CAR_Public/120827.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 169

                             Headlines

AIR TRANSPORT: ABX Still Awaits OK of Workers' Suit Settlement
ALLIANCE ONE: Hearings in Class Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Ongoing
ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Action Over Membership Renewal Fee
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: To Face Mineworkers' Occupational Disease Suit
ARCTIC ZERO: Sued Over False Advertising on Frozen Desserts

AVANQUEST NORTH: Sued Over Scareware-Related Fraudulent Scheme
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Dismissed
COMCAST CORP: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Class Action Claims
CONESTOGA TITLE: Title Insurance Class Action Revived
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Proceeding in Michigan Dismissed

DISH NETWORK: Objections to Class Action Discovery Overruled
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Unit Defends Suits Over Hazardous Substances
ENERGIZER: Recalls 260T Rotating Night Lights Due to Burn Hazard
EXPEDIA INC: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in California

FANNIE MAE: City of Bridgeport Sues Over Unpaid Real Estate Tax
JFC INT'L: Recalls Furikake-Seto Fumi 1.7oz Due to Allergy Risk
JPMORGAN CHASE: Public Pension Funds to Lead Class Action
JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Faces Class Action in Alabama Over Fines
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls 7,000 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles

LG ELECTRONICS: Judge Dismisses Defective LCD Class Action
MATRIX CORP: Judge Certifies Technicians' Overtime Class Action
MERRILL LYNCH: Settles Class Action Over Tax-Exempt Trust
MGIC INVESTMENT: Awaits Final Okay of Discrimination Suit Deal
MGIC INVESTMENT: Six RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending

MGIC INVESTMENT: To Oppose Relief Motion in C-BASS-Related Suit
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
OPTIMA DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Del Campo Dried Potato 14 oz. Bags
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Securities Suits
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suits Over Proposed Sale to TPG

PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces TPG Merger-Related Suit in New Jersey
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: "UFCW" RICO-Violation Suit Dismissed in July
PDC ENERGY: Jury Trial in "Schulein" Class Suit Set for May 2014
PHILIP MORRIS: N.H. Supreme Court Reverses Tobacco Class Cert.
PINNACLE WEST: Plea to Dismiss Suit Over Power Outage Granted

PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces Suits Over Insurance Units' Operations
SYNGENTA CROP: Henderson City Won't Join Atrazine Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Korean Unit Seeks to Avert Hybrid Car Class Action
UNI-MARTS LLC: Federal Insurance Won't Cover $2-Mil. Settlement
UNIVERSAL CITY: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime

WISCONSIN ENERGY: Payments to "Downes" Class Members Distributed


                          *********


AIR TRANSPORT: ABX Still Awaits OK of Workers' Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 31, 2008, a former employee of Air Transport Services
Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, ABX Air, Inc., filed a complaint against
ABX, a total of four current and former executives and managers of
ABX, Garcia Labor Company of Ohio, and three former executives of
the Garcia Labor companies, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.  The case was filed as a putative class
action against the defendants, and asserts violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO).  The
complaint, which was later amended to include a second former
employee plaintiff, seeks damages in an unspecified amount and
alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to hire illegal
immigrant workers to depress the wages paid to hourly wage
employees during the period from December 1999 to January 2005.

The complaint is similar to a prior complaint filed by another
former employee in April 2007.  The prior complaint was
subsequently dismissed without prejudice at the plaintiff's
request on November 3, 2008.

On March 18, 2010, the Court issued a decision in response to a
motion filed by ABX and the other ABX defendants, dismissing three
of the five claims constituting the basis of Plaintiffs'
complaint.  Thereafter, on October 7, 2010, the Court issued a
decision permitting the plaintiffs' to amend their complaint for
the purpose of reinstating one of their dismissed claims.  On
October 26, 2010, ABX and the other ABX defendants filed an answer
denying the allegations contained in plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.

On December 2, 2011, the parties attended a settlement conference
presided over by the Court and agreed to settle this matter.  The
settlement calls for ABX to pay to the plaintiffs a monetary
amount, which management believes to be less than it would have
cost for ABX to defend the case at trial.  Once the plaintiffs
have provided notice to the putative class members of the
settlement, the Court will hold a hearing to consider any
objections and seek final confirmation of the settlement.

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.


ALLIANCE ONE: Hearings in Class Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings with respect to the remaining claims in the class action
lawsuit pending in Brazil is ongoing, Alliance One International,
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.

On June 6, 2008, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary and a number
of other tobacco processors were notified of a class action
initiated by the ALPAG - Associacao Lourenciana de Pequenos
Agricultrores ("Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco").
The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of Sao Lourenco
do Sul.  On April 20, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss the
class action was granted in part and denied in part.  Hearings
with respect to the remaining claims, which relate to practices
regarding the weighing and grading of tobacco, commenced on
June 27, 2012, and are continuing.

The Company believes the remaining claims in the action to be
without merit and is vigorously defending the action.  Due to the
broad scope of the pleading, the ultimate exposure if an
unfavorable outcome is received is not estimable.

Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, Alliance One
International Inc. -- http://aointl.com/-- is an independent leaf
tobacco merchant.  It provides worldwide service to the large
cigarette manufacturers.  It purchases tobacco in more than 45
countries and serves manufacturers of cigarettes and other
consumer tobacco products in over 90 countries.  The Company's
revenues are primarily comprised of sales of processed tobacco and
fees charged for related services to manufacturers of consumer
tobacco products around the world.


ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Action Over Membership Renewal Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Angie's
List boosts prices for subscriber renewals without informing
customers, and uses confusing language on its Web site to allow
it, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Marie Fritzinger claims Angie's List uses confusing
language on its Web site so it can renew subscriptions "pursuant
to the Membership Renewal Fee Schedule rather than the less costly
Membership Fee Schedule."

"When a member enrolls in Angie's List, the defendant Angie's List
quotes that person the applicable 'Membership Fee' options," the
complaint states.

"Enrolling members also must agree to automatic renewal of their
Angie's List memberships, and must allow Angie's List to keep a
valid credit or debit card number on file to facilitate that
automatic renewal.

"The Angie's List Membership Agreement provides that the automatic
renewal, like the initial enrollment, is to be billed at 'the
Membership Fee.'

"In breach of the plain language of its Membership Agreement,
Angie's List instead automatically renews its members pursuant to
a distinct -- and more costly -- 'Membership Renewal Fee.'

"In this manner, Angie's List has breached its own membership
contract over one million times."

Ms. Fritzinger claims that since she signed up in May 2007, "on
each subsequent July 1 through the present, plaintiff's annual
Angie's List membership was automatically renewed at a fee higher
than the 'membership fee' for which she contracted.

"In addition, beginning on or about July 1, 2010, and continuing
until July 2012, plaintiff's subscription was automatically
renewed by Angie's List at the 'Angie's List Bundle' membership
level without notice from Angie's List of this change in
membership plan, and without plaintiff authorizing this change to
her membership plan."

Ms. Fritzinger says the Web site's claim of a "discount" for
customers who choose yearly plans instead of paying each month is
also misleading, that "the 'discount' identified in the Membership
Fee Schedule falsely represents that memberships will be renewed
automatically at the published Membership Fee . . . [but] Angie's
List instead automatically renews its members at a so-called
'Membership Renewal Fee' for each geographic market."

Ms. Fritzinger adds: "The 'Membership Renewal Fee' is not
identified in the Membership Agreement.

"There is no mention of a distinct 'Membership Renewal Fee' on
defendant's extensive Web site.

"The 'Membership Renewal Fee' is not identified in defendant's FAQ
regarding membership fees.

"Defendant does not publish a publically available schedule
identifying the so-called 'Membership Renewal Fees.'

"The Membership Renewal Fee schedule is not accessible to persons
who have not already joined Angie's List.

"Thus, Angie's List conceals from prospective members all
information regarding the Membership Renewal Fee."

