---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 167

                             Headlines

3M CO: PFC Exposure Suits Remain Pending in Alabama
AIG INC: Appeal From 2004 Securities Suit Deal Approval Pending
AIG INC: Appeal From Approval of "NWCRP" Suit Settlement Pending
AIG INC: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in "Caremark" Suit
AIG INC: Continues to Defend Suits Alleging RICO Violations

AIG INC: Discovery in Consolidated ERISA-Violations Suit Ongoing
AIG INC: Faces New Securities Suit Filed by British Coal Staff
AIG INC: Proposed Canadian Securities Class Action Suit Stayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 3 Appeals Filed vs. "Ross" Suit Deal Approval
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Appoints Expert in "Kaufman" Class Suit

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to File Class Suit in Canada Withdrawn
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Files Certiorari Petition in Merchants' Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Mesi" Class Action Suit Stayed in California
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Time to Reinstate Appeal in ERISA Suit Extended
BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend MBS-Related Class Suits

BANK OF AMERICA: Dismissal of "Bondar" Class Suit Now Effective
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Third Merchants' Class Suit in Canada
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Defective Power Steering System
BOSTON, MA: Judge Tosses Class Action v. Public Schools
CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued Over Trucks' Defective Rear Differential

CLS TRANSPORTATION: Limo Driver Seeks Review of Class Action
EXPEDIA INC: Sued for Conspiracy to Enforce RPM Scheme on Bookings
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Rejects Proposed Class Action Settlement
FULTONDALE GAS: Judge Denies Board's Two Motions in Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over False Claims on Aveeno Sunscreen

JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Dismisses Mortgage Rate Class Action
MSLGROUP: Plaintiffs Invite Other Women to Join Class Action
NETWORK ENGINES: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Class Action
OKLAHOMA: DHS Disputes Foster Care Class Action
ROBERT K. MERICLE: Suit Settlement Conference Postponed to Nov.

RG STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Pollutants
SEI INVESTMENTS: S.C. Petition in Stanford-Related Suit Pending
ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Violence
TANIMURA & ANTLE: Recalls Single Lot of Romaine Lettuce
VIRGINIA: Dept. of Health Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations

WALLDESIGN INC: Employees Granted Conditional Certification
WESTERN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
ZYNGA INC: Sued Over Alleged False and Misleading Statements


                          *********

3M CO: PFC Exposure Suits Remain Pending in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------
A former employee of 3M Company filed a purported class action
lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered
fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage
from exposure to perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's
Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.  The Circuit Court in
2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act.  The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended
complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage
claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property
owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.  Also, in 2005, the
judge in a second purported class action lawsuit (filed by three
residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory
and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property
from emissions of perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's
Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly
manufactured those compounds) granted the Company's motion to
abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the
resolution of class certification issues in the first action
described above filed in the same court in 2002.  Despite the
stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for
alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the
named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class.  No further
action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is
lifted.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals.  The named defendants in the case include 3M,
its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT,
Inc., Synagro South, LLC and Biological Processors of America.
The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property.  In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent
with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit
Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution
of the class certification issues in the first case filed there.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Founded in 1902 and based in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company --
http://www.3m.com/-- operates as a diversified technology company
worldwide.  The Company has various business segments --
Industrial and Transportation segment; Health Care segment;
Consumer and Office segment; Safety, Security and Protection
Services segment; Display and Graphics segment; and Electro and
Communications segment.


AIG INC: Appeal From 2004 Securities Suit Deal Approval Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of American International Group,
Inc.'s settlement of a Consolidated 2004 Securities Litigation
remains pending, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New
York against AIG and consolidated as In re American International
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2004
Securities Litigation).  Subsequently, a separate, though similar,
securities fraud action was also brought against AIG by certain
Florida pension funds.  The lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
2004 Securities Litigation is a group of public retirement systems
and pension funds benefiting Ohio state employees, suing on behalf
of themselves and all purchasers of AIG's publicly traded
securities between October 28, 1999, and April 1, 2005.  The named
defendants are AIG and a number of present and former AIG officers
and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. (Starr), Starr
International Company, Inc. (SICO), General Reinsurance
Corporation (General Re), and PwC, among others.  The lead
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG: (i) concealed
that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct through alleged
payment of contingent commissions to brokers and participation in
illegal bid-rigging; (ii) concealed that it used "income
smoothing" products and other techniques to inflate its earnings;
(iii) concealed that it marketed and sold "income smoothing"
insurance products to other companies; and (iv) misled investors
about the scope of government investigations.  In addition, the
lead plaintiff alleges that Maurice R. Greenberg, AIG's former
Chief Executive Officer, manipulated AIG's stock price.  The lead
plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 20(a) and Section 20A
of the Exchange Act.

On July 14, 2010, AIG approved the terms of a settlement (the
Settlement) with lead plaintiffs.  The Settlement is conditioned
on, among other things, court approval and a minimum level of
shareholder participation.  Under the terms of the Settlement, if
consummated, AIG would pay an aggregate of $725 million.  Only two
shareholders objected to the Settlement, and 25 shareholders
claiming to hold less than 1.5 percent of AIG's outstanding shares
at the end of the class period submitted timely and valid requests
to opt out of the class.  Of those 25 shareholders, seven are
investment funds controlled by the same investment group, and that
investment group is the only opt-out who held more than 1,000
shares at the end of the class period.  By order dated February 2,
2012, the District Court granted lead plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the Settlement.  AIG has fully funded the amount of
the Settlement into an escrow account.

On January 23, 2012, AIG and the Florida pension funds, who had
brought a separate securities fraud action, executed a settlement
agreement under which AIG paid $4 million.

On February 17, 2012, and March 6, 2012, two objectors appealed
the final approval of the Settlement.  The settlement with the
Florida pension funds can be terminated by AIG if either of the
objectors' appeals is successful.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: Appeal From Approval of "NWCRP" Suit Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of American International Group,
Inc.'s settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of participating
members of the National Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool
remains pending, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 24, 2007, the National Council on Compensation Insurance
(NCCI), on behalf of the participating members of the National
Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool (the NWCRP), filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Northern District of Illinois) against AIG
with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its residual market
assessments for workers' compensation insurance.  The complaint
alleged claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), breach of contract, fraud and
related state law claims arising out of AIG's alleged underpayment
of these assessments between 1970 and the present and sought
damages purportedly in excess of $1 billion.

On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) and
Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty) filed a complaint
in the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of a purported
class of all NWCRP participant members, against AIG and certain of
its subsidiaries with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its
residual market assessments for workers' compensation insurance.
The complaint was styled as an "alternative complaint," should the
Court grant AIG's motion to dismiss the NCCI lawsuit for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, which motion to dismiss was
ultimately granted on August 23, 2009.  The allegations in the
class action complaint are substantially similar to those filed by
the NWCRP.

On February 28, 2012, the Court entered a final order and judgment
approving a class action settlement between AIG and a group of
intervening plaintiffs, made up of seven participating members of
the NWCRP, which would require AIG to pay $450 million to satisfy
all liabilities to the class members arising out of the workers'
compensation premium reporting issues, a portion of which would be
funded out of the remaining amount held in the Workers'
Compensation Fund less any amounts previously withdrawn to satisfy
AIG's regulatory settlement obligations, as addressed.  Liberty
Mutual filed papers in opposition to approval of the proposed
settlement and in opposition to certification of a settlement
class, in which it alleged AIG's actual exposure, should the class
action continue through judgment, to be in excess of $3 billion.
AIG disputes this allegation.  Liberty Mutual, Safeco and Ohio
Casualty subsequently appealed the Court's final order and
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, and that appeal is still pending.

The $450 million settlement amount, which is currently held in
escrow pending final resolution of the class-action settlement,
was funded in part from the approximately $191 million remaining
in the Workers' Compensation Fund, after the transfer of
approximately $147 million in fines, penalties, and premium taxes
discussed in the NAIC Examination of Workers' Compensation Premium
Reporting matter above into a separate escrow account pursuant to
the regulatory settlement agreement.  In the event that the
proposed class action settlement is not approved, the litigation
will resume.  As of June 30, 2012, AIG has an accrued liability
equal to the amounts payable under the settlement.

