuing false
and misleading statements about the Company's current and
prospective business and financial results.  Plaintiffs claim
that, as a result of these alleged wrongs, the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the purported class period.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

On January 11, 2012, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the other parties to settle and resolve the
class action.  The settlement provides for a payment to the
plaintiff class of $6.0 million which will be paid by the
Company's insurers.  On February 17, 2012, a stipulation and
agreement of settlement, was filed with the court, along with Lead
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On April 9, 2012, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.  Following notice to class members,
the class action settlement is subject to final approval by the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  A final approval hearing is scheduled for August 10,
2012.  The Company has recorded the expected settlement amount and
corresponding insurance recovery within other accrued liabilities
and prepaid expenses and other current assets, respectively, in
its Consolidated Balance Sheets.

                 Shareholder Derivative Actions

Related to this putative class action complaint, on March 2 and
10, 2011, shareholder derivative actions were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County) on March,
allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Coinstar, against
certain of its current and former directors and officers.
Coinstar was named as a nominal defendant.  On April 12, 2011, the
court consolidated these actions as a single action entitled In re
Coinstar, Inc. Derivative Litigation.  A third substantially
similar complaint was later filed in the same court.  On April 18,
2011, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
On May 26, 2011, the court consolidated the federal derivative
actions and joined them with the securities class actions,
captioned In re Coinstar Securities Litigation, for pre-trial
proceedings. The derivative plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was
filed on July 15, 2011.  The Company moved to dismiss this
complaint on August 12, 2011, on the ground that the plaintiffs
had not made a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of
Directors and had not demonstrated that such a demand would have
been futile.  On November 14, 2011, the court granted the
Company's motion and issued an order dismissing the complaint with
leave to amend the compliant.  On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs
moved to stay the action or defer filing of an amended complaint
in order to allow them time to inspect Coinstar's books and
records prior to any such amendment.  On December 22, 2011, the
court entered an order granting in part and denying in part
plaintiffs' motion.  The order grants plaintiffs' request to defer
filing of an amended complaint, but provided that if plaintiffs
choose to file an amended complaint, they must pay attorneys' fees
incurred by defendants on the motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On April 9, 2012, before expiration of plaintiffs'
deadline to file an amended complaint, the parties filed a joint
status report with the court indicating they had agreed upon a
proposed settlement of the federal and state derivative actions.
This settlement includes a payment of up to $750,000 in attorneys'
fees (subject to court approval), which will be paid by the
Company's insurers.  On April 27, 2012, a stipulation and
agreement of settlement, was filed with the court, along with
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

On May 25, 2012, the court conducted a hearing on the motion.
During that hearing, the court requested additional information
from the parties concerning the proposed settlement.  On June 22,
2012, the parties filed supplemental submissions with the court
and are awaiting a ruling on the motion for preliminary approval.
The state and federal derivative complaints arise out of many of
the factual allegations at issue in the class action, and
generally allege that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties owed to Coinstar by selling Coinstar stock while in
possession of material non-public information, and participating
in or failing to prevent misrepresentations regarding Redbox
expectations, performance, and internal controls.  The Company has
recorded the expected settlement amount and corresponding
insurance recovery within other accrued liabilities and prepaid
expenses and other current assets, respectively, in the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: "Piechur" Suit Dismissal Bid Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc. disclosed in its July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that its motion to dismiss an amended class
action lawsuit commenced by Laurie Piechur is pending.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  The plaintiff alleges that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms
violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and other relief.  In November 2009, Redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  In February 2010, the District Court
remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  In May 2010, the court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and also
denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  In
November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and
Redbox moved for summary judgment.  The court denied Redbox's
motion for summary judgment in February 2012.  The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for
class certification on June 5, 2012.  Redbox has moved to dismiss
the amended complaint.  The parties are briefing these pending
motions.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.


COLONIAL HOME: Sued for Breaching Home Warranty Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Colonial Home Warranty does
not honor its contracts, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lloyd, et al. v. Colonial Home
Warranty, Case No. 12-cv-01989 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/02/HomeWarranty.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          John S. Creevy, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, L.L.C.
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892

               - and -

          D. Frank Davis, Esq.
          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
          Courtney Peinhardt, Esq.
          Andrew Herring, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS LLP
          The Bradshaw House
          2154 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9900
          E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com
                  jnorris@davisnorris.com
                  wbarnett@davisnorris.com
                  courtney@davisnorris.com
                  aherring@davisnorris.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Action on Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
JTA reports that a hearing on a motion to dismiss a consumer fraud
case against the company that produces Hebrew National products
has been scheduled for Nov. 30 in a federal court.

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court in
Minneapolis.

ConAgra Foods Inc., which owns the Hebrew National brand, on
July 26 filed the motion to dismiss a class-action suit that
alleges that Hebrew National's iconic hot dogs and other meats do
not comport with the brand's claim to be kosher "as defined by the
most stringent Jews who follow Orthodox Jewish law."  The ConAgra
motion states that the case should be dismissed because, among
other reasons, kosher is "exclusively a matter of Jewish religious
doctrine."  It also states that under the First Amendment,
"federal courts may not adjudicate disputes that turn on religious
teachings, doctrine and practice."

The suit, which was filed May 18 in a Minnesota state court,
accuses ConAgra of consumer fraud.  ConAgra has rejected the
claims.

Triangle-K, the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based supervising agency that
certifies Hebrew National products as kosher, and AER, which
provides the kosher slaughtering services at Hebrew National
facilities in the Midwest, including in Minnesota, also rejected
the allegations.  Neither is named in the suit.

The suit is seeking monetary damages equal to the total amount of
monies that consumers in the class paid for Hebrew National meat
products.

Zimmerman Reed, which has offices in Minneapolis and Scottsdale,
Ariz., solicited consumers through its Web site.  The firm
advertised a free case review for anyone who purchased Hebrew
National hot dogs in the past two years or had information about
the preparation of the products.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Awaits OK of Settlement of Unpaid Wages Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. is awaiting court approval of
its settlement of class action lawsuits over unpaid wages filed in
California and Washington, according to the Company's July 26,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On October 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by a single named
plaintiff.  The lawsuit alleges that, at the time the Company
acquired the assets of Privileged Access, LP and its affiliates
("PA"), the Company and other named defendants willfully failed to
pay former California employees of PA who became employees of the
Company all of the wages they earned during their employment with
PA, including accrued vacation time.  The lawsuit also alleges
that the Company improperly "stripped" those employees of their
seniority.  The lawsuit asserts claims for alleged violation of
the California Labor Code; alleged violation of the California
Business & Professions Code and for alleged unfair business
practices; alleged breach of contract; alleged breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing; and for alleged unjust enrichment.
The original complaint sought, among other relief, compensatory
and statutory damages; restitution; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; attorney's fees, expenses and costs; penalties; and
exemplary and punitive damages.  The complaint did not specify a
dollar amount sought.  The Court granted in part without leave to
amend and in part with leave to amend the Company's motions
seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs original complaint and various
amended complaints.  Discovery proceeded on the remaining claims
in the third amended complaint.  On
February 15, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs motion for class
certification.  On June 22, 2011, the Court determined the content
of the class notice.

On December 16, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in Washington state court filed by a single named
plaintiff, represented by the same counsel as the plaintiff in the
California class action.  The complaint asserts on behalf of a
putative class of Washington employees of PA who became employees
of the Company substantially similar allegations as are alleged in
the California class action.  The Company moved to dismiss the
complaint.  On April 3, 2009, the court dismissed: (1) the first
cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor
Code for failure to pay accrued vacation time; (2) the second
cause of action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor
Code for unpaid wages on termination; (3) the third cause of
action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Labor Code for
payment of wages less than entitled; and (4) the fourth cause of
action, which alleged a claim under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.  The court did not dismiss the fifth cause of
action for breach of contract, the sixth cause of action for
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; or the seventh
cause of action for unjust enrichment.  On May 22, 2009, the
Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the causes of
action not previously dismissed, which was denied.  With leave of
court, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the material
allegations of which the Company denied in an answer filed on
September 11, 2009.  On July 30, 2010, the named plaintiff died as
a result of an unrelated accident.

On November 22, 2011, the parties agreed to a settlement, which
remains subject to court approval and other conditions, the
principal terms of which are that, without admitting any
liability, the Company would pay $0.5 million in cash, would
provide one week of vacation to the vacation balance of any class
member who on August 13, 2008, had at least five years of service
with a PA affiliate (the cost of which to the Company would be
approximately $0.1 million), and would receive in exchange a full
release of all claims, including claims for attorneys' fees and
costs, in both the California and Washington Class Actions.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Membership Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit arising from membership terms in its Thousand
Trails network of campgrounds, according to the Company's
July 26, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On July 29, 2011, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by two named plaintiffs,
who are husband and wife.  Among other allegations, the lawsuit
alleges that the plaintiffs purchased a membership in the
Company's Thousand Trails network of campgrounds and paid annual
dues; that they were unable to make a reservation to utilize one
of the campgrounds because, they were told, their membership did
not permit them to utilize that particular campground; that the
Company failed to comply with the written disclosure requirements
of various states' membership camping statutes; that the Company
misrepresented that it provides a money-back guaranty; and that
the Company misrepresented that the campgrounds or portions of the
campgrounds would be limited to use by members.

