CAR_Public/120829.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 29, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 171

                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABS: Baron & Budd Files Deceptive Labeling Class Action
AMERICAN LICORICE: Recalls Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists
ARAMARK UNIFORM: Removes "Santiago" Suit to Calif. District Ct.
BAY VALLEY: Recalls Pecan Toppings Due to Undeclared Almonds
BP: Drivers Mull Class Action Over Bad Gas Crisis

CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Cohen Milstein Lead Counsel in Class Action
CENTRAL REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action in Colorado
CREEKSTONE FARMS: Settles Slaughterhouse Workers' Class Action
DIRECTORS GUILD: No Cause to Modify Class Action Settlement

H&R BLOCK: Judge Approves $35-Million Class Action Settlement
ING DIRECT: Court Allows Mortgage Litig. To Proceed as Class Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Tosses Home Equity Line Class Action
MERITOR INC: Direct Purchaser Claims Pending in Filters Suit
NASDAQ OMX: Faces Numerous Class Action Suits Over Facebook IPO

PG&E: Faces Class Action Over 2010 Pipeline Explosion
PITTSBURGH, PA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Police Hiring Bias
PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From "Begay" Class Suit Dismissal Pending
PROTICA INC: Recalls Body Choice "Protein Shots" & Other Products
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals From Suit Dismissals Still Pending

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Summary Judg. Bid Pending in "Clark" Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Cert. Bid in N.J. Consolidated Suit Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Certification Bid in SGLI/VGLI MDL Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
SLM CORP: Awaits Approval of $35MM Securities Suit Settlement

SOUTHERN COPPER: Appeals in Consolidated Suit vs. AMC Pending
SPRINT NEXTEL: To Arbitrate Claims for Bogus Roaming Fees
ST. LOUIS, MO: Inmates Want to Turn Suit Into Class Action
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend Commercial Claims Suits
TRAVELZOO INC: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.

TRUE NUTRITION: Recalls Whey Protein Products
UNITED COLLECTION: Court Allows FDCPA Class Action to Proceed
UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Cert. Ruling in One of Two Canadian Suits
UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Suit Still Pending in New York Court
UNITED PARCEL: Defends Two Suits Over Rebranding of UPS Store

US NURSING: Accused of Not Paying All Wages to Replacement Staff
VOLUME SERVICES: Sued for Denying Tips to Servers & Runners
W. ROSS MACDONALD: Crown Blames Government in Class Action
XCEL ENERGY: Appeal From 2nd "Comer" Suit Dismissal Pending
ZIPCAR INC: Class Suit Over Late Fee Charges Dismissed in July


                          *********

ABBOTT LABS: Baron & Budd Files Deceptive Labeling Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baron and Budd attorneys filed a deceptive labeling class action
lawsuit on Aug. 24 against Abbott Laboratories concerning the
company's "Ensure Muscle Health" and "Ensure Clinical Strength"
products.  The lawsuit alleges that Abbott Laboratories engages in
deceptive and misleading practices in connection with the
marketing of its products and charges the company with violations
of multiple laws.  The complaint was filed on behalf of Michael J.
Otto of California and a class of similarly situated consumers
across the country who purchased Ensure Muscle Health or Ensure
Clinical Strength drinks.  Baron and Budd attorneys Roland Tellis
and Mark Pifko serve as counsel in the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, Abbott capitalizes on the fears of
mature Americans who are worried about muscle loss, promising that
drinking the products alone will "help rebuild muscle and strength
naturally lost over time."  To build consumer trust, Abbott touts
the purported health benefits of these products with invented,
pseudo-scientific terms such as "Revigor," and proclamations like,
the "#1 doctor recommended brand," the lawsuit states.  As alleged
in the lawsuit, to further establish credibility for the company's
claims, Abbot also uses phrases such as "clinical nutrition."

However, as alleged in the lawsuit, nowhere on the packaging of
the products does Abbott disclose that the products cannot help
rebuild muscle and strength in the general population of consumers
to whom the products are sold -- including in Abbott's target
market of healthy adults -- unless the products are used in
combination with a regular exercise program.  Instead, Abbott
chose to selectively omit this material information from the
labels for the Products to increase sales by inducing the general
population of consumers who will not benefit from the products to
purchase and consume them anyway, the lawsuit states.

"It's hard to imagine a more personal affront than deceiving
people about what they put in their bodies," said Baron and Budd
attorney Mark Pifko.  "A sophisticated company like Abbott should
be held accountable for knowingly confusing and misleading its
customers."

                    About Baron and Budd, P.C.

Baron and Budd -- http://www.baronandbudd.com-- is a plaintiffs'
law firm with more than 30 years' experience fighting to protect
what's right for consumers.


AMERICAN LICORICE: Recalls Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Licorice Company of Union City, California, is recalling
16 oz. Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists due to elevated levels
of lead.  Only the one pound bag (16 oz.) of Red Vines(R) Black
Licorice Twists containing "Best Before Date" of 020413 are
affected by this recall.  American Licorice is notifying consumers
and customers not to consume this candy.

