CAR_Public/120815.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 15, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 161

                             Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Settles Class Action for $4.5 Million
ALLSTATE LIFE: Sued Over Unlawful Practices on Surrender Charges
AMGEN INC: Faces Lawsuit Over FEHA Violation
AU OPTRONICS: November 29 Hearing Set for Three New Settlements
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends "Lauria" Securities Class Suit

BRIDGESTONE CORP: 3rd. Circuit Decertifies Tire Class Action
BURCH EQUIPMENT: Recalls Additional Cantaloupe & Honeydew Melons
BUTTERBALL LLC: To Settle Former Employees' Class Action
CARBO CERAMICS: Two Securities Class Suits Consolidated in June
CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Brake Defect Class Action

CONSOL ENERGY: Appeal From Dismissal of New "Comer" Suit Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Hall" Suit in Pennsylvania
CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Gas Acquisition-Related Class Suit Pending
CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery in "Addison" Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery in "Hale" Class Suit vs. Unit Ongoing

CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over Libor Manipulation
ENSIGN GROUP: Awaits Approval of California Suit Settlement
FRESCO GREEN: Recalls 1,643 Cilantro Cases Sold in Calif. & Minn.
GATEWAY INC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in LCD Class Action
GREEN DOT: Saxena White Files Class Action in California

HOME DEPOT: Supervisors File Overtime Class Action in California
HUNTSMAN CORP: Antitrust Suit Remains Stayed in California
HUNTSMAN CORP: Still Awaits OK of Canadian Antitrust Suits Deal
HUNTSMAN CORP: Trial in Maryland Class Suit to Begin Sept. 2013
JIANGBO PHARMA: Judge Trims Securities Class Action Claims

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for Misrepresenting Benefits of Splenda
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
KB HOME: Sued Over Officers' "Unwarranted Compensation"
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Explores Settlement Talks for 2 Class Suits
LUCKY COUNTRY: Recalls Aussie Style Soft Gourmet Black Licorice

MASTERCARD INC: "Attridge" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
MASTERCARD INC: Calif. Suit Parties Must Submit Bid by Aug. 20
MASTERCARD INC: Faces New Interchange Fee-Related Suit in Canada
MASTERCARD INC: Oral Argument in ATM Surcharges Suits in Sept.
MASTERCARD INC: Interchange Fee Suit Deal Approval Bid Due Oct 19

MISSA BAY: Recalls Fruit, Vegetable, and Sandwich Products
ONTARIO LOTTERY: Gamblers Can Appeal Class Action Ruling
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Motion to Dismiss Georgia Suit Remains Pending
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Maryland Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Fairmount" Suit Still Pending

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Cruise/Mullaney" Suit
PROTRANSPORT-1 LLC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
SLOAN VALVE: Faces Class Action Over Flushing System Toilets
SOUTH CAROLINA: To Face Class Action Over Insurance Cost Increase
STORA ENSO: 2nd Cir. Reverses Price Fixing Class Action Ruling

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Faces Class Action Over "Heroes' Act"
USEC INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Severance Benefits
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Settles Sunroof Class Action for $8 Mil.
ZYNGA INC: Sued Over False and Misleading Statements in IPO
ZYNGA INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Class Action


                          *********

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Settles Class Action for $4.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Brent Hunsberger, writing for The Oregonian, reports that
Affiliated Computer Services Inc. has agreed to pay $4.5 million
to settle allegations it failed to properly pay wages and overtime
to thousands of its Oregon employees for seven years.

Up to 20,000 former and current employees of ACS, ACS Commercial
Solutions and Livebridge call centers in Oregon could be eligible
for between $50 and $260 from the class-action settlement.  Most
are now receiving notice in the mail of the deal.  They have until
Sept. 1 to mail or fax their claims or to object to the agreement.

U.S. District Court Magistrate Thomas M. Coffin approved the
preliminary settlement last month.  The 2009 lawsuit, filed in
Portland, alleged ACS failed to pay proper wages and overtime at
its Oregon call centers, in violation of state law and the Federal
Labor Standards Act.

ACS denied violating any laws, according to the settlement.
Company spokesman Kevin Lightfoot declined comment.

ACS employs 2,200 in Oregon at call centers, data center
facilities, administrative offices and client sites, Mr. Lightfoot
said. Xerox purchased the company in 2009.

The settlement provides $2.6 million for eligible employees of ACS
in Oregon between April 2, 2005 and April 24, 2012.  They include
phone agents, customer care assistants and customer care
specialists working in ACS retail, travel, insurance, BPS,
telecommunications and technology business groups.

The law firm representing the class, Bailey Pinney and Associates
in Vancouver, will get $1.7 million of the settlement.  A legal
associate at the firm declined comment on Aug. 10.

Employees who brought the lawsuit -- Lauri Bell, Mary Henderson,
Julia Rosenstein and the heirs of Angela Hayes -- share an $85,000
incentive award.  All worked at ACS locations in Portland and
Gresham.

Claims administrator Kurtzman Carson Consultants gets up to
$100,000.

Any money not claimed within 30 days will go back to ACS,
according to the settlement.  A final settlement hearing is
scheduled before Judge Coffin in Portland Oct. 22.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleged call-center employees had to
clock in for their shifts on their computer, but often spent time
beforehand searching for an available work station or headset or
waiting to have their password reset.  They should have been paid
for those delays, the lawsuit alleged.

It also alleged ACS failed to pay bonuses as promised and failed
to properly count bonuses when calculating overtime.

ACS agreed any current employee's claim would not affect their
employment at the firm or be disclosed to their direct
supervisors.

Call centers in Oregon employed 11,000 workers in March 2012, the
latest data from the Oregon Employment Department.  That's up from
9,300 two years earlier.


ALLSTATE LIFE: Sued Over Unlawful Practices on Surrender Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Von Merta, individually and as successor in interest, heir,
beneficiary, personal representative and/or administrator to
Barbara Ann Von Merta, deceased, and the Estate of Barbara Ann Von
Merta, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Allstate Life Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Case No.
3:12-cv-04125 (N.D. Calif., August 6, 2012) is brought by Mr. Von
Merta as a California state-wide class action on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers to halt and remedy the
harm caused by Allstate's alleged systematic unlawful practices in
connection with the sale and issuance of deferred annuity
products, excluding variable annuities, to all purchasers in
California over the age of 60.

The Defendant formulated and sold and issued an unlawful policy
that failed to properly disclose surrender charges as required by
law for all fixed and equity indexed deferred annuities, Mr. Von
Merta alleges.  He asserts that the Defendant's scheme targets
consumers like Ms. Von Merta as purchasers of deferred annuities.
He contends that Allstate's uniform policies and marketing
materials, brochures and presentations omit or fail to fully
disclose all material facts and risks related to the surrender
charges associated with the deferred annuity products.

Mr. Von Merta, son of Barbara Ann Von Merta, is the sole
beneficiary of Ms. Von Merta's single premium deferred annuity
under Allstate.  She died on December 12, 2010, at 79 years of
age.  Until her death at 79 years of age and at all times relevant
hereto, Ms. Von Merta was a resident of the City and County of San
Francisco, California, and was an "elder" within the meaning of
California Welfare and Institutions Code.  Subsequent to Ms. Von
Merta's death, Mr. Von Merta applied for a lump sum distribution
of her annuity on March 24, 2011.  He discovered the alleged abuse
in 2011 when receiving his lump sum payment, and his claim is,
therefore, tolled and within the statute of limitations.

Allstate is an Illinois corporation headquartered in Northbrook,
Illinois, that is licensed to transact insurance in the United
States and Canada.  Directly, Allstate offers a broad line of
insurance products and services, including auto, home, life and
retirement insurance products and services through Allstate
agencies, independent agencies and Allstate exclusive financial
representatives.  Allstate's products include interest-sensitive,
traditional and variable life insurance; fixed annuities such as
deferred and immediate annuities; voluntary accident and health
insurance; and funding agreements backing medium-term notes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ingrid M. Evans, Esq.
          THE EVANS LAW FIRM
          3053 Fillmore Street, #236
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 441-8669
          Facsimile: (888) 891-4906
          E-mail: ingrid@evanslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Arias, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          Christopher D. Dipietro, Esq.
          ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 670-1600
          Facsimile: (310) 670-1231
          E-mail: marias@aogllp.com
                  atorrijos@aogIlp.com
                  cdipietro@aogllp.com


AMGEN INC: Faces Lawsuit Over FEHA Violation
--------------------------------------------
Tie Zhang, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Amgen, Inc., a California corporation; and
Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. 56-2012-00420162-CU-OE-VTA
(Calif. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., June 29, 2012) accuses Amgen of
harassment, discrimination, retaliation and violating the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

From four years prior to the filing of his complaint to the
present, Mr. Zhang has worked around 1,900 hours of overtime.
However, he contends that he was misclassified as "exempt"
employee, and thus, he was not entitled to overtime, meal breaks
and rest breaks.  He adds that he was treated differently based
upon his age and national origin.

Mr. Zhang, a resident of Ventura County, California, is a former
non-exempt employee of Amgen.  He began working at Amgen in 1993
as a research associate before he was unceremoniously terminated
in December 2011.

Amgen is a California corporation.  The Plaintiff believes that
each of the Doe Defendants is in some manner responsible for the
alleged wrongs and damages against him.

On August 6, 2012, Amgen asked the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, for an order for the issuance of a subpoena to compel
Rush University Medical Center, in Chicago, Illinois, to produce
documents on September 3, 2012.  Amgen asserts that Rush
University has relevant and important employment records
concerning the facts at issue in the lawsuit and cannot be
compelled to produce the records without the issuance of an
Illinois subpoena.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis H. Kreuzer II, Esq.
          Joseph M. Herbert, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF LOUIS H. KREUZER
          601 Daily Drive, Suite 221
          Camarillo, CA 93010
          Telephone: (805) 383-4131
          Facsimile: (805) 383-4135

               - and -

          Rob Hennig, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROB HENNIG
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 843-0020
          Facsimile: (310) 843-9150

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sean M. Smith, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Thirtieth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 499-6000
          Facsimile: (312) 499-6100
          E-mail: seansmith@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Zachary P. Hutton, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, Twenty-Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  zachhutton@paulhastings.com


AU OPTRONICS: November 29 Hearing Set for Three New Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinsella Media, LLC, the court-approved notice provider for the
LCD Flat Panel litigation, on Aug. 9 released a statement
regarding the Class Action Settlement.

This is the second notice in this case.  The Court previously
approved Settlements with seven Defendants.  Settlements have now
been reached with the three remaining Defendants: AU Optronics, LG
Display and Toshiba ("New Settlements").

This lawsuit involves the price of thin film transistor liquid
crystal display flat panels ("TFT-LCD" or "LCD").  The lawsuit
claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices of TFT-LCD Flat Panels resulting in overcharges
to consumers who bought televisions, monitors and notebook
computers containing the panels.  The Defendants deny these
allegations.  The Court has not decided who is right.