Allegedly on behalf of "between 100,000 and 200,000" putative
class members, the lawsuit asserts claims for alleged violation
of: (l)the California Civil Code Sections 1812.300, et seq.; (2)
the Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 32-2198, et seq.; (3)
Chapter 222 of the Texas Property Code; (4) Florida Code Sections
509.001, et seq.; (5) Chapter 119B of the Nevada Administrative
Code; (6) Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., (7)
Business & Professions Code Section 17500; (8) Fraud-Intentional
Misrepresentation and False Promise; (9) Fraud -Omission; (10)
Negligent Misrepresentation; and (11) Unjust Enrichment.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the membership
agreements and refund of the member dues of plaintiffs and all
others who purchased a membership from or paid membership dues to
the Company since July 21, 2007; general and special compensatory
damages; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of
lawsuit; punitive and exemplary damages; a permanent injunction
against the complained of conduct; and pre-judgment interest.

On August 19, 2011, the Company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations of the complaint, and asserting affirmative
defenses.  On August 23, 2011, the Company removed the case from
the California state court to the federal district court in San
Jose.  The Company says it will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


FACEBOOK INC: Consumer Watchdog Opposes Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Watchdog on August 2 opposed the proposed settlement in a
class action suit against Facebook for using Facebook users'
personal information in Sponsored Stories advertisements without
their consent, saying that deal "is not fair, adequate or
reasonable and provides no direct or indirect benefit to class
members."

In a letter to Judge Richard Seeborg, Consumer Watchdog Staff
Attorney Laura Antonini wrote that the case, Fraley v. Facebook,
currently pending in the Northern District Court in California,
offered "a unique opportunity for Facebook users to gain control
over the social network's collection, retention and distribution
of their personal information, but the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement provide no such meaningful relief to class
members."

"Under the proposed settlement Facebook is poised to continue to
misappropriate its users' personal information without their
consent," wrote Ms. Antonini. "Indeed, Facebook recently expanded
Sponsored Stories to its mobile platform, an arena where the
misappropriation of personal information has far reaching and
potentially dangerous consequences; the proposed settlement does
not address this major expansion."

A copy of the Consumer Watchdog's letter to Judge Seeborg is
available at http://is.gd/BDkLLT

Consumer Watchdog offered these objections to the proposed
settlement:

The proposed settlement provides no monetary relief to class
members.

The injunctive relief is inadequate.

The cy pres distributions raise serious problems.

Class counsel is requesting $10 million in attorney's fees,
amounting to 100 percent of the value of ostensible relief to the
class (the cy pres fund)

"The proposed revisions and additions to Facebook's onerous user
agreement do not alert users to Facebook's use of names,
photographs, and other personal information in Sponsored Stories
advertisements," wrote Ms. Antonini.  "The settlement agreement
does not even allow users to opt-out of Sponsored Stories.  In
effect, the injunctive relief provisions will permit Facebook to
continue the conduct alleged in the complaint without ever
obtaining actual, meaningful and bargained-for consent, in the
same manner that it did all along."

The letter also expressed the concern that Facebook participated
in the selection of cy pres recipients.  "Further, it is unclear
whether class counsel has insured that no cy pres payments are
proposed to an entity in which Facebook has any interest,
financial or otherwise.  And some of the proposed cy pres
recipients do not further the interests of the silent class
members.  Finally, there is no mechanism for monitoring the
recipients' expenditures of the cy pres funds. These shortcomings
merit rejection on their own," the letter said.


FIRST AMERICAN: Still Defends Suits Over Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation continues to defend itself
and its subsidiaries from various class action lawsuits
challenging its title insurance business practices, according to
the Company's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The Company has been named as defendants in various putative class
action lawsuits.  For a substantial majority of these lawsuits,
however, it is not possible to assess the probability of loss.
Most of these lawsuits are putative class actions which require a
plaintiff to satisfy a number of procedural requirements before
proceeding to trial.  These requirements include, among others,
demonstration to a court that the law proscribes in some manner
the Company's activities, the making of factual allegations
sufficient to suggest that the Company's activities exceeded the
limits of the law and a determination by the court -- known as
class certification -- that the law permits a group of individuals
to pursue the case together as a class.  In certain instances the
Company may also be able to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate its
claim on an individual basis.  If these procedural requirements
are not met, either the lawsuit cannot proceed or, as is the case
with class certification or compelled arbitration, the plaintiffs
lose the financial incentive to proceed with the case (or the
amount at issue effectively becomes de minimus).  Frequently, a
court's determination as to these procedural requirements is
subject to appeal to a higher court.  As a result of, among other
factors, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the myriad laws
applicable to the Company's business and the uniqueness of the
factual issues presented in any given lawsuit, the Company often
cannot determine the probability of loss until a court has finally
determined that a plaintiff has satisfied applicable procedural
requirements.

Furthermore, because most of these lawsuits are putative class
actions, it is often impossible to estimate the possible loss or a
range of loss amounts, even where the Company has determined that
a loss is reasonably possible.  Generally class actions involve a
large number of people and the effort to determine which people
satisfy the requirements to become plaintiffs -- or class members
-- is often time consuming and burdensome.  Moreover, these
lawsuits raise complex factual issues which result in uncertainty
as to their outcome and, ultimately, make it difficult for the
Company to estimate the amount of damages which a plaintiff might
successfully prove.  In addition, many of the Company's businesses
are regulated by various federal, state, local and foreign
governmental agencies and are subject to numerous statutory
guidelines.  These regulations and statutory guidelines often are
complex, inconsistent or ambiguous, which results in additional
uncertainty as to the outcome of a given lawsuit -- including the
amount of damages a plaintiff might be afforded -- or makes it
difficult to analogize experience in one case or jurisdiction to
another case or jurisdiction.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses.  These lawsuits
include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions,
that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its
agents:

   -- charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
      transaction, including:

      * Boucher v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on May 16, 2007, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Washington,

      * Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on August 22, 2007, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of Texas,

      * Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
        al., filed on August 25, 2008, and pending in the
        Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Wake
        County,

      * Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on September 29, 2010, and pending in the United States
        District Court of New Jersey,

      * Lang v. First American Title Insurance Company of New
        York, filed on March 9, 2012, and pending in the United
        States District Court of New York,

      * Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on February 26, 2009, and pending in the United States
        District Court of Pennsylvania,

      * Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        November 28, 2006, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the District of Idaho,

      * Loef v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        August 16, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court of Maine,

      * Mitchell-Tracey v. First American Title Insurance
        Company, et al., filed on April 30, 2012, and pending in
        the United States District Court for the Northern
        District of Maryland,

      * Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on February 14, 2004, and pending in the Circuit Court,
        Nassau County, Florida, and

      * Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on December 19, 2005, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

   All of these lawsuits are putative class actions.  A court has
   only granted class certification in Loef, Hamilton (North
   Carolina), Lewis, Raffone and Slapikas.  An appeal to a higher
   court is pending with respect to the granting of class
   certification in Hamilton (North Carolina).  The Company says
   it has been unable to assess the probability of loss or
   estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the
   Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company
   believes the amount is immaterial to the financial statements
   as a whole.

   -- purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as
      an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting
      business to the Company or gave items of value to title
      insurance agents and others for referrals of business, in
      each case in violation of the Real Estate Settlement
      Procedures Act, including:

      * Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
        June 12, 2007, and pending in the United States District
        Court for the Central District of California,

      * Galiano v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
        al., filed on February 8, 2008, and pending in the United
        States District Court for the Eastern District of New
        York, and

      * Mlynar v. First American Title Insurance Company et al.,
        filed on July 3, 2012, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of California.

   Galiano and Mlynar are putative class actions for which a
   class has not been certified. In Edwards a narrow class has
   been certified, however a motion to decertify that class and
   to compel arbitration is pending.  The Company says it has
   been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
   possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- conspired with its competitors to fix prices or otherwise
      engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including:

      * Holt v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on March 11, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

      * Katz v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on March 18, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,

      * McCray v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on October 15, 2008, and pending in the United
        States District Court of Delaware, and

      * Swick v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on March 19, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court of New Jersey.

   All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a
   class has not been certified.  The Company says it has not yet
   been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
   possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

      * Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
        filed on October 16, 2006, and pending in the United
        States District Court of Connecticut, and

      * Katin v. First American Signature Services, Inc., et al.,
        filed on May 9, 2007, and pending in the United States
        District Court of Massachusetts.

   Katin is a putative class action for which a class has not
   been certified.  The class originally certified in Gale was
   subsequently decertified.  The Company says it has not yet
   been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
   possible loss or the range of loss.