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

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in "Caremark" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit arising
out of a 1999 settlement of a class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc., according to the Company's August 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark).  The plaintiffs in the
second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the
second-filed action was dismissed.  An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability.  In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.  In addition, the
intervenors originally alleged that various lawyers and law firms
who represented parties in the underlying class and derivative
litigation (the Lawyer Defendants) were also liable for fraud and
suppression, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages.  AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage.  The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

Class discovery has been completed, and the trial court held a
full evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in late May and early June 2012.  As of August 2,
2012, the trial court had not yet ruled on that motion, general
discovery has not commenced and AIG is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: Continues to Defend Suits Alleging RICO Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. continues to defend class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, according to the Company's
August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Commencing in 2004, policyholders brought multiple federal
antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO) class actions in jurisdictions across the nation against
insurers and brokers, including AIG and a number of its
subsidiaries, alleging that the insurers and brokers engaged in
one or more broad conspiracies to allocate customers, steer
business, and rig bids.  These actions, including 24 complaints
filed in different federal courts naming AIG or an AIG subsidiary
as a defendant, were consolidated by the judicial panel on multi-
district litigation and transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (District of New Jersey) for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.  The consolidated actions have
proceeded in that Court in two parallel actions, In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (the Commercial Complaint) and In
re Employee Benefits Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (the
Employee Benefits Complaint, and, together with the Commercial
Complaint, the Multi-District Litigation).

The plaintiffs in the Commercial Complaint are a group of
corporations, individuals and public entities that contracted with
the broker defendants for the provision of insurance brokerage
services for a variety of insurance needs.  The broker defendants
are alleged to have placed insurance coverage on the plaintiffs'
behalf with a number of insurance companies named as defendants,
including AIG subsidiaries.  The Commercial Complaint also named
various brokers and other insurers as defendants (three of which
have since settled).  The Commercial Complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a number of overlapping "broker-centered"
conspiracies to allocate customers through the payment of
contingent commissions to brokers and through purported "bid-
rigging" practices.  It also alleges that the insurer and broker
defendants participated in a "global" conspiracy not to disclose
to policyholders the payment of contingent commissions.
Plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act, RICO, and the antitrust laws of 48 states and the
District of Columbia, and are liable under common law breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment theories.  Plaintiffs seek
treble damages plus interest and attorneys' fees as a result of
the alleged RICO and Sherman Antitrust Act violations.

The plaintiffs in the Employee Benefits Complaint are a group of
individual employees and corporate and municipal employers
alleging claims on behalf of two separate nationwide purported
classes: an employee class and an employer class that acquired
insurance products from the defendants from January 1, 1998, to
December 31, 2004.  The Employee Benefits Complaint names AIG, as
well as various other brokers and insurers, as defendants.  The
activities alleged in the Employee Benefits Complaint, with
certain exceptions, track the allegations of customer allocation
through steering and bid-rigging made in the Commercial Complaint.

On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
the Employee Benefits Complaint in its entirety, affirmed in part
and vacated in part the District Court's dismissal of the
Commercial Complaint, and remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with the opinion.  On March 30, 2012, the
District Court granted final approval of a settlement between AIG
and certain other defendants on the one hand, and class plaintiffs
on the other, which settled the claims asserted against those
defendants in the Commercial Complaint.  If that settlement
becomes final, AIG will pay approximately $7 million of a total
aggregate settlement amount of approximately $37 million.  On
April 27, 2012, notices of appeal of the District Court order
granting final approval were filed.

A number of complaints making allegations similar to those in the
Multi-District Litigation have been filed against AIG and other
defendants in state and federal courts around the country.  The
defendants have thus far been successful in having the federal
actions transferred to the District of New Jersey and consolidated
into the Multi-District Litigation.  These additional consolidated
actions are still pending in the District of New Jersey. In one of
those consolidated actions, Palm Tree Computer Systems, Inc. v.
Ace USA (Palm Tree), which is brought by two named plaintiffs on
behalf of a proposed class of insurance purchasers, the plaintiffs
allege specifically with respect to their claim for breach of
fiduciary duty against the insurer defendants that neither named
plaintiff nor any member of the proposed class suffered damages
"exceeding $74,999 each."  Plaintiffs do not specify damages as to
other claims against the insurer defendants in the complaint.  The
plaintiffs in Palm Tree have not yet sought certification of the
class.  On July 30, 2012, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims
without prejudice, pending their appeal of the decision granting
final approval of the class action settlement.  Because discovery
has not been completed and the District Court has not determined
if a class action is appropriate or the size or scope of any
class, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the Palm Tree litigation.
In another consolidated action, The Heritage Corp. of South
Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (Heritage), an individual
plaintiff alleges damages "in excess of $75,000."  Because
discovery has not been completed and a precise amount of damages
has not been specified, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
Heritage litigation.  For the remaining consolidated actions, as
of February, 2012, plaintiffs have not formally specified an
amount of alleged damages arising from these actions.  AIG is
therefore unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of losses, if any, arising from these matters.

The AIG defendants have also sought to have state court actions
making similar allegations stayed pending resolution of the Multi-
District Litigation proceeding.  These efforts have generally been
successful, although four cases have proceeded; one each in
Florida and New Jersey state courts that have settled, and one
each in Texas and Kansas state courts have proceeded (although
discovery is stayed in both actions).  In the Texas action,
plaintiff filed its Fourth Amended Petition on
July 13, 2009, and on August 14, 2009, defendants filed renewed
special exceptions.  Plaintiff in the Texas action alleges a
"maximum" of $125 million in total damages (after trebling).
Because the Court has not rendered a decision on defendants'
renewed special exceptions and discovery has not been completed,
AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the Texas action.  In the Kansas
action, defendants are appealing to the Kansas Supreme Court the
trial court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on statute
of limitations grounds.  In the Kansas action, the plaintiff
alleges damages in an amount "greater than $75,000" for each of
the three claims directed against AIG in the complaint.  Because
the Kansas Supreme Court has not decided the appeal of the trial
court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss, a precise amount
of damages has not been formally specified and discovery has not
been completed, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of losses, if any, from the Kansas action.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: Discovery in Consolidated ERISA-Violations Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action lawsuit
asserting violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, according to American International Group, Inc.'s
August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries.  The Court subsequently consolidated these eight
actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II.  On June 26, 2009, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  The action purports to be brought
as a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all participants in
or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its
subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock.  In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so.  The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

As of August 2, 2012, plaintiffs have not formally specified an
amount of alleged damages, discovery is ongoing, and the Court has
not determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or
scope of any class.  As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: Faces New Securities Suit Filed by British Coal Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. disclosed in its August 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it is facing
a new securities lawsuit filed by eight foreign funds and
investment entities led by the British Coal Staff Superannuation
Scheme, which is similar to the Consolidated 2008 Securities
Litigation.

AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading Group Inc. and
their respective subsidiaries (collectively, AIGFP), and certain
directors and officers of AIG, AIGFP and other AIG subsidiaries
have been named in various actions relating to AIG's exposure to
the U.S. residential subprime mortgage market, unrealized market
valuation losses on AIGFP's super senior credit default swap
portfolio, losses and liquidity constraints relating to AIG's
securities lending program and related disclosure and other
matters (Subprime Exposure Issues).

Between May 21, 2008, and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and
certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside
auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the Southern District of New York), alleging claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
Securities Act).  On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all
eight of the purported securities class actions as In re American
International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation).  Subsequently, on
November 18, 2011, January 20, 2012, and June 11, 2012, three
separate, though similar, securities actions were brought against
AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP by the
Kuwait Investment Office, various Oppenheimer Funds, and eight
foreign funds and investment entities led by the British Coal
Staff Superannuation Scheme, respectively.

On May 19, 2009, lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006, through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements.  The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG
Common Stock.  The alleged false and misleading statements relate
to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.  On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On April 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs.  On November 2, 2011, the Court terminated the motion
without prejudice to an application for restoration.  On
March 30, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a renewed motion to
certify a class of plaintiffs.