The Settlements will provide almost $1.1 billion to consumers in
24 states and the District of Columbia and governmental entities
in eight states that purchased televisions, monitors and notebook
computers containing an LCD Flat Panel from someone other than the
manufacturer of the Flat Panel.  The Settlements also provide
nationwide injunctive relief to stop the Defendants' alleged
behavior.

The 24 states are:  AZ, AR, CA, FL, HI, IA, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN,
MS, MO, NV, NM, NY, NC, ND, RI, SD, TN, VT, WV and WI.  The
Attorneys General of AR, CA, FL, MI, MO, NY, WV and WI are also
participating in the case on behalf of their citizens and
governmental entities.  Specific class definitions are available
at http://www.LCDclass.com

The Court will hold a hearing on November 29, 2012 to consider
whether to approve the three New Settlements.  Consumers may
object to the three New Settlements, plan of distribution,
attorneys' fees and costs, and awards to Class Representatives by
October 9, 2012.  Consumers may hire their lawyer to appear and
speak at the hearing at their own expense.

With the exception noted below, the first notice gave consumers
the opportunity to exclude themselves.  Consumers who did not
exclude themselves have given up the right to sue the Defendants
for the claims in this case.  Only individuals and businesses that
indirectly purchased a LCD Flat Panel: (1) while residing in
Arkansas; (2) while residing in Missouri or Rhode Island that was
not primarily for household or personal use; or (3) that had a
direct purchase in addition to an indirect purchase, have until
October 9, 2012 to exclude themselves from the litigation
involving AU Optronics, LG Display and Toshiba.  Consumers outside
the 24 states and the District of Columbia keep the right to sue
the Defendants for monetary relief.

Payments will be based on the number of valid claims filed as well
as on the number/type of LCD Flat Panel products that consumers
purchased.  It is expected that a minimum payment of $25 will be
made to all eligible consumers who submit a valid claim.  It is
possible that any money remaining after claims are paid will be
distributed to charities, governmental entities or other
beneficiaries approved by the Court.

Consumers must submit a claim in order to get a payment.  Claim
Forms can be submitted online or by mail.  Claim Forms can be
obtained at http://www.LCDclass.comor by calling 1-855-225-1886.
The deadline to submit a claim is December 6, 2012.

This is only a summary of the litigation.  Consumers are
encouraged to visit http://www.LCDclass.com to get more
information about the litigation, obtain copies of the Settlement
Agreements, and to file a claim or to download a Claim Form.
Consumer may also call: 1-855-225-1886 or write to: LCD Class,
P.O. Box 8025, Faribault, MN 55021-9425 to get additional
information.


BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends "Lauria" Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is defending a securities class
action lawsuit initiated by Thomas Lauria in Illinois, according
to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On February 3, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the caption Thomas Lauria, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Stephen M. Simes naming the Company and the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer, Stephen M. Simes, as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's
disclosures relating to the efficacy of LibiGel and its commercial
potential were false and/or misleading and that such false and/or
misleading statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
price of the Company's securities resulting in violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Although a substantially similar complaint was filed in the same
court on February 21, 2012, such complaint was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in April 2012.  The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities between February 12, 2010, and December 15, 2011, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and reasonable costs, expert fees and
attorneys' fees on behalf of such purchasers.  The Company
believes the action is without merit and intends to defend the
action vigorously.


BRIDGESTONE CORP: 3rd. Circuit Decertifies Tire Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court last week decertified a class action lawsuit
brought over run-flat tires.

In its ruling on Aug. 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit parted from a decision by the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The district court had certified plaintiff Jeffrey Marcus' suit as
an opt-out class action brought on behalf of all purchasers and
lessees of certain model-year BMWs equipped with Bridgestone brand
run-flat tires, or RFTs, sold or leased in New Jersey with tires
that "have gone flat and been replaced."

As their name suggests, the tires can run while flat.

More specifically, if an RFT suffers a total and abrupt loss of
air pressure from a puncture or other road damage, the vehicle it
is on remains stable and can continue driving for 50 to 150 miles
at a speed of up to 50 miles per hour.

Mr. Marcus leased a BMW convertible equipped with four Bridgestone
RFTs.

During his three-year lease, he had four flat tires.

In each case, the RFT worked as intended.  Even though the tire
lost air pressure, Mr. Marcus was able to drive his car to a BMW
dealer to have the tire replaced.

Unsatisfied, he sued Bridgestone Corporation, Bridgestone Americas
Tire Operations LLC and BMW of North America LLC, asserting
consumer fraud, breach of warranty and breach of contract claims.

Among other things, he claims that Bridgestone RFTs are
"defective" because they are highly susceptible to flats,
punctures and bubbles and . . . fail at a significantly higher
rate than radial tires or other run-flat tires; cannot be
repaired, only replaced, in the event of a small puncture; and are
"exorbitantly priced."

He also claims RFT-equipped BMWs cannot be retrofitted to operate
with conventional, non-run-flat tires, and that many service
stations do not sell Bridgestone RFTs, making them difficult to
replace.

He faults BMW and Bridgestone for failing to disclose these so-
called "defects."

In its 55-page ruling, the Third Circuit vacated the district
court's certification order and remanded the case.

Among other problems, Mr. Marcus' claims do not satisfy the
numerosity requirement, the court said.

Numerosity, Judge Thomas Ambro explained, requires that a class be
"so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable."

"When a plaintiff attempts to certify both a nationwide class and
a state-specific subclass, as Marcus did here, evidence that is
sufficient to establish numerosity with respect to the nationwide
class is not necessarily sufficient to establish numerosity with
respect to the state-specific subclass," the judge wrote.

In this case, the Third Circuit said it can only "speculate" as to
how many 2006-09 BMWs were purchased or leased in New Jersey with
Bridgestone RFTs that have gone flat and been replaced.

To begin, it can only guess as to how many 2006-09 BMWs were
purchased or leased in New Jersey regardless of tire brand, the
court noted.

"That information is not in the record," Judge Ambro wrote.
"There is also no evidence of how many of the 740,102 vehicles
bought and leased nationwide had Bridgestone RFTs.  No evidence
shows that BMW purchased tires from its seven RFT-suppliers in
roughly equal proportions or even if Bridgestone was among its
larger or smaller suppliers."

The judge continued, "Not to pile on, but Marcus has not pointed
us to any evidence in the record -- not in the customer
complaints, the road hazard warranty claims, the loss-ratio data
or the internal BMW emails -- that identifies another purchaser or
lessee of a 2006-09 BMW that was sold or leased in New Jersey and
equipped with Bridgestone RFTs that have gone flat and been
replaced.  In short, he has offered proof of only one potential
class member: himself."

The Third Circuit pointed out that the district court,
nonetheless, found that the New Jersey class met the numerosity
requirement because "it is common sense that there will be more
members of the class than the number of consumers who complained
-- probably significantly more" and "common sense indicates that
there will be at least 40."

"That may be a bet worth making, but it cannot support a finding
of numerosity sufficient for Rule 23(a)(1)," Judge Ambro wrote.

"If Marcus continues to attempt to certify a class, he needs to
provide the court with a more clearly defined class and set of
claims, issues or defenses to be given class treatment."


BURCH EQUIPMENT: Recalls Additional Cantaloupe & Honeydew Melons
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burch Equipment LLC, of North Carolina, is expanding its recall to
include all of this growing season's cantaloupes and honeydew
melons that may remain on the market because they may possibly be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.  There have been no
illnesses reported to date.

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, infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.  The incubation period (the length of time between
consuming a product and becoming ill) for Listeria monocytogenes
can be 1 to 3 weeks, but may be in the range of 3 to 70 days.

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 (note: Cottle Strawberry, Inc. did not grow
or process the cantaloupe involved in this recall).  Cantaloupes
from Burch Farms were shipped in both corrugated boxes (9
cantaloupe per case) and in bulk bins.

Honeydew melons involved in this recall expansion do not bear any
identifying stickers and were packed in cartons labeled melons.

Consumers who may have purchased these honeydew melons should
contact the store where they purchased their melons, for
information about whether those melons are part of this recall.

The cantaloupes and honeydew melons involved in this expanded
recall were sold to distributors between June 23rd and July 27th,
in the following states: FL, GA, IL, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, NC, NH,
NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, and VA, VT and WV. The melons may have further
been distributed to retail stores, restaurants and food service
facilities in other states.

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

There have been no illnesses reported to date.  FDA and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are
working with Burch Equipment LLC following a random sample of a
cantaloupe testing positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

This recall expansion is based on FDA's finding of Listeria
monocytogenes on a honeydew melon grown and packed by Burch.

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


BUTTERBALL LLC: To Settle Former Employees' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, citing The Associated Press,
reports that Butterball LLC has joined in a proposal to settle a
class-action lawsuit by current and former employees of the
company's turkey-processing plants in Huntsville and Ozark.

The proposed $425,000 settlement calls for nine lead plaintiffs in
the lawsuit to receive $6,000 each and for 19 others in the action
to receive $1,000 apiece.

The proposal would settle separate lawsuits filed in 2008 and 2010
that alleged the workers were not paid for time spent preparing
for work.

Butterball has denied the allegation.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported on Aug. 9 that a hearing on
the proposed settlement is scheduled for Nov. 5 in U.S. District
Court in Little Rock.


CARBO CERAMICS: Two Securities Class Suits Consolidated in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two securities class action lawsuits filed in New York was
consolidated in June, while a third one was dismissed, according
to CARBO Ceramics Inc.'s August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

On February 9, 2012, the Company, Gary A. Kolstad and Ernesto
Bautista III, were named as defendants in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "February SDNY Lawsuit"), brought on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between October 27, 2011, and January 26, 2012 (the "Relevant Time
Period").  The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising from statements concerning the Company's
business operations and business prospects that were made during
the class period and requests unspecified damages and costs.  On
April 10, 2012, a second purported class-action lawsuit was filed
against the same defendants in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of
investors who purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option
contracts during the Relevant Time Period (the "April SDNY
Lawsuit," and collectively with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the
"Federal Securities Lawsuit"), which alleges substantially similar
claims as the February SDNY Lawsuit and requests unspecified
damages and costs.  In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and
the April SDNY Lawsuit were consolidated, and will now proceed as
one lawsuit.

On April 19, 2012, a third purported class-action lawsuit was
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, which was also brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares during the Relevant
Time Period.  This lawsuit alleged substantially similar claims as
the February SDNY Lawsuit and requested unspecified damages and
costs.  In June 2012, this lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice.

On March 1, 2012, the Directors of the Company and Mr. Bautista
were named as defendants in a purported derivative action lawsuit
brought on behalf of the Company by a stockholder in District
Court in Harris County, Texas (the "March Harris County Lawsuit").
The lawsuit alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty and other
duties by the defendants that generally are related to the
February SDNY Lawsuit, and requests unspecified damages and costs.
The parties to this lawsuit have entered into an agreement to stay
further proceedings pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss the
Federal Securities Lawsuit.