   -- failed to pay required compensation and provide required
      rest periods, including:

      * Bartko v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on November 8, 2011, and pending in the Superior Court of
        the State of California, Los Angeles.

   Bartko is a putative class action for which a class has not
   been certified.  The Company says it has not yet been able to
   assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss
   or the range of loss.

   -- overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and
      services provided in connection with the closing of real
      estate transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded
      telephone calls, acted as an unauthorized trustee and gave
      items of value to developers, builders and others as
      inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
      laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
      prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
      obligations, including:

      * Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection
        Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009, and pending in
        the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
        Los Angeles,

      * Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on January 22, 2009, and pending in the United
        States District Court of New Jersey,

      * Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection
        Corporation, et al., filed on August 24, 2009, and
        pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
        County of Los Angeles,

      * Eide v. First American Title Company, filed on
        February 26, 2010, and pending in the Superior Court of
        the State of California, County of Kern,

      * Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
        on July 14, 2008, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

      * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on December 21, 2007, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
        June 15, 2006, and pending in the Superior Court of the
        State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on February 25, 2005, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

      * Smith v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
        November 23, 2011, and pending in the United States
        District Court for the Western District of Washington,

      * Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009, and
        pending in the United States District Court for the
        Western District of Washington, and

      * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
        filed on April 20, 2007, and pending in the Superior
        Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

All of these lawsuits, except Sjobring and Tavenner, are putative
class actions for which a class has not been certified.  In
Sjobring a class was certified but that certification was
subsequently vacated.  The Company says it has not yet been able
to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or
the range of loss.

While some of the lawsuits may be material to the Company's
operating results in any particular period if an unfavorable
outcome results, the Company does not believe that any of these
lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its overall
financial condition or liquidity.


FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Denied in Defective Transmissions Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that Ford
Freestar owners whose transmissions failed due to a manufacturing
defect cannot sue Ford as a class because the terms of their
warranties must be individually proven, a federal judge ruled.

James Genovese, Henri Caron, and Edward Daigle were owners of
model year 2004 or 2005 Ford Freestar minivans.

Sometime after purchasing the vehicle, the plaintiffs were driving
down the road when the engine started to rev and the car stopped
responding to the accelerator pedal.

Each of them had to pay out of pocket to replace their
transmissions.

In a class action filed in 2009, the plaintiffs claimed that Ford
Freestar and Mercury Monterey minivans in 2004, 2005, and 2006
were built with a manufacturing defect in the vehicles' torque
converter.  In the District of Minnesota, they claimed Ford
breached its express and implied warranties.

In a car, the transmission connects via a shaft with grooved ends
to a torque converter, which connects the engine.  In the
plaintiffs' minivans, the torque converter failed, stripping the
grooves connecting it to the transmission, which in turn failed.

After the action was filed, Ford issued a recall on 2004-2005
Freestars and Montereys instructing owners to take their car to a
dealer for a free new torque converter.

Finding their claims inappropriate for class action, U.S. District
Judge Michael Davis denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and granted Ford's motion for summary judgment.

"The warranty provides that 'Bumper to Bumper' coverage begins on
the warranty start date and ends after 'three years or 36,000
miles, whichever occurs first.'  Because the express warranty upon
which plaintiffs' rely is limited, whether this warranty was in
effect for each class member requires individual proof," the judge
said.

The plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied warranty likewise
required individualized proof, the court found.

"In addition, Ford's voluntary safety recall of 2004-05 Freestars
and Montereys, which provides for the installation of a new or
remanufactured torque converter, or a refund to those who paid to
service their vehicle prior to the recall, provides most of the
putative class the relief it seeks.  . . .

"Ford does acknowledge that there may be class members that paid
to have the entire transmission replaced, and who may not be fully
reimbursed because replacement of the entire transmission is not
required to repair the defective torque converter.  Despite the
possibility that certain class members will not be fully
reimbursed through the recall, the Court nonetheless finds that
the recall weighs against a finding that a class action is a
superior method of adjudication of the claims asserted in this
case," Judge Davis added.

After dismissing the plaintiffs' class claims, Judge Davis
dismissed each plaintiff's individual claims as well.  Mr. Daigle
bought his Freestar used, "after the New Vehicle Warranty had
expired, therefore his claim of breach of implied warranty has no
merit," the court found.  Mr. Genovese's claim is subject to
Maryland's four year statute of limitation, which has expired, and
Mr. Caron bought his minivan used from Duval Ford, not Ford Motor
Company.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Daigle, et al. v.
Ford Motor Company, Case No. 09-cv-03214 (D. Minn.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/02/Ford.pdf


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Denied Motion to Amend Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied in July 2012 shareholders' motion to amend their
consolidated class action lawsuit, according to General Electric
Company's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class
actions under the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including the Company's
chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and its
directors.  The complaints, which have now been consolidated, seek
unspecified damages based on allegations related to statements,
among others, regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and
earnings for General Electric Capital Corporation in 2009.  In
January 2012, the District Court granted in part, and denied in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss.  In April 2012, the
District Court granted a portion of the Company's motion for
reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims
under the Securities Act of 1933.

In July 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion seeking
to amend their complaint to include the alleged claims under the
Securities Act of 1933.

Founded in 1892 and based in Fairfield, Connecticut, General
Electric Company (GE) -- http://www.ge.com/-- operates as a
technology, service, and finance company worldwide.  Its Energy
Infrastructure segment offers wind, gas, and steam turbines and
generators; combined-cycle systems; nuclear reactors, fuel, and
support services; and motors and control systems, as well as
provides water treatment solutions.  Its Aviation segment produces
and sells jet engines, turboprop and turbo shaft engines, and
related replacement parts for use in military and commercial
aircraft, as well as provides maintenance, component repair, and
overhaul services.  Its Healthcare segment provides medical
imaging and information technologies, medical diagnostics, patient
monitoring systems, disease research, drug discovery, and
biopharmaceutical manufacturing technologies, as well as remote
diagnostic and repair services.  Its Transportation segment
provides technology solutions for customers in various industries,
including railroad, transit, mining, oil and gas, power
generation, and marine.  The Company's GE Capital segment offers
commercial loans and leases, fleet management, financial programs,
home loans, credit cards, personal loans, and other financial
services.  Its Home and Business Solutions segment provides
refrigerators; freezers; electric and gas ranges; cooktops;
dishwashers; clothes washers and dryers; microwave ovens; room air
conditioners; and residential water systems primarily under the GE
Monogram, GE Profile, GE, Hotpoint, and GE CafA, brand names.


HSBC FINANCE: Still Awaits Final Ruling in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation is still awaiting entry of a final
judgment in a securities class suit filed against its predecessor
company, according to HSBC's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International, the predecessor of the Company, and certain former
officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe
v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893),
filed August 19, 2002.  The complaint asserted claims under
Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household
International common stock between July 30, 1999, and October 11,
2002.  The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact
relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including
collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately
led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to
accounting practices evidenced by the restatement.  A jury trial
concluded on April 30, 2009, and the jury rendered a verdict on
May 7 partially in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to
Household International and three former officers.  A second phase
of the case was to proceed to determine the actual damages, if
any, due to the plaintiff class and issues of reliance.  On
November 22, 2010, the Court issued a ruling on the second phase
of the case.  On the issue of reliance, the Court ruled that claim
forms would be mailed to class members and that class members who
file claims would be asked to check a "YES" or "NO" box to a
question that asks whether they would have purchased Household
stock had they known false and misleading statements inflated the
stock price.  As for damages, the Court set out a method for
calculating damages for class members who file claims.  As
previously reported, in Court filings in March 2010, plaintiff's
lawyers have estimated that damages could range 'somewhere between
$2.4 billion to $3.2 billion to class members', before pre-
judgment interest.  The defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration from the Court's November 22 ruling.  On January
14, 2011, the Court partially granted that motion, slightly
modifying the claim form, allowing defendants to take limited
discovery on the issue of reliance and reserving on the issue
whether the defendants would ultimately be entitled to a jury
trial on the issues of reliance and damages.  On January 31, 2011,
and April 7, 2011, the Court issued other rulings clarifying the
scope of discovery.  Plaintiffs mailed the claim forms with the
modified language to class members.

In December 2011, plaintiffs submitted the report of the Court-
appointed claims administrator to the Court.  That report stated
that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was
45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was
approximately $2.23 billion.  Defendants have submitted their
objections to certain claims and the plaintiffs have filed their
response.  At a conference held before the Court on April 20,
2012, the Court referred the issues relating to the claims to a
magistrate judge for resolution.  Plaintiffs have objected to this
referral and the Company is awaiting the Court's ruling.  The
Company is also awaiting the Court's ruling on defendants'
submission addressing the element of reliance in this case.
Plaintiffs are expected to ask the Court to assess pre-judgment
interest to be included as part of the Court's final judgment.
The Company expects the Court's final judgment to be entered at
some point after the claims issues are resolved.