American Licorice learned from the California Department of Public
Health (CDPH), that some Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists
contain levels of lead that could potentially cause health
problems to consumers, particularly infants, small children, and
pregnant women.  American Licorice immediately segregated its
entire inventory of 16 oz. Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists.

Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists is a black licorice candy made
from molasses, wheat flour, corn syrup, caramel coloring, licorice
extract, salt, and anise flavor.  The 16 oz. bag is red and white
in color with a window in the package to display the black
licorice twists.  A picture of the recalled products' label is
available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316853.htm

Recent analysis of Red Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists by CDPH
found that the candy contained lead levels as high as .33 parts
per million (ppm).  This concentration of lead could provide up to
13.2 micrograms of lead per serving and children under 6 years of
age should not consume more than 6.0 micrograms of lead per day
from all dietary sources.  Therefore, the CDPH's position is that
the sale of this lot of the 16 oz. Red Vines(R) Black Licorice
Twists is in violation of California statutes.

American Licorice wants to ensure its products are safe.
Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the
CDPH, American Licorice is voluntarily recalling all 16 oz. Red
Vines(R) Black Licorice Twists from all of its customers with
affected product. Consumers in possession of Red Vines(R) Black
Licorice Twists with the "Best Before Date" of 020413 should not
eat the candy and should return it to their place of purchase for
a full refund.  The "Best Before Date" is located in black ink on
the rear of the package.

Pregnant women and parents of children who may have consumed any
candy should consult with their physician or health care provider
to determine whether further medical testing is required.  For
more information about lead poisoning, parents and caretakers
should contact their local childhood lead poisoning prevention
program or local public health department.

American Licorice will be sending recall notices to all of its
affected customers.  Please contact American Licorice Consumer
Support at 886-442-2783 for further information.


ARAMARK UNIFORM: Removes "Santiago" Suit to Calif. District Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Santiago, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Aramark Uniform
and Career Apparel, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. RG 12640163 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 20, 2012)
seeks unpaid wages, disgorgement, restitution and other relief due
to the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code
and California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges and seeks remedies for these seven causes of
action:

   (1) failure to provide premium pay for overtime hours worked;
   (2) failure to pay all wages earned;
   (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
   (4) failure to provide meal periods;
   (5) failure to authorize and permit rest periods;
   (6) unfair business practices; and
   (7) failure to pay wages upon termination.

Mr. Santiago is a resident of the state of California.  Between
approximately 2003 and August 2010, he was employed by Aramark as
a Commission Route Sales Representative at its Hayward depot.  Mr.
Santiago contends that, among other things, he was not properly
paid for all hours worked, and has received no premium pay for
hours worked over 40 in a week.

Aramark is a Delaware limited liability corporation conducting
business throughout California, including the "Bay Area" and
Alameda County.  Mr. Santiago is currently unaware of the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Company removed the lawsuit on August 24, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Aramark argues that the removal is proper because
district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States of America.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:12-cv-04462 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Jade Butman, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  jbutman@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          Kathryn M. Nazarian, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: emeckley@morganlewis.com
                  knazarian@morganlewis.com


BAY VALLEY: Recalls Pecan Toppings Due to Undeclared Almonds
------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Valley Foods is voluntarily recalling packages of Naturally
Fresh(R) Roasted & Glazed Pecan Pieces Salad Toppings because some
of the packages may contain almonds that are not listed in the
ingredient statement.  Consumers who have allergies to almonds run
the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction if
they consume the mislabeled product.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
alert, and there is no risk to consumers who are not allergic to
almonds.

The recalled packages of Naturally Fresh(R) Roasted & Glazed Pecan
Pieces Salad Toppings were distributed between June 26, 2012, and
August 22, 2012, in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Michigan, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.  The recall was
initiated after the company received notice from a customer that
almonds were found in some packages of the product.

The recalled product, Naturally Fresh(R) Roasted & Glazed Pecan
Pieces Salad Toppings, comes in a 3.5 ounce pouch-type package and
is marked with "Best By" dates of 07 APR 13 and 08 APR 13. The UPC
code is (0)7653905520(0).  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316869.htm

Consumers are advised to destroy or return any unused portions to
the place of purchase for refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact Bay Valley Foods Consumer Response Department at 1-800-
983-0823, Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central
Standard Time.


BP: Drivers Mull Class Action Over Bad Gas Crisis
-------------------------------------------------
CBS Chicago reports that drivers whose vehicles have been affected
by bad gas from BP are threatening to take action.

As WBBM Newsradio's Michele Fiore reports, while the Indiana's
Attorney General's office leads an investigation to oversee BP's
claims process, attorneys in Indianapolis and Merrillville are
gathering evidence for a class action lawsuit, seeking full
compensation for damages.

Customers who used the bad gas, then had trouble starting their
vehicles and stalling could join the suit.