On June 13, 2012, the Directors of the Company and Mr. Bautista
were named as defendants in a second purported derivative action
lawsuit brought on behalf of the Company by a stockholder in
District Court in Harris County, Texas (this lawsuit collectively
with the March Harris County Lawsuit, the "Harris County
Lawsuits").  This lawsuit alleges substantially similar claims as
the March Harris County Lawsuit as well as a breach of duty
against certain defendants in connection with stock sales.  This
lawsuit also requests unspecified damages and costs.  The parties
to this lawsuit have entered into an agreement to stay further
proceedings pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss the Federal
Securities Lawsuit.

While each of the Federal Securities Lawsuit and the Harris County
Lawsuits are in their preliminary stages, the Company does not
believe they have merit, and plans to vigorously contest and
defend against them.

Additionally, from time to time, the Company is the subject of
legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business.  The
Company does not believe that any of these proceedings will have a
material effect on its business or its results of operations.

The Company says it cannot predict the ultimate outcome or
duration of any lawsuit described in its report.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Brake Defect Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Chrysler Group LLC
moved on Aug. 9 to toss a putative class action alleging the
company actively concealed defects that cause the brakes of its
Dodge Journey crossover SUV to fail sooner than expected, saying
the complaint has no legal grounding and is largely based on
hearsay.

Chrysler said plaintiff Giuliano Belle's allegations that the
company actively hid defects in the Journey -- including too-small
brake pads and rotors -- are based on unspecified complaints made
to an unidentified consumer Web site.


CONSOL ENERGY: Appeal From Dismissal of New "Comer" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ned Comer and other plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their
new class action lawsuit against companies in energy, fossil fuels
and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy
styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al.  The plaintiffs,
residents and owners of property along the Mississippi Gulf coast,
alleged that the defendants caused the emission of greenhouse
gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn caused a
rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina,
which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property.  The District
Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.  The Circuit
Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a rehearing before
the entire court.  A rehearing before the entire court was
granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's reversal,
but before the case could be heard on the merits, a number of
judges recused themselves and there was no longer a quorum.  As a
result, the District Court's dismissal was effectively reinstated.
The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require the Circuit
Court to address the merits of their appeal.  On January 11, 2011,
the Supreme Court denied that request.  Although that should have
resulted in the dismissal being final, the plaintiffs filed a
lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the same jurisdiction against
essentially the same defendants making nearly identical
allegations as in the original lawsuit.  The trial court has
dismissed this case.  The dismissal is being appealed.


CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend "Hall" Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010,
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court.  The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall.  The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy Inc.  The complaint alleges
more than 1,000 similarly situated lessors.  The lawsuit alleges
that CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i)
calculating line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather
than on a well-by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the
royalty on the basis of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking
unreasonable deductions for post-production costs and costs that
were not arms-length, (iv) not paying royalties on gas lost or
used before the point of sale, and (v) not paying royalties on oil
production.  The complaint also alleges that royalty statements
were false and misleading.  The complaint seeks damages, interest
and an accounting on a well-by-well basis.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to these actions.


CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Gas Acquisition-Related Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its acquisition of
CNX Gas Corporation, according to the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

CONSOL Energy has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Corporation
challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of
the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not
already own for $38.25 per share.  The two cases filed in
Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the three
cases filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated
under the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No.
5377-VCL).  All five actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy
breached and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary
duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders,
essentially alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL
Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and
subsequent short-form merger was unfair.  Among other things, the
actions sought a permanent injunction against or rescission of the
tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.  The
lawsuit will likely go to trial, probably in 2013.

CONSOL Energy believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.  For that reason, the Company
has not accrued a liability for this claim; however, if liability
is ultimately imposed, based on the expert reports that have been
exchanged by the parties, the Company believes the potential loss
could be up to $221,000.


CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery in "Addison" Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a class action lawsuit against CNX Gas
Company, a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc., according to the
Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010, in
Federal court in Virginia styled Addison v. CNX Gas Company.  The
case involves two primary claims: (i) the plaintiff and similarly
situated CNX Gas Company lessors identified as conflicting
claimants during the force pooling process before the Virginia Gas
and Oil Board are the owners of the coalbed methane (CBM) and,
accordingly, the owners of the escrowed royalty payments being
held by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and (ii) CNX Gas Company
failed to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant
lessors or paid them less than required because of the alleged
practice of improper below market sales and/or taking alleged
improper post-production deductions.  Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment regarding ownership and compensatory and
punitive damages for breach of contract; conversion; negligence
(voluntary undertaking), for force pooling coal owners after the
Ratliff decision declared coal owners did not own the CBM;
negligent breach of duties as an operator; breach of fiduciary
duties; and unjust enrichment.  The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss in this case, and the Magistrate Judge recommended
dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed.  The
District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in
their entirety.  Discovery is proceeding in this litigation.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  The Company has established an accrual
to cover the Company's estimated liability for this case.  This
accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL
Energy and is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheet.


CONSOL ENERGY: Discovery in "Hale" Class Suit vs. Unit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuit involving a
subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc. in Virginia, according to the
Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010,
against a CONSOL Energy Inc. subsidiary in U.S. District Court in
Abingdon, Virginia, styled Hale v. CNX Gas Company, et. al.  The
lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff class consists of oil and gas
owners, that the Virginia Supreme Court has decided that coalbed
methane (CBM) belongs to the owner of the oil and gas estate, that
the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990 unconstitutionally allows
force pooling of CBM, that the Act unconstitutionally provides
only a 1/8 royalty to CBM owners for gas produced under the force
pooling orders, and that the Company only relied upon control of
the coal estate in force pooling the CBM notwithstanding the
Virginia Supreme Court decision holding that if only the coal
estate is controlled, the CBM is not thereby controlled.  The
lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM and
that the entire net proceeds of CBM production (that is, the 1/8
royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since production began) be
distributed to the class members.  The Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the
District Judge decide that the deemed lease provision of the Gas
and Oil Act is constitutional as is the 1/8 royalty, and that CNX
Gas need not distribute the net proceeds to class members.  The
Magistrate Judge recommended against the dismissal of certain
other claims, none of which are believed to have any significance.
The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendations
in their entirety.  Discovery is proceeding in this litigation.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  The Company has established an accrual
to cover its estimated liability for this case.  This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.


CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over Libor Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that twenty banks violated the
federal antitrust laws in manipulating the London interbank
offered rate (Libor) from November 2005 until May 2010 to give the
appearance of financial stability, a class of shareholders claim
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


ENSIGN GROUP: Awaits Approval of California Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Ensign Group, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a staffing class action lawsuit commenced in
California, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Healthcare litigation is common and is filed based upon a wide
variety of claims and theories, and the Company is routinely
subjected to varying types of claims.  One particular type of
lawsuit arises from alleged violations of state-established
minimum staffing requirements for skilled nursing facilities.
Failure to meet these requirements can, among other things,
jeopardize a facility's compliance with conditions of
participation under certain state and federal healthcare programs;
it may also subject the facility to a notice of deficiency, a
citation, civil money penalty, or litigation.  These "staffing"
lawsuits have become more prevalent in the wake of previous
substantial jury award against one of the Company's competitors,
and the Company expects the plaintiff's bar to become increasingly
aggressive in their pursuit of these staffing and similar claims.
The Company is currently defending one such staffing class-action
claim filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, and have reached a
tentative settlement with class counsel that is currently awaiting
court approval.  The costs associated with the settlement include
attorney's fees, estimated class payout, and related costs and
expenses, were $5 million of which, $2,596,000 of this amount was
recorded in the quarter ended
June 30, 2012, with the balance having been expensed in prior
periods.  Assuming that the settlement is approved by the court,
the Company says the settlement will not have a material ongoing
adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.


FRESCO GREEN: Recalls 1,643 Cilantro Cases Sold in Calif. & Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresco Green Farms Inc. of Winchester, California, is recalling
1,643 cases of Cilantro harvested from July 18, 2012 to July 27,
2012, because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.  Consumers who believe they have
purchased the affected cilantro should dispose of it and it should
not be consumed.

The cilantro was on store shelves in California and Minnesota
beginning July 19, 2012, and likely sold or removed from sale
before August 6, 2012.  There have been no illnesses reported.
The cilantro is bunched and tied together with a brown rubber
band.  Each bunch has the following dimensions; 10 inches of
length and 1 1/4 width.  The individual bunches have no
identifying labels or lot numbers.  They were distributed in
shipping cases labeled "Fresco Green Farms Inc., Hemet, CA.
Produce of USA cilantro 2.5dz".  Consumers who may have purchased
the cilantro should contact the store where they purchased it to
determine whether the cilantro was included in the recall.

A picture of the label of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm315246.htm

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
USDA, which revealed that the cilantro harvested from July 18th to
July 27th has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.
Fresco Green Farm is taking this matter as high priority and has
made extreme quality control measures to identify if any cilantro
is contaminated prior to shipping to distributors and retail
markets.

Consumers who have concerns may contact Fresco Green Farms Inc. at
(562) 205-7673, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., Pacific standard time.


GATEWAY INC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in LCD Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on Aug. 7 ruled that Gateway Inc. could not compel
arbitration in a proposed class action alleging its high-end LCD
monitors were defective, saying the company's arbitration
provisions were unenforceable.

In the order, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee rejected the
computer company's argument that Mark D. Lima's class action was
subject to arbitration because his purchase was covered by a
limited warranty and terms of sale agreement that contained the
arbitration provision.


GREEN DOT: Saxena White Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all investors who purchased Green Dot Corporation
common stock during the period from January 26, 2012 through
July 26, 2012.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Green Dot offers prepaid financial services and money management
solutions to a broad base of U.S. consumers.  The Company offers
general purpose reloadable prepaid debit cards throughout a
network of retail stores throughout the country.  On July 26,
2012, Green Dot disclosed that it was updating its previously
issued outlook for the remainder of the year to reflect the impact
of new competition and new internal risk policies and controls.
On this news, the Company's shares declined $14.26 per share to
$9.06 per share on July 27, 2012 -- a one-day stock price drop of
over 61% on unusually high trading volume.

The complaint alleges that Green Dot and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws.  Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and
failed to disclose the following material adverse facts: (i) that
the Company's new internal risk policies and procedures were
negatively impacting Green Dot's growth in new account
activations; (ii) that certain of Green Dot's retailers were
planning to start selling competitive General Purpose Reloadable
("GPR") prepaid cards in addition to the Company's products; (iii)
that the Company lacked historical data to accurately predict how
other retailers' sales of competitive GPR products would impact
Green Dot; and (iv) the defendants' positive statements about
Green Dot's business and revenue outlook for 2012 lacked a
reasonable basis.

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

If you purchased Green Dot stock between January 26, 2012 and
July 26, 2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc
Grobler at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Green Dot common stock during the Class Period
and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a
motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than
September 25, 2012.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss
your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your
interest in the class action.  Please note that you may also
retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this
time to be a class member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.