The Company says the timing and outcome of the ultimate resolution
of this matter is uncertain.  When a final judgment is entered by
the District Court, the parties have 30 days in which to appeal
the verdict to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Company
continues to believe that it has meritorious grounds for appeal of
one or more of the rulings in the case and intends to appeal the
Court's final judgment, which could involve a substantial amount
once it is entered.

Upon appeal, the Company will be required to secure the judgment
in order to suspend execution of the judgment while the appeal is
ongoing by depositing cash in an interest-bearing escrow account
or posting an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment (including
any pre-judgment interest awarded).  Given the complexity and
uncertainties associated with the actual determination of damages,
including the outcome of any appeals, there is a wide range of
possible damages.  The Company believes it has meritorious grounds
for appeal on matters of both liability and damages, and will
argue on appeal that damages should be zero or a relatively
insignificant amount.  If the Appeals Court rejects or only
partially accepts the Company's arguments, the amount of damages,
including pre-judgment interest, could be higher, and may lie in a
range from a relatively insignificant amount to somewhere in the
region of $3.5 billion and, therefore, it is reasonably possible
that future expenses related to this matter could exceed $3.0
billion.


HSBC FINANCE: Faces Class Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation is facing several putative class action
lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance, according to the
Company's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining a hazard
insurance policy on a mortgaged property when the borrower fails
to maintain their own policy.  The cost of the lender-placed
insurance is then passed on to the borrower.  Industry practices
with respect to lender-placed insurance are receiving heightened
regulatory scrutiny.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
recently announced that lender-placed insurance is an important
issue and is expected to publish related regulations sometime in
2012.  In October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and
insurers, including the Company's affiliate, HSBC Insurance (USA)
Inc., received subpoenas from the New York Department of Financial
Services (the "NYDFS") with respect to lender-placed insurance
activities dating back to September 2005.  The Company says it has
and will continue to provide documentation and information to the
NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena.

Between June 2011 and March 2012, several putative class actions
related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC
U.S. entities, including an action against one of the Company's
subsidiaries captioned Still et al. v. Beneficial Financial I Inc.
et al. (Cal. Super. Ct. Case No. KC062390).  These actions relate
primarily to industry-wide regulatory concerns, and include
allegations regarding the relationships and potential conflicts of
interest between the various entities that place the insurance,
the value and cost of the insurance that is placed, back-dating
policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse, self-
dealing and insufficient disclosure.

A recent routine state examination of the Company's mortgage
servicing practices concluded that borrowers were overcharged for
lender-placed hazard insurance coverage based on the terms of the
underlying mortgages during the period from August 2009 through
September 2011, and required the Company to refund excess premiums
charged to impacted borrowers in that state.  In the first quarter
of 2012, the Company recorded an accrual reflecting its estimate
of premiums that will be refunded to the impacted borrowers as
well as borrowers in other states who may have similar contractual
claims.


HSBC FINANCE: Hearing in Six Debt Cancellation Suits on Oct. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of a settlement resolving six of
the nine substantially similar putative class action lawsuits
against HSBC Finance Corporation's subsidiaries related to debt
cancellation is scheduled for October 1, 2012, according to the
Company's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Between July 2010 and May 2011, eight substantially similar
putative class actions were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries, HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. ("HSBC Bank Nevada") and HSBC
Card Services Inc.: Rizera et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada et al.
(D.N.J. No. 10-CV-03375); Esslinger et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A. et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 10-CV-03213); McAlister et al. v. HSBC
Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (W.D. Wash. No. 10-CV-05831); Mitchell v.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (D. Md. No. 10-CV-03232); Samuels v.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al. (N.D. III. No. 11-CV-00548);
McKinney v. HSBC Card Services et al. (S.D. III. No. 10-CV-00786);
Chastain v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (South Carolina Court of Common
Pleas, 13th Circuit) (filed as a counterclaim to a pending
collections action); Colton et al. v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et
al. (C.D. Ca. No. 11-CV-03742).  These actions principally allege
that cardholders were enrolled in debt cancellation or suspension
products and challenge various marketing or administrative
practices relating to those products.  The plaintiffs' claims
include breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and
violations of state consumer protection and deceptive acts and
practices statutes.  The Mitchell action was withdrawn by the
plaintiff in March 2011.  In July 2011, the parties in Rizera,
Esslinger, McAlister, Samuels, McKinney and Colton executed a
memorandum of settlement and filed notices of settlement of all
claims in each respective court.  The parties have memorialized
the terms and conditions of the settlement in a formal agreement,
and submitted the settlement on a consolidated basis for approval
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  On February 23, 2012, the District Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled the final
approval hearing for October 1, 2012.

The Company says it is adequately reserved for the proposed
settlement.  A motion for class certification and a motion to
defer consideration of class certification pending completion of
the settlement were heard in the Chastain action.  The motion to
defer was granted and the case placed on stay pending progression
of the consolidated settlement.  The plaintiff in Chastain then
sought reconsideration of the District Court's preliminary
approval order.  The request was denied and the plaintiff has
appealed that ruling.

In October 2011, the Attorney General for the State of West
Virginia filed a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Mason County, West Virginia, captioned State of West Virginia ex
rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. et al v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. et al.
(No. 11-C-93-N), alleging similar claims in connection with the
marketing, selling and administering of ancillary services,
including debt cancellation and suspension products to consumers
in West Virginia.  In addition to damages, the Attorney General is
seeking civil money penalties and injunctive relief.  The action
was initially removed to Federal court.  The Attorney General's
motion to remand to State court was granted and the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the compliant in March 2012.  In late 2011,
the Company received a similar inquiry from another state's
Attorney General, although no action has yet been filed in that
state.


HSBC FINANCE: Signed MOU to Settle Antitrust MDL 1720 in July
-------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding in July 2012 to settle the consolidated lawsuit
known as In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, according to the Company's July
30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and
HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card
Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four class actions
filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York; Photos
Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D. Conn. No. 05-
CV-01007 (WWE)): National Association of Convenience Stores, et
al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG));
Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG)); and American Booksellers Ass'n v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)).  Numerous
other complaints containing similar allegations (in which no HSBC
entity is named) were filed across the country against Visa Inc.,
MasterCard Incorporated and other banks.  These actions
principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by
the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee
charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount
fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in
violation of the Federal antitrust laws.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York.
The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL
1720").  A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs on April 24, 2006, and a second consolidated amended
complaint was filed on
January 29, 2009.  On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated,
Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Finance
Corporation, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Agreements") that
provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and
liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Finance
Corporation and the Company's affiliates, may incur, jointly
and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global
settlement of one or all of these actions.  The Agreements also
cover any other potential or future actions that are transferred
for coordinated pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720.

The parties engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the
District Court.  On July 13, 2012, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa
Inc. and the other defendants, including the HSBC defendants,
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle the
class litigations consolidated into MDL 1720.  Separately, the
same defendants continue to negotiate an agreement to settle all
claims brought by individual merchant plaintiffs consolidated into
MDL 1720.  The MOU for the class litigations sets out a binding
obligation to enter into a settlement agreement in the form
attached to the MOU.  The settlement is subject to: (i) the
successful completion of certain appendices regarding class
notice, claims, and other procedures, (ii) the successful
negotiation of a settlement agreement with the individual merchant
plaintiffs, (iii) final court approval of the class settlement and
(iv) any necessary internal approvals for the parties.  In the
fourth quarter of 2011, the Company increased its litigation
reserves to an amount equal to its estimated portion of a
potential settlement of this matter.


HUMAN GENOME: Defends Class Suit Over GSK's Unsolicited Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Human Genome Sciences, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit over its Board of Directors' rejection of
GlaxoSmithKline's unsolicited offer to acquire the Company,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In April 2012, a class action and shareholder derivative action
was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland,
against the Company and its current directors, alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty in connection with the Board's rejection of
GlaxoSmithKline's unsolicited offer to acquire HGS and maintenance
of allegedly improper defensive measures.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and is
vigorously defending the claim.  The lawsuit is at the very early
stages of the legal process, which can extend for several years.
As a result, these matters have not yet progressed sufficiently
though discovery and development of important factual information
and legal issues to enable the Company to estimate a range of a
reasonably possible loss, if any.


HUMAN GENOME: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Human Genome Sciences, Inc. is defending securities class action
and derivative lawsuits in Maryland, according to the Company's
July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In November 2011, two securities class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
Company and a number of its current and former executive officers
and directors, alleging violations of securities laws during 2010
and 2009.  These actions were consolidated in March 2012.  In
addition, three shareholder derivative actions were filed during
December 2011 and January 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland that are related to essentially the same
allegations made in the securities class actions.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and is
vigorously defending these claims.  These lawsuits are at the very
early stages of the legal process, which can extend for several
years.  As a result, these matters have not yet progressed
sufficiently though discovery and development of important factual
information and legal issues to enable the Company to estimate a
range of a reasonably possible loss, if any.