AIG says it has accrued its estimate of probable loss with respect
to this litigation.

As of August 2, 2012, the actions initiated by the Kuwait
Investment Office, various Oppenheimer Funds and eight foreign
funds and investment entities led by the British Coal Staff
Superannuation Scheme are in their early stages, no discussions
concerning potential damages have occurred and the plaintiffs have
not formally specified an amount of alleged damages in their
respective actions.  As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from these litigations.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: Proposed Canadian Securities Class Action Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
An application to bring a putative securities class action lawsuit
before a Canadian court against American International Group,
Inc., has been stayed pending further developments in the AIG
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation pending in New York,
according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading
Group Inc. and their respective subsidiaries (collectively,
AIGFP), certain directors and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano,
the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the
Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the application, a
class plaintiff will be permitted to file a statement of claim
against defendants.  The proposed statement of claim would assert
a class period of March 16, 2006, through September 16, 2008, and
would allege that during this period defendants made false and
misleading statements and omissions in quarterly and annual
reports and during oral presentations in violation of the Ontario
Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens.  On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing
on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in
a pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012
SCC 17 (Van Breda).  On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of
Canada clarified the standard for determining jurisdiction over
foreign and out-of-province defendants, such as AIG, by holding
that a defendant must have some form of "actual," as opposed to a
merely "virtual," presence in order to be deemed to be "doing
business" in the jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court of Canada also
suggested that in future cases, defendants may contest
jurisdiction even when they are found to be doing business in a
Canadian jurisdiction if their business activities in the
jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter of the
litigation.  The matter has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate.  As of August 2, 2012, the Court has not
determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has
occurred and the action has been stayed.  As a result, AIG is
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: 3 Appeals Filed vs. "Ross" Suit Deal Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three appeals were filed from the final approval of American
Express Company's settlement of the class action lawsuit commenced
by Ross, et al., according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v.
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that American Express conspired with Visa, MasterCard and
Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates
and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their
cardmember agreements.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and
unspecified damages.  The class is defined as "all Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used
cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks."  American Express
cardholders are not part of the class.  The parties have reached
an agreement to settle the claims asserted on behalf of the damage
class concerning foreign currency conversion rates under which the
Company agreed to pay $49.5 million into a settlement fund.  The
Court preliminarily approved that settlement on November 18, 2011,
and a final approval hearing was held on April 27, 2012.  On April
30, 2012, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving
the settlement and an Order and Final Judgment approving the
allocation plan.  Two notices of appeal from the Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement were filed on May 29, 2012, and
an additional notice of appeal from both orders entered on
April 30, 2012, was also filed on May 29, 2012.  The claims
asserted by the injunction class concerning cardmember arbitration
clauses are not included in the proposed settlement and will
continue to be litigated.  Trial is currently scheduled to begin
on January 7, 2013.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Appoints Expert in "Kaufman" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois appointed in June 2012 an expert to consider further
notice to the class in the class action lawsuit styled Kaufman v.
American Express Travel Related Services, according to American
Express Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Plaintiffs'
principal allegation is that the Company's gift cards violate
consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly have
difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior
to the imposition of monthly service fees.  The Court
preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of (with
some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of all
gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002 through
the date of preliminary approval of the settlement" and
preliminarily approved the parties' settlement agreement on
September 21, 2011.  A final settlement approval hearing took
place on February 29, 2012, and the Court issued an order on
June 25, 2012, appointing an expert to consider further notice to
the class.  The Company is also a defendant in Goodman v. American
Express Travel Related Services, a putative class action pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York that involves allegations similar to those made in
Kaufman.  Plaintiffs in Goodman have intervened in the Kaufman
proceedings and will be subject to any final settlement approved
in Kaufman.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to File Class Suit in Canada Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court approved in June 2012 plaintiff's withdrawal of
its motion to authorize the bringing of a class action lawsuit,
according to American Express Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In April 2011, in a matter captioned 9085-4886 Quebec Inc. and
Peter Bakopanos v. Amex Bank of Canada and Amex Canada Inc., a
motion was filed in the Quebec Superior Court seeking to authorize
the bringing of a class action lawsuit alleging that the non-
discrimination provisions in the Canadian merchant agreement
violate Canadian competition law under the price maintenance
provision (section 76) of the Canadian Competition Act.  The
plaintiff sought unspecified damages and the elimination of the
non-discrimination provisions.  The Company subsequently brought a
motion to dismiss the class action.  The plaintiff withdrew the
motion to authorize the class action, which the court approved on
June 20, 2012.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Files Certiorari Petition in Merchants' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it has filed a petition for writ
of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the
lawsuit titled In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.

Since July 2003, the Company has been named in a number of
putative class actions in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful
antitrust tying arrangement between certain of the Company's
charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and
federal laws.  These cases have all been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under the caption: In re American Express Merchants' Litigation.
A case making similar allegations was also filed in the Southern
District of New York in July 2004 captioned: The Marcus
Corporation v. American Express Company, et al.  The Marcus case
is not consolidated.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated actions
seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages.
Since April 2004, the parties have been engaged in motion practice
regarding American Express' motion to dismiss the consolidated
action on the grounds that all of the plaintiffs' claims are
subject to arbitration.  On February 1, 2012, the Second Circuit
again reversed the District Court's decision ordering arbitration,
and reaffirmed its prior ruling notwithstanding the decision by
the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion.  On May 29, 2012, the Second Circuit denied the
Company's petition for rehearing en banc with dissents.  The
Second Circuit has stayed the mandate and the Company has filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Mesi" Class Action Suit Stayed in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Mesi v. American Express Bank,
FSB, remains stayed in California court, according to American
Express Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In June 2009, a putative class action, now captioned Mesi v.
American Express Bank, FSB, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class of American Express
Cardmembers "whose interest rates on their outstanding balances
were retroactively increased" by the Company.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, damages "in excess of $5,000,000" and
unspecified declaratory and injunctive relief and statutory
penalties.  On May 4, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion
to compel arbitration and stay action.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Time to Reinstate Appeal in ERISA Suit Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appellants/Plaintiffs' right to reinstate an appeal filed in the
consolidated lawsuit captioned In re American Express ERISA
Litigation has been extended to October 31, 2012, according to the
Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In December 2008, a putative class action captioned Obester v.
American Express Company, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") obligations by:
allowing the investment of American Express Retirement Savings
Plan (Plan) assets in American Express common stock when American
Express common stock was not a prudent investment; misrepresenting
and failing to disclose material facts to Plan participants in
connection with the administration of the Plan; and breaching
certain fiduciary obligations.  Thereafter, three other putative
class actions making allegations similar to those made in the
Obester matter were filed against the defendants in the Southern
District of New York.  In April 2009, these actions were
consolidated as In re American Express ERISA Litigation.  On
November 2, 2010, the District Court granted American Express'
motion to dismiss the consolidated actions.  Plaintiffs appealed
but their appeal was later withdrawn but subject to appellants'
right to reinstatement, which on May 31, 2012, was extended to
October 31, 2012.


BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend MBS-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries from class action lawsuits over mortgage-backed
securities, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On November 14, 2007, David H. Luther and various pension funds
(collectively, the Luther Plaintiffs) commenced a putative class
action against Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) , several
of its affiliates, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (MLPF&S)
and certain former officers of these in California Superior Court,
Los Angeles County, entitled Luther v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. (the Luther Action).  The Luther Plaintiffs'
complaint asserts certain claims over mortgage-backed securities
(MBS) in connection with MBS issued by subsidiaries of CFC in 429
offerings between 2005 and 2007.  The Luther Plaintiffs certified
that they collectively purchased securities in 63 of 429 offerings
for approximately $216 million.  The Luther Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and/or rescissory damages and other unspecified
relief.  On January 6, 2010, the court granted CFC's motion to
dismiss with prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On May 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeal reversed the
dismissal and remanded to the Superior Court.  Defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss.