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


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

A copy of the Complaint in Bell, et al. v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 34-2012-00128281 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/10/HomeDepot.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          Neda Roshanian, Esq.
          Michael Coats, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          Telephone: (310) 286-0246


HUNTSMAN CORP: Antitrust Suit Remains Stayed in California
----------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust class action lawsuit remains stayed in California
pending resolution of a multidistrict litigation in Kansas,
according to Huntsman Corporation's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company was named as a defendant in civil class action
antitrust lawsuits alleging that between 1999 and 2004, it
conspired with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of
MDI, TDI, polyether polyols, and related systems ("polyether
polyol products") sold in the U.S. in violation of the federal
Sherman Act.  These cases are consolidated as the "Polyether
Polyols" cases in multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

In addition, the Company and the other Polyether Polyols
defendants were named as defendants in three civil antitrust
lawsuits brought by certain direct purchasers of polyether polyol
products that opted out of the class certified in the Kansas
multidistrict litigation.  The relevant time frame for these cases
is 1994 to 2004 and they are referred to as the "direct action
cases."  The class action and the direct action cases were
consolidated in the Kansas court for the purposes of discovery and
other pretrial matters.

In the second quarter of 2011, the Company settled the class
action and was dismissed as a defendant.  On December 29, 2011,
the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the direct
action plaintiffs for an amount immaterial to its financial
statements and was dismissed from those cases on December 30,
2011.

A purported class action case filed February 15, 2005, by
purchasers in California of products containing rubber and
urethane chemicals and pending in Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, is stayed pending resolution of the
Kansas multidistrict litigation.  The plaintiffs in this matter
make similar claims against the defendants as the class plaintiffs
in the Kansas multidistrict litigation.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against it,
the Company says the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive
relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees.  The
Company is not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its
employees.  Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating
to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts
material to it.  As alleged damages in these cases have not been
specified, and because of the overall complexity of these cases,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or
range of loss with respect to these claims.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Still Awaits OK of Canadian Antitrust Suits Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two similar civil antitrust class action cases were filed against
Huntsman Corporation on May 5 and 17, 2006, in the Superior Court
of Justice, Ontario, Canada, and Superior Court, Province of
Quebec, District of Quebec, on behalf of purported classes of
Canadian direct and indirect purchasers of MDI, TDI and polyether
polyols.  On April 11, 2012, the Company reached agreement to
resolve these cases for an amount immaterial to its condensed
consolidated financial statements (unaudited).  The Canadian
settlement is subject to court approval.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against it,
the Company says the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive
relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees.  The
Company is not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its
employees.  Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating
to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts
material to it.  As alleged damages in these cases have not been
specified, and because of the overall complexity of these cases,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or
range of loss with respect to these claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Trial in Maryland Class Suit to Begin Sept. 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit pending
in Maryland is set to begin on September 9, 2013, Huntsman
Corporation disclosed in its August 1, 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 a defendant in two purported class
action civil antitrust lawsuits alleging that the Company and its
co-defendants and other co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of
titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002,
and the present.  The cases were filed on February 9, and 12,
2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and
a consolidated complaint was filed on April 12, 2010.  The other
defendants named in this matter are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals,
Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a
Cristal).  A class certification hearing was scheduled for August
13, 2012, and trial is set to begin September 9, 2013.  Discovery
is ongoing.

In all of the antitrust litigation currently pending against it,
the Company says the plaintiffs generally are seeking injunctive
relief, treble damages, costs of lawsuit and attorneys fees.  The
Company is not aware of any illegal conduct by it or any of its
employees.  Nevertheless, the Company has incurred costs relating
to these claims and could incur additional costs in amounts
material to it.  As alleged damages in these cases have not been
specified, and because of the overall complexity of these cases,
the Company is unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or
range of loss with respect to these claims.


JIANGBO PHARMA: Judge Trims Securities Class Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that investors
who leveled claims of securities fraud at the Florida-based
holding company of a Chinese pharmaceutical business cannot pursue
claims against a CFO and auditor, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiffs Christopher Brody and Tara Lewis claim Jiangbo
Pharmaceuticals overstated cash balances and otherwise misled
investors as it oversaw the work of Laiyang Jiangbo Pharmaceutical
in China.

Jiangbo allegedly became delinquent on $35 million loans because
China's strict foreign-exchange restrictions delayed cash
transfers out of the country, but 2010 quarterly statements
nevertheless claimed that the company had $96 million in cash and
$11.5 million in restricted cash.

Investors say the numbers continued to rise until Jiangbo
announced in May 2011 that it had defaulted on loan payments and
was under investigation.

Days later Jiangbo stock dropped 92 percent, and Nasdaq pulled it
from the exchange.

In addition to suing Jiangbo, the class also filed claims against
several officers, including former Chief Financial Officer Elsa
Sung, and its California-based external auditor Frazer LLP.  The
complaint says the defendants lied about financial stability to
induce investments between June 2010 and May 2011.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke dismissed the claims against both
Sung and Frazer, but the class will have a chance to file an
amended complaint.

Ultimately, Judge Cooke found the investors failed to include
"sufficient facts" against Sung and Frazer in their claims, which
were "simply general, vague and conclusory."

"Plaintiffs' 'must have known' theory fails because they do not
allege sufficient facts about the fraud to establish that Sung,
even as CFO, should have detected it," Judge Cooke wrote.

"In fact, Sung worked mainly in Florida, while the company
conducted its operations in Laiyang," she added.  "These facts
support the competing inference that Sung did not know the
company's true financial condition."

As for Frazer, "the additional facts and circumstances alleged in
the CAC [consolidated amended complaint] are insufficient to show
Frazer acted with knowledge or reckless disregard."

"In sum, the CAC fails to establish that Frazer's audit amounted
to 'no audit at all or an egregious refusal to see the obvious or
investigate the doubtful,'" the decision states.

A copy of the Omnibus Order on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in
In re Jiangbo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case
No. 11-22556 (S.D. Fla.), is available at;

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/10/Jiangbo.pdf


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for Misrepresenting Benefits of Splenda
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Johnson & Johnson and McNeil
Nutritionals misrepresent the supposed health benefits of Splenda
Essentials, a "fortified no-calorie sweetener," a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bronson, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-04184 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/10/Splenda.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Mills, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          THE MILLS LAW FIRM
          880 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite 2
          San Rafael, CA 94903
          Telephone: (415) 455-1326
          E-mail: rwm@millslawfirm.com
                  josh@millslawfirm.com
                  corey@millslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen Gardner, Esq.
          Amanda Howell, Esq.
          CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          5646 Milton Street, Suite 211
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 827-2774
          E-mail: sgardner@cspinet.org
                  ahowell@cspinet.org


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that JPMorgan Chase
& Co won a federal judge's preliminary approval of a $100 million
class-action settlement with credit card customers who accused the
bank of improperly trying to generate higher fees by boosting
their minimum payments.

The settlement resolves claims over Chase's decision in late 2008
and 2009 to boost minimum monthly payments for thousands of
cardholders to 5 percent of account balances from 2 percent.

Cardholders said Chase had induced them to transfer loan balances
from other lenders to Chase card accounts, where the debt would be
consolidated into fixed-rate loans.

But they said the New York-based bank later boosted minimum
payments to force them to either accept higher rates to preserve a
lower payment requirement, or to cause late payments that would
trigger new fees or penalty interest rates.

U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney in San Francisco on Aug. 9
granted preliminary approval to the settlement as fair, reasonable
and adequate. A hearing at which she would consider final approval
was scheduled for November 16.

Lawyers for the cardholders last month said the $100 million is 45
percent of the $220 million of up-front transaction fees that
their clients paid for Chase's promotional loans.

These lawyers will seek as much as $25 million of the settlement
fund for legal fees, plus about $1.5 million to cover litigation
costs, according to court papers.

The case is In re: Chase Bank USA NA "Check Loan" Contract
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
No. 09-md-02032.


KB HOME: Sued Over Officers' "Unwarranted Compensation"
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of KB Home gave the
company's top officers $3.125 million in "unwarranted
compensation" for 2011, despite the company's "dismal"
performance, shareholders say in a class action in Los Angeles
Superior Court.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Explores Settlement Talks for 2 Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Anderson, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that the
board of the state-run property insurer of last resort instructed
its attorneys on Aug. 9 to explore settlement talks with lawyers
for two separate class action lawsuits that were filed after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  Officials of the Louisiana
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. voted unanimously to launch
talks to resolve Geraldine Oubre and Linda Gentry vs. Louisiana
Citizens Fair Plan, a Jefferson Parish lawsuit; and Toni Swain
Orrill et al vs. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, a New Orleans case.

Richard Robertson, Citizens chief executive officer, said the
agency's legal team was not given parameters to discuss, such as a
maximum or minimum dollar amount or the level of attorneys fees.
"The board would really like to get these claims resolved and move
forward," he said.

The settlement talks come after years of Citizens fighting a
judgment handed down by 24th Judicial District Court Judge Henry
Sullivan of Gretna ordering the agency to pay more than $92.8
million to 18,573 members of the Oubre class action.  That amount
has grown to about $105 million with legal interest added daily
while Citizens appealed the case.

The plaintiffs in that case should get $3,000 to $5,000 each,
lawyers in the lawsuit said.  The lawsuit alleges that Citizens
failed to properly send out adjusters to review damage claims in
the weeks after the 2005 hurricanes.

Another 7,800 plaintiffs in the Oubre case have claims pending,
Mr. Robertson said. The settlement would include those claims.

The possible settlement in the Orrill case, Mr. Robertson said,
involves between 12,000 and 14,000 people who claim Citizens did
not properly pay their claims following the hurricanes.

Earlier reports said members of that class action could get about
$1,000 each.  Mr. Robertson declined to discuss any dollar amounts
involving either case.

"I want to try to get a settlement on the table (for a board vote)
at the September meeting," Mr. Robertson said.

The board discussed the settlement overtures in the two cases in a
closed-door session that lasted 77 minutes.  The board voted on
broaching possible settlements when it resumed its public meeting.

Citizens' lawyers will attempt to hammer out an agreement with
lawyers in the Orrill case, Mr. Robertson said, while three board
members are expected to talk to attorneys in the Oubre case.

The three board members named to the negotiating team are Jim
Napper, state Treasurer John Kennedy's designee on the board; and
Sens. Dan "Blade" Morrish, R-Jennings, and Eric LaFleur, D-Ville
Platte.

Fred Herman, one of the lawyers involved in the years-long
litigation, said attorneys in the class action suits welcome the
board's vote to try to reach a settlement.

"We look forward to hearing from them," Mr. Herman said after the
meeting.

Mr. Robertson also asked the board for authority to contact the
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office to see if a $5.9 million fee it
received for seizing Citizens assets from Regions Bank can be
negotiated.  Under state law, the sheriff's office must seize
assets pursuant to a court order and receives a percentage of the
amount seized.