BP has said it believes a 50,000-barrel batch of gasoline shipped
from its Whiting fuel storage terminal Aug. 13-17 contained a
higher level of a polymeric residue, which is difficult to burn in
automobile engines.

While the problem is centered in Lake County, Ind., BP executives
said the fuel has made its way across state lines into Illinois
and Wisconsin.  Motorists from southwestern Michigan have also
called the oil giant.

According to a statement on the company Web site, the BP refinery
in Whiting, Ind., has returned to normal production, but higher
grades of fuel are still undergoing further tests, so won't be
sold for now.  Chicago motorists pulling up to BP stations on
Aug. 23 found premium and midgrade gas unavailable.

BP spokesman Scott Dean said that more than 10,000 motorists have
called or e-mailed to complain, and BP has begun paying claims.

BP said some of the tainted gasoline was sold at stations that are
not BP-branded, including Thornton and Costco stations.

"BP stands by every gallon of gasoline we sell," Mr. Dean said.

Mr. Dean said BP would pay for a replacement tank of gas and any
repairs made necessary by bad gas.

Mr. Dean said customers can make complaints by one at (800) 333-
3991 or 800-599-9040, can e-mail bpconsum@bp.com or visit
http://www.bpresponse.com


CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Cohen Milstein Lead Counsel in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heraldonline.com reports that a New Jersey federal judge on
Aug. 22 appointed Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll lead counsel in a
class action securities fraud lawsuit against Central European
Distribution Corporation (CEDC).  The ruling by Chief U.S.
District Judge Jerome B. Simandle also appointed the Arkansas
Public Employees Retirement System and the Fresno County
Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs in the case.

"We are very pleased with Judge Simandle's decision, which
confirms that Arkansas and Fresno are well-qualified to represent
the interests of the Class and recognizes that Cohen Milstein will
vigorously and effectively prosecute the claims in this case,"
said Daniel S. Sommers, one of the lawyers for Plaintiffs.

"We are glad to be past this preliminary stage of the case and
look forward to litigating the merits of the claims," said Cohen
Milstein managing partner Steven J. Toll.  "We believe investors
were misled by defendants' misrepresentations and our goal is to
recover as much of their losses as we can."

CEDC is primarily an importer and exporter of alcoholic beverages.
CEDC is one of the largest vodka producers in the world and has
the largest "integrated spirit business' in Central and Eastern
Europe.

Plaintiffs allege that CEDC and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding CEDC's business and prospects that deceived investors
and caused Plaintiffs to purchase the stock at artificially
inflated prices.  On March 1, 2011, the Company issued a press
release announcing financial results for 2010.  The Company
reported net losses exceeding $90 million, shocking investors.
The Company's stock fell more than 37 percent, down more than
$8.50 per share, causing Plaintiffs' losses.

Additional information about the case is available online at

     http://is.gd/AYk9pZ


CENTRAL REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekend Telegram reports that Shawna Marie Anne Thompson is
named as the plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed against the
Central Regional Health Authority for breaches of patient medical
records and personal health information.

Ms. Thompson is a former resident of central Newfoundland who now
lives in St. John's.  A statement of claim notes that Ms. Thompson
proposes to bring a class-proceeding on behalf of herself and a
class of other Canadian residents whose medical records were
inappropriately accessed by the health authority's employees.

The class-action follows similar ones filed recently against
Eastern Health and Western Health.

The class-action lawsuit claims negligence by the health authority
for not having proper management and operations procedures in
place to reasonably prevent the breach of private information.

Members of the class-action claim that the conduct of the
defendant's employees involved constitute a gross violation of the
privacy rights of patients and thus is an appropriate case for
punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages.

St. John's lawyer Bob Buckingham, who is representing Ms. Thompson
in the case, said Ms. Thompson received information last November
which led her to believe her personal health information was
breached.

"Ms. Thompson launched a complaint through the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.  The complaint inquiry confirmed the
violation," Mr. Buckingham said in a news release.  "Ms. Thompson
was informed that her personal health information had been
inappropriately accessed by an employee of Central Health and her
medical records had been extensively accessed over a period of
seven years."

Ms. Thompson said the situation has caused her anxiety and
difficulty sleeping.

"I feel violated, angry and very upset knowing my personal medical
information has been breached and, furthermore, shared with non-
essential personnel," Ms. Thomson is quoted in the release.

"This is further disturbing given that the breaches, on occasion,
were done for personal reasons of the staff person.

"Knowing there are people out there who know of my medical and
personal information worries me very much.  I wonder how much of
it was shared and with whom?  I am to the point I will not go to
the doctor unless I am very ill because I am fearful anything I
give to a health-care provider will be reported to someone who
does not need to know my information."


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Dyer & Berens Files Class Action in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver, Colorado law firm of Dyer & Berens LLP on Aug. 23
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. between February 1, 2012 and July
19, 2012, inclusive.