Following the previous dismissal of the Luther Action on
January 6, 2010, the Maine State Retirement System filed a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, entitled Maine State Retirement System v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. (the Maine Action).  The
Maine Action names the same defendants as the Luther Action, as
well as the Corporation and NB Holdings Corporation, and asserts
substantially the same allegations regarding 427 of the MBS
offerings that were at issue in the Luther Action.  Plaintiffs in
the Maine Action (Maine Plaintiffs) seek compensatory and/or
rescissory damages and other unspecified relief.

On November 4, 2010, the court granted CFC's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety and held that the Maine
Plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the 81 offerings in
which they actually purchased MBS.  The court also held that the
applicable statute of limitations could be tolled by the filing of
the Luther Action only with respect to the offerings in which the
Luther Plaintiffs actually purchased MBS.  As a result of these
standing and tolling rulings, the number of offerings at issue in
the Maine Action was reduced from 427 to 14.  On December 6, 2010,
the Maine Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that relates
to 14 MBS offerings.  On April 21, 2011, the court dismissed with
prejudice the successor liability claims against the Corporation
and NB Holdings Corporation.  On May 6, 2011, the court held that
the Maine Plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the specific
MBS tranches that they purchased, and that the applicable statute
of limitations could be tolled by the filing of the Luther Action
only with respect to the specific tranches of MBS that the Luther
Plaintiffs purchased.  As a result of these tranche-specific
standing and tolling rulings, the Maine Action was further reduced
from 14 offerings to eight tranches.  On June 6, 2011, the Maine
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that related to eight
MBS tranches.  On
June 15, 2011, the court denied the Maine Plaintiffs' motion to
permit immediate interlocutory appeal of the court's orders on
standing, tolling of the statute of limitations and successor
liability.  On October 12, 2011, upon stipulation by the parties,
the court certified a class consisting of eight subclasses, one
for each of the eight MBS tranches at issue.

On November 17, 2010, Western Conference of Teamsters Pension
Trust Fund (Western Teamsters) filed a putative class action
against the same defendants named in the Maine Action in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, entitled Western
Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide
Financial Corporation, et al.  Western Teamsters' complaint
asserts that Western Teamsters and other unspecified investors
purchased MBS issued in the 428 offerings that were also at issue
in the Luther Action and asserts substantially the same
allegations as the Luther Action.  The Western Teamsters action
has been coordinated with the Luther Action.  Western Teamsters
seek unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages and other
unspecified relief.

On January 27, 2011, Putnam Bank filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CFC, the Corporation and several related entities,
among others, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Putnam Bank v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al.  Putnam Bank's complaint asserts certain MBS
Claims in connection with alleged purchases in eight MBS offerings
issued by CFC subsidiaries between 2005 and 2007.  Putnam Bank
seeks rescission of its purchases or a rescissory measure of
unspecified damages and/or compensatory damages and other
unspecified relief.  On August 15, 2011, the case was transferred
to the Countrywide RMBS MDL.

On June 12, 2012, the Countrywide defendants removed the Luther v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. and Western Conference
of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. cases from the California Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On May 23, 2012, the court denied Putnam Bank's motion to seek
immediate interlocutory appeal of the court's order dismissing the
case, in its entirety and with prejudice, as time-barred.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Dismissal of "Bondar" Class Suit Now Effective
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the class action lawsuit captioned Bondar v. Bank
of America Corporation is now effective, the Company disclosed in
its August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Bank of America Corporation (the Corporation) and its subsidiary
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch) face a number of civil
actions relating to the sales of auction rate securities (ARS) and
management of ARS auctions, including two putative class action
lawsuits in which plaintiffs seek to recover the alleged losses in
market value of ARS securities purportedly caused by defendants'
actions.  Plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages, including
rescission, other compensatory and consequential damages, costs,
fees and interest.  The first action, In Re Merrill Lynch Auction
Rate Securities Litigation, is the result of the consolidation of
two class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These lawsuits were brought by two
Merrill Lynch customers on behalf of all persons who purchased ARS
in auctions managed by Merrill Lynch, against Merrill Lynch and
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (MLPF&S).  On
March 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted Merrill Lynch's motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs
appealed and on November 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.
Plaintiffs' time to seek a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court expired on February 13, 2012, and, as a result, this action
is now concluded.

The second action, Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation, was
brought by a putative class of ARS purchasers against the
Corporation and Banc of America Securities, LLC (BAS).  On
February 24, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California dismissed the amended complaint and
directed plaintiffs to state whether they will file a further
amended complaint or appeal the court's dismissal.  Following the
Second Circuit's decision in In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate
Securities Litigation, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
action on January 4, 2012.

The dismissal of the Bondar case is now effective.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Third Merchants' Class Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
A new class action lawsuit entitled Canada Rent A Heater (2000)
Ltd. v. Bank of America Corp. was filed last month on behalf of
purported class of merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard
credit cards in Canada, according to the Company's August 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On December 10, 2010, a purported class of merchants that accept
Visa and/or MasterCard credit cards in Canada filed an action in
Quebec Superior Court entitled Quebec Inc. v. Visa Canada
Corporation (Quebec, Inc.), against Visa and MasterCard.  On March
30, 2012, plaintiffs amended the complaint to name as defendants
the same parties, including the Corporation, that are named as
defendants in Watson v. Bank of America Corp., currently pending
in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Watson), and Bancroft-
Snell v. Visa Canada Corp., currently pending in Ontario Superior
Court (Bancroft-Snell).  On July 12, 2012, a similar purported
class filed an action in the Court of Queen's Bench in
Saskatchewan entitled Canada Rent A Heater (2000) Ltd. v. Bank of
America Corp. (Canada Heater).  The claims and damages asserted in
Quebec Inc. and Canada Heater are similar to those asserted in
Watson and Bancroft-Snell.  The Quebec Inc. and Canada Heater
actions are not covered by Visa's Retrospective Responsibility
Plan (the RRP) or loss-sharing agreements previously entered into
by the Corporation.

On June 13, 2012, the court in Quebec Inc. stayed the action until
June 21, 2013.  The Bancroft-Snell action is being held in
abeyance pursuant to a case management directive.  Both the stay
and abeyance were granted to permit litigation to proceed in the
Watson action.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Defective Power Steering System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that BMW of North America
concealed a dangerously defective power steering system in Mini
Coopers made between 2002 and 2009, a class claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Perry v. BMW of North America, LLC,
Case No. 12-cv-07129 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/20/bmw.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          Gregory B. Scarlett, Esq.
          Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
          WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, L.L.P.
          5567 Reseda Boulevard, Suite 330
          Post Office Box 7033
          Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
          Telephone: (818) 705-6800
                     (323) 872-0995
          E-mail: resensten@wccelaw.com
                  gscarlett@wccelaw.com
                  jesensten@wccelaw.com


BOSTON, MA: Judge Tosses Class Action v. Public Schools
-------------------------------------------------------
James Vaznis, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a federal
court judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit on Aug. 17 against
the Boston public schools for routinely delaying the enrollment
and evaluation of preschoolers with disabilities.

The School Department prevailed on a procedural issue.  Judge Rya
W. Zobel said the parents of the two toddlers at the center of the
case filed the lawsuit prematurely, having failed to exhaust all
other remedies before turning to litigation, as required by
federal law.

In issuing her ruling, Judge Zobel did not address the lawsuit's
fundamental question: whether the School Department violated state
and federal laws by failing to place preschoolers with
disabilities in classrooms as soon as they turn 3 years old,
potentially causing regression in the developmental progress they
had made.

Superintendent Carol R. Johnson indicated in a statement that she
viewed the ruling as a positive development.

"Our commitment to serving students with disabilities has never
been stronger," said Ms. Johnson.  "In the last two years, we have
made substantial changes in how we meet the needs of students with
disabilities, and [Friday's] decision is a strong signal that we
are on the right path.  There is much more to be done in our
efforts to reform this important set of work, but we are all in
this together and we will succeed."

Massachusetts Advocates for Children, a Boston nonprofit that
filed the lawsuit on behalf of the families, has not yet decided
whether to appeal but will probably seek other courses of action
outlined under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, said Michael Vhay, one of the plaintiff's attorneys.