"I don't know how much room there is to negotiate" based on what
state law requires, Mr. Robertson said.


LUCKY COUNTRY: Recalls Aussie Style Soft Gourmet Black Licorice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucky Country Inc. of Lincolnton, North Carolina, is recalling Lot
A3057 of Lucky Country Aussie Style Soft Gourmet Black Licorice
with Natural Ingredients from Costco and Smart & Final stores
located in California, Arizona, and Utah due to elevated levels of
lead.

Lucky Country Aussie Style Soft Gourmet Black Licorice with
Natural Ingredients is packaged in a 1.5lb (680g) gusset bag with
zipper.  The package is red, white and black in color.  A picture
of the recalled products is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm315118.htm

Recent analysis performed by the California Department of Public
Health found that the candy contained lead levels as high as 0.18
parts per million which could provide up to 7.2 micrograms of lead
per serving.  Lucky Country is voluntarily recalling lot A3057 of
this candy from all Costco and Smart & Final stores located in
California, Arizona, and Utah.  Consumers in possession of this
lot should not eat the candy and should return the candy to the
place of purchase for a full refund.

Lucky Country is cooperating with the California Department of
Public Health and the US Food and Drug Administration to conduct
the recall.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
customerservice@lucky-country.com or 828-428-8313 during business
hours.


MASTERCARD INC: "Attridge" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated continues to defend the antitrust class
action lawsuit known as the "Attridge" action pending in
California, according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a
lawsuit against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc. and
Visa International Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that both MasterCard's and
Visa's governance structure and policies violated U.S. federal
antitrust laws.  The DOJ challenged (1) "dual governance", where a
financial institution has a representative on the Board of
Directors of MasterCard or Visa while a portion of its card
portfolio is issued under the brand of the other association, and
(2) both MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy ("CPP") and a
Visa bylaw provision that prohibited financial institutions
participating in the respective associations from issuing
competing proprietary payment cards (such as American Express or
Discover).  In October 2001, the judge issued an opinion upholding
the legality and pro-competitive nature of dual governance.
However, the judge also held that MasterCard's CPP and the Visa
bylaw constituted unlawful restraints of trade under the federal
antitrust laws.  The judge subsequently issued a final judgment
that ordered MasterCard to repeal the CPP and enjoined MasterCard
from enacting or enforcing any bylaw, rule, policy or practice
that prohibits its issuers from issuing general purpose credit or
debit cards in the United States on any other general purpose card
network.

In April 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on
behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair
competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the
"Attridge action").  The claims in this action seek to piggyback
on the portion of the DOJ antitrust litigation with regard to the
District Court's findings concerning MasterCard's CPP and Visa's
related bylaw.  The Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claims but denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair
competition claims.  The parties have proceeded with discovery.
In September 2009, MasterCard executed a settlement agreement that
is subject to court approval in the separate California consumer
litigations.  The agreement includes a release that the parties
believe encompasses the claims asserted in the Attridge action.
In August 2010, the Court in the California consumer actions
granted final approval to the settlement.  The plaintiff from the
Attridge action and three other objectors filed appeals of the
settlement approval.

In January 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
settlement approval and remanded the matter to the trial court for
further proceedings.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
outcome of, or estimate the liability related to, the Attridge
action and no incremental provision for losses has been provided
in connection with it.


MASTERCARD INC: Calif. Suit Parties Must Submit Bid by Aug. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court instructed parties of consumer lawsuits filed in
California to submit a motion seeking approval of their settlement
by August 20, 2012, according to MasterCard Incorporated's August
1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Commencing in October 1996, several class action lawsuits were
brought by a number of U.S. merchants against the Company's
operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated, doing
business as MasterCard Worldwide, and Visa U.S.A., Inc.
challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under
U.S. federal antitrust law.  The plaintiffs claimed that
MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a similar Visa rule),
which required merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for
payment every validly presented MasterCard card, constituted an
illegal tying arrangement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.  In June 2003, MasterCard International signed a settlement
agreement to settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this
matter, which the Court approved in December 2003.  Pursuant to
the settlement, MasterCard agreed, among other things, to create
two separate "Honor All Cards" rules in the United States -- one
for debit cards and one for credit cards.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought
in 19 states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair
competition, consumer protection and common law claims against
MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes
of consumers.  The claims in these actions largely mirror the
allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that
merchants, faced with excessive interchange fees, have passed
these overhead charges to consumers in the form of higher prices
on goods and services sold.  MasterCard has successfully resolved
the cases in 18 of the jurisdictions.  However, there are
outstanding cases in New Mexico and California.  MasterCard's
motion to dismiss the complaint in the New Mexico action was
granted by the trial court and this dismissal was affirmed by the
appellate court in April 2012.  With respect to the California
state actions, in September 2009, the parties to the California
state court actions executed a settlement agreement which required
a payment by MasterCard of $6 million, subject to approval by the
California state court.  In August 2010, the court granted final
approval of the settlement, subsequent to which MasterCard made
the payment required by the settlement agreement.  The plaintiff
from the Attridge action and three other objectors filed appeals
of the settlement approval order.  In January 2012, the Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's settlement approval and remanded
the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

In July 2012, the trial court instructed the parties to submit a
motion seeking approval of the settlement by August 20, 2012.

At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or,
except as indicated in the California consumer actions, estimate
the liability related to, the remaining consumer cases and no
provision for losses has been provided in connection with them.
The consumer class actions are not covered by the terms of the
settlement agreement in the U.S. merchant lawsuit.


MASTERCARD INC: Faces New Interchange Fee-Related Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated is facing a new class action lawsuit over
interchange fees in Canada, according to the Company's August 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In December 2010, the Canadian Competition Bureau (the "CCB")
filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal to
strike down certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules.  The hearing on the matter was held before the Canadian
Competition Tribunal and was completed in June 2012.  The parties
are awaiting a decision from the Canadian Competition Tribunal.
In December 2010, a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit was
commenced against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian
merchants.  That lawsuit essentially repeated the allegations and
arguments of the CCB application to the Canadian Competition
Tribunal and sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.

In March 2011, a second purported class action lawsuit was
commenced in British Columbia against MasterCard, Visa and a
number of large Canadian financial institutions, and in May 2011 a
third purported class action lawsuit was commenced in Ontario
against the same defendants.  These lawsuits allege that
MasterCard, Visa and the financial institutions have engaged in a
conspiracy to increase or maintain the fees paid by merchants on
credit card transactions and establish rules which force merchants
to accept all MasterCard and Visa credit cards and prevent
merchants from charging more for payments with MasterCard and Visa
premium cards.  The British Columbia lawsuit seeks compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages of $5 billion.  The British Columbia and
Ontario lawsuits also seek punitive damages in unspecified
amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and legal costs.

In April 2012, the Quebec lawsuit was amended to include the same
defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and
Ontario lawsuits.  With respect to status of the proceedings: (1)
the Quebec lawsuit was stayed in June 2012 until June 2013,
subject to an ongoing obligation to report to the case management
judge, (2) the Ontario lawsuit is being temporarily suspended
while the British Columbia lawsuit proceeds, and (3) the British
Columbia court has scheduled a class certification hearing for
April 2013.

In July 2012, an additional complaint styled as a class action was
filed in Saskatchewan.  The claims in the complaint largely mirror
the claims in the British Columbia and Ontario lawsuits.

If the CCB's challenges and/or the class action law lawsuits are
ultimately successful, the Company says the negative decisions
could have a significant adverse impact on the revenues of
MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall
business in Canada and, in the case of the private lawsuits, could
result in substantial damage awards.


MASTERCARD INC: Oral Argument in ATM Surcharges Suits in Sept.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on MasterCard Incorporated's motion to dismiss
lawsuits over ATM rule surcharges is scheduled for September 2012,
according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate.   Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and
Visa have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules
that require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM
surcharges for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's
respective networks that are not greater than the surcharge
charged for transactions over other networks accepted at the same
ATM.  Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of lawsuit, including
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages
although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of
millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of lawsuit, including
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages
although they allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of
millions of dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints.  MasterCard has moved
to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim.  Oral
argument on the motion is scheduled for September 2012.

At this time, and at this early stage of the cases, the Company
says it is not possible to determine the outcome of, or, estimate
the liability related to, the cases and no provision for losses
has been provided in connection with them.


MASTERCARD INC: Interchange Fee Suit Deal Approval Bid Due Oct 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
set October 19, 2012, as the date for filing a motion of
preliminary approval of MasterCard Incorporated's settlement of
the litigation over interchange fees, according to the Company's
August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints are styled as
class actions, although a few complaints are filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International
Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service
Association and a number of customer financial institutions.
Taken together, the claims in the complaints are generally brought
under both Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law.  The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard,
Visa, and certain of their customer financial institutions
conspired to set the price of interchange fees, enacted point of
sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge rule) in
violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying and
bundling of certain products and services.  The cases have been
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720.  The
plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint that
seeks treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.  The district court has dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004
damage claims.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification.  The court heard oral argument on the motion in
November 2009 and the parties are awaiting a decision on the
motion.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and its customer financial institutions in connection
with the IPO: (1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constitute a
fraudulent conveyance because the customer financial institutions
are allegedly attempting to release, without adequate
consideration, MasterCard's right to assess them for MasterCard's
litigation liabilities.  In November 2008, the district court
granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
supplemental complaint in its entirety with leave to file an
amended complaint.  The class plaintiffs repled their complaint.
The causes of action and claims for relief in the complaint
generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO-related
complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to expand their
factual allegations based upon discovery that has been garnered in
the case.  The class plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive
relief including, but not limited to, an order reversing and
unwinding the IPO.  MasterCard has moved to dismiss this
complaint.  The court heard oral argument on the motion in
November 2009 and the parties are awaiting a decision on the
motion.

In July 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs
served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs'
theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of billions
of dollars.  The defendants served their expert reports in
December 2009 rebutting the plaintiffs' assertions both with
respect to liability and damages.  In February 2011, both the
defendants and the plaintiffs served a number of dispositive
motions seeking summary judgment on all or portions of the claims
in the complaints.  The parties are awaiting decision on the
motions.

In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International
Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing
and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc.
and Visa International Service Association and a number of
customer financial institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement
and judgment sharing agreement with a number of customer financial
institutions.  The agreements provide for the apportionment of
certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties
and the customer financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or
severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of
one or all of the cases in the interchange merchant litigations.
Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
customer financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would
pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement.  In the event
of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the customer
financial institutions with respect to their issuance of
MasterCard cards, MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion
of such settlement.