Ms. Fritzinger claims, "the Membership Renewal Fee Schedule is an
attempt by Angie's List to confer validity on a predatory pricing
plan that is contrary to the plain language of the Membership
Agreement and contrary to Angie's List's own publications
concerning membership fees."

She seeks class damages for breach of contract, deception and
unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Fritzinger v. Angie's List, Inc., Case
No. 12-cv-01118 (S.D. Ind.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/22/AngiesList.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481

               - and -

          Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          E-mail: reuben@wka-law.com
                  spiegel@wka-law.com


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: To Face Mineworkers' Occupational Disease Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leandi Kolver, writing for Mining Weekly, reports that South
Africa's three biggest gold producers AngloGold Ashanti, Gold
Fields and Harmony Gold could face a lawsuit from former
mineworkers suffering from occupational lung diseases.

Nongovernmental organization Jubilee South Africa, along with Cape
Town-based law firm Abrahams Kiewitz Attorneys on Aug. 21 filed
three class action certification applications in the South Gauteng
High Court, which, if granted, would allow a class action summons
to be instituted against the three gold mining companies.

The class actions come in the wake of last year's Constitutional
Court decision in the case of a former mineworker, Thembekile
Mankayi, against AngloGold Ashanti, in which it ruled that miners
with occupational lung diseases may claim for damages against
their employers, Abrahams Kiewitz Attorneys senior partner Charles
Abrahams said at a press conference in Johannesburg.

He stated that the basis of the certification application was that
the mining companies had bridged the statutory, common law and
constitutional law obligations owed to the workers.

"The three suits are fundamentally the same, as three miners are
in each case bringing the certification suit on behalf of all
miners who had worked for the specific companies on certain mines,
and who had contracted any form of occupational disease," Mr.
Abrahams added.

The certification application is a precursor to the actual class
action that Jubilee South Africa and Abrahams Kiewitz Attorneys
intended to institute.  Should this be successful, the firm would
then proceed to issue a summons, he stated.

Abrahams declined to discuss a damages amount.  "Only once
certification has been granted and the declaratory stage of the
summons has been successful, will the damages amount be declared."

However, if the high number of miners involved was considered --
research has indicated that there are between 350,000 and 500,000
former mine workers scattered over Southern Africa who may suffer
from occupational lung disease and have not received compensation
-- the claim potential could amount to tens of billions of rand.

Jubilee South Africa chairperson Malletpumelele Giyose, also
speaking at the press conference, pointed out that the miners were
the forgotten party in South Africa's mining industry, who had not
made any fortune out of the operations and yet had lost their
health to the industry.

"Today we have come upon the hour of reckoning, where the gold
miners are standing up and campaigning to demand compensation for
their health and all their losses as a result of coming to work in
the mining industry," he said.

"Jubilee South Africa will stand at the head of this campaign and
we will fight with the miners until no one can ignore the issue
any longer," Mr. Giyose concluded.


ARCTIC ZERO: Sued Over False Advertising on Frozen Desserts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Arctic Zero falsely
advertises that its frozen desserts have just 150 calories per
pint, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Michelle v. Arctic Zero, Inc., Case No.
12-cv-_____ (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/22/ArcticZero.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott L. Metzger, Esq.
          Annette C. Clark, Esq.
          DUCKOR SPRADLING METZGER & WYNNE ALC
          3043 4th Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 209-3000
          E-mail: metzger@dsmw.com
                  clark@dsmw.com

               - and -

          David S. Paris, Esq.
          Bryan H. Mintz, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-6667
          E-mail: david@paslawfirm.com
                  mintz@paslawfirm.com


AVANQUEST NORTH: Sued Over Scareware-Related Fraudulent Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benson Worley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Avanquest North America Inc., a California
corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-04391 (N.D. Calif., August 21, 2012)
alleges that Avanquest's descriptions of its software products --
Fix-It Utilities and System Suite PC Tune-Up &Repair
(collectively, the "Scareware") -- serve as the initial phase of a
fraudulent scheme to induce consumers into purchasing the
products, and then to convince them into paying ongoing
subscription fees to continue using the software.

Through the marketing materials contained on its Web sites, as
well as the software's packaging itself, Avanquest represents that
the Scareware detects and repairs a wide range of PC errors,
privacy threats, viruses, and other computer problems, Mr. Worley
asserts.  He argues that the Scareware's diagnostic testing
procedure does not perform any credible evaluation of consumers'
PCs, and instead, Avanquest intentionally designed the Scareware
to always report that a user's PC needs repair and is afflicted
with harmful errors, privacy risks, and other problems, regardless
of the PC's actual state.

Mr. Worley is citizen of the state of Wisconsin.

Avanquest is a California corporation headquartered in Pleasanton,
California.  Avanquest is a multi-national developer of software
products that claim to increase the speed, performance, and
stability of a consumer's personal computer, protect against
privacy risks, remove harmful errors, and improve Internet speeds.

A copy of the Complaint in Worley v. Avanquest North America Inc.,
Case No. 12-cv-04391 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/22/Scareware.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Chandler R. Givens, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  cgivens@edelson.com


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington dismissed a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit against Cell Therapeutics, Inc., following the parties'
settlement of the lawsuit, 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 March 2010, three purported securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  On August 2, 2010, Judge Marsha Pechman
consolidated the actions, appointed lead plaintiffs, and approved
lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On September 27, 2010, lead plaintiff
filed an amended consolidated complaint, captioned Sabbagh v. Cell
Therapeutics, Inc. (Case No. 2:10-cv-00414-MJP), naming the
Company, Dr. James A. Bianco, Louis A. Bianco, and Craig W.
Philips as defendants.  The amended consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
certain alleged false and misleading statements related to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval process for
Pixuvri.  The action seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock during a purported class period of March 25, 2008,
through March 22, 2010.  On October 27, 2010, defendants moved to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On February 4, 2011, the Court denied in large part the
defendants' motion.  Defendants answered the amended consolidated
complaint on March 28, 2011, and discovery commenced, with trial
set for June 25, 2012.  On December 14, 2011, the parties filed a
letter with the Court indicating they had agreed to the general
terms of a settlement, and asking the Court to remove the case
deadlines from the Court calendar.

On February 14, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, along with related documents.  On
March 16, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, granted conditional certification to the proposed
class, and approved the proposed forms of notice to the class.  A
settlement hearing occurred on July 20, 2012.  The Court entered a
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice on
July 25, 2012.  The negotiated terms of the settlement include a
$19.0 million dollar settlement fund, which the Company expects to
be paid by the Company's insurance carriers.  As a result, there
is no estimated loss to the Company.


COMCAST CORP: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that in the latest test
of U.S. class action limits, telecoms firm Comcast Corp. lost a
bid on Aug. 21 to force a customer who filed an antitrust class
action to arbitrate individually, when a judge ruled it would be
too costly for the customer.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill in New Haven,
Conn. follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in April 2011 that
upheld a class action waiver clause in AT&T Inc.'s contracts.

Since the AT&T ruling, companies have sought to avoid costly class
actions by requiring consumers and employees to arbitrate their
disputes individually.

In the latest case, a Comcast subscriber had filed a class action
in 2009 accusing the firm of violating U.S. antitrust laws by
unlawfully bundling digital voice service with a modem.

Subscribers had no choice but to pay a rental fee for the modem,
the complaint said.

Comcast had sought to use the Supreme Court ruling to force Robert
Fromer of Windsor, Conn. to bring his claims in arbitration,
citing clauses in his subscriber agreement.

U.S. District Judge Underhill denied the motion on Aug. 21, citing
the cost of forcing Fromer to litigate on his own.  He said Fromer
might expect to recover $1 for every $202 he spent in litigation
and recover damages of up to $495.

"Therefore, because the class action waiver in this case
effectively precludes Fromer from pursuing federal statutory
remedies, the class arbitration waiver is void," Judge Underhill
wrote.