What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased or acquired
shares during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff, you must request appointment no later than October 16,
2012.  A "lead plaintiff" works with counsel to direct the
litigation and participates in important decisions, including the
amount of compensation to accept in settlement of the class
action.  Members of the putative class may seek appointment
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members.

If you would like to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff
process, or have any questions concerning this notice, please
contact Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at (888) 300-3362 x302 or via
e-mail at jeff@dyerberens.com

What are the allegations in the complaint? Chipotle develops and
operates "fast-casual," fresh Mexican food restaurants in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and France.  The company
is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts during the Class Period: (a) Chipotle did not have the
pricing power to implement price increases sufficient to offset
rising food costs and, as a result, the company's margins would be
under pressure as Chipotle would be unable to pass these commodity
costs off to the consumers; (b) demand for Chipotle was slowing
due to the economy and increased competition and could not support
the company's aggressive 2012 earnings forecasts; and (c) Chipotle
was experiencing a deceleration of growth as it was becoming a
mature company.  Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges
certain company officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP.


CREEKSTONE FARMS: Settles Slaughterhouse Workers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit by
workers at a south-central Kansas slaughterhouse has been settled
in mediation.

No details of the settlement in the case against Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef are included in a notice filed on Aug. 23 in court.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an estimated 700 workers at the
Arkansas City packing plant over so-called "gang time"
compensation.  The practice pays employees only when product is
moving, plus 10 minutes for putting on and removing protective
gear.

The workers also claimed the company wasn't paying for all the
time they worked.  Creekstone contended it paid employees for all
time worked, including overtime.

The litigation had been granted conditional class-action status in
February.


DIRECTORS GUILD: No Cause to Modify Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dave McNary, writing for Variety, reports that The Directors Guild
of America is in line with its 2008 foreign levies class-action
settlement, and there is no cause to modify it, a state court
judge supervising three such cases has ruled.

The Aug. 22 ruling came over strenuous objections that the DGA has
been stonewalling over how it handles millions in funds.  Neville
Johnson, attorney for plaintiff William Webb, complained that the
guild's single-page yearly accounting violates the spirit of the
agreement, adding that the DGA has stymied his efforts to obtain
information in areas such as administrative fees.

"It's been like dealing with the Kremlin," Mr. Johnson said.  "The
reports are incoherent."

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Wiley declared repeatedly
during an hourlong hearing that his role precluded him from
revising the settlement and denied Johnson's motion "with
prejudice" -- meaning he will not entertain another request.

"I'm a legal bureaucrat," he added.

DGA attorney Daniel Schechter told Judge Wiley that Mr. Johnson
had not raised the issue during the first three years of the
settlement and accused him of wanting to rewrite the terms.

Mr. Webb's suit alleged the DGA did not have the authority to make
foreign collections, had not communicated that info to non-members
and had not paid them.  The monies -- which began to flow two
decades ago -- are due to copyright holders as compensation for
reuse, such as taxes on video rentals, cable retransmissions and
purchases of blank videocassettes and DVDs.

In the 2008 settlement, the DGA said it had distributed $48
million in levies to DGA members and more than $4.9 million to
directors who were not DGA members.  Those figures have more than
doubled.

"The DGA has distributed over $121 million in foreign levies,
including over $13 million to more than 3,400 non-members," a DGA
spokesperson said.  "It was a hard-fought effort to attain these
funds and we are very proud of our efforts.  We are pleased with
the judge's decision today to deny with prejudice the plaintiff's
motions."

The settlement provided for an outside accounting firm to conduct
an independent review of the foreign levies program, but Johnson
said the DGA has not provided accountability and transparency.

Judge Wiley asserted during the hearing that Mr. Johnson should
have negotiated different terms.  "A deal is a deal," he added.

Judge Wiley also cited similar grounds for rebuffing Mr. Johnson's
motions for attorney fees and consultant fees in the three suits
against the DGA, Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild of
America.  The jurist noted the settlements specified that there
would be no additional attorney fees, brushing aside Mr. Johnson's
assertions that SAG and the DGA had been uncooperative and
hostile.

Mr. Johnson said the WGA had been far more cooperative than the
other two guilds following its own 2010 settlement.  He indicated
that he would file a motion to appoint a new counsel in the DGA
case.

The plaintiff in the WGA case, William Richert ("Winter Kills"),
also appeared in court Wednesday to complain about the lack of
disclosure in the wake of the settlement, signed by the now-
retired Judge Carl West.  "I signed the settlement because Judge
West told me that he would watch this closely for the next three
years," he added.  "The court is now saying 'drop dead' to
American writers."

Judge Wiley again responded that terms of the settlements
prevented him from requiring the guilds to do more.

The WGA reported earlier this year it had collected nearly $130
million in foreign levies over the past two decades and
distributed $104 million of those funds.  SAG, which settled
Ken Osmond's suit last year, reported last year that it had
collected $20.7 million and distributed $9.8 million.