MasterCard and the other defendants had been participating in
separate court-recommended mediation sessions with the individual
merchant plaintiffs and the class plaintiffs.  Based on progress
in the mediation, MasterCard recorded a $770 million pre-tax
charge, or $495 million on an after-tax basis, in the fourth
quarter of 2011.  This charge represented MasterCard's estimate
for the financial portion of a settlement in these cases.  The
charge did not represent an estimate of a loss if the parties to
the matter were to litigate, in which case MasterCard would not
have been able to estimate any potential liability.  MasterCard's
estimate involved significant judgment and was subject to change
depending on progress in settlement negotiations, or if the case
was not settled, if the matter was to be litigated.

On July 13, 2012, MasterCard entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") to settle the merchant class litigation, and
separately agreed in principle to settle all claims brought by the
individual merchant plaintiffs.  The MOU sets out a binding
obligation to enter into a settlement agreement, and is subject
to: (1) the successful completion of certain appendices, (2) the
successful negotiation of a settlement agreement with the
individual merchant plaintiffs, (3) final court approval of the
class settlement, and (4) any necessary internal approvals for the
parties. MasterCard's financial portion of the settlements is
estimated to total $790 million on a pre-tax basis, with an
additional $20 million pre-tax charge recorded in the second
quarter of 2012.  In addition to the financial portion of the
settlement, U.S. merchant class members would also receive a 10
basis point reduction in default credit interchange fees for a
period of eight months, funded by a corresponding reduction in the
default credit interchange fees paid by acquirers to issuers.
MasterCard would also be required to modify its No Surcharge Rule
to permit U.S. merchants to surcharge MasterCard credit cards,
subject to certain limitations set forth in the class settlement
agreement.

The court has set October 19, 2012, as the date for filing a
motion of preliminary approval of the settlement.  All business
and rule practice changes will occur after preliminary approval,
most likely early 2013.

In the event conditions to the MOU are not ultimately met and the
litigations are not settled, the Company says a negative outcome
in the litigation could materially and adversely affect its
results of operations, cash flow and financial condition.


MISSA BAY: Recalls Fruit, Vegetable, and Sandwich Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Missa Bay, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ready Pac Foods,
Inc., of Swedesboro, New Jersey, is voluntarily recalling a total
of 293,488 cases and 296,224 individually distributed units of
fruit, vegetable, and sandwich products containing apples, as
listed below, with the Use-by dates of July 8, 2012, through
August 20, 2012, because they contain diced or sliced apples which
may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.  Listeria
monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious or
life-threatening food borne illness in a person who eats a food
item contaminated with it.  Symptoms of infection may include
fever, muscle aches, gastro intestinal symptoms such as nausea or
diarrhea.  The illness primarily impacts pregnant women and adults
with weakened immune systems. Most healthy adults and children
rarely become seriously ill.

The recalled products were produced and distributed from the Missa
Bay, LLC facility to retailers and foodservice operators in the
following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

This recall notification is being issued due to finding Listeria
monocytogenes on equipment used by Missa Bay, LLC to produce apple
products.  Missa Bay, LLC is coordinating closely with regulatory
officials.  No illnesses have been reported in association with
this voluntary recall.

Only the specific products identified in the list below are
included in the recall.  Retailers and foodservice operators
should check their inventories and store shelves to confirm that
none of the product is present or available for purchase by
consumers or in warehouse inventories.

Consumers who may have purchased the affected product are asked to
record the Use-by date and/or UPC code number, immediately dispose
of the product, and contact the Ready Pac Consumer Affairs
Department, toll-free at (800) 800-7822, Monday - Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) to obtain a full refund.  Please
visit the Company's Web site at http://www.readypac.com/for a
copy of the release.

Ready Pac Foods, Inc. has earned an outstanding safety record for
over 40 years and has taken immediate precautionary measures to
protect public health by issuing this voluntary recall.  Ready Pac
customer service representatives have already contacted all
customers impacted and are in the process of confirming that the
recalled products are not in the stream of commerce.  Consumers
with questions may contact Ready Pac directly at 1-800-800-7822,
M-F, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time.

   Missa Bay's August 10, 2012 Precautionary Voluntary Recall

Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and West Virginia.


  Product Description                  Use-by-dates      UP Code
  -------------------                  ------------      -------
  BK Fresh Apple Slices, 2oz,          On or before          n/a
  "Burger King" label                     August 13

  Snack Pac Apples & Caramel,          On or before   4126817191
  4oz, "Hannaford" label                  August 18

  Snack Pac Apples, Granola & Yogurt,  On or before   4126817195
  4.3oz, "Hannaford" label                August 18

  Apple Slices, 1.2oz, "McDonalds"     On or before          n/a
  label (ONLY in the following            August 19
  states: CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY,
  PA, RI , VT)

  Diced Apples for Fruit & Maple       On or before          n/a
  Oatmeal, 0.92oz, "McDonalds" label      August 19
  (ONLY in the following states: CT,
  MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT)

  Fruit & Walnut Snack, 5.75oz,        On or before          n/a
  "McDonalds" label                       August 20

  Apple Blue Pecan bistro, 4.75oz,     On or before   7774529497
  "Ready Pac" label                       August 12

  Fruit Frenzy, 32oz, "Ready Pac"      On or before   7774523086
  label                                   August 18

  Fruit Tray Bien, 32oz, "Ready Pac"   On or before   7774521606
  label                                   August 18

  Ready Snax Apples, Cheese with       On or before   7774523896
  Caramel Dip, 4oz, "Ready Pac" label     August 18

  Ready Snax Apples, Celery, Raisins   On or before   7774523897
  with Peanut Butter, 4oz, "Ready         August 18
  Pac" label

  Ready Snax Apples, Granola &         On or before   7774523086
  Yogurt, 4.3oz, "Ready Pac" label        August 18

  Super Fruit Blend, 6oz, "Ready       On or before   7774521606
  Pac" label                              August 17

  Super Fruit Medley, 10.5oz, "Ready   On or before   7774523896
  Pac" label                              August 16

  Sweet Sunshine Platter, 37oz,        On or before   7774523897
  "Ready Pac" label                       August 16

  Apple, Blue Cheese & Pecan           On or before   7774523089
  Complete Salad Kit, 8.75oz,             August 18
  "Safeway Farms" label

  Apple Caramel Dipper, 6.7oz,         On or before   7774523076
  "Wawa" label                            August 16

  Apple Peanut Butter Dipper, 6.5oz,   On or before   7774523746
  "Wawa" label                            August 15

  Apple Slices, 3.5oz, "Wawa" label    On or before   7774524204
                                          August 16

  Baby Carrots, 3oz, "Wawa" label      On or before   2113033680
                                          August 16

  Chicken Salad Snack, 6.7oz,          On or before   2619100394
  "Wawa" label                            August 12

  Chicken Salad Sandwich, 7.8oz,       On or before   2619100268
  "Wawa" label                            August 10

  Fruit & Cheese, 6oz, "Wawa" label    On or before   2619102232
                                          August 11

  Protein Power Pack, 7.8oz, "Wawa"    On or before   2619102517
  label                                   August 11

  Red Grapes, 3oz, "Wawa" Label        On or before   2619102760
                                          August 13

  Turkey & Cheese Sandwich, 7.7oz,     On or before   2619105670
  "Wawa" label                            August 10

  Apples, Celery, Raisins & Peanut     On or before   2619102567
  Butter, 4oz, "Wegmans" label            August 18

  Apples, Cheese & Caramel Dip, 4oz,   On or before   2619102565
  "Wegmans" label                         August 15

  Apples, Granola & Low Fat Vanilla    On or before   2619102518
  Yogurt, 4.3oz, "Wegmans" label          August 18

                   Instructions for Consumers:

Check your refrigerator for the above listed products with the
Use-By dates July 8, 2012, through August 20, 2012.  The location
of the Use-by date and UPCode varies by product.

Consumers who may have purchased the affected product are asked to
record the Use-By date and/or UPC code number, immediately dispose
of the product, and contact the Ready Pac Consumer Affairs
Department, toll-free at (800) 800-7822, Monday - Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) to obtain a full refund.  Please
visit the Company's Web site at http://www.readypac.com/for a
copy of the release.

                    Instructions to Retailers:

Retailers should check their inventories and store shelves to
confirm that none of the product is present or available for
purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories.  Ready Pac
customer service representatives have already contacted retailers
and are in the process of confirming that the recalled products
are not in the stream of commerce.  Customers with questions may
contact Ready Pac directly at 1-800-800-4088 x2900, Monday -
Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daily Time.


ONTARIO LOTTERY: Gamblers Can Appeal Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Michele Mandel, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that Ontario
compulsive gamblers are getting one more shot at rolling the dice
for the big jackpot they could never win on their own.

The province's highest court has decided to allow problem gamblers
led by Peter Dennis to appeal two lower court decisions that
refused to certify their C$3.5-billion class-action lawsuit
against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission.

"We survived to fight another day," says their lawyer, Jerome
Morse.

On behalf of more than 11,000 addicts, they allege the OLG allowed
them to continue betting away millions between 1999 and 2005 even
after they signed "self-exclusion" contracts asking to be barred
from Ontario casinos for their own good.

"We say that we identified ourselves as problem gamblers and we
were in need of being kept out of your gambling venues and yet you
did virtually nothing," their lawyer explains.  "You took photos
that went into books that gathered dust.  How do you keep track of
11,000 self-excluded gamblers when you have millions coming in? No
one can argue these were your best efforts."

Since 2011, the OLG now has facial recognition software at each
site to scan the face of everyone who enters against a database of
more than 16,500 problem gamblers who have voluntarily banned
themselves.  But this lawsuit predates that era when there was no
central database and staff were somehow expected to memorize
thousands of pictures and spot self-excluders.

At the heart of the proposed class action is Mr. Dennis, 52, who
lost his job, his house and nearly his family.  According to his
statement of claim, the Markham account manager became addicted to
playing the slots at Woodbine Racetrack and gambled away C$350,000
between 2000 and 2004.  After an 11-week binge, the depressed and
anxious father of two admitted he had a problem and signed a self-
exclusion contract believing it would keep him away from his
addiction.

But Mr. Dennis claims he was stopped only once in the following
three years.

He would go on to blow through another C$200,000 and in April
2005, the bank foreclosed on his home.  He was fired that year
from a data management firm because he owed money to a client and
in September 2007, gambling cost him his second home.  He was
bankrupt and his family so fractured that one child tried to
commit suicide and the other fell far behind in school.

But who's to blame -- the addict or the pusher?

The proposed class action will argue that the OLG owes a duty of
care to compulsive gamblers -- like a bar that has to stop serving
a patron who's had too much to drink, the gaming venue had a
responsibility to step in and actually enforce the self-exclusion
contract.

Should the OLG be expected to be their babysitter?

"The self-exclusion program is not a policing program," argues
spokesman Rui Brum.  "The onus is on the self-excluder to keep
themselves out of OLG sites."

So far, Mr. Dennis and his bid for a class action lawsuit has
crapped out twice.