The ruling follows a similar decision by the 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals in February finding American Express Co could not use
arbitration clauses to avoid an antitrust lawsuit by merchant
customers.

Representatives for Comcast did not respond to requests for
comment Tuesday after normal business hours.  A lawyer for Fromer
also did not respond to a call or e-mail seeking comment.

The case is Fromer v. Comcast Corp., U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, 09-cv-02076.


CONESTOGA TITLE: Title Insurance Class Action Revived
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court kept alive a putative class action against Conestoga
Title Insurance Co. over inflated rates on Aug. 20, affirming part
of a Superior Court decision that found the existence of
administrative remedies did not prevent the plaintiff from seeking
additional relief.

In a unanimous ruling, the court determined that while
Pennsylvania law prevented the plaintiff, Nancy White, from
pursuing two common law claims against the insurer, nothing
impeded her from seeking relief under the state's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Arbitration Proceeding in Michigan Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitration proceeding brought by dealers against Credit
Acceptance Corporation was dismissed on August 1, 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 3, 2010, the Company received a civil investigative
demand from the Missouri Attorney General Office relating to the
Company's practices regarding collections from Missouri consumers
who claim to have not received title from the Dealer at the time
of their purchase.  A Dealer is an automobile dealer, who
participates in the Company's automobile dealers financing
programs.  On January 24, 2011, the Company provided an initial
response and on May 16, 2011, it filed a supplemental response.
The Company says it continued discussions with the Attorney
General with respect to the demand for information.  The Company
is cooperating with the inquiry.

On November 22, 2011, an arbitration proceeding against the
Company was commenced before the American Arbitration Association
("AAA") in Southfield, Michigan.  The arbitration demand was
brought by a Dealer and seeks unspecified money damages for
alleged breach of the dealer servicing agreement.  The claimant
purports to proceed on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated Dealers.  On or about January 3, 2012, the Company filed
an answer, denying the allegations in the demand and opposing
claimant's attempt to proceed on a class-wide basis based on the
terms of the parties' arbitration agreement, which does not
authorize classwide arbitration, and recent controlling Supreme
Court authority.  An arbitration panel was never appointed.

On August 1, 2012, the Company received notice that the Dealer
dismissed the proceeding against it.  The Company also received a
demand from a group of five individual Dealers for alleged damages
relating to the dealer servicing agreement.  The Company says it
intends to vigorously defend itself against any claims that may be
brought by these Dealers.

An adverse ultimate disposition in any action to which the Company
is a party or otherwise subject could have a material adverse
impact on its financial position, liquidity and results of
operations.


DISH NETWORK: Objections to Class Action Discovery Overruled
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, reports that a Colorado federal
judge overruled objections to discovery from Dish Network LLC in a
putative class action over unsolicited telemarketing calls,
ordering the satellite television provider to produce scores of
documents relating to its alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Dish had sought to limit both the scope and the time frame of the
documents sought by lead plaintiff Matthew Donaca, citing issues
of relevance and undue burden.  The company's arguments failed to
convince U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, however.


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company is awaiting court approval of its
settlement resolving a consolidated merger-related lawsuit
commenced in Delaware, 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.

Headquartered in Kingsport, Tennessee, Eastman Chemical Company is
a major producer of acetate tow, and a broad array of specialty
plastics and resins, as well as both commodity and specialty
chemicals.  Eastman reported sales of roughly $7.1 billion for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 2, 2012, in connection with Eastman's then-pending
acquisition of Solutia Inc. ("Solutia"), a putative shareholder
class and derivative action, styled Jennifer Howard v. Jeffry N.
Quinn, et al., was filed against Solutia, its board of directors
and Eastman in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri
(the "Missouri Action").  On February 7, 2012, a second putative
shareholder class action, styled John C. Dewan v. Solutia, Inc.,
was filed against Solutia, its board of directors, Eastman and
Eagle Merger Sub Corporation ("Merger Sub") in the Chancery Court
of Delaware.  On February 14, 2012, two additional putative
shareholder class actions, styled Joseph C. Huttemann v. Jeffry N.
Quinn, et al., and David Wolfe v. Solutia, Inc., et al.,
respectively, were filed against Solutia, its board of directors,
Eastman and Merger Sub in the Chancery Court of Delaware (together
with the putative shareholder class action filed on February 7,
2012, the "Delaware Actions").

The Missouri Action and the Delaware Actions generally allege that
the Solutia board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to
Solutia stockholders by, among other things, approving Eastman's
proposed acquisition of Solutia (the "Acquisition") for allegedly
inadequate consideration, following an allegedly unfair sale
process, and that Eastman and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
Solutia board of directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The Delaware Actions further allege that the Solutia board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to terms in
the agreement governing the Acquisition (the "merger agreement")
that favored Eastman and deterred alternative bids.  The
complaints in the Missouri Action and the Delaware Actions
request, among other things, an injunction against the completion
of the Acquisition and attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the action.  The complaint in the Missouri Action
further requests rescission of the Acquisition, and any damages
arising from the defendants' alleged breaches.

On February 21, 2012, the Chancery Court of Delaware entered an
order consolidating the Delaware Actions (the "Consolidated
Delaware Action").  On March 5, 2012, the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri entered an order staying the Missouri
Action in favor of the Consolidated Delaware Action.

On March 22, 2012, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action
filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Amended Complaint"), styled In re Solutia Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, which generally alleges that the Solutia
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to Solutia
stockholders by, among other things, approving the Acquisition for
allegedly inadequate consideration, following an allegedly unfair
sale process, and agreeing to terms in the merger agreement that
favored Eastman and deterred alternative bids.  The Consolidated
Amended Complaint also generally alleges that the Solutia board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties to Solutia stockholders by
failing to disclose in the Form S-4 registration statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March
7, 2012, in connection with the Acquisition certain material
information concerning events leading up to the announcement of
the Acquisition and relating to the review and analysis of the
Acquisition by Solutia management, and by the financial advisors
to Solutia and its board of directors.  The Consolidated Amended
Complaint further alleges that Eastman and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the Solutia board of directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The Consolidated Amended Complaint requests,
among other things, an injunction against the completion of the
Acquisition, rescission of the Acquisition, any damages arising
from the defendants' alleged breaches, and costs and attorneys'
fees associated with the action.  Also on March 22, 2012,
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction against consummation of the Acquisition.

On May 3, 2012, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") to provide
for the settlement of all claims related to the Acquisition.  The
settlement provides for, among other things, a stay of all
proceedings in the Consolidated Delaware Action, including
plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction against the
consummation of the Acquisition, the inclusion of additional
disclosures with respect to various aspects of the Acquisition in
the proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in connection
with the Acquisition, and the entry of a stipulation certifying a
mandatory class of all Solutia stockholders.  The settlement is
subject to final documentation and court approval.  Under the MOU,
plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Delaware Action will
petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
The MOU does not specify any particular fee to be awarded to
plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Delaware Action, but it
does require the parties to negotiate those fees and expenses in
good faith.  The decision to award, or not to award, the requested
attorneys' fees and expenses will be within the discretion of the
Chancery Court of Delaware, and the effectiveness of the
settlement is not conditioned upon the award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.  If the settlement is approved by the Chancery Court
of Delaware, it will resolve and release, on behalf of the entire
class of Solutia stockholders, all claims that were or could have
been brought by them challenging any aspect of the Acquisition,
the merger agreement, and any disclosures made in connection
therewith, among other claims.

As previously disclosed, Eastman completed the Acquisition on July
2, 2012.