IMAX CORP: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit against IMAX Corporation remains
pending in Canada, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006, in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.  This lawsuit was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between
February 17, 2006, and August 9, 2006.  The lawsuit seeks $210.0
million in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs.
For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to
the Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding.  These are procedural decisions, and
do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to
the factual or legal merits of the claim.  Leave to appeal those
decisions was denied.  The Company believes the allegations made
against it in the statement of claim are meritless and will
vigorously defend the matter, although no assurance can be given
with respect to the ultimate outcome of such proceedings.  The
Company's directors and officers insurance policy provides for
reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with
this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject
to certain policy limits, exclusions and deductibles.


IMAX CORP: Settlement of Securities Class Suit Approved in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued final approval in June 2012 of IMAX Corporation's
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006, and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws.  These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight
class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital
Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On October 2, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.
The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock on the NASDAQ between
February 27, 2003, and July 20, 2007 (the "U.S. Class"), alleges
primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements during
the class period regarding the Company's revenue recognition of
theater system installations, and failing to disclose material
information concerning the Company's revenue recognition
practices.  The amended complaint also added
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a
defendant.  On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order
appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plantiff and Abbey Spanier
Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plantiff's counsel.

On November 2, 2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding containing the terms and conditions of a settlement
of this action.  On January 26, 2012, the parties executed and
filed with the Court a formal stipulation of settlement and
proposed form of notice to the class, which the Court
preliminarily approved on February 1, 2012.  Under the terms of
the settlement, members of the U.S. Class who did not opt out of
the settlement will release defendants from liability for all
claims that were alleged in this action or could have been alleged
in this action or any other proceeding (including the action in
Canada as described in (e) of this note (the "Canadian Action"))
relating to the purchase of IMAX securities on the NASDAQ from
February 27, 2003, and July 20, 2007, or the subject matter and
facts relating to this action.  As part of the settlement and in
exchange for the release, defendants will pay $12.0 million to a
settlement fund which amount will be funded by the carriers of the
Company's directors and officers insurance policy and by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  On March 26, 2012, the parties
executed and filed with the Court an amended formal stipulation of
settlement and proposed form of notice to the class, which the
court preliminarily approved on March 28, 2012.

On June 20, 2012, the court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement.  The settlement is conditioned on the
Company's receipt of an order from the court in the action filed
in the Canada Action excluding from the class in the Canadian
Action every member of the class in both actions who has not opted
out of the U.S. settlement.  The hearing on the motion for the
order from the court in the Canadian Action was scheduled for July
30, 2012.


KENOSHA BEEF: Recalls 37,600 Lbs. of Bacon Cheeseburger Patties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenosha Beef International, Ltd., a Kenosha, Wisconsin
establishment, is recalling approximately 37,600 pounds of frozen
bacon cheeseburger patties because they may contain foreign
materials -- pieces of gasket material, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 2-lb. cartons containing 6 patties of Sam's Choice Fireside
     Gourmet Black Angus Beef Patties Bacon and Aged Cheddar

All products were produced on June 11, 2012.  The packages bear
the establishment number "EST425B" and "best if used by" date code
of 120812B ink-jetted on the carton end panel.  The products were
distributed in Indiana, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina and Wisconsin.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by the firm after the Company
received a consumer complaint.  FSIS and the Company have received
no reports of injury or illnesses associated with consumption of
this product.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks 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 with questions about the recall should contact Tom
Henderson, Director of Quality Assurance, at 1-800-541-1685 x1351.
Media with questions about the recall should contact Dennis
Vignieri, President, at 1-800-541-1685 x1205.

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.


KOSMOS ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas Over IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kosmos Energy raised $621
million in its IPO, at $18 a share, with false and misleading
statements in its prospectus, and the share price fell below $10
when the truth came out, shareholders claim in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Tarleton v. Kosmos Energy Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-02612 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/02/SCAKosmos.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB LLP
          2501 N. Harwood, Ste. 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbllp.com

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
          James A. Maro, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: skaskela@ktmc.com
                  abell@ktmc.com
                  jmaro@ktmc.com


KROGER CO: Sued Over Aflatoxin-Contaminated Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------
Dayton Daily News reports that Cincinnati-based Kroger Co. is the
subject of a class action lawsuit filed in Detroit blaming the
company for the death of a dog last year after the company issued
a pet food recall in 2010.

According to a release issued on Aug. 1 by the law partnership of
Macuga, Liddle & Dubin in Detroit, the complaint filed in federal
court is on behalf of all customers who purchased pet food
contaminated with aflatoxin.

Attempts made on Aug. 1 to reach Kroger officials for comment were
unsuccessful.

On Dec. 18, 2010, Kroger issued a recall because of a possible
aflatoxin contamination in a number of its pet foods sold in its
stores.  Kroger recalled 10 brands of pet food in 19 states
including Ohio.  There were 68,313 bags of pet foods subject to
the recall, according to the complaint.

During that time, Kroger manufactured/produced all of its pet food
products, at its facility in Springfield, Tenn.  In December 2010
various governmental agencies were notified by consumers regarding
animal illnesses/deaths related to Kroger pet food products
contaminated with Aflatoxin (a toxic by-product of the growth of
fungi/mold on corn).

Aflatoxin is a well known toxin and, when ingested by pets, can
cause lethargy, sluggishness, anorexia, vomiting, bloody diarrhea,
yellowing of the eyes, and liver disease, according to the
release.  It can sometimes result in more serious ailments in pets
and medical treatment should be sought.

According to the law partnership, the lead plaintiffs in the
lawsuit have alleged that they fed Kroger's Old Yeller Chunk Dog
Food to their pedigreed German Shepherd.  In January 2011, their
dog vomited and became lethargic.  Two veterinary visits and two
days later, the plaintiffs' dog died.

"For most people, our pets are family members," Steve Liddle, lead
attorney, was quoted as saying in the release.  "This recall has
affected thousands of families across the nation and caused a
great deal of damage."

The recalled pet foods were distributed to Kroger stores in Ohio,
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.


MANNKIND CORP: Settled Consolidated Securities Suit for $16-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation settled for $16 million a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's July 26, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On July 23, 2012, the Company entered into a stipulation of
settlement that will resolve the class action securities lawsuits
consolidated under the caption In re MannKind Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 11-cv-00929-GAF (SSx), pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The
current and former officers and directors named as individual
defendants in the consolidated lawsuits have also entered into the
stipulation of settlement.  By entering into the stipulation of
settlement, defendants do not in any way admit fault or liability,
and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing arising out of
the action.  The stipulation of settlement remains subject to
preliminary and final approval by the U.S. District Court.

Subject to preliminary and final approval of the settlement by the
U.S. District Court, and in exchange for a release of all claims
by the class members, among others, and a dismissal of the
consolidated lawsuits, the Company has agreed (i) to cause its
insurers to pay class members and their attorneys a total of $16
million; and (ii) to issue to class members and their attorneys
2,777,778 shares of the Company's common stock.  The Company has
also agreed that if the consolidated closing bid price for the
Company's common stock is below $1.00 per share on the date the
U.S. District Court enters an order of final judgment, then the
Company will issue class members and their attorneys an additional
one million shares of its common stock.

If the U.S. District Court preliminarily approves the settlement,
potential class members will be notified of the proposed
settlement and the procedure by which they can object to the
settlement or request to be excluded from the class.  The
settlement will then be subject to final approval by the U.S.
District Court.

Following final approval of the settlement by the U.S. District
Court, including a finding that the exchange of the class members'
claims for the shares of the Company's common stock is fair, the
shares will be issued pursuant to the exemption from registration
provided by Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.


MCKESSON CORP: AWP-Related Class Litigation Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------
The litigation against McKesson Corporation over alleged
manipulations of average wholesale price has been concluded,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On June 6, 2012, the Company paid into settlement escrow the
outstanding $50 million balance of the previously reported $82
million settlement in the public payer class action filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for Massachusetts
relating to alleged misstatements and manipulations of AWP, Board
of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas et al. v.
McKesson Corporation, (No. 1:08-CV-11349-PBS).  The Douglas
County, Kansas Action has been concluded, and the settlement
releases have become final and binding on the classes and the
settlement consideration has been paid and is no longer subject to
return to the Company.  Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2013,
the Company applied the $82 million settlement consideration
against the related litigation reserve previously established as
all criteria for the extinguishment of this liability were met.


MF GLOBAL: Trustee to Join Class Actions Over Missing Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Beeson, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that the trustee
charged with returning money to customers of MF Global's brokerage
unit told Congress on July 31 he is working to join the class-
action lawsuits already under way against Jon Corzine and other
former top officials at the failed firm.

The remarks by James Giddens, one of two trustees assigned to
unravel what's left of MF Global, showed he is eyeing
Mr. Corzine's personal wealth as a way to help U.S. customers
recoup some of what they lost when the futures firm tapped
customer accounts during its plunge into bankruptcy last October.
About $1.6 billion of customer cash is still missing, he has said.
Mr. Giddens, who was appointed to liquidate the brokerage unit
where customer money was lost, said in June that he'd decide
within 60 days whether to sue Mr. Corzine and other senior
managers over actions that led to customer money being dispensed.