H&R BLOCK: Judge Approves $35-Million Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Davis, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a
federal judge has approved up to $35 million in payments to a
group of California employees who sued a unit of Kansas City-based
H&R Block.

The employees had sought class action claims against Block on
multiple charges related to pay, expense reimbursement, meal
periods and other issues in a 2009 lawsuit.  Similar charges
appeared in another 2009 lawsuit against Block.

Ultimately, the settlement covered claims that Block failed to
"pay accurate wage statements" and failed to pay all wages due
when an employee was terminated, as well as claims for civil
penalties, according to a court order.

The two sides twice failed to settle the case last year through
daylong mediation sessions.

They then reached a tentative settlement last October on the same
day the court planned to hear each side's request for a summary
judgment.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in the northern district of
California approved the settlement on Aug. 22.

Her ruling said the case covers 18,700 Block employees with an
average claim of $1,200.

The employees were "all seasonal, non-exempt tax professional
employees who were or are employed" by Block as tax preparers in
California between June 9, 2006, and the end of 2010.

Attorneys for the employees could not be reached.

Block officials did not comment on the settlement.  But spokesman
Gene King said the case was brought originally under California
law and "the state does have some different wage laws than other
states."

The lawsuit named H&R Block Enterprises LLC as the defendant.

ING DIRECT: Court Allows Mortgage Litig. To Proceed as Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Selbin of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, together with Matthew R. Wilson
of the law firm Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, announced on August 28,
2012, that the federal court overseeing the litigation against ING
Direct for allegedly refusing to honor its "Rate Renew" mortgage
refinancing guarantee issued an order on August 27 allowing the
case to proceed as a class action.

"ING customers in ten states are now a significant step closer to
holding ING accountable for its classic bait-and-switch marketing
tactic," Mr. Selbin stated.  "For four years, ING aggressively
promoted, and convinced consumers nationwide to sign up for, its
short-term Easy Orange and Orange mortgage loans on the promise
that they would only have to pay ING $500 or $750 to refinance
their ARM and balloon loans when the period of fixed interest
ended under the Rate Renew program."

The lawsuit alleges that ING systematically broke its promise by
charging its customers higher costs when they sought to refinance,
or denying them the right to refinance at all.  Wilson added that
"ING's alleged scheme is all the more egregious because ING has
marketed itself to borrowers as a bank that does not employ hidden
fees, while at the same time manipulating its Rate Renew program
to increase its bottom line."

Judge Leonard P. Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware certified the following class, "All individuals who
purchased or retained an ING Easy Orange or Orange Loan at any
time between October 1, 2005 and April 23, 2009 who were residents
of the following states at the time of purchase: Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Washington."

A copy of the Court's order and plaintiffs' complaint can be found
at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/inglawsuit

Background on the ING Direct Class Action Rate Renew Lawsuit

The complaint charges that ING Direct breached its promise to
allow its customers to refinance their home mortgages for a fixed
flat fee of $500 or $750.  From October 2005 through May 2009, ING
promoted this "Rate Renew" program as a benefit of choosing ING
mortgages over competitors'.

Later, beginning in May 2009, ING began charging a higher fee of
one-monthly mortgage payment for refinancing using "Rate Renew,"
despite its earlier and lower advertised price.  As a result, the
lawsuit alleges, many consumers paid more to refinance their loans
using "Rate Renew" than they were originally promised and even
though they met the terms and conditions of ING's original "Rate
Renew" offer.

Notice to California ING Orange Loan Customers

Almost one-third of the ING customers nationwide that sought to
take advantage of its Rate Renew offer from 2005 to 2009 were
residents of California.  California is not one of the states
currently included in the class certified by the Court.

Californians and all others who received advertising that
guaranteed a $500 or $750 flat-fee "Rate Renewal" for refinancing
their mortgage with ING are welcome to contact attorney Daniel
Hutchinson in Lieff Cabraser's San Francisco office toll free at
1-800-541-7358 or visit http://www.lieffcabraser.com/inglawsuitto
learn more about the litigation and to submit your complaint.
There is no charge or obligation for Lieff Cabraser's review of
your complaint.

Source/Contact

     Jonathan D. Selbin
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     Tel. No.: (212) 355-9500
     E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Tosses Home Equity Line Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert, writing for Law360, reports that an Alabama
federal judge tossed a putative class action against JPMorgan
Chase Bank NA on Aug. 21 that alleged the bank unlawfully changed
the terms of its home equity line of credit plans, noting that the
bank's term interpretations were consistent with the contracts.

Plaintiff Marion Dillman sued the bank in February 2011 saying it
unilaterally modified the way it credited HELOC payments in order
to prolong the debt and increase interest payments, which violated
the Truth in Lending Act.