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Unit Defends Suits Over Hazardous Substances
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company's subsidiary is defending class action
and individual lawsuits alleging damages from hazardous substances
coming from its facilities, 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 February 10, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, Solutia Inc., Pharmacia Corporation,
Monsanto Company and two unrelated defendants alleging the
contamination of the plaintiff's property from polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances
emanating from the defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois
(including Solutia's W.G. Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).
The proposed class action is comprised of residents who live
within a two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities.  The plaintiffs
are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the costs
associated with remediation and removal of alleged contaminants
from their property.  This action is one of several lawsuits
(primarily filed by the same plaintiffs' counsel) filed in 2009
and 2010 regarding alleged historical contamination from the W.G.
Krummrich site.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty
additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009
against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised of
claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who
claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property
damages as a result of the same PCBs, dioxins, furans and other
hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants'
facilities in Sauget.  In June 2010, a group of approximately
1,200 plaintiffs also filed wrongful death claims in a lawsuit in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County arising out of contamination
from the defendants' facilities.  Moreover, four additional
individual lawsuits comprised of claims from twelve plaintiffs
were filed between January and April 2010 in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois, alleging that plaintiffs suffered
illnesses resulting from exposure to benzene, PCBs, dioxins,
furans and other hazardous substances.  Lastly, on June 14, 2010,
a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, against the same defendants
alleging the contamination of the plaintiffs' property from PCBs,
dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois and from Solutia's now-
closed Queeny plant in St. Louis.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with
remediation and removal of alleged contaminants from their
property.  The proposed class members include residents
exclusively within the state of Missouri.

Headquartered in Kingsport, Tennessee, Eastman Chemical Company is
a major producer of acetate tow, and a broad array of specialty
plastics and resins, as well as both commodity and specialty
chemicals.  Eastman reported sales of roughly $7.1 billion for the
year ended December 31, 2011.


ENERGIZER: Recalls 260T Rotating Night Lights Due to Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Energizer, of St. Louis, Missouri, and manufacturer,
Ningbo Sun-alps Industry Develop Co. Ltd, of China, announced a
voluntary recall of about 260,000 Energizer Rotating Night Lights.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The night lights can overheat and smoke, posing a burn hazard to
consumers.

Energizer has received nine reports of the night lights
overheating, including three reports of minor property damage.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Energizer LED rotating night lights.  The
night lights are white and have an LED light inside an adjustable
dome on top.  The night lights measure about 2 inches wide by 2
1/2 inches long.  Model number "ENLPLROT" and date codes between
0110 (for January 2010) through 0111 (for January 2011) are
included in this recall.  The model number is stamped onto the
side of the night light.  The date code is stamped in a circle on
the back of the night light.  The arrow points to the month of
production (i.e. 12 = December) and the number positioned on
either side of the arrow represents the year (i.e. "10" = 2010).

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12253.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide from February 2010 through
July 2012 for about $6.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
night lights.  Contact Energizer for instructions on returning the
night lights for a $7 coupon towards the purchase of an Energizer
product.  For additional information, contact Energizer at (800)
383-7323 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.energizer.com/


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that
Expedia, Travelocity and other online bookers conspired with
Hilton, Marriott, Trump and other hotel chains to fix prices and
restrain competition in online booking, customers say in a federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff Nikita Turik claims the defendants conspired to
maintain and enforce minimum resale price maintenance (RPM)
agreements, to derail smaller retail sites that have gained access
to the market.

Defendants include Expedia, Travelocity.com, Priceline.com, and
Orbitz Worldwide, Hilton Worldwide, Marriott International, and
Trump International Hotels Management, Intercontinental Hotels
Group Resources, and others.

"(T)he online retailer defendants conspired with the hotel
defendants and agreed to impose an RPM scheme that would fix the
retail price for room reservations at the price the hotel
defendants were selling the room reservations (rack rates) and
restrain competition for room reservations in the market for
online reservations," the complaint states.

The class claims the hotels "were charged with enforcing the RPM
scheme against online retailers that competed or attempted to
compete with the online retailer defendants on price.  Thus the
defendant retailer-hotel agreements were part of an anti-
competitive scheme under which the online retailer defendants
leveraged their substantial market power and dominance to induce
hotel defendants into agreeing to do one or more of the following:
(a) impose minimum resale price maintenance agreements on the
retailers, (b) enforce the hotel-online retailer agreements as to
the online retailers; and/or (c) refuse to supply or cut off
supply to price-cutting online retailers."

Online retailers books as much as 50 percent of the defendant
hotels' rooms, and the hotels believe "they need access to the
online retailer defendants' distribution networks," according to
the complaint.

Combined, the defendant online retailers control more than 50
percent of the Internet travel market, the complaint states.

"Just Expedia and its subsidiaries alone account for approximately
50 percent of the Internet travel business market," according to
the complaint.

The class claims the defendant online retailers persuaded the
defendant hotels not to do business with smaller online retailers
who offer rooms at a cheaper rate, and that if the hotels did so,
the online retailers would cut their association with the hotels.

Mr. Turik seeks class damages for false advertising, restraint of
trade and business law violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Turik, et al v. Expedia, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-_____ (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/21/HotelAntitrust.pdf

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
          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
          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
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          David Freydin, Esq.
          Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
          THE FREYDIN LAW FIRM
          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 5026


FANNIE MAE: City of Bridgeport Sues Over Unpaid Real Estate Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the city of Bridgeport is suing
two mortgage giants, saying they failed to pay a tax on real
estate transactions.

Bridgeport, Connecticut's largest city, filed the federal lawsuit
Monday against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Bridgeport is
challenging their claim that they are exempt from an excise tax
paid to municipalities and the state when real estate is sold.

Spokesmen for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said they don't comment
on pending litigation.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all Connecticut
municipalities.

An attorney for Bridgeport said it was unclear how much is at
stake in the lawsuit.

Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee about half of all U.S.
mortgages, or nearly 31 million home loans.

The tax, paid for recording real estate transfers, is 1 percent of
the transaction, said Anthony Musto, attorney for Bridgeport.

The revenue is shared between the state and municipalities, he
said.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say they're exempt as governmental
entities, according to the lawsuit.  Bridgeport rejects that
argument, saying they have been federally chartered, private
stock, publicly traded corporations since 2003.

The lawsuit seeks a judgment that they are subject to the tax
along with damages in an amount to be determined and penalties.


JFC INT'L: Recalls Furikake-Seto Fumi 1.7oz Due to Allergy Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
JFC International Inc. of Los Angeles, California is recalling JFC
Furikake-Seto Fumi 1.7 Oz, because it contains undeclared egg
yolk, soybeans and wheat. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to eggs, soybeans and wheat, run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

JFC Furikake-Seto Fumi 1.7 Oz is distributed nationwide through
retail stores and/or on-line web stores.

The involved product bears an UPC/Bar code 0 11152 41464, it is
packaged in a clear glass jar with a plastic lid.  Lot code/Best
before date of 04.05.2014 is stamped on top of the lid.  The net
weight declaration is 1.7 oz (50g).  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316539.htm

No illnesses or adverse events relating to this product have been
reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered the product
containing eggs, soybeans and wheat was distributed in packaging
that did not reveal the presence of eggs, soybeans and wheat.
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a
mislabeling during packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased JFC Furikake-Seto Fumi 1.7 Oz are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-633-
1004, Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Standard Time.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Public Pension Funds to Lead Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that public
pension funds from Arkansas, Ohio, Oregon and Sweden will be lead
plaintiffs in a group lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. over
trades made by Bruno Iksil, known as the "London Whale."

U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan ruled on Aug. 22
that lawsuits against the New York-based bank should be
consolidated into a class action.  The pension funds allege they
lost as much as $52 million because of fraudulent activities by
JPMorgan's London chief investment office.

The lead plaintiffs named by Daniels are the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System, Ohio Public Employee Retirement System, School
Employees Retirement System of Ohio, State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio, Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund and the
Swedish pension fund Sjunde AP-Fonden.

"The public pension funds, a group which includes some of the
largest public pension funds in the world, have far and away the
'largest financial interest' in the relief sought by the class in
these cases," Gerald Silk, a lawyer with Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP, said Aug. 9 in court papers.

JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said in July the
firm's chief investment office had $5.8 billion in losses on the
trades so far, and the figure may climb by $1.7 billion in a
worst-case scenario.  Mr. Iksil amassed positions in credit
derivatives so big and market-moving he became known as the London
Whale.

                        False Information

The pension funds allege they sustained losses after being given
false information that hid the nature of the bank's trades.

Joe Evangelisti, a JPMorgan spokesman, declined to comment on the
judge's ruling.

Class-action status allows plaintiffs more leverage in
negotiations with defendant banks.  Lead plaintiffs direct the
litigation on behalf of the class, determining strategy while
usually reaping the largest share of any verdict or settlement.

The case is In Re: JPMorgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, 12-
cv-3852, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan).


JUDICIAL CORRECTION: Faces Class Action in Alabama Over Fines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Judicial Correction Services
coerces payments of fines or fees by purporting to a law
enforcement or court agency, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Foster, et al. v. Judicial Correction
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00724 (M.D. Ala.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/22/PrivateLaw.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kearney Dee Hutsler, Esq.
          HUTSLER LAW FIRM
          2700 Hwy, 280
          Suite 320 West
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 414-9979
          E-mail: kdhlaw@hutslerlawfirm.com


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls 7,000 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 7,000 units of Teryx4 recreational off-highway vehicles were
voluntarily recalled by Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA, of Irvine,
California, in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop
using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The steering gear assembly and front brakes can fail, resulting in
the loss of steering and braking, posing a risk of injury or
death.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled vehicles are 2012 Kawasaki Teryx4 4x4 recreational
off-highway vehicles in the following styles: 750, 750 EPS and 750
EPS LE. The four-wheel drive recreational off-highway vehicles
have side-by-side seating for four people and automobile style
controls. The vehicles are sold in red, camouflage, green, blue
and yellow colors. The model name "Teryx4" appears on the driver's
side of the hood. The style name does not appear on the 750
version. For all colors of the 750 EPS except camouflage, "EPS"
appears on the driver and passenger side cowling near the top
front corner of the doors. On the 750 EPS LE, "EPS" appears on the
driver and passenger side cowling near top front corner of the
doors and "LE" appears on the hood on the driver's side.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12745.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Kawasaki dealers nationwide from October 2011
through July 2012 for about $13,400.

Consumers should contact their local Kawasaki dealer to schedule a
free repair.  For more information, contact Kawasaki between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday toll-free at (866) 802-
9381 or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kawasaki.com/
Kawasaki is contacting its customers directly.


LG ELECTRONICS: Judge Dismisses Defective LCD Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian at Law360 reports that a New Jersey federal judge
on Aug. 21 threw out a putative class action alleging LG
Electronics Inc. knowingly made and sold defective LCD and plasma
televisions with substandard components that cut short the
expected life of the TVs.

U.S. District Judge Jose L. Linares held that the complaint failed
to allege facts to sufficiently support any of its claims, which
included breach of express and implied warranties, state consumer
fraud violations, fraud and intentional misrepresentation and
unjust enrichment.


MATRIX CORP: Judge Certifies Technicians' Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge certified a class of 400 technicians who say they deserve
overtime pay for their Comcast installation and repair work.

Prior to April 1, 2009, technicians who installed and repaired
Comcast services for Matrix Communications were classified as
independent contractors and paid on a per-job basis.  After that
date, the technicians were reclassified as employees and paid
hourly, with a bonus for efficiency based on the number of jobs
completed.

In 2010, a class sued Matrix and Comcast, claiming they were
improperly classified as independent contractors before April 1,
and were not properly paid for overtime hours even after the
transition to an hourly rate.

The class is represented by Alex Thomas and Jesus Muniz.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber certified the class last
week, finding that pre- and post-reclassification employees can
easily be subdivided into two classes to avoid any commonality
issues.

"This is an apt solution, particularly because, beyond the pre-
and post-transition divide, defendants do not specifically
identify any commonality or predominance problems," he wrote.  "In
a throwaway line, defendants urge that 'the fact that Thomas and
Muniz were classified differently is not the only concern, but
also that the differences in their treatment and experience are so
numerous and not representative of the class that individualized
inquiries will be needed as to each class member.'  Yet defendants
offer no examples of how, beyond the pre- and post-transition
issue, commonality and predominance is a problem."

"Additionally, there is no suggestion by the parties that these
two subclasses' interests would be at odds, or that those class
members who span both subclasses face discrete factual inquiries,"
Judge Leinenweber added.

"Common questions of fact remain, such as whether defendants
failed to keep accurate time records, whether they failed to pay
overtime, and whether they made improper deductions from
technicians' compensation.  Class action remains the most
efficient way to resolve this litigation," the nine-page decision
states.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Thomas, et al. v.
Matrix Corporation Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-05093
(N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/22/comcast.pdf
  

MERRILL LYNCH: Settles Class Action Over Tax-Exempt Trust
---------------------------------------------------------
The Driscoll Firm, P.C., as class action counsel and on behalf of
Pettett Funeral Home individually, reached a settlement against
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al. totaling more
than $40,000,000.  The class action (In the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, CIVIL NO. 09-390-GPM,
consolidated with CIVIL NO. 09-1008-GPM and CIVIL NO. 10-1000-GPM)
was filed on behalf of funeral directors in the State of Illinois
who suffered significant financial losses due to the mismanagement
of the Illinois Funeral Directors Association's (IFDA) Pre-Need
Trust.  The Trust gathered deposits as prepayment for subsequent
funeral services.  The funds were to be invested in a manner that
would ensure capital was adequately preserved and there would be a
small rate of return sufficient to overcome the rate of inflation.

The legal and financial advisors who directed the IFDA's handling
of the Tax-Exempt Trust led the association to purchase life
insurance policies illegally and in violation of the interests of
those persons paying into the Trust.  Because of this considerable
indiscretion, there was a severe shortfall and funeral directors
were left to bear the financial burden of covering the gap between
actual funeral costs and the underpayments which were accessible
from the Trust.  Individuals who had purchased Pre-Need policies
and suffered losses when they terminated their accounts and
withdrew funds from the Trust are also to receive payment pursuant
to the terms of the settlement.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Awaits Final Okay of Discrimination Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation is awaiting final approval of its
settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging housing
discrimination, according to the Company's August 2, 2012, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In July 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a civil
complaint against MGIC and two of its employees in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The
complaint sought redress for alleged housing discrimination.  On
April 30, 2012, the parties agreed to the terms of a Consent Order
under which, among other things, MGIC, while denying any claim of
unlawful discrimination, agreed to pay (i) $511,250 into a
settlement fund for possible payments to 70 individuals covered by
the settlement (including the individual loan applicant on whose
behalf the DOJ filed its complaint), and (ii) $38,750 as a
separate civil penalty.

In October 2010, a separate purported class action lawsuit was
filed against MGIC by the same loan applicant in the same District
Court in which the DOJ complaint was filed.  In this separate
lawsuit, the loan applicant alleged that MGIC discriminated
against her and certain proposed class members on the basis of sex
and familial status when MGIC underwrote their loans for mortgage
insurance.  In May 2011, the District Court granted MGIC's motion
to dismiss with respect to all claims except certain Fair Housing
Act claims.  On July 2, 2012, the District Court granted
preliminary approval for a class action settlement of the lawsuit.
The proposed settlement creates a settlement class of 265
borrowers.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, MGIC is
required to deposit $500,000 into an escrow account to fund
possible payments to affected borrowers.  In addition, MGIC will
pay the named plaintiff an "incentive fee" of $7,500 and pay class
counsels' fees of $337,500.  Any funds remaining in the escrow
account after payment of all claims approved under the procedures
established by the settlement will be returned to MGIC.  The
settlement is contingent upon the District Court's final approval.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Six RESPA Violations Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation disclosed in its August 2, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
six lawsuits related to captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements
remain pending.

Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home
mortgage lenders and settlement service providers.  Mortgage
insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation
alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as
RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
which is commonly known as FCRA.  MGIC's settlement of class
action litigation against it under RESPA became final in October
2003.  MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation
against it under FCRA in December 2004, following denial of class
certification in June 2004.  Since December 2006, class action
litigation has been brought against a number of large lenders
alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements
violated RESPA.  On or about December 9, 2011, seven mortgage
insurers (including MGIC) and a large mortgage lender (which was
the named plaintiffs' lender) were named as defendants in a
complaint, alleged to be a class action, filed in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  Since then, as of
July 31, 2012, seven similar cases have been filed naming various
mortgage lenders and mortgage insurers (including MGIC) as
defendants.  Of those eight total cases, MGIC's motion to dismiss
one of the cases has been granted and another of the cases has
been voluntarily dismissed.  Six cases remain pending.

The complaints in all six of the remaining cases alleged various
causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance
arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that the
defendants violated RESPA by paying excessive premiums to the
lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by that
captive.

MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegations in the lawsuits.  There can be no
assurance that the Company will not be subject to further
litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such
litigation, including the lawsuits, would not have a material
adverse effect on the Company.


MGIC INVESTMENT: To Oppose Relief Motion in C-BASS-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation said in its August 2, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
will oppose plaintiffs' motion for relief from a judgment of
dismissal of their consolidated class action lawsuit relating to
its investment in C-BASS.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint") in June 2009.  Due in part to its length and
structure, it is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in
the Complaint but it appears the allegations are that the Company
and its officers named in the Complaint violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about (i) loss development in the Company's insurance
in force, and (ii) C-BASS (a former minority-owned,
unconsolidated, joint venture investment), including its
liquidity.  The Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with
respect to the Complaints' allegations regarding C-BASS.  The
Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint was granted in February
2010.

In March 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.  Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended Complaint
alleged that the Company and two of its officers named in the
Amended Complaint violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about
C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by failing to properly
account for the Company's investment in C-BASS.  The Amended
Complaint also named two officers of C-BASS with respect to the
Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.  The purported
class period covered by the Amended Complaint began on
February 6, 2007, and ended on August 13, 2007.  The Amended
Complaint sought damages based on purchases of the Company's stock
during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as
a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.
In December 2010, the plaintiffs' motion to file an amended
complaint was denied and the Complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  In January 2011, the plaintiffs appealed the February
2010 and December 2010 decisions to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

On April 12, 2012, the Appeals Court affirmed the dismissals by
the District Court and these dismissals have become final.  In
early July 2012, the plaintiffs re-filed a motion with the
District Court for relief from that court's judgment of dismissal
on the ground of newly discovered evidence consisting of
transcripts the plaintiffs obtained of testimony taken by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in its now-terminated
investigation regarding C-BASS.  Their original motion filed in
June 2011, was denied without prejudice by the District Court in
June 2012, as a result of the opinion from the Appeals Court.

The Company says it will be opposing this motion.  The Company is
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these consolidated cases
or estimate the Company's associated expenses or possible losses.
Other lawsuits alleging violations of the securities laws could be
brought against the Company.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a
securities class action lawsuit against Monster Beverage
Corporation and certain of its officers.  The class action (3:12-
cv-02058), filed in the United States District Court, Central
District of California, is on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Monster securities between
February 23, 2012 and August 9, 2012, both dates inclusive.  This
securities class action seeks to recover damages caused by the
Company's violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Monster securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 22, 2012 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Monster markets and distributes energy drinks, fruit juices,
smoothies, juice cocktails, iced teas, lemonades, and still water.
The Company distributes its beverages in the United States and
overseas.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was improperly
advertising, marketing and promoting its Monster Energy(R) brand
of energy drinks; and (ii) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On August 8, 2012, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
financial results that failed to meet analysts' expectations.  On
this news, Monster stock declined $6.57 per share or nearly 10%,
to close at $61.20 per share on August 9, 2012.

The next day, after the market closed, the Company disclosed that
it had "received a subpoena from a state attorney general in
connection with an investigation concerning the Company's
advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of
its Monster Energy(R) brand of energy drinks."  On this news,
Monster stock declined an additional $6.93 per share or nearly
11%, to close at $54.27 per share on August 10, 2012.

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


OPTIMA DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Del Campo Dried Potato 14 oz. Bags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets alerted
consumers that Optima Distributors LTD., located at 66-15 Traffic
Ave. in Ridgewood, New York, is recalling Del Campo brand Dried
Potato due to the presence of undeclared sulfites.

The recalled Del Campo brand Dried Potato is packaged in a 14 oz.
plastic bag.  There is a date code of "S 2012" and a UPC code of
8-91728-00021-8, both located on the back of the package.  The
product was distributed in the New York City metro area and is a
product of Peru.

Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by
Food Laboratory personnel revealed the product contained high
levels of sulfites, which were not declared on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date to this Department in
connection with this product.  People who have severe sensitivity
to sulfites may run the risk of serious reactions if they consume
this product.

Consumers who have purchased the Del Campo brand Dried Potato
should contact Eduardo Lua, President of Optima Distributors, at
347-296-8497.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification was granted in July 2012 in the
securities class action lawsuits against Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, 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.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
23, 2001, and July 5, 2006.  The lawsuits followed the Company's
July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of certain of
its financial statements and allege that the Company and certain
members of its then management engaged in violations of the
Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial condition and results of
operations.  The consolidated class actions are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  On July 23,
2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to
dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion
as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff.  The co-
lead plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.  After class
discovery, both co-lead plaintiffs withdrew and a new lead
plaintiff, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement Fund
(LAMPERS) and its counsel, Berman DeValerio, were substituted in
as lead plaintiff and new lead counsel.  LAMPERS filed a motion
for class certification, which was granted by the Court on July
23, 2012.  The Company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have
answered the amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the
consolidated class action.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suits Over Proposed Sale to TPG
---------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. is facing class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed acquisition by TPG Capital L.P., 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.

Between July 24 and July 30, 2012, the Company, certain of its
current directors, TPG Capital L.P. ("TPG Capital"), Sky Growth
Holding Corporation ("Sky Holding"), and Sky Growth Acquisition
Corporation ("Sky Growth") (collectively, TPG Capital, Sky
Holding, and Sky Growth, shall be referred to as "TPG") were named
as defendants in five class action lawsuits brought by and on
behalf of current owners of the Company's common stock.  These
lawsuits are captioned Nadoff v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7715-VCP (Del. Ch.), KBC Asset Management
N.V. v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, et al., C.A. No. 7725-VCP
(Del. Ch.), Greenberg v. Knight, et al., C.A. No. 7734-VCP (Del.
Ch.), Duvall v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., et al. No. C-
226-12 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div.) and Wilkinson v. LePore, et al.,
No. C-229-12 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div.).  These lawsuits follow
the Company's July 16, 2012 announcement that the Company and TPG
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which TPG will acquire the Company,
subject to customary closing conditions including Par stockholder
approval.  The lawsuits each allege that the Company's directors
have breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders
in connection with the merger.  The lawsuits further claim that
TPG aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The Greenberg and Wilkinson actions also assert an aiding
and abetting claim against the Company.  The lawsuits generally
seek equitable relief, including an injunction preventing the
consummation of the merger, rescission in the event the merger is
consummated, invalidation or amendment of deal protections, and an
award of attorneys' and other fees and costs.  More complaints may
be filed going forward.

The Company and its directors believe that the claims in each of
these lawsuits are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend
all pending claims.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces TPG Merger-Related Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Femia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PRX), TPG Capital,
L.P., Patrick G. Lepore, Joseph E. Smith, Peter S. Knight, Ronald
M. Nordmann, Thomas P. Rice, Melvin Sharoky, Patrick J. Zenner,
Sky Growth Holdings Corporation, and Sky Growth Acquisition
Corporation, Case No. L-006305-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty.,
August 14, 2012) is brought on behalf of the public shareholders
of PRX, who are threatened with the deprivation of the value of
their shares of PRX common stock.