Testifying before the Senate Agriculture Committee, Mr. Giddens
also gave a slightly less optimistic view than the other trustee
involved in MF Global's bankruptcy of how much of client money
could be recovered.  The other trustee, former FBI director Louis
Freeh, said in written testimony he was hopeful that all MF Global
customers will be made whole.

Mr. Giddens, however, said distributions will be "in the 90
percent range," depending on the outcome of other efforts to
recover money.  To return all of the money owed to customers would
require a "time-consuming, uphill battle," he said, noting his
team is engaged in a multifront push to do so.  Among other
things, he is suing in British courts to gain control of $700
million that he says is owed to customers but is currently being
held by the administrator overseeing the bankruptcy of the MF
Global's U.K. operations.  So far, Mr. Giddens said, he has
returned about 80 percent of the money held at the firm by
brokerage customers.

Mr. Freeh, whose role in the bankruptcy is to return money to MF
Global creditors such as JPMorgan Chase, did not attend the Senate
hearing because of a scheduling conflict.

Criminal and civil authorities are investigating MF Global's
failure but haven't charged Mr. Corzine or any other former
officials with any wrongdoing over the missing funds.  Mr. Giddens
deferred when asked whether MF Global or its management had broken
any laws -- as trustee, those questions are outside his mandate,
he said.  But he said his own investigations had showed that there
was knowledge among senior management that the firm was facing a
liquidity crisis in its final days, and that segregated customer
money was being used to fill these holes.

Asked if Mr. Corzine himself knew that customer funds were being
tapped, Mr. Giddens was not conclusive.  "I can't say the total
analysis ... proves that unequivocably," he said.  But he earlier
said there are claims against Mr. Corzine and others, including
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

Steven Goldberg, a spokesman for Mr. Corzine, said in a statement,
"Mr. Corzine testified before Congress that he was not aware of
the misuse of customer funds.  He stands by that testimony." He
had no comment on Mr. Giddens' plans to join class-action suits
against the former governor and other former officials.  In June,
Mr. Goldberg said "we simply do not agree with the trustee's
suggestion that Mr. Corzine was negligent or there is any other
basis to sue him."

Some policymakers expressed frustration that neither Mr. Corzine
nor anyone else has yet been charged in the collapse.

"It seems to me that he was at least complicit and culpable," Sen.
Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, told Jill Sommers, a Republican
member of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission who's
overseeing the agency's probe of MF Global.  "You can't answer the
question that farmers and ranchers are asking me . . . . 'Why
isn't he in court?'"

Ms. Sommers didn't answer him directly, but noted that willful
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act can be prosecuted as
crimes, and that she was satisfied with Justice Department's
cooperation so far.


MICROSOFT CORP: Awaits B.C. Suit Hearing Scheduled This Fall
------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation is awaiting a hearing on an appeal in one of
the three antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits
pending in Canada, which will be held in the fall of 2012,
according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of its personal computer operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005.  The
Company obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims
made in the United States.

All settlements in the United States have received final court
approval.  Under the settlements, generally class members can
obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases
of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and
software.  The total value of vouchers that the Company may issue
varies by state.  The Company will make available to certain
schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or
claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state).  The
total value of vouchers the Company ultimately issues will depend
on the number of class members who make claims and are issued
vouchers.  The maximum value of vouchers to be issued is
approximately $2.7 billion.  The actual costs of these settlements
will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of
class members and schools that are issued and redeem vouchers.
The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all of the state
overcharge class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and
$2.0 billion.

At June 30, 2012, the Company has recorded a liability related to
these claims of approximately $500 million, which reflects its
estimated exposure of $1.9 billion less payments made to date of
approximately $1.4 billion mostly for vouchers, legal fees, and
administrative expenses.

The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada have not been settled.  In March 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action.  In April
2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the class
certification ruling and dismissed the case, holding that indirect
purchasers do not have a claim.  The plaintiffs have appealed to
the Canadian Supreme Court, which will be heard in the fall of
2012.  The other two actions have been stayed.


MIDAS LIN: Recalls 16,400 Patio Bistro Sets Sold at Lowe's
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, L G Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina,
and manufacturer, Midas Lin Company Ltd., of China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 16,400 Patio Bistro Sets.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

When the chair support bar is not fully engaged, the chair poses a
fall hazard to a consumer who sits in the partially engaged chair.

The firm has received thirteen reports of consumers who fell from
partially opened chairs, resulting in reports of back injuries,
contusions and scrapes.

This recall involves folding chairs sold with three-piece patio
bistro sets.  Each set contains two folding chairs and a folding
table.  The chairs have a black steel frame and dark stained
wooden seats and backs.  Model #S658-01, item # 0355053 and
"Garden Treasures" is printed on the cover of the instruction
manual sold with the patio bistro sets.  A picture of the recalled
products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12241.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Lowe's stores nationwide from August 2011 through
February 2012 for about $98 for the set.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
contact Midas Lin for a new set of warning labels and supplemental
instructions for the chairs.  Do not return the product to the
store.  For additional information, please contact Midas Lin toll-
free at (877) 556-0886 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site at
http://www.cobernbistroset.com/


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Cops' Pension Cuts
--------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that New York
City underestimated the pensions of police officers who were
called into active military service since Sept. 11, 2001, federal
prosecutors claimed in a class action lawsuit on Aug. 2.

"NYPD officers who serve in our military put their lives on the
line doubly -- as civilians and enlisted men and women," U.S.
Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement.  "The purpose of this
lawsuit is to ensure that soldiers remain on the same footing as
their civilian counterparts and receive all the benefits to which
they are entitled, and that they are not penalized for their
service by the unlawful calculation of those benefits."

Meanwhile, Georgia Pestana, the chief of the Labor and Employment
Division of the New York City Law Department, contends that the
city paid what was owed.

"The law requires that employees who are called up for military
duty be treated the same as any other employee who goes out on
leave," Ms. Pestana said.  "We believe that the pension benefits
we provide to police officers who have served in the military meet
that standard -- and would not want to discourage anyone from
military service by providing them with less than what they are
entitled to."

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of three retired officers: David
Goodman, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves and former
New York City Police Department detective; Michael Doherty, a
former U.S. Coast Guard reservist and NYPD detective; and Robert
Black, a former U.S. Coast Guard reservist and NYPD sergeant.

Each of the officers says that he regularly worked overtime and
nighttime hours for the NYPD, but had his pension benefits
calculated using only base pay at the time he was called for duty.

Federal prosecutors say that this violates the spirit and letter
of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
of 1994.

"Based on past practice and policy of the NYPD, it is reasonably
certain that NYPD officers who work hours falling within a night
shift will earn night shift differential pay, although the amount
of night shift differential pay that an individual officer will
receive may not be reasonably certain.

"To determine the pensionable earnings of members who are NYPD
officers and are absent from NYPD employment to perform active
military service in the uniformed services, the Pension Fund must
impute and calculate the pensionable earnings the officers would
have had during their periods of military service as if those
officers had remained continuously employed," the complaint
states.

Prosecutors say that the NYPD failed to do this for the named
plaintiffs and at least 40 other officers.

They want a judge in the Southern District of New York to order
the city in violation of USERRA, mandate the pensions to be
recalculated and award unspecified damages.

A copy of the First Amended Complaint in Goodman, et al. v. City
of New York, et al., Case No. 10-cv-05236 (S.D.N.Y.), is available
at http://is.gd/WKRpFu

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Preet Bharara, Esq.
          United States Attorney
          Southern District of New York
          Tara M. La Morte, Esq.
          Arastu K. Chaudhury
          Assistant United States Attorneys
          86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 637-2746
          E-mail: tara.lamorte2@usdoj.gov
                  arastu.chaudhury@usdoj.gov


PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Clients Sue Wasendorf For $200MM Theft
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that several customers of Peregrine Financial
Group are suing the failed futures brokerage's chief executive,
Russell Wasendorf Sr., for allegedly stealing more than $200
million of client funds.

The allegations in three lawsuits, all filed in July and seeking
class-action status, are similar to those made by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission when it sued the company and Wasendorf
earlier in the month.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Recalls 795,000 Kenmore(R) Dehumidifiers
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
retailers, Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corporation, of
Hoffman Estates, Illinois, and manufacturer, LG Electronics
(Tianjin) Appliance Co., Ltd., of Tianjin, China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 795,000 Kenmore Dehumidifiers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The dehumidifiers can overheat, smoke, melt and catch on fire,
posing fire and burn hazards to consumers.

The firm has received 107 reports of incidents, with more than $7
million in property damage and three reports of smoke inhalation
injuries.