In 2010, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity ruled
their case was more suited to individual lawsuits and refused to
certify it as a class action.  To that point, nine individual
lawsuits against the OLG had been settled with an average pay out
of C$167,000 and another four lawsuits were pending.

Last year, the Divisional Court reached the same conclusion and
wouldn't allow a class action to go ahead, although one of the
three judges disagreed.

Now this decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal on Aug. 9 will
allow them one last chance to argue their case for certification.
While the court gave no reasons as to why they will hear the
appeal, the gamblers' lawyer believes that it certainly satisfies
the requirement that it be of wider public interest, especially
now with OLG's-plan to increase provincial gambling revenues by a
staggering 75%.  "The need for responsible gaming and self-
exclusion will be very important," he warns.

As for Mr. Dennis, he's working again and piecing his life back
together.  He's sworn off gambling save for one last bet -- that
he can bring his class-action lawsuit to trial and hold the
province responsible for his downfall.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Motion to Dismiss Georgia Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. and other defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit captioned In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP, is
currently pending before a Georgia court, according to the
Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On October 25, 2007, the same stockholder that filed a securities
class action lawsuit against the Company in Maryland filed a
second purported class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against Piedmont and its
board of directors.  The complaint attempts to assert class action
claims on behalf of (i) those persons who were entitled to tender
their shares pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by
Lex-Win Acquisition LLC, a former stockholder, on May 25, 2007,
and (ii) all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy
statement filed with the SEC on October 16, 2007.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of the federal securities
laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder based upon
allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose certain
information in the Company's amended response to the Lex-Win
tender offer and (ii) purported misstatements or omissions in the
Company's proxy statement concerning then-existing market
conditions, the alternatives to a listing or extension that were
explored by the defendants, the results of conversations with
potential buyers as to the Company's valuation, and certain
details of the Company's share redemption program.

On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 10, 2010.  Defendants sought and received
permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal
the class certification order on an interlocutory basis.  On April
11, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the
district court's order certifying a class and remanded the case to
the district court for further proceedings.

On October 21, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed their response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 15,
2011.  The defendants filed their reply in support of their motion
to dismiss on December 9, 2011.  The defendants' motion to dismiss
is currently pending before the court.

Discovery is currently stayed pending resolution of the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and it will continue to vigorously defend this action.  Due
to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, the
Company's assessment of the merits of the claim notwithstanding,
the risk of material financial loss does exist.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Maryland Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. and other defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the lawsuit styled In Re Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:07-cv-00862-CAP, is currently pending before the court,
according to the Company's August 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a class action and
derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont, Piedmont's
previous advisors, and certain officers and directors of Piedmont.
Upon motion by the defendants, the case was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on April 17, 2007.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
alleges violations of Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), based upon allegations that
the proxy statement for Piedmont's 2007 internalization
transaction (the "Internalization") contains false and misleading
statements or omits to state material facts.  On February 9, 2011,
the plaintiff dismissed its claim for violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

As subsequently amended and dismissed in part, the complaint
seeks, among other things, (i) certification of the class action;
(ii) a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
misleading; (iii) unspecified monetary damages; (iv) to nullify
any stockholder approvals obtained during the proxy process; (v)
to nullify the Internalization; (vi) cancellation and rescission
of any stock issued as consideration in the Internalization, or,
in the alternative, rescissory damages; and (vii) the payment of
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  On September 16,
2009, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

On November 17, 2011, the court issued rulings granting several of
the plaintiff's pre trial motions to prohibit the defendants from
introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the
defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and
financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate
their subjective views, considerations, and observations during
the trial of the case.

On February 23, 2012, the court granted several of defendants'
motions, including a motion for reconsideration regarding a motion
plaintiff had filed seeking exclusion of certain evidence
impacting damages, and motions seeking exclusion of certain
evidence proposed to be submitted by plaintiff.  The lawsuit has
been removed from the court's trial calendar pending resolution of
a request for interlocutory appellate review of certain legal
rulings made by the court.

On March 20, 2012, the court granted the defendants leave to file
a motion for summary judgment.  On April 5, 2012, the defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment.  On April 24, 2012, the
plaintiff filed its response to the defendants' motion for summary
judgment.  On May 7, 2012, the defendants filed their reply in
support of their motion for summary judgment.  The defendants'
motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the court.

The Company believes that plaintiff's allegations are without
merit, and it will continue to vigorously defend this action.  Due
to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, the
Company's assessment of the merits of the claim notwithstanding,
the risk of material financial loss does exist.  Plaintiff is
seeking damages of approximately $159 million plus prejudgment
interest, which defendants dispute.  There are a number of
defendants in this case and the allocation of damages, if any, to
Piedmont versus the other defendants (including any
indemnification rights or obligations of Piedmont with respect to
the other defendants) is indeterminable at this time.  In
addition, up to $12.3 million of any damages may be recoverable by
Piedmont under its insurance policies.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Fairmount" Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of
Principal Financial Group, Inc.  Principal Life's motion to
transfer venue was granted and the case is now pending in the
Southern District of Iowa.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties
while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose,
or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact
that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual
funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and
allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the
services provided to the plans.  Plaintiff further alleged that
these acts constitute prohibited transactions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  Plaintiff
sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to which
Principal Life was a service provider and for which Principal Life
received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds.
On August 27, 2008, the plaintiff's motion for class certification
was denied.  On June 13, 2011, the court entered a consent
judgment resolving the claims of the plaintiff.  On July 12, 2011,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal related to the issue of the
denial of class certification.  Principal Life continues to
aggressively defend the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Cruise/Mullaney" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 2, 2009, and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise
and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Principal Financial Group, Inc.; Principal Life Insurance
Company; Principal Global Investors, LLC; and Principal Real
Estate Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants").  The
lawsuits alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage
the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the
best interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal
freeze" on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue"
to honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became
available. Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA").  Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including
all qualified ERISA plans and the participants of those plans that
invested in PUSPSA between September 26, 2008, and the present
that have suffered losses caused by the queue.  The two lawsuits,
as well as two subsequently filed complaints asserting similar
claims, have been consolidated and are now known as In re
Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation.  On April 22, 2010, an
order was entered granting the motion made by the Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants for change of venue to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.  Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint adding five new plaintiffs on November 22,
2010, and the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The court denied the Cruise/Mullaney
Defendants' motion to dismiss on
May 17, 2011.  The Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are aggressively
defending the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


PROTRANSPORT-1 LLC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 2012, the San Francisco employment attorneys at
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint
against Protransport-1 for alleged unpaid overtime wages.
Rodriguez, et al. vs. Protransport-1, LLC, Case No. CGC-12-522733
is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

According to the class action complaint filed against
Protransport-1, the ambulance service provider paid their
emergency medical technicians commission wages based on their
performance for Protransport-1.  According to the lawsuit,
Protransport-1 "failed and still fails to include the commission
compensation as part of the employees' 'regular rate of pay' for
purposes of calculating overtime pay."  The complaint also alleges
that the failure to include the commission compensation in the
regular rate of pay for the purpose of calculating the correct
overtime rate, "has resulted in a systematic underpayment of
overtime compensation" to the emergency medical technicians.

Moreover, the class action complaint filed against Protransport-1
alleges that as a result of Protransport's failure to correctly
calculate and pay these employees the correct overtime rate, "the
wage statements issued to Plaintiff and other California Class
Members violate California law, and in particular, Labor Code
Section 226(a)."

For more information about your rights and how to claim your
unpaid overtime wages call an experienced San Francisco employment
attorney today at (415) 935-3957.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors
and consumers fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.


SLOAN VALVE: Faces Class Action Over Flushing System Toilets
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that American Standard Flushmate
Series 503 III Pressure-Assist Flushing System toilets "may
rupture, causing the toilet to explode," a class action claims in
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in United Desert Charities, et al. v.
Flushmate a/k/a Sloan Valve Company, et al., Case No. 12-cv-06878
(C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/10/ExplodingToilets.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Birka-White, Esq.
          Mindy M. Wong, Esq.
          BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
          411 Hartz Avenue, Suite 200
          Danville, CA 94526
          Telephone: (925) 362-9999
          E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
                  mwong@birka-white.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: To Face Class Action Over Insurance Cost Increase
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that House Speaker Bobby Harrell said
on Aug. 9 he expects South Carolina to be sued over a panel's
decision to disregard the state budget and increase employees'
health insurance costs anyway.  And he expects the state to lose.

Harrell, R-Charleston, said the Budget and Control Board likely
lacked the authority to split the cost of premium hikes between
workers and employers after the Legislature passed a budget that
fully funded the increases.

"I'm not angry, just frustrated by the action," he said, adding
that defending an expected class-action lawsuit will just cost the
state more money.

Gov. Nikki Haley, chairman of the five-member board, convinced a
majority on Wednesday to buck the budget in approving rates to
take effect Jan. 1.  It's believed to be an unprecedented override
for what has previously been a procedural vote.  State law
requires the board's approval by mid-August to prepare for open
enrollment in October, when employees can make changes to their
health plans for the coming year.

The 3-2 vote means rates will increase 4.6 percent for both
workers -- past and present -- and employers, which include state
agencies, school districts and public colleges.  The state health
plan covers 415,310 residents: public employees, retirees and
their spouses and children.

It would mark the second consecutive year of split increases.
Last January, rates increased 4.5 percent for both employers and
workers -- employees' first increase in years.  Agencies'
contributions increased by 10 percent in both 2008 and 2011.

If the board had followed the budget, bearing the full cost would
have cost employers 6.4 percent more starting Jan. 1.  The budget
distributed the necessary $20.6 million to agencies and schools to
cover that, but the vote means only $14.8 million of that is
needed.  Gov. Haley said that surplus should sit in state coffers
to become part of 2013-14 budget decisions.

Senate President Pro Tem John Courson, R-Columbia, was among
senators Thursday calling on the board to reconvene and reverse
what they called a violation of the law.

But Gov. Haley's office made clear she won't reconsider.

"All we are asking for is fairness -- a shared expense by state
employees and taxpayers," Gov. Haley spokesman Rob Godfrey said.
"We will always fight for state employees, but we believe they'll
understand that it's not right for the taxpayers to pick up the
increased cost of their health insurance."

Democratic Sens. Darrell Jackson and Joel Lourie, both from
Columbia, said Gov. Haley's move amounts to a back-door veto.
They noted Gov. Haley could have used her line-item veto power as
part of the budget process, but she didn't touch that issue.

Legislators agreed in the 2012-13 budget to fully fund the premium
hikes to ensure workers noticed an increase in their take-home pay
following four years without a raise.  The approved budget
provided 3 percent raises for most state employees -- 5 percent
for state law enforcement officers -- while requiring, as part of
a new pension reform law, that employees contribute an additional
1.5 percent of their salary toward their retirement.

Covering health care increases was part of the larger compromise
on worker pay.

"We felt it was interlocked," Mr. Courson said.

In her executive budget proposal, Gov. Haley provided no raises to
public workers and split the cost of the health care premium
increases.