MERITOR INC: Direct Purchaser Claims Pending in Filters Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., continues to defend itself from claims filed by
direct purchasers in a multidistrict litigation relating to
automotive filters, according to the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 1, 2012.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that several filter manufacturers and their affiliated
corporate entities, including a prior subsidiary of the Company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  This lawsuit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants.  Several parallel purported class actions,
including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been
filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the
United States and Canada.  The cases have been consolidated into a
multi-district litigation proceeding in Federal court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  On April 16, 2009, the Attorney
General of the State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on
these same allegations.  On May 25, 2010, the Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Washington informed the Company
that it also was investigating the allegations raised in these
lawsuits.  On August 9, 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York,
filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York based on the
same allegations.  The case was transferred to the multi-district
litigation proceeding in Illinois, but has been dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement that continues until
thirty days after the claims by the indirect purchasers in the
multi-district litigation are terminated, settled, or dismissed.
On April 14, 2011, the judge in that multi-district litigation
granted a stay on discovery and depositions until July 25, 2011.
The stay was subsequently extended until August 23, 2011, and, on
October 12, 2011, was further extended pending the court's ruling
on various motions.

On January 19, 2012, counsel for the defendants and counsel for
all purported class plaintiffs participated in a settlement
conference that was facilitated by the magistrate for the judge in
the multi-district litigation.  None of the parties were able to
reach any agreement at that conference and, on January 20, 2012,
the court ruled on the motions and vacated the stay on discovery
and depositions.  In February 2012 the other remaining defendants
reached preliminary settlement with all plaintiffs for $13
million, leaving the Company as the sole remaining defendant.
These preliminary settlements were allocated 65 percent to the
direct purchasers and 35 percent to the remaining plaintiffs
(indirect purchasers).  In April 2012, the company settled with
indirect purchasers for $3.1 million.

Based on management's assessment, the Company has recognized a
$5.8 million liability in discontinued operations at June 30,
2012, for the direct purchasers' portion of this matter.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses against the claims
raised in all of these actions and intends to vigorously defend
itself.  However, there is considerable uncertainty around the
potential outcomes in a jury trial, and if this matter were to
proceed to trial and were ultimately decided by a jury in favor of
plaintiffs, it is possible that awarded damages could materially
exceed the recorded liability by an amount that the company is
unable to reasonably estimate at this time.

Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, Michigan, is a global
supplier of a broad range of integrated systems, modules and
components serving light vehicles, commercial trucks, trailers,
and specialty original equipment manufacturers, as well as certain
aftermarkets.


NASDAQ OMX: Faces Numerous Class Action Suits Over Facebook IPO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. is facing numerous lawsuits arising
from Facebook Inc.'s initial public offering, according to the
Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In the second quarter of 2012, the Company became a party to
several legal and regulatory proceedings relating to the Facebook,
Inc. initial public offering that occurred on May 18, 2012.  The
Company is defendant in the following putative class actions in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York: Goldberg, et al. v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Yan v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Alfonso, et al. v. The NASDAQ OMX Group,
Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Levy v. The NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Amin v. The NASDAQ
OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Steinman v. The
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Roderick
v. The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,
McGinty v. NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC,
and First New York Securities LLC, et al. v. NASDAQ OMX Group,
Inc. and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC.  Eight of these lawsuits
have been brought by retail investors seeking damages for alleged
negligence by the Company in connection with the Facebook IPO.
The ninth lawsuit was brought by professional proprietary trading
firms for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5, promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the Facebook
IPO.

The Company is a defendant in several other lawsuits brought by
individual investors, seeking damages for alleged negligence and
fraud by the Company in connection with the Facebook IPO.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.  As such, the Company has not
recorded a reserve as it is not probable that a liability has been
incurred and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated as
of the date of these condensed consolidated financial statements.


PG&E: Faces Class Action Over 2010 Pipeline Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------
Martin Ricard, writing for SouthSanFranciscoPatch, reports that a
San Bruno woman and a San Rafael man filed a class-action lawsuit
on Aug. 23 against PG&E for the 2010 pipeline explosion in San
Bruno, claiming that the utility diverted millions of dollars of
ratepayer money that was supposed to be spent on pipeline safety.

In the lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court,
the plaintiffs, who are PG&E customers, allege that the utility
collected more than $100 million in fees -- authorized by the
California Public Utilities Commission -- from customers
throughout the state with the promise that the money would be
spent on gas safety and operations projects.

But after collecting the fees, PG&E repeatedly failed to spend the
money and instead used the funds toward executive compensation and
bonuses.

"This class action is brought to remedy the unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business practices by PG&E," Brian Kabateck, the lead
lawyer in the case, said in a statement.  "PG&E put lives at risk
because of its actions and we intend to hold the company
responsible for them.  We want to prevent another incident like
San Bruno."

The class-action suit, filed on behalf of Filomena Guerrero, of
San Bruno, and Theodore Kagan, of San Rafael, calls for a jury
trial and demands restitution for all California and San Bruno
residents who were PG&E customers from 1997 to 2010.

PG&E serves about 4 million customers throughout the state.

This lawsuit follows on the heels of hundreds of other lawsuits
that were filed against PG&E shortly after the San Bruno fire,
which left eight people dead and 38 homes destroyed.