This recall involves 35-, 50- and 70-pint dehumidifiers with a
Kenmore logo on the front top of the unit, manufactured between
2003 and 2005.  The dehumidifiers are made of white plastic and
are between 21 and 24 inches tall, about 15 inches wide and about
13.5 inches in depth.  They have fan and humidity controls on
their top front panels and some models include remote controls.
They come with front-loading water buckets.  The model number can
be found on the right side of the interior of the unit once the
bucket has been removed.  Recalled units have the following model
numbers:

     35-pint (2004) - 580.54351400
     50-pint (2003) - 580.53509300
     70-pint (2003) - 580.53701300
     70-pint (2004) - 580.54701400
     70-pint (2005) - 580.54701500

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12240.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Sears and Kmart stores nationwide and Sears.com and
Kmart.com from 2003 to 2009 for between $140 and $220.

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the dehumidifiers
and contact the firm to receive a Sears gift card for either $75,
$80, $90 or $100, which may be used at any Sears or Kmart store or
at Sears.com or Kmart.com.  The gift card amount will depend on
the capacity and year of the dehumidifier.  In lieu of a gift
card, consumers may request a check for the refund amount.  All
consumers with recalled units will also receive a $25 coupon that
may be used at Sears Department Stores or Sears.com toward the
purchase of a new Kenmore dehumidifier.  For additional
information, contact the Recall Fulfillment Center toll-free at
(855) 400-4641 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Central Time
Saturday, or visit http://www.Kenmoredehumidifierrecall.com/


SUNTECH POWER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on August 2 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. between August 18,
2010 and July 30, 2012, inclusive.

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

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Suntech and its present and former officers and directors
for issuing false and misleading information to investors about
the Company's financial and business condition.  Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that over 560
million (EURO) of German government bonds pledged to Suntech in
connection with a loan guarantee Suntech made for a related
entity, did not exist.  When these adverse facts were learned by
the market, the value of Suntech securities dropped, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 1, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

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

        CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
                 Phillip Kim, Esq.
                 The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
                 275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
                 New York, NY 10016
                 Telephone: (212) 686-1060
                 Weekends Tel: (917) 562-8616
                 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
                 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                         pkim@rosenlegal.com
                         szhang@rosenlegal.com
                 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


SYMANTEC CORP: Judge Halts Class Action Over "Scareware"
--------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge halted a class action accusing Symantec of using "scareware"
to induce customers into buying other products, saying the lead
plaintiff's complaint failed to make any claims.

James Gross filed the federal class action against Symantec and
Irish company PC Tools for violating California's unfair
competition law, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract and
express warranties, and unjust enrichment in early 2012.
Mr. Gross claimed that Symantec promises that three products -- PC
Tools Registry Mechanic, PC Tools Performance Toolkit and Norton
Utilities -- diagnose computer problems and warn consumers "in
alarmist fashion" that harmful errors can be fixed by purchasing
the full version of the products.

Symantec moved to dismiss the class action, saying that Mr. Gross
failed to meet heightened requirements of a fraud pleading by
never providing specifics of the alleged fraudulent actions.  U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer agreed.

"The [first amended complaint] does not provide any allegations
indicating what Symantec actually said regarding the functional
capabilities of its software," Judge Breyer wrote.

The judge continued: "Plaintiff's allegations are too vague to be
actionable in federal court.  Without direct quotations from the
PC Tools website or other marketing materials, the court cannot
determine exactly how Symantec advertised its products.  This is
critical to the fraud analysis because plaintiff's entire suit
turns on how Symantec's representations compare to the actual
functionality of its software.  This defect, while curable, is
fatal to all plaintiff's claims because the same allegations of
fraudulent conduct support each claim."

Mr. Gross's failure to state particulars of Symantec's fraud is a
domino effect on the class's other allegations including the
unfair competition law violations, according to Judge Breyer.  And
while the express warranty claims might stand on their own, the
judge also chided Mr. Gross for failing to allege plausible
breaches of contract in his complaint.

"This is because the allegations pointing to breach concern
software performance prior to plaintiff's purchase of the full
version of the software.  Plaintiff's basis for challenging the
functionality of Symantec's software arises from a computer
forensic expert's analysis of the Registry Mechanic 'free
diagnostic scan,' not the full version of the software.  Thus, the
factual allegations only support a plausible theory that the free
trial version did not function as advertised.

"Unless plaintiff can offer factual allegations establishing that
the full version of the software failed to perform the advertised
functions, the breach of contract claim must fail, for a breach
cannot occur before contract formation," Judge Breyer concluded.

Mr. Gross can amend the deficiencies in his complaint and try
again, and must also properly serve PC Tools in Ireland before any
complaint against it can go forward, Judge Breyer said.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Gross v.
Symantec Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00154 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at http://is.gd/fhUoOS


US STEEL: Must Face Class Action Over Drug and Alcohol Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge ruled that U.S. Steel will face class action charges for
firing probationary employees who failed random breath alcohol
testing, but only for a class consisting of those discriminated
against within the proper time limitations.

"Since at least January 2006, U.S. Steel has been conducting
random drug and alcohol testing of its probationary employees,
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the basic labor agreement
between U.S. Steel and the employees' union," wrote Judge Nora
Barry Fischer in her review that pares U.S. Steel's second renewed
motion to dismiss the EEOC's class action against it.

As an "issue of first impression before the Court," Judge Fischer
decided after careful review that "based on the plain language of
Sections 706 and 707 . . . the EEOC may not seek relief for
individuals who were discriminated against more than 300 days
before the filing of the administrative charge prompting the
EEOC's investigation," and all claims of those subjected to an
alcohol breath test who were fired outside the designated time
should be dismissed.

The EEOC initially filed a class action against U.S. Steel and its
affiliated Union in 2010, claiming the alleged unlawful testing
policy "affects all probationary bargaining employees at its
Clairton, Pennsylvania facility who are subject to the relevant
basic labor agreement and all probationary bargaining unit
employees at other facilities throughout the United States."

The EEOC sought relief for the class of unidentified aggrieved
U.S. Steel employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
claiming that subjecting probationary employees to such testing to
discharge them if a positive test result occurred was
discrimination.

Abigail DeSimone had first alerted the EEOC to U.S. Steel's
alleged discriminating policies in 2008 by complaining that she
was wrongfully dismissed for her false positive result in a random
breath alcohol test two weeks into her probationary period. She
claimed she protested her test result was a false positive caused
by her diabetic condition, but was fired anyway.  Ms. DiSimone
filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC a few months later
and has since settled her individual case, according to the
ruling.

EEOC's original complaint against U.S. Steel was followed by an
amended complaint and two motions to dismiss by U.S. Steel. Issues
with "confidential conciliation documents" in the EEOC's
opposition to dismiss dragged out the litigation process but
ultimately ended with denials to dismiss, according to the ruling.

Judge Fischer decided in favor in part of U.S. Steel for its
second renewed motion to dismiss.

U.S. Steel argued for time limitations and claimed the EEOC
"failed to specifically plead that it has met its statutory pre-
suit obligations to investigate, issue reasonable cause findings
and conciliate its claims, or to name any of the presently
unidentified aggrieved employees who make up the purported class".

The EEOC argued in turn that "the time limitation period is not a
bar and class claim is property pled," saying that claims were
timely under the continuing violation doctrine.

Judge Fischer agreed that the statute of limitations set forth by
sections of the Civil Rights Act that says the EEOC must bring
actions based on events occurring more than 300 days before the
charges.

However, "the EEOC has met the requisite pleading standard for
conditions precedent and is not required to name all of the class
members in its Amended Complaint.  In addition, at this state of
the litigation it is premature to determine whether the EEOC
failed to engage in pre-suit obligations," Judge Fischer wrote.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. United States Steel Corporation, et al., Case No.
10-cv-01284 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/02/eeocsteel.pdf


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Defends Suits Over Fuel & Environmental Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2011 and January 2012, Waste Management, Inc. was named
as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Sarasota County, Florida, and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County
Alabama, respectively.  These cases primarily pertain to the
Company's fuel and environmental charges, generally alleging that
such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and were
contrary to the customer service contracts.  The law firm that
filed these lawsuits had filed, in 2008, a purported class action
against subsidiaries of WM in Bullock County, Alabama, making
similar allegations.  The prior Alabama lawsuit was removed to
federal court, where the federal court ultimately dismissed the
plaintiffs' national class action claims.  The plaintiffs then
elected to dismiss the case without prejudice.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against these pending
lawsuits.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any
potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the
outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss
cannot currently be estimated.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Remaining Claims Pending in ERISA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2002, certain former participants in the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plans of Waste
Management Holdings, Inc. ("WM Holdings"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. ("WM"), filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case
entitled William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al.  The
lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan
participants on behalf of the plan based on allegations related to
both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the
securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in
1998, the litigation against WM in Texas that was settled in 2002,
as well as the decision to offer WM common stock as an investment
option within the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged
knowledge by at least two members of the investment committee of
financial misstatement by WM during the relevant time period.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain
claims against individual defendants, including all claims against
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the
settlement of the securities class action against WM that was
settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of
participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually.  During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled
in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims
brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM
stock as an investment option within the plan.  The Court still
has under consideration additional motions that, if granted, would
resolve the few remaining claims against WM and its Committees.
However, the Company currently estimates that any impact on its
results of operations as a result of any liability to the
plaintiffs incurred as a result of this matter will be less than
$1 million, and the Company does not believe the outcome of this
matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Anda Faces New TCPA-Violation Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a new class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
putative class action complaint, captioned Medical West Ballas
Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County
of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257), against
the Company alleging conversion and alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  In April 2008,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda, Inc., a
subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant.  The amended
complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile
advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members' paper,
toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged
unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile
advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA
and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be
willful.  The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on
behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third
parties.  In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying the allegations.  In November 2009, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to expand the proposed class of
plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of
express permission or an established business relationship to "All
persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of this
action, were sent telephone facsimile messages advertising
pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of Defendant."