But when Gov. Haley didn't veto those items in the Legislature's
budget, Mr. Courson said, "we assumed everything was fine."

The board's dissenting votes came from the panel's two legislative
leaders.

"I'll never vote to undo what the General Assembly did," said
Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman, a board member.  "I think
it's mandated to be drawn down as the General Assembly provided in
the appropriation bill.  I don't think we or anyone else has the
authority to go behind the General Assembly."

Gov. Haley repeatedly said on Aug. 8 that workers should have
"some skin in the game."

House Minority Leader Harry Ott said they do, after years with no
raise, furloughs that reduced their salaries and layoffs that
increased their workloads.

"She continues her total disregard for state workers and
teachers," said Mr. Ott, D-St. Matthews.

He noted the move is not going to help the Republican governor's
already contentious relationship with the Republican-controlled
Legislature.

"She's now clearly said I don't care what the General Assembly
did.  I don't care what's in their budget.  I'm going to undo it,"
he said.  "At some point, she's got to understand she's the
governor and not a candidate for some other office, and work with
the General Assembly."

On average, agencies will pay an extra $19 monthly, while
employees and retirees will pay $7 more.  Specific amounts by plan
are not yet determined.

Currently, employees' contributions for the standard health plan
range from $98 monthly for a single, non-smoker to $367 monthly
for full family coverage with a smoker in the household.
Employers pay between $292 for single workers to $724 for full
families.


STORA ENSO: 2nd Cir. Reverses Price Fixing Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court has ruled against a Connecticut-based paper
company in an antitrust class action over price fixing.

On Aug. 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed in part the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

The district court had awarded summary judgment to both defendants
Stora Enso North America Corporation, or SENA, and Stora Enso Oyj,
or SEO, in a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in
violation of the federal Sherman Act.

The plaintiffs in the case -- a certified class consisting of
direct purchasers of the defendants' paper products -- contend
they paid higher prices for publication paper than they would have
in the absence of the alleged price-fixing agreement.

SENA, SEO and former defendants UPM-Kymmene Corporation and UPM-
Kymmene Inc. are manufacturers and sellers of publication paper, a
type of paper used in preparing printed material of various types.

In its 33-page ruling, the Second Circuit held that the lower
court erred in granting summary judgment to SENA, saying a jury
could "reasonably find that SENA and UPM entered into an agreement
to raise the price of publication paper, and that, as implemented,
this agreement damaged plaintiffs."

Thus, SENA was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the
appeals court said.

As to SEO, the Second Circuit concluded that the district court
properly awarded it summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, Judge Susan L. Carney wrote, "failed to offer
sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude
that SEO had any direct involvement in decisions regarding SENA's
marketing, sale or pricing of publication paper in the United
States."

The court remanded the case for "further proceedings."


UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Faces Class Action Over "Heroes' Act"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that the University
of Missouri takes advantage of veterans by refusing to pay for
"cost of attendance" under the state's "Heroes' Act" tuition
benefits, a class action claims in St. Louis County Court.

The Missouri Returning Heroes' Education Act of 2008 limits
tuition at state-funded public colleges to $50 a credit hour, so
long as the veteran maintains at least a 2.5 GPA on a 4.0 scale.
To qualify, the veteran must be a Missouri citizen when entering
the military, must have served in a combat zone since Sept. 11,
2001 and must have been discharged honorably.

"This case challenges Mizzou's policy of applying 100 percent of
'gift aid' directly to tuition, rather than considering the total
'cost of attendance,' resulting in a reduction, or elimination, of
the benefits that veterans are supposed to receive under the
Heroes' Act," lead plaintiff Alicia Dunn says in the complaint.
"Plaintiff and class received various types of 'gift aid,' not
exclusively earmarked for tuition.  'Gift aid' is, by law,
designed to cover a student's total 'cost of attendance.'

"When dealing with veterans, defendants treats all 'gift aid' as
if it exclusively for tuition.  By applying 'gift aid' in this
manner, defendants effectively eliminate the functionality and
purpose of the Heroes' Act, and combat veterans are required to
pay substantially more to attend Mizzou than if the 'gift aid' was
allocated to other qualified costs of attendance, or at least
allocated on a pro rata basis the qualified 'cost of attendance."

Ms. Dunn and two other named plaintiffs say the schools violated
the letter and the intent of the Act, which specifically mentions
cost of attendance. They also sued the Missouri Coordinating Board
for Higher Education.

"Diverting all 'grant aid' funds to pay only tuition damages
Missouri combat veterans because it strips them of aid to pay for
their entire 'cost of attendance' including room and board, living
expenses, books, supplies, and transportation," the complaint
states.

The class consists of all veterans who have or who may qualify for
tuition discounts under the Heroes' Act who attended Mizzou and
for whom Mizzou applied gift aid toward tuition before applying
Hero Act reductions.

They seek damages for violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act and the Heroes' Act.

They are represented by Stephanie To with The Simon Law Firm in
St. Louis.

The University of Missouri includes the University of Missouri-
Columbia, University of Missouri Kansas City, University of
Missouri-St. Louis and Missouri University of Science and
Technology.

A copy of the Complaint in Dunn, et al. v. Board of Curators of
University of Missouri, et al., Case No. 12SL-0000034 (Mo. Cir.
Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/10/MoHeroes.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          John E. Campbell, Esq.
          Stephanie H. To, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com
                  jcampbell@simonlawpc.com
                  sto@simonlawpc.com


USEC INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Severance Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
USEC Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging it
owes severance benefits, according to the Company's August 1,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, against USEC by a former Portsmouth gaseous diffusion
plant ("GDP") employee claiming that USEC owes severance benefits
to him and other similarly situated employees that have
transitioned or will transition to the U.S. Department of Energy
("DOE") decontamination and decommissioning ("D&D") contractor.
The plaintiff amended its complaint on August 31, 2011, and
February 10, 2012, among other things, to limit the purported
class of similarly situated employees to salaried employees at the
Portsmouth site who transitioned to the D&D contractor and are
allegedly eligible for or owed benefits.  USEC believes it has
meritorious defenses against the lawsuit and has not accrued any
amounts for this matter.  An estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss from the litigation is difficult to make because,
among other things, (i) the plaintiff has failed to state the
amount of damages sought, (ii) the plaintiff purports to represent
a class of claimants the size and composition of which remains
unknown and (iii) the certification of the class is uncertain.
However, USEC estimates that the total severance liability for the
approximately 400 salaried employees at the Portsmouth site that
transitioned to the DOE D&D contractor would have been
approximately $14 million if severance was required to be paid to
all of these employees.  In such an event, DOE would have owed a
portion of this amount, estimated at approximately $9 million,
assuming DOE was responsible for periods both during which it
operated the facility and under which USEC was a direct contractor
to DOE.


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Settles Sunroof Class Action for $8 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that Volkswagen of
America Inc. on Aug. 8 settled for $8 million two consolidated
class actions over allegedly defective sunroof drains that drivers
say caused damage to their cars, five years after the suits were
launched.

Though the parties reached the $8 million deal two years ago,
nonparty class members and Volkswagen appealed a magistrate
judge's preliminary approval of it to the Third Circuit, but the
appeals court sent it back to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey in March.


ZYNGA INC: Sued Over False and Misleading Statements in IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ira Gaines, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Zynga Inc., Mark Pincus, David M. Wehner, John Schappert, Mark
Vranesh, Reginald D. Davis, Cadir B. Lee, William Gordon, Reid
Hoffman, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Stanley J. Meresman, Sunil Paul, and
Owen Van Natta, Case No. 4:12-cv-04133 (N.D. Calif., August 6,
2012) accuses the Defendants of making false and misleading
statements.

On December 15, 2011, Zynga floated its initial public offering of
100,000,000 shares of its Class A common stock at a price to the
public of $10 per share.  The offering was expected to raise $1
billion, generating tremendous enthusiasm for social gaming, Mr.
Gaines says.  What transpired, however, he asserts, has proven to
be a scheme on behalf of Company insiders to circumvent various
IPO restrictions by making false and misleading statements to the
investing public to liquidate their personal holdings at elevated
prices in a secondary offering only four months later.

Mr. Gaines purchased shares of Zynga during the Class Period, and
was damaged thereby.

Zynga is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California.  The Company develops, markets, and operates online
social games as live services on the Internet, social networking
sites, and mobile platforms.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN &HERZ LLP
          Symphony Tower
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Alan D. Weiss, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
                  aweiss@whafh.com


ZYNGA INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Aug. 9 filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Zynga Inc. between December 16, 2011 and July 25,
2012, inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors, alleging securities fraud pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Secs.
78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC [17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5].

The case name is Gaines v. Zynga Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
12-cv-4133.  A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com

During the Class Period, Zynga issued materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that
rendered their affirmative statements misleading as they related
to the Company's financial performance, financial condition and
internal operational controls.  As a result of these materially
false and misleading statements, the price of the Company's
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period.  As
the truth of the Company's materially false and misleading
statements entered the market, the Company's stock plummeted.

On December 15, 2011, Zynga floated its initial public offering
(the "IPO") of 100,000,000 shares of its Class A common stock at a
price to the public of $10 per share on the NASDAQ Global Select
Market under the symbol "ZNGA."  An Amended Form S-1 filed
December 15, 2011 failed to disclose that agreements with
Facebook, which could heavily affect Zynga's future bookings and
revenue stream, were scheduled to expire on April 30, 2012.

Pursuant to the Company's IPO Prospectus filed with the SEC on
December 16, 2011, all officers and directors of the Company had
entered into lock-up agreements which provided that they would not
offer, sell or transfer any shares of common stock beneficially
owned by them for 165 days, or until May 28, 2012.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding Zynga's financial
results and future outlook.  The Complaint further alleges that
Defendants ran a "pump and dump" scheme which enabled them to sell
over $500 million of the Company's stock in a secondary offering
that allowed the officer and director defendants to sell their
shares prior to the May 28, 2012 IPO lock-up date.

On July 25, 2012, Zynga issued a press release in connection with
its Second Quarter 2012 Financial Results, which were much lower
than expected.  In the press release, the Company lowered its'
earnings guidance dramatically, after having raised its guidance
only one quarter previous.  Inexplicably the new outlook was not
only below the misleadingly optimistic outlook presented in the
April 26, 2012 first quarter earnings press release, but also it
was below the guidance provided in the 2011 year end earnings
press release published February 28, 2012.

The day after the announcement, Zynga stock closed at $3.175 per
share, a decline of close to 40% from the previous trading day.
This represents a 68% decline from the IPO price only seven months
previous to the announcement.  More importantly, it represents a
73% discount to the Secondary Offering price of $12, at which
Zynga insiders successfully sold over $500 million of their
personal Zynga shares.

If you purchased Zynga common stock during the Class Period, you
may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
October 1, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.  The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities, multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Alan D. Weiss, Esq., or Derek Behnke),
via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Zynga.


                           *********

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  * * *