For instance, the judge said in the ruling that the organization
may have better luck establishing a pattern of delayed placements
by securing a series of decisions on individual cases from the
state Bureau of Special Education Appeals, which then could be
used as the basis for a class-action lawsuit, Mr. Vhay said.

"It is fair to say we are disappointed in the ruling and the
additional delays it will introduce in our effort to solve this
problem for all preschoolers," said Mr. Vhay, who is a partner at
DLA Piper in Boston.  "But we are encouraged that the judge has
directed the [state Bureau of Special Education Appeals] to look
into the issues we have raised."

The Boston public schools have struggled to keep pace with a 50
percent surge in the last three years in the number of
preschoolers with special needs.  The lawsuit said the School
Department had "subjected more than 200 preschoolers, some of its
most vulnerable youth, to illegal wait-listing."

Ms. Johnson acknowledged in an interview with the Globe earlier
this year that the School Department had been slow in placing
students but stressed she was remedying the problem.  During the
past school year, the department added more than a dozen preschool
classrooms, including several at a recently shuttered elementary
school, as the enrollment of toddlers with disabilities pushed
beyond 700.

But Massachusetts Advocates for Children said too many students
were still not receiving services guaranteed to them under federal
law.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued Over Trucks' Defective Rear Differential
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
Chrysler Dodge Ram truck drivers claim in court that the vehicles'
rear wheels lock up and cause a "very serious safety hazard."

Lead plaintiff Jesse Raymond Garcia III claims he was one of many
Californians who bought or leased defective 2009-2010 Dodge Ram
trucks.  He has sued Chrysler Group LLC in the U.S. Central
District of California court for unfair competition, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty and fraud.

According to Mr. Garcia, the Dodge Rams have a "defective rear
differential," or mechanical device, which even under "normal
driving conditions" locks up the rear wheels of the trucks.

"When the rear wheels lock up as a result of the differential
defect, numerous consumers have reported that they have been
unable to control the class vehicles.  Said consumers have
reported that class vehicles skid and spin out as a result of the
rear wheels locking up, due to the differential defect, often
times at speeds in excess of 30 miles per hour," the 14-page
federal complaint states.  "Once the rear wheels lock up as a
result of the differential defect, the class vehicles are
inoperable, and need to undergo extensive repairs.  This is
clearly a very serious safety hazard."

Mr. Garcia says that drivers of the defective Rams have also
reported separating metal parts puncturing fuel tanks and "flying
towards other vehicles."

"At least one consumer has reported crashing into a concrete
barrier as a result of the differential defect," the lawsuit
states.

Chrysler was allegedly aware of defects before the trucks left the
assembly line, but has done nothing to resolve the issue or
reimburse drivers who paid out of their own pockets to repair
their trucks, Mr. Garcia says.

The class is represented by Robert Starr of Woodland Hills, Calif.
It seeks unspecified damages, repair costs, and disgorgement of
profits.

Chrysler Group spokesman Mike Palese told Courthouse News the
company had not been served with the complaint.

"It would be inappropriate to comment until we've had an
opportunity to study what it alleges," Mr. Palese said in an e-
mail.  "However, 2009-2010 Ram trucks meet or exceed all
applicable federal safety standards and have excellent safety
records."

A copy of the Complaint in Garcia v. Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No.
12-cv-07068 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/20/Dodge%20Ram.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          E-mail: robert@starrlawmail.com


CLS TRANSPORTATION: Limo Driver Seeks Review of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that a limo driver
whose proposed wage-and-hour class action was sent to arbitration
urged the California Supreme Court on Aug. 17 to review his case,
which attorneys say could give the court an opportunity to clarify
the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Concepcion
decision affects class waivers in employment disputes in the
state.

In a reply brief filed on Aug. 17, former CLS Transportation Los
Angeles LLC driver Arshavir Iskanian asked the state Supreme Court
to grant his July 16 petition for review.


EXPEDIA INC: Sued for Conspiracy to Enforce RPM Scheme on Bookings
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikita Turik and Eric Balk, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com LP,
Travelocity.com LP, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Priceline.com
Incorporated, Booking.com B.V., Booking.com (USA), Inc., Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc., Hilton Worldwide Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc., Marriott International, Inc., Trump International
Hotels Management, LLC, Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC,
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., and John Does 1-
100, Case No. 4:12-cv-04365 (N.D. Calif., August 20, 2012) is
brought to challenge the Online Retailer Defendants' conspiracy
with the Hotel Defendants to enter into, maintain and enforce
minimum resale price maintenance ("RPM") agreements.

The Online Retailer Defendants conspired with the Hotel Defendants
and agreed to impose an RPM scheme that would fix the retail price
for online room reservations at the price the Hotel Defendants
were selling the Room Reservation ("Rack Rates") and restrain
competition for Room Reservations ("Defendant Retailer-Hotel
Agreements") in the market for online reservations, the Plaintiffs
allege.  They argue that the Defendant Retailer-Hotel Agreements
restrained price competition by requiring the Defendant Hotel
Defendants to impose, amend, enforce, and heighten enforcement of
minimum resale price maintenance agreements with respect to price-
cutting Online Retailers, and to prevent price-cutting Online
Retailers from discounting Room Reservations or engaging in the
profit-lowering effects of retail price competition for Room
Reservations.

Nikita Turik is a resident of Chicago, Illinois.  Eric Balk is a
resident of Cedar Falls, Iowa.  The Plaintiffs purchased hotel
room reservations online directly from one or more of the Online
Retailer Defendants in the United States.

Expedia is a Delaware corporation based in Bellevue, Washington.
Hotels.com, an affiliate of Expedia, is a Texas limited
partnership headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Travelocity.com , a
Delaware limited partnership based in Southlake, Texas, is owned
by Sabre.  Booking.com, a company based in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, owns and operates Booking.com, the leading worldwide
online Room Reservations agency by room nights sold, attracting
over 30 million unique visitors each month via the Internet from
both leisure and business markets worldwide.  Booking.com is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Priceline.com.  Booking.com (USA) is a
Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in New
York.  Booking.com (USA) is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Priceline.com.  Priceline.com is a Delaware corporation based in
Norwalk, Connecticut.

Orbitz Worldwide is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.  Sabre is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Southlake, Texas.  Intercontinental is a Delaware corporation
with its primary place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.  Starwood
is a Maryland corporation based in Stamford, Connecticut.
Starwood's hotels are primarily operated under the brand names St.
Regis(R), The Luxury Collection(R), Sheraton(R), Westin(R),
W(R),Le Meridien(R), Four Points(R) by Sheraton, Aloft(R)and
Element(R).  Marriott is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Bethesda, Maryland.  Trump International is a
Delaware limited liability company headquartered in New York.
Hilton is a Delaware company based in McLean, Virginia.  Kimpton
is a Delaware limited liability based in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  george@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 W. Lake St., Suite 400
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          David Freydin, Esq.
          Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
          THE FREYDIN LAW FIRM LLP
          8707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 305
          Skokie, IL 60077

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Rejects Proposed Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge cited "serious concerns" in rejecting a proposed settlement
agreement between Facebook and subscribers who claim the company
used their names and likenesses to promote products without their
permission.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied without prejudice
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement,
which called for Facebook to make a $10 million payment to
Internet privacy organizations; to allow users more control over
how their names and likenesses are used and to pay attorney fees
of up to $10 million without objection.

Angel Fraley and other users sued Facebook in March 2011 in Santa
Clara County Superior Court for unfair competition and unjust over
the company's use of users' names and likenesses to market
products and services through its "Sponsored Stories" program
without the user's permission.  The plaintiffs sued on behalf of a
class of Facebook users whose identities could have been used in
the program.  Facebook removed the case to the Northern District
of California in April 2011.

Judge Seeborg challenged the provision calling for a payment of
$10 million to be made to organizations involved in Internet
privacy issues in lieu of direct payments to class members.
While agreeing that it would be impractical to try to divvy up the
$10 million between a class that may include up to 70 million
people and agreeing that class members might not achieve a
favorable judgment without the settlement, Judge Seeborg noted
that the governing California Civil code called for statutory
damages or $750 for any violation.