The action seeks to enjoin PRX's Board of Directors from
consummating a proposed merger with TPG, which would provide PRX's
public shareholders with grossly inadequate consideration of $50
in cash for each PRX share they hold, Mr. Femia asserts.  He adds
that the Proposed Transaction is the result of a flawed sales
process improperly favoring the current buyer over other potential
acquirers, in breach of the Individual Defendants' fiduciary
duties.

Mr. Femia owns over 10,000 shares of PRX common stock.

PRX is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New
Jersey.  PRX is a U.S.-based specialty pharmaceutical company,
which develops, manufactures, and markets high-barrier-to-entry
generic drugs and niche, innovative proprietary pharmaceuticals.
TPG is a Delaware corporation and a leading global private
investment firm.  Sky is a Delaware corporation beneficially owned
by an affiliate of TPG.  Sky Growth Acquisition is a Delaware
corporation that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sky and is being
used to facilitate the Proposed Transaction.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          1040 Kings Highway N., Suite 601
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 795-7250
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
                  mackerman@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          Chet Waldman, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          E-mail: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: "UFCW" RICO-Violation Suit Dismissed in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit initiated by the United Food and Commercial Workers
Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund was granted in
July 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.

The Company has been named a defendant in a putative federal class
action brought by the United Food and Commercial Workers Unions
and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund ("UFCW") under the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
alleging claims for violations of the Federal False Claims Act and
common law fraud and others.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint brought by UFCW on March 26, 2012, and the
motion to dismiss was granted on July 16, 2012.

PDC ENERGY: Jury Trial in "Schulein" Class Suit Set for May 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury trial in the class action lawsuit captioned Schulein v.
Petroleum Development Corp. is scheduled for May 2014, according
to PDC Energy, Inc.'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 21, 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger
subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of
certain former partnership unit holders, related to 11 partnership
repurchases completed by mergers in 2010 and 2011.  The action was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum Development Corp.
The complaint primarily alleges a claim that the proxy statements
issued in connection with the mergers were inadequate, and a state
law breach of fiduciary duty.

On February 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or in
the alternative to stay.  On June 15, 2012, the Court denied the
motion.  The court has approved a litigation schedule including a
jury trial in May 2014.

The Company says it has not recorded a liability for claims
pending because it believes it has good legal defenses to the
asserted claims.


PHILIP MORRIS: N.H. Supreme Court Reverses Tobacco Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Tuohy, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
New Hampshire Supreme Court on Aug. 21 reversed a class-action
certification in a lawsuit filed by consumers who claim tobacco
giant Philip Morris violated the state's Consumer Protection Act
by falsely labeling a brand of cigarettes as "Marlboro Lights."

The Supreme Court said there were ample academic studies and news
reports suggesting that smokers of light cigarettes inhaled the
same amount of tar and nicotine as smokers of other cigarettes.

The lawsuit was filed 10 years ago by longtime Marlboro Lights
smoker Karen Lawrence, but was on hold for several years awaiting
U.S. Supreme Court rulings on a variety of related topics.

A superior court judge certified it as a class-action suit in 2010
and the Supreme Court ruling addresses only whether that
certification was in error.  The case has yet to go to trial.

The Aug. 21 ruling cites studies dating to 1976 that indicate
smokers of light cigarettes compensated by smoking more or
inhaling deeper.  The justices ruled unanimously that plaintiffs
would have to be polled individually about the information they
were exposed to and their individual smoking habits -- making the
case inappropriate for a class action.

Attorney Chuck Douglas, who represents Ms. Lawrence, said he and
other lawyers representing her were discussing whether they would
proceed with her case.  He said Ms. Lawrence survived lung cancer,
but stressed the case wasn't about cancer but about advertising
statements he said violate the state's Consumer Protection Act.

"I wish the case had been able to go forward because these folks
are entitled to compensation for the representations that were
false," Mr. Douglas said.

Philip Morris spokesman Murray Garnick said the ruling joins those
of 15 other courts that have rejected the cases on a variety of
legal grounds.

"The court recognized correctly that there are too many individual
issues for this case to be treated as a class action," Mr. Garnick
said.


PINNACLE WEST: Plea to Dismiss Suit Over Power Outage Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation 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 its motion to dismiss a
consumer class action lawsuit filed in California was granted on
July 27, 2012.

On September 8, 2011, at approximately 3:30 p.m., a 500 kilovolt
("kV") transmission line running between the Hassayampa and North
Gila substations in southwestern Arizona tripped out of service
due to a fault that occurred at a switchyard operated by the
Company's subsidiary Arizona Public Service Company ("APS").  At
the time, an APS employee at the North Gila substation was
performing a procedure to remove from service a capacitor bank
that was believed not to be operating properly.  Approximately ten
minutes after the transmission line went off-line, generation and
transmission resources for the Yuma area were lost, resulting in
approximately 69,700 APS customers losing service.

Within the same time period that APS's Yuma customers lost
service, a series of transmission and generation disruptions
occurred across the systems of several utilities that resulted in
outages affecting portions of southern Arizona, southern
California and northern Mexico.  A total of approximately 7,900 MW
of firm load and 2.7 million customers were reported to have been
affected.

Service to all affected APS customers was restored by 9:15 p.m. on
September 8.  Service to customers affected by the wider regional
outages was restored by approximately 3:25 a.m. on September 9.
APS has an internal review of the September 8 events underway.

The United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")
and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC")
conducted a joint inquiry into the outages and, on May 1, 2012,
they issued a report (the "Joint Report") with their analysis and
conclusions as to the causes of the events.  The report includes
recommendations to help industry operators prevent similar outages
in the future, including increased data sharing and coordination
among the western utilities and entities responsible for bulk
electric system reliability coordination.

The Joint Report does not address potential reliability violations
or an assessment of responsibility of the parties involved.  APS
cannot predict the timing, results or potential impacts of any
further inquiries into the September 8 events, or any claims that
may be made as a result of the outages.  If violations of NERC
Reliability Standards are ultimately determined to have occurred,
FERC has the legal authority to assert a possible fine of up to $1
million per violation per day that a violation is found to have
been in existence.

On September 12, 2011, two purported consumer class action
complaints were filed in Federal District Court in San Diego,
California, naming the Company, APS and San Diego Gas & Electric
Company ("SDG&E") as defendants and seeking damages for loss of
perishable inventory as a result of interruption of electrical
service.  On December 22, 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed both lawsuits.  In January 2012, one of the cases was
refiled in California Superior Court in San Diego, California, and
then removed by defendants to Federal Court in San Diego.  APS and
Pinnacle West filed a motion to dismiss that was granted by the
Court on March 20, 2012.  The Court stated that the plaintiffs
could refile a complaint against APS and Pinnacle West on certain
grounds following the release of the Joint Report.  On May 31,
2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against APS and
Pinnacle West.  APS and Pinnacle West subsequently filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted on July 27,
2012.


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces Suits Over Insurance Units' Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Corporation is defending class action lawsuits
arising from the operations of its insurance subsidiaries,
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.

The Progressive Corporation and/or its insurance subsidiaries are
named as defendants in a number of class action or individual
lawsuits arising out of the operations of the insurance
subsidiaries.  These cases include those alleging damages as a
result of the Company's practices in evaluating or paying medical
or injury claims or benefits, including, but not limited to,
personal injury protection, medical payments, and bodily injury
benefits; the utilization, content, or appearance of policy
documents; labor rates paid to auto body repair shops; and cases
challenging other aspects of the Company's claims or marketing
practices or other business operations.  Other insurance companies
face many of these same issues.

The Company says it plans to contest the outstanding lawsuits
vigorously, but may pursue settlement negotiations in some cases,
if appropriate.  The Company establishes accruals for lawsuits
when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the Company
can reasonably estimate its potential exposure, which may include
a range of loss.  As to lawsuits in which the loss is not
considered both probable and estimable, the Company has not
established a liability at this time.  In the event that any one
or more of these cases results in a substantial judgment against,
or settlement by, Progressive, the resulting liability could have
a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition, cash flows, and/or results of operations.