The trial for those lawsuits, which now represent more than 300
residents, is scheduled to begin on Oct. 9.

PG&E has already reached a number of confidential settlements with
residents who were affected by the disaster, including all of the
families whose relatives died in the fire.


PITTSBURGH, PA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Police Hiring Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Begos, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a
federal class-action lawsuit against the city of Pittsburgh on
Aug. 23, accusing the Bureau of Police of discriminating against
blacks in hiring.

"Our investigation shows that every stage of the selection process
involves shenanigans that hurt minority applicants," said Witold
Walczak, ACLU's legal director.

The lawsuit claims that 368 officers have been hired since 2001
but only 14 of those have been African-American.

City Solicitor Daniel Regan disputed the discrimination
allegations, saying that the city complies with all federal and
state laws and that Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is committed to having a
diverse workforce.

The lead plaintiff is James Foster, who first applied to the
Pittsburgh police in 2008.  The ACLU said he was No. 3 on a final
list of officers but was passed over by at least 32 white
applicants who ranked lower on the list.  Another plaintiff is
Mike Sharp, who graduated from the Police Training Academy at
Indiana University of Pennsylvania and applied in 2009.  The
lawsuit alleges that he was No. 11 on the final list but wasn't
selected, though 49 hiring offers were made.

The ACLU alleges that only 3.8 percent of new officers have been
black, but 26 percent of the city's population is black.

The lawsuit seeks a halt to the department's current hiring
process and a correction of what it calls the bureau's
discriminatory policies.  It also seeks to have Messrs. Foster and
Sharp hired as officers and given back pay.


PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From "Begay" Class Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, captioned Begay v. PNM Resources, Inc.,
et al., was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009
in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.  Plaintiffs claim to be
allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes
Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the
Navajo Nation.  Plaintiffs, including an allottee association,
make broad, general assertions that defendants, including PNM, are
rights-of-way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted
lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees
for the grant of rights-of-way or both.  The plaintiffs, who have
sued the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a
constructive trust.  They have also included a breach of trust
claim against the United States and its Secretary of the Interior.
PNM and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action.
In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed.  The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

In May 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional
Director.  In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional
Director's decision to the DOI Board of Appeals.

On February 21, 2012, the DOI Board of Appeals ordered additional
briefing on the merits of the appeal.  PNM is participating in
order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-
of-way implicated in the appeal.

PNM says it cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the
range of potential outcomes at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

PNM Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pnmresources.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, operates in energy and energy-related
businesses in the United States.  It primarily engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity.  The
Company generates electricity using coal, nuclear, natural gas,
solar, and wind energy.  It also provides regulated transmission
and distribution services.  The Company is headquartered in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.


PROTICA INC: Recalls Body Choice "Protein Shots" & Other Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 17, 2012, Protica Inc. of Whitehall, Pennsylvania, had
undertaken a voluntary product withdrawal of four products
including Body Choice "Protein Shots", Nutritional Resources
"Protein Wave", ProBalance "Protein to Go French Vanilla Latte"
and "Protein to Go Milk Chocolate Shake" because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a
bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death.
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.  Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food
poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness,
dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.
Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal
distension and constipation may also be common symptoms.  People
experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical
attention.  No illnesses have been confirmed to date.

The problem with the lots below was discovered when investigating
the processing parameters for all manufactured products.  The
products withdrawn were distributed nationally through retail and
direct mail and are limited to specific lots of the branded
products.  The affected lots follow.

   Protein to Go Milk Chocolate Shake (2.5oz bottle)
   -------------------------------------------------
   Manufacture Date         Lot Number
   ----------------         ----------
      02/09/2012            PP0402 4109 A
      02/09/2012            PP0402 4109 B
      02/09/2012            PP0402 4109 C
      02/09/2012            PP0402 4109 D
      02/09/2012            PP0402 4109 E
      02/09/2012            PP0402 4109 F
      02/09/2012            PP0402 4109 G
      02/13/2012            PP0442 4113
      02/16/2012            PP0442 4115
      03/29/2012            PP0892 4121
      04/12/2012            PP1032 4131 A
      04/12/2012            PP1032 4131 B
      04/25/2012            PP1162 4134 B
      04/25/2012            PP1162 4134 C
      04/25/2012            PP1162 4134 A
      05/03/2012            PP1242 4139
      05/08/2012            PP1242 4140
      06/07/2012            PP1592 4145 B
      06/07/2012            PP1592 4145 A