He ruled that the potential for a judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs "must be considered in evaluating the fairness of any
settlement.  Merely pointing to the infeasibility of dividing up
the agreed-to $10 million recovery, for the relatively small per-
use revenue Facebook derived, is insufficient, standing alone, to
justify resort to purely cy press payments."

Judge Seeborg used the parties' additional argument that any cash
settlement would not be practical, given the sheer number of
potential class members, to ask whether a cy-press only settlement
could be justified on the basis that the class size is simply too
large for direct monetary relief or if some class actions are just
too big to settle.

The ruling also questions whether the $10 million payment is fair,
adequate and reasonable.  While the plaintiffs seemed to suggest
during oral arguments that the payment is not that important
because their primary purpose is to compel Facebook to change its
practices going forward and the granting of that injunctive relief
by itself represents a huge success, the problem with treating
such payments as a bonus is that the relief relates only to
future, not past conduct.

As Judge Seeborg noted, cy press payments are intended to be
"[u]sed in lieu of direct distribution of damages," as noted in a
9th Circuit ruling on Dennis v. Kellogg. "In other words, the cy
press payment is compensation for past alleged wrongdoing. But the
proposed agreement includes a release for any past misconduct by
Facebook."

As such, Judge Seeborg ruled that "regardless of the importance
and value to plaintiffs of the injunctive relief, it cannot serve
as meaningful consideration for a release of class members' claims
for damages, statutory or actual."

While Facebook claimed during oral arguments that the $10 million
figure represents a fair estimate of potential recovery at trial
and includes discounts applied for the risks and costs of
litigation, the present motion "does not provide adequate support
for the conclusion.  Although it is not a precise science,
plaintiffs must show that the cy press payment represents a
reasonable settlement of past damages claims, and that it was not
merely plucked from thin air, or wholly inconsequential to them,
given their focus on prospective injunctive relief."

The judge also found "problematic" Facebook's justification for
the settlement amount that discounted the settlement figure by an
additional amount to reflect that only a small percentage of class
members usually file claims in class actions like this one,
finding that such an approach would result in the settlement being
similar to one calling for direct cash payments to class members
where any unclaimed settlement funds revert to the defendant.

He noted that "while such revisionary provisions are not
necessarily prohibited, they are problematic," citing a 9th
Circuit decision in In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability
Litigation in support.

The rulings also expressed serious concerns that the plaintiffs
might have bargained away something of value to them in agreeing
to receive $10 million in attorney's fees from Facebook.  The
plaintiffs failed to explain or show legal support for how they
calculated the value of the injunctive relief they requested.

The plaintiffs tried two approaches to explain how they reached
the calculation but both "suffer from the same fundamental
defect."

According to the ruling, "the dollars Facebook received from using
its members' names and likenesses (allegedly wrongfully), cannot
serve as a measure for the economic value realized by members
through obtaining the ability to 'opt out' from allowing Facebook
to do so in the future."  Under the agreement users can allow
Facebook to continue to use their names and likenesses without
compensation or stop Facebook from doing so.  "In neither instance
will the Facebook member receive any clear or direct economic
benefit."

Judge Seeborg asked parties to include legal justification for all
of their arguments, noting that the ratio of the amount of
attorney fees specified and the economic value of the cy press
payment, the sheer size of the award and the fact that any fees
not awarded would revert to Facebook "all present serious
concerns."

A copy of the Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement Agreement, Without Prejudice in Fraley, et al. v.
Facebook, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01726 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/20/facebookjrection.pdf


FULTONDALE GAS: Judge Denies Board's Two Motions in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Carter, writing for The North Jefferson News, reports that
a Jefferson Circuit Court judge has denied two motions filed by
the Fultondale Gas Board in a lawsuit against them which seeks
class action status.

Judge Michael Graffeo ruled on Aug. 16 against the board in one
motion which sought more detailed information on the plaintiff's
complaint against them.  The other ruling denied the board's
procedural request during the legal procedure known as discovery
-- where each side seeks information from the other which would
help their case.

"The defendants believed we had not provided sufficient detail in
the complaint, and that the judge should force us to give more,"
plaintiff's attorney Jim Roberts said.  "The judge said we had
given plenty of detail."

In the latter motion, Judge Graffeo said that the plaintiffs could
seek certain information in the discovery procedure which
determines whether the case should have class-action status, even
though that information might also affect the merits of the
complaint itself.

"During the class-certification stage, you are allowed to conduct
discovery related to whether a class actually exists," Mr. Roberts
said.  "After that, you conduct whatever discovery needed on the
merits -- whether or not the defendant actually did what they are
accused.  The judge allowed certain merit discovery during the
certification phase, but the defense objected after we had our toe
in the water, so to speak."

Part of the reason for Judge Graffeo's denial was that the Gas
Board is a quasi-public entity, and therefore much of the
information sought is already available to the general public
because of that status.

The lawsuit names Michael Watson and Sulphur Springs Services Inc.
as the plaintiffs, who would serve as representatives of the class
if class-action status were granted.  Sulphur Springs Services
includes John Douglas among its shareholders; Mr. Douglas is
running to unseat Fultondale mayor Jim Lowery, who by virtue of
his office is also the superintendent of the Gas Board.

The board is accused of charging customers more than allowed by
Alabama utility regulations, which permits charging 2.5 percent
more than the rate charged to similar customers by Alagasco.

Judge Graffeo's ruling also directed the lawyers to agree to a
schedule for the next phase of the proceedings, and to submit that
schedule by Sept. 14.  If the sides cannot agree, the judge will
impose a schedule of his own, Mr. Roberts said.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over False Claims on Aveeno Sunscreen
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Cos. makes false claims about, and charges more for, Aveeno
sunscreen with an SPF of at least 70, a class claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Contreras v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-07099 (C.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/20/aveeno.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
          Phoneix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60613
          Telephone: (312) 427-3600
          E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Dismisses Mortgage Rate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Ugolik, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Aug. 16 dismissed as time-barred claims for
unfair business practices and fraud brought against JPMorgan Chase
Bank NA by homeowners who said they'd been duped into paying
higher interest rates on their adjustable-rate mortgages.

U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt had granted the plaintiffs
-- a class of up to 28,000 borrowers -- leave to amend their
original complaint in January to include a basis for tolling the
four-year statute of limitations on their claims.  But they failed
to plead sufficient facts.


MSLGROUP: Plaintiffs Invite Other Women to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittaney Kiefer, writing for PRWeek, reports that plaintiffs in
the class action lawsuit against MSLGroup and parent Publicis
Groupe sent notices on Aug. 16 inviting other women to join the
action.

The plaintiffs mailed the notices to 149 current and former female
employees who have worked at MSLGroup at the VP or SVP level.

Recipients will have 60 days from the date of the notice's mailing
to join the lawsuit.

Once other potential plaintiffs opt into the class, MSL and
Publicis can try to decertify the suit.


NETWORK ENGINES: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP on Aug. 17 disclosed
that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on August 9, 2012,
in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Boston
Division, on behalf of all persons who hold common stock of
Network Engines, Inc. against Network Engines and its board of
directors for, among other things, violations of sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Network Engines by UNICOM
Systems, Inc.

The complaint arises out of a June 19, 2012 press release
announcing that Network Engines had entered into a definitive
merger agreement with UNICOM, pursuant to which Network Engines
shareholders would receive $1.45 in cash for each share of Network
Engines they own.

The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with the Proposed Acquisition, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty and due care owed to Network Engines shareholders.  The
complaint further alleges that, in an attempt to secure
shareholder approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants
filed a materially misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material in assisting Network Engines shareholders in making an
informed decision about whether or not to vote in favor of the
Proposed Acquisition.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all other Network Engines shareholders as of June
19, 2012.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Umeda LLP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from August 17, 2012.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact attorney Gregory E.
Del Gaizo of Robbins Umeda LLP at 800-350-6003, via the
shareholder information form on our Web site, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsumeda.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Umeda LLP is a California-based law firm that represents
investors in securities fraud class actions, merger-related
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.