SYNGENTA CROP: Henderson City Won't Join Atrazine Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Boyett, writing for Evansville Courier & Press, reports that
the Henderson Water Utility and the Henderson City Commission have
decided -- for now -- against getting involved in a class-action
lawsuit where a $105 million settlement is on the table.

The case, which stems from a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court
for Southern Illinois, involves various community water systems
against Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. and Syngenta AG, which were
accused of selling a herbicide called atrazine, which has been
used widely to control weeds on row crops for about 50 years.  The
plaintiffs maintain runoff from farmland has caused atrazine to
contaminate their drinking water supplies.

Syngenta does not admit any fault, but has agreed to settle the
case for $105 million.  Community water systems had until Aug. 21
to make themselves parties to the suit so they will be eligible
for a share of the settlement.  Shares will be allocated based on
the concentration, frequency and how long ago atrazine was
detected in a community's water, the size of the population served
and the number of valid claims submitted.

The board of the Henderson Water Utility met in executive session
on Aug. 20 to discuss the matter with its attorneys, but decided
against getting involved, according to General Manager Bruce
Shipley.

"The board authorized the general manager to recommend to the City
Commission to opt out and not participate in this
lawsuit/settlement agreement, and to sign any documents necessary
to that process," Mr. Shipley said via e-mail.  "This is a
complicated legal issue without any significant upside for the
water utility, so we decided to opt out".

The Henderson City Commission met on Aug. 21 to discuss the same
matter in executive session, at which time Shipley and City
Manager Russell Sights made the same recommendation.

The commission then passed a resolution opting out of the
settlement, "which will maintain the ability to bring a separate
legal action if it is later deemed prudent."


TOYOTA MOTOR: Korean Unit Seeks to Avert Hybrid Car Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Yon-se and Lee Ji-yoon, writing for Asia One Motoring, reports
that Toyota Motor Corp.'s Korean unit is grappling to block a
possible class action suit by a group of consumers arguing that
the automaker fabricated the fuel-efficiency figures of some
hybrid cars.

This comes as some local owners of eco-friendly vehicles from
Toyota and Lexus, the premium brand of the Japanese company, are
inviting similar complaints on a Web site for a joint litigation.

The angry consumers claim that the "high fuel-efficiency"
advertized by the company is exaggerated.

An individual, who identified himself as a Lexus customer and is
reportedly taking the initiative in preparing for the class action
suit, said that his "Lexus CT200h recorded a real mileage of 12 to
13 kilometers per liter though the company claimed a figure of
25.4 kilometers per liter."

He posted a photo on the Internet, which claimed to show the real
fuel efficiency on a gas-mileage indicator beside the speedometer.

Meanwhile, some consumers are arguing that the Prius, an eco-
friendly sedan from Toyota, has a critical defect in its braking
system.

They are allegedly seeking to benchmark an earlier suit against
the company, filed by a Korean driver, in 2010.  Through a law
firm, the driver filed a claim worth KRW130 million won
(US$143,000).

The suit is under way, and the defendants include Nagoya-based
Toyota Motor Corp. headquarters, Toyota Motor Korea Co. and local
dealers.

A Toyota Motor Korea spokesperson said the company "is
continuously communicating with consumers with complaints in terms
of customer service."

But he downplayed the allegation that Toyota or Lexus rigged the
figures for fuel-efficiency.

He said that gas mileage was affected by an individual's driving
style, adding that the company does not see the class action suit
has much chance of success.

An official of a Korean automaker also said the chances of the
plaintiff's winning the case were low. He stressed that mileage is
affected by street conditions as well as driving style.

The group of Toyota and Lexus consumers said they are considering
filing a suit in early September.

They said the damage claim would be equivalent to 20 per cent of
the vehicle price.

"Apart from the issue of fuel efficiency, a variety of defects
would be included in the suit," a consumer said.

Two years ago, Toyota Motor was sued in Canada in a class-action
case claiming defects in the braking system of its Prius and Lexus
hybrid vehicles.

Merchant Law Group said it filed a claim in Victoria, British
Columbia, against the automaker on behalf of Canadian owners of
2010 Toyota Prius and Lexus HS250h hybrids.  The lawsuit, which
seeks reimbursement of purchase prices or payment equal to a loss
in resale value, claims the vehicles' brake systems are defective
because they shut off brake power to save energy.

The Japanese firm has faced more than 30 class action lawsuits in
the United States and Canada connected to multiple recalls over
sudden acceleration of its vehicles.


UNI-MARTS LLC: Federal Insurance Won't Cover $2-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that Federal Insurance Co. is not
responsible for paying a minimum of $2 million in damages
resulting from a 2009 class-action settlement agreement between
Uni-Marts LLC and a group of gas station operators, ruled a
federal judge on Aug. 17.  Judge William Nealon of the Middle
District of Pennsylvania also ruled that fraudulent behavior from
Uni-Marts triggered the insurance policy exclusions, reported
Law360.com.

The group of plaintiffs, which included more than 50 gas station
operators in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York and Delaware,
originally sued Uni-Marts in 2007, alleging that the company had
lied about the true costs associated with operating its gas
stations in order to persuade them to purchase locations in 2004
and 2005.  They also argued that the company breached sale
agreements by overcharging for gasoline.

Following the settlement for $2 million two years later, Uni-Marts
argued that Federal Insurance should pay, as the damages arose
from Uni-Marts' pre-contractual behavior, according to the report.
The company was insured under a directors and officers liability
policy that excluded coverage of claims "based upon, arising from,
or in consequence of" liability under a contract, reported the
news outlet.

"The heart of the damages sought ring of breach of contract
damages and the injuries undoubtedly flow from the contractual
relationship between the parties," stated Judge Nealon.  "The
injuries suffered by the class plaintiffs would not have occurred
had there been no contracts and no breach thereof."

In his ruling, Judge Nealon noted that Uni-Marts' fraud in the
inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims would not exist
in the absence of the contracts and their subsequent breach.

"Requiring Federal [Insurance] to cover this loss, which in
essence is derived from a business agreement gone bad, would be
greatly expanding the coverage of the D&O policy beyond that which
is called for by its plain language," Judge Nealon said.

According to court filings, in addition to the agreed settlement
amount, Uni-Marts is liable for paying attorney fees and other
costs.  The company filed for bankruptcy in 2009, forcing a stay
of the Federal Insurance case that was lifted this year and
allowed to move forward after bankruptcy trustee KDW Restructuring
and Liquidation Services was in place.


UNIVERSAL CITY: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Universal City Studios stiffs
hourly workers for overtime, a class action claims in Superior
Court.


WISCONSIN ENERGY: Payments to "Downes" Class Members Distributed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Substantially all payments to class members have been made
pursuant to Wisconsin Energy Corporation's settlement of the class
action lawsuit commenced by Alan M. Downes, 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 June 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against the Wisconsin Energy Corporation Retirement
Account Plan (Plan) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.  The complaint alleged that Plan
participants who received a lump sum distribution under the Plan
prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full
benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and were owed
additional benefits, because the Plan failed to apply the correct
interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to
their normal retirement age.  In September 2010, the plaintiff
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint alleging additional
claims under ERISA and adding Wisconsin Energy as a defendant.

In November 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs for $45.0 million, and the court promptly
issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement.  As part
of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to class
certification for all similarly situated plaintiffs.  The
resolution of this matter resulted in a cost of less than $0.04
per share for 2011 after considering insurance and reserves
established in the prior year.  The court approved the settlement
on April 3, 2012, and issued its written order on April 20, 2012.
Substantially all payments to class members have been made
pursuant to the settlement.  The Company does not anticipate
further charges as a result of the settlement.


                           *********

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  * * *