In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class
of plaintiffs.  On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to
dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of
putative class members who expressly consented or agreed to
receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay the
court proceedings pending resolution of Anda's petition to the
FCC.  On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion. On May 19,
2011, the plaintiff's filed their motion seeking certification of
a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent
Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008.  The
motion has been briefed and is currently scheduled for hearing on
October 10, 2012.  No trial date has been set.

On May 1, 2012, an additional putative class action, captioned
Physicians Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. (United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, 12 CV 60798), was
filed on behalf of Physicians Healthsource, Inc., alleging
violations of the TCPA on behalf of recipients of Anda advertising
faxes in the United States but outside of Missouri.  On July 10,
2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses.  The matter
is in its preliminary stages and no trial date has been set.

Anda believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
putative class actions brought under the TCPA, including but not
limited to its receipt of consent to receive facsimile
advertisements from many of the putative class members, and
intends to defend the actions vigorously.  However, these actions,
if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: FTC's Appeal in AndroGel(R) Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's appeal from the dismissal of
its complaint in the Androgel antitrust litigation was denied,
according to Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s July 26, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company's September 2006
patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful.
The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit the Company to co-promote
Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the
services provided by the Company, in violation of federal and
state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The complaint
sought equitable relief and civil penalties.  On February 2 and 3,
2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et.
al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV
09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana
Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al,
Case No. EDCV 09-0228).  On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred
the government and private cases to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  On April 21, 2009,
the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against
the Company without prejudice.  The Federal Trade Commission and
the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed
amended complaints on May 28, 2009.  The private plaintiffs
amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct
before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection
with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug
Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al.,D. NJ Civ. No.
09-1856 ); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No.
09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D.
MN Civ. No. 09-1168); ( Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms.,
Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v.
Unimed Pharms.,LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu,
Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024);
(LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-
2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al ., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837).  On April
20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice from the
Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey.

On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that
district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court.  On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all
the consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints,
except the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that
include allegations concerning sham litigation.  Final judgment in
favor of the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade
Commission's action on April 21, 2010.  On June 10, 2010, the
Federal Trade Commission filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing the district court's dismissal
of its complaint.

On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
On July 18, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit denied the Federal Trade
Commission's Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police
action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and
Drug Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation similar
to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions.  On
October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an
order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on
September 10, 2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with
the other indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and
made subject to the Court's February 22, 2010 order on the motion
to dismiss.  In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and on June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
including Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed
a motion for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints.
Those motions remain pending.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.  However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Sup. Ct. Allows Review of Cipro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court granted in February plaintiffs'
petition for review in connection with a judgment in an antitrust
lawsuit in California related to Cipro(R), according to Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s, according to the Company's July 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of lawsuits were filed against
Watson, The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") and other company
affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws.  Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and motions seeking class certification.  Approximately 42 were
cases filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson entities. Many
of these actions have been dismissed.  Actions remain pending in
various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and
Florida.  The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged
in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby
from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development,
manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug,
Cipro(R).  The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.
In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively
terminated the matter.  There has been no action in the cases
pending in Florida and Tennessee since 2003.  In the action
pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San
Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 &
4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of Appeal ruled that
the majority of the plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their
claims as a class.

On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was
entered on September 24, 2009.  On October 31, 2011, the
California Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.
On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review
in the California Supreme Court.

On February 15, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review.

In addition to the pending actions, Watson understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions.  Sanofi has agreed to defend
and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the
claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Consolidated N.J. Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is defending itself from a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in New
Jersey, according to the Company's July 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On June 8, 2012, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a consolidated amended class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey (In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of
Columbia Laboratories' stock purchasers.  The amended complaint
generally alleges that between December 6, 2010, and January 20,
2012, Watson and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia
Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and
misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia
Laboratories obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval of Prochieve(R) progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories'
developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth.  Watson
licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from Columbia Laboratories in
July 2010.  The amended complaint further alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the
statistical analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia
Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of
Prochieve(R).  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Watson believes the case is without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses, which it intends to vigorously
pursue.  Additionally, Watson maintains insurance to provide
coverage for the claims alleged in the action.  However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation.  The action, if successful, or if
insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such
claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Force-Placed Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo Bank sells force-
placed flood insurance with Assurant, for a kickback, a class
action claims in Federal Court. A similar class action was filed
against Bank of America and Balboa Insurance.

A copy of the Complaint in Lovell, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01981 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/02/Kickbacks.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory W. Rome, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & ROME, L.L.C.
          2413 Pakenham Drive
          Chalmette, LA 70043
          Telephone: (504) 875-4397
          E-mail: gwrome@williamsandrome.com

               - and -

          T. Brent Walker, Esq.
          Russell Davis Carter III, Esq.
          CARTER WALKER PLLC
          2171 West Main, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 628
          Cabot, AR 72023
          Telephone: (501) 605-1346
          E-mail: bwalker@carterwalkerlaw.com
                  dcarter@carterwalkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Owings, Esq.
          Alexander P. Owings, Esq.
          OWINGS LAW FIRM
          1400 Brookwood Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 661-9999
          E-mail: sowings@owingslawfirm.com
                  apowings@owingslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jack Wagoner, Esq.
          WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1320 Brookwood, Suite E
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 663-5225
          E-mail: Jack@wagonerlawfirm.com


ZYNGA INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit (1:12-cv-11279) against Zynga Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action (CV-12-4048) filed in United States
District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zynga securities between February 15, 2012 and
July 25, 2012, inclusive.  This class action lawsuit seeks to
recover damages caused by the Company's violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zynga securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 1, 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.

Zynga operates as a social gaming company.  The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, the Company made materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company was experiencing a rapid decline in the number of
users for its existing web based games; (ii) the Company was
experiencing substantial delays in launching new web based games;
(iii) the Company was failing to take advantage of the changes on
Facebook's web platform; (iv) the Company was unable to
effectively monetize revenues from mobile devices through its web
based games; and (v) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On July 25, 2012, after the market closed, Zynga reported a net
loss of $22.8 million and lower than expected earnings estimates
for the second quarter 2012, and drastically lowered its outlook
for the rest of the year.  On this news, Zynga shares declined
$1.90 per share or nearly 37%, to close at $3.175 per share on
July 26, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm concentrates its practice in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  The firm
has offices in New York and Chicago.


* Korean Consumer Advocacy Group Mulls Class Action v. Banks
------------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap reports that a Korean consumer advocacy group said on
Aug. 2 it is moving to lodge a class action suit against local
financial firms' practice of lending mortgages at a time when the
slumping property market undercuts the value of collateral.

The Financial Consumer Agency said that it is preparing for the
move within this year, claiming that local financial firms are
unduly passing on burdens to borrowers even as falling home prices
are their fault.

"In given macroeconomic conditions with falling housing prices, it
is not right for local financial firms to pass on the
responsibility only to borrowers by using any means to recollect
loans," said Cho Nam-hee, the head of the agency.  "Financial
firms should hold part of the accountability."

He said the accused will be local banks, savings banks and
insurers, which deal with mortgage loans.

The move came as the tepid property market is undercutting the
value of collateral, raising the number of mortgage borrowers
under high pressure to repay debt.

Home-backed lending extended by local banks reached KRW223.8
trillion ($197.9 billion) as of the end of May, accounting for
27.2 percent of banks' won-denominated loans, according to the
central bank.

South Korea's financial watchdog said on Aug. 1 that it is seeking
to ease households' repayment burden of home-backed loans as the
slumping property market erodes the value of collateral.

The Financial Supervisory Service said it is studying plans to
have banks convert maturing mortgages exceeding a lending limit,
or the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, into credit loans instead of
retrieving them.

The LTV ratio is one of the main tools to curb household loans by
restricting the maximum amount of money that homeowners can borrow
in line with the value of their collateral.

Meanwhile, the agency said its push to file a class action suit
against banks' alleged collusion to fix rates on certificates of
deposit (CD) is gaining momentum.

Suspected rate-fixing may have contributed to increasing
households' debt-serving burden as rates on half of mortgage loans
move in tandem with CD rates, market watchers say.

The agency said that suspected rate collusion is estimated to have
incurred around KRW1.6 trillion in damage per year for borrowers.


                           *********

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  * * *