OKLAHOMA: DHS Disputes Foster Care Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
David Harper, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a recent
filing by a New York-based nonprofit organization in a federal
class-action lawsuit concerning the state's child-welfare system
is inflammatory and inaccurate, attorneys for Oklahoma Department
of Human Services officials argued on Aug. 17.

The lawyers for the DHS defendants said Children's Rights, which
filed the lawsuit, is trying to shift the burden of proving the
reasonableness of its $9.5 million fee request onto the state
agency.  They say it is up to the plaintiffs to be forthcoming
with relevant details.

The lawsuit, which alleged flaws and unsafe conditions in the
state's child-welfare system, was filed against various DHS
officials in Tulsa federal court in 2008.  A settlement that was
reached in January led to a child-welfare improvement plan that is
being overseen by an independent three-person panel.

Attorneys for the sued DHS officials argued in an Aug. 3 filing
that Children's Rights must produce all documents with its unnamed
sources so they can verify claims made in its attorney fee
request.

In response, Children's Rights claimed in an Aug. 10 filing that
DHS has offered no explanation of why the identities would help
the court.

Children's Rights said the position of DHS illustrated why the
state agency had spent millions of dollars before the settlement
was reached "to defend a foster care system now universally
recognized as having been a complete failure."

The underlying issue is what role DHS oversight commissioners and
staff played in providing information to Children's Rights.

Attorneys for the defense claim they have knowledge of "multiple
instances" of communications between the nonprofit and the
commission and staff.

The agency alleges that those communications reflect at least
$200,000 worth of the requested fees and that it has a right to
know what the agency is reimbursing.

Children's Rights claims that the identities of its sources are
privileged.

The DHS officials argue that "defendants and the court must be
permitted to assess the full scope of plaintiffs' attorneys'
conduct to adequately assess both plaintiffs' fee request and that
conduct's resultant effect for eliminations and reductions to the
fee award."


ROBERT K. MERICLE: Suit Settlement Conference Postponed to Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Janoskip, writing for The Citizens' Voice, reports that a
settlement conference in class-action suits stemming from the
kids-for-cash scandal, originally scheduled for next month, was
postponed until November by a federal judge on Aug. 17 to allow
more time for copying documents.

More than 1,000 former juvenile offenders who appeared before
former Luzerne County Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. have applied
for compensation from a $17.75 million settlement offered by
Wilkes-Barre developer Robert K. Mericle.  Mr. Mericle, whose
company built two for-profit juvenile detention centers utilized
by the county, admitted to paying Judge Ciavarella and another
judge more than $2 million in the kids-for-cash case.

U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo postponed the Sept. 10
settlement conference until Nov. 15 to allow the Luzerne County
Juvenile Probation Department more time to copy juvenile court
documents that will be used to confirm settlement claims.

Judge Caputo also authorized the hiring of a third-party vendor to
assist probation officials in copying the documents, which will
remain in county custody.

The state Supreme Court vacated thousands of Judge Ciavarella's
court rulings in 2009, finding he incarcerated juveniles on minor
charges and failed to properly inform them of their right to
counsel.

Judge Ciavarella was found guilty of conspiracy and racketeering
in a February 2011 jury trial in connection with payments he
received from Mr. Mericle and a former co-owner of the detention
centers, Robert J. Powell.

Judge Ciavarella is serving a 28-year prison sentence.  Messrs.
Powell and Mericle each testified against Judge Ciavarella and
pleaded guilty to failing to report a felony.  Mr. Powell is
serving an 18-month prison sentence.  Mr. Mericle is awaiting
sentencing.

Class-action claims against Judge Ciavarella, Mr. Powell and other
figures in the kids-for-cash case are not affected by the Mericle
settlement and remain in litigation.


RG STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Pollutants
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the operation of a steel mill
in Sparrows Point Peninsula by RG Steel and LaFarge North America
pollutes the environment, a class claims in court.

A copy of the Complaint in Donnelly, et al. v. RG Steel, LLC, Case
No. C-12-8221 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/20/pollution.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan H. Silverberg, Esq.
          SUMMERFIELD, WILLEN, SILVERBERG & LINSKY, LLC
          1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 363-4444
          E-mail: asilverberg@swsl-law.com

               - and -

          Bart S. Fisher, Esq.
          700 12th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 659-2979
          E-mail: bart_fisher2002@yahoo.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: S.C. Petition in Stanford-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company's petition for certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to permit claims
in an East Baton Rouge, Louisiana class action to proceed is
pending, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana.  Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.  One of the five
actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also
names SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a defendant.  Two of the
other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.  All five actions
name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five
actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action under
the Louisiana Securities Act.  The putative class action
originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC for an alleged
violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Two of the
other five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana
Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.  In addition, another
group of plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of Louisiana,
against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting claims of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy.  The underlying allegations in all the actions are
purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office
services to Stanford Trust Company.  The petitions allege that SEI
and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale
of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International
Bank.  Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge have been
removed to federal court, and plaintiffs' motions to remand are
pending.  These two cases have been transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.  On August 31, 2011, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
issued an order and judgment that the causes of action alleged
against SEI and SPTC in the two remanded actions were preempted by
federal law and the Court dismissed these cases with prejudice.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an expedited
appeal of the United States District Court's order and judgment.
The appeal was briefed, and oral argument was held on February 7,
2012.  On March 19, 2012, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District
Court and remanded the actions for further proceedings.  On April
2, 2012, SEI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit a petition for rehearing en banc of the panel's
opinion.  On April 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the petition for rehearing.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was also removed to federal
court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to the Northern District of Texas.  The schedule for
responding to that complaint has not yet been established.  The
plaintiffs in the remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI an extension to respond to the filings.  SEI and SPTC
filed exceptions in the putative class action pending in East
Baton Rouge, which the Court granted in part and dismissed the
claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied
in part as to the other exceptions.  SEI and SPTC filed an answer
to the East Baton Rouge putative class action; plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification; and SEI and SPTC also filed a
motion for summary judgment against certain named plaintiffs which
the Court stated will not be set for hearing until after the
hearing on the class certification motion.  Following the decision
by the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, the Court in the East Baton Rouge action issued an order
staying the proceedings in the East Baton Rouge class action
pending the outcome of the appeal of the order and judgment of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Following the panel opinion of the Court of Appeals on March 19,
2012, the Court in the East Baton Rouge action scheduled a hearing
on class certification for
September 20, 2012.  On July 18, 2012, the Company filed a
petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,
seeking review of the decision by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to permit the claims against SEI
to proceed.  The Company believes that the trial court correctly
concluded that the claims against SEI were barred by the federal
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and is requesting that
the Supreme Court reinstate that dismissal.  While the outcome of
this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SEI and SPTC
believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and
intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion to
dismiss, the lack of discovery regarding damages, causation,
mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss,
the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss,
if any, with respect to the lawsuits.

Based in Oaks, Pennsylvania and founded in 1968, SEI Investments
Co. -- http://www.seic.com/-- is a publicly owned investment
manager.  The firm provides wealth management and investment
advisory services to its clients through its subsidiaries.


ST. LOUIS, MO: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Violence
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Killeen, writing for KMOX, reports that a federal, class
action lawsuit filed on Aug. 17 alleges city jailers have been
forcing inmates to wage "gladiator-style" fights against each
other for the amusement of guards.

The suit filed on behalf of seven current and former St. Louis
inmates claims they were coerced into fighting with threats of
beatings, then led into another inmate's cell where they would
duke it out with guards watching.  Attorneys for the inmates claim
from two-to-fifteen guards would watch the fights, sometimes
betting on the outcome.

Afterwards inmates complained of injuries including a broken jaw
and bloody urine, but were offered no medical treatment, attorneys
claim.

Named in the suit are St. Louis Mayor Slay, Public Safety Director
Eddie Roth and Medium Security Institution Commissioner Dale
Glass.

Former St. Louis Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. is among the three
attorneys representing the inmates, who were allegedly known as
the "Workhouse Gladiators."  The suit seeks protective custody for
six inmates still behind bars, and punitive damages from the city.

The alleged fight games came to light after the recent arrest of
Corrections Officers Dexter Brinson and Elvis Howard, according to
lawyers representing the inmates.

Mayor Slay's Director of Operations Sam Dotson responded that the
fights first came to their attention in June, and the city has
cooperated fully with investigators.

Mr. Dotson says illegal behavior "will not be tolerated," and the
two guards are on forced leave, going through the termination
process.  Mr. Dotson says there's no evidence the practice was
widespread or went beyond the two guards.


TANIMURA & ANTLE: Recalls Single Lot of Romaine Lettuce
-------------------------------------------------------
Tanimura & Antle Inc. is voluntarily recalling a single lot of
romaine lettuce because it may be contaminated with Escherichia
coli O157:H7 bacteria (E. Coli O157:H7).  The affected product is
limited to Tanimura & Antle Field Fresh Wrapped Single Head
Romaine.  This product is packed in a plastic bag with the UPC
number 0-27918-20314-9 and may have a Best Buy date of "08 19 12".
The product was available at retail locations August 2 - August
19, 2012.  NO OTHER TANIMURA & ANTLE PRODUCTS ARE BEING RECALLED.

A total of 2,095 cases of potentially affected product were
distributed throughout the US and Canada starting on August 2.  A
total of 1,969 cases were shipped to the following states: AL, AR,
AZ, CA, GA, KS, KY, MD, NC, NM, NV, NY, NJ, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA
and Puerto Rico.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316257.htm

Importantly, there are no reported illnesses associated with
consumption of this product.  E.coli O157:H7 can cause a diarrheal
illness, often with bloody stools.  Although most healthy adults
can recover completely within a week, some people can develop a
form of kidney failure called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS).
HUS is most likely to occur in young children and the elderly.
The condition can lead to serious kidney damage and even death.

The recall is being conducted in consultation with FDA, and is
based on the testing of a single random sample by the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency.

The affected product was shipped in cases packed in either 12 or
18 heads per case.  Retailers and Distributors can identify the
affected products through a traceability code label affixed to
exterior of the case.  The traceability code label affixed to the
exterior of the case is 5417802151.  Tanimura and Antle's #1
priority is food safety, and in an overabundance of caution, the
Company is asking that if any of the above Romaine is in the
possession of consumers, retailers or distributors, the product be
disposed of and not consumed.

Consumers with questions or who would like replacement coupons may
call at 877-827-7388, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time,
Monday-Friday.


VIRGINIA: Dept. of Health Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Django Gold, writing for Law360, reports that the Virginia
Department of Health violated federal wage laws by paying its
female and minority employees less than their male, white
counterparts, according to a class action removed to Virginia
federal court on Aug. 17.

Freda G. Bolling alleges that her employer has for more than a
decade refused to pay her the fair wages owed for her work as a
program administrator, leveling a laundry list of accusations that
the state health department "engaged in the pattern and practice
of discrimination".


WALLDESIGN INC: Employees Granted Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit, JUAN PABLO ORQUIZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
WALLDESIGN, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 2:11-CV-1374 JCM (D.
Nev.), District Judge James C. Mahan granted the request of Juan
Pablo Orquiza and Maximino Buenaventura for conditional
certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201 et seq.

Defendants Walldesign, Inc., Michael Bello, Stephen Huntington,
Sterling S. Development, D.R. Horton, Inc., Ryland Homes Nevada,
LLC, and Hand Construction Corporation opposed the request.

The case centers around the defendants' alleged intentional
failure to pay wages, systematic under-reporting of hours, and
failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a week to plaintiffs and the class they represent.  The plaintiffs
and the class they represent are either current or former
employees of Walldesign.  While employed by the defendants, the
plaintiffs completed construction-type jobs such as installing
drywall, plastering, painting, and applying stucco.  The
plaintiffs worked at multiple construction sites in Nevada.  They
allege that Walldesign is involved in irregular pay practices
where employees are paid in cash instead of a check, and do not
receive accurate paystubs.  The plaintiffs also contend their
supervisors made false promises regarding rates of pay.  The
plaintiffs claim that when paychecks were received, the number of
hours would not be included and, despite workers logging their own
hours, they were denied the proper amount of pay.  The defendants
also often paid workers less than the established minimum wage
(some making approximately $2/hour).  The plaintiffs also said
that despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, they
were denied overtime premium pay rates.

The plaintiffs allege that Walldesign, Bello, and Huntington were
alerted to the irregularities in pay practices in September 2009,
when a different group of plaintiffs filed a similar law suit.
Walldesign is also accused of similar wrongs in California.

After Walldesign filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Bello
transferred Walldesign's workforce to Imperial Construction Group,
Inc.  According to the plaintiffs, despite the change in workforce
ownership, the employees continue to be subjected to improper pay
practices.

A copy of the District Court's Aug. 16, 2012 Order is available at
http://is.gd/IgpKmPfrom Leagle.com.

                        About Walldesign

Walldesign Inc., incorporated in 1983, has been in the business of
installing drywall, insulation, plaster and providing related
services to single and multi-family construction projects
throughout California, Nevada and Arizona for over 20 years.
Customers include some of the largest homebuilders in the United
States, such as Pulte, DR Horton, K. Hovnanian, Toll Brothers and
KB Homes.  In fiscal 2011, Walldesign generated more than $43.5
million in annual revenues.

Walldesign, based in Newport Beach, California, said the global
credit crisis that occurred in the third quarter of 2008 had a
severe negative impact on its business: capital for construction
projects dried up, buyers vacated the market for new homes and
profit margins on new jobs eroded.  Although it has significantly
downsized its operations in an effort to remain profitable in the
recessionary conditions, cash flow problems arose during this
process.  These problems slowed payments to vendors, precipitating
collection lawsuits forcing it to seek Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. C.D. Calif. Case No. 12-10105) on Jan. 4, 2012.

Judge Robert N. Kwan presides over the case.  Marc J. Winthrop,
Esq., Sean A. O'Keefe, Esq., and Jeannie Kim, Esq., at Winthrop
Couchot, serve as the Debtor's counsel.  In its petition, the
Debtor estimated $10 million to $50 million in assets and debts.
The petition was signed by Michael Bello, chief executive officer.

An official committee of unsecured creditors has been appointed in
the case.


WESTERN HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kean, writing for The Western Star, reports that a class
action lawsuit over privacy breaches at Western Health has
formally been filed in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador.

The legal action was filed with the court in Corner Brook by St.
John's lawyer Bob Buckingham and identifies Corner Brook resident
Barbara Hynes as the representative plaintiff.

Ms. Hynes was one of 1,043 people whose private medical records
were accessed inappropriately by a clerk at Western Health who has
since been terminated.

"I have retained Mr. Buckingham to commence a class action lawsuit
to get answers to my many questions and to help ensure such
breaches do not occur in Western Health again or, for that matter,
anywhere else in the province," Ms. Hynes said in a prepared
statement released by her lawyer on Aug. 17.

Ms. Hynes said she was "upset and devastated" to learn her private
and confidential records had been accessed by an unauthorized
person.

"Initially, I was very mad and angry at the intrusion on my
privacy," she said.  "Now, I am worried and distraught, wondering
why this information was accessed, if it was copied, where it has
gone and whether I should have concerns about my own personal
circumstances or identity theft."


ZYNGA INC: Sued Over Alleged False and Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Jun Yan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated vs. 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,
Suni Paul, and Owen Van Natta, Case No. 5:12-cv-04360 (N.D.
Calif., August 17, 2012) is brought on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zynga securities on the NASDAQ
National Market System during the period from December 16, 2011,
through July 25, 2012, inclusive.

This action, based on violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arises out of a series of false
and misleading statements and omission of material facts made by
the Defendants regarding Zynga's business and prospects, Ms. Yan
alleges.  She contends that due to false statements by the
Defendants, Zynga's stock traded at artificially-inflated prices
during the Class Period.

Ms. Yan purchased shares of Zynga stock at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Zynga is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California.  Zynga 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 Zynga.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  pbinkow@glancylaw.com
                  mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  shareholders@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY FRANK LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com


                           *********

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  * * *