   Protein to Go French Vanilla Latte (2.5oz bottle)
   -------------------------------------------------
   Manufacture Date         Lot Number
   ----------------         ----------
      09/08/2011            PP2511 4066 A
      09/08/2011            PP2511 4066 B
      10/11/2011            PP2841 4079
      10/18/2011            PP2911 4086
      12/06/2011            PP3401 4103
      02/13/2012            PP0442 4112
      04/02/2012            PP0932 4122
      04/04/2012            PP0952 4125
      04/11/2012            PP1022 4129
      04/24/2012            PP1152 4133 A
      04/24/2012            PP1152 4133 B
      04/24/2012            PP1152 4133 C
      05/01/2012            PP1222 4138 A
      05/01/2012            PP1222 4138 B
      05/01/2012            PP1222 4138 C
      05/08/2012            PP1292 4141
      06/08/2012            PP1592 4146 A
      06/08/2012            PP1592 4146 B

   Nutritional Resources Protein Wave gelatin (6oz cup)
   ----------------------------------------------------
   Manufacture Date         Lot Number
   ----------------         ----------
      05/03/2012            PP 1242 6123

   Body Choice Protein Shots (3oz vial)
   -------------------------------------------------
   Manufacture Date         Lot Number
   ----------------         ----------
      12/20/2011            PP 3541 2924

Consumers who have purchased any of the above products can return
them to the place of purchase or to Protica for a full refund.
Consumers with any questions should contact Protica at 1-800-
PROTICA (1-800-776-8422).

Protica, founded in 2001, is headquartered in Whitehall,
Pennsylvania.  The Company relocated from Horsham, Pennsylvania,
to the Lehigh Valley in January 2009, occupying and rehabilitating
the former vacant Lehigh Valley Dairy Plant near Allentown.
Protica has approximately 60 employees and is privately held.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals From Suit Dismissals Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action involving a
subsidiary of Prudential Financial, Inc., Garcia v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the Second Judicial
District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The complaint was brought
on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of individual life insurance
policies for which, unless the beneficiaries elected another
settlement method, death benefits were placed in retained asset
accounts.  The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose
material information about the accounts, the Company wrongfully
delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and pre and
post-judgment interest.  In February 2011, plaintiff appealed the
dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

As previously reported, in December 2009, an earlier purported
nationwide class action raising substantially similar allegations
brought by the same plaintiff in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance
Company of America, was dismissed.  In December 2010, a purported
state-wide class action complaint, Phillips v. Prudential
Financial, Inc., was filed in state court and removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.  The complaint makes allegations under Illinois law,
substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf of a class of
Illinois residents whose death benefit claims were settled by
retained assets accounts.  In March 2011, the complaint was
amended to drop the Company as a defendant and add Pruco Life
Insurance Company as a defendant and is now captioned Phillips v.
Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company.  In
November 2011, the complaint was dismissed.  In December 2011,
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Summary Judg. Bid Pending in "Clark" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned Clark v.
Prudential Insurance Company, according to the Company's August 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In February 2011, a fifth amended complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company.  The complaint brought on
behalf of a purported class of California, Indiana, Ohio and Texas
residents who purchased individual health insurance policies
alleges that Prudential Insurance failed to disclose that it had
ceased selling this type of policy in 1981 and that, as a result,
premiums would increase significantly.  The complaint alleges
claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and omission, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and California's Unfair
Competition Law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  The
matter was originally filed in 2008 and certain of the claims in
the first four complaints were dismissed.  In February 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  That motion is
pending decision by the court.  In July 2012, Prudential Insurance
moved for summary judgment on certain of plaintiff's claims.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Cert. Bid in N.J. Consolidated Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay
overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and
Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from
these agents' wages in violation of state law.  The complaint
seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of
improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees.  In March
2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the
federal overtime claim.  Separately, in March 2008, a purported
nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, Wang v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that
the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and provide other
benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.  In
September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the
Bouder matter.  Subsequent amendments to the complaint have
resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations
of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws.  In
February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime
class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008 and
moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of the
named plaintiffs.  In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification of the state law claims.  In August 2010, the
district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the federal overtime claims.  The motion for class
certification of the state law claims is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Certification Bid in SGLI/VGLI MDL Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class
actions were filed challenging Prudential Financial, Inc.'s use of
retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims of
beneficiaries of a group life insurance contract owned by the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs that covers the lives
of members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces.  In 2011, the
cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel for Multi-
District Litigation as In re Prudential Insurance Company of
America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the use of the retained assets accounts that earn
interest and are available to be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in
whole or in part, at any time, to settle death benefit claims is
in violation of federal law, and asserts claims of breach of
contract, breaches of fiduciary duty and the duty of good faith
and fair dealing, fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits,
equitable relief and pre and post-judgment interest.  In March
2011, the motion to dismiss was denied.  In January 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Huffman" Suit vs. Unit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit involving a Prudential Financial, Inc.
subsidiary remains stayed in Pennsylvania, according to the
Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")-governed employee
welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the
use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans
to settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking
injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.  In July 2011, the
Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied.  In
February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.  In
April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the outcome of a
case involving another insurer that is on appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


SLM CORP: Awaits Approval of $35MM Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
the class action lawsuit captioned In Re SLM Corporation
Securities Litigation, according to the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On January 31, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging the
Company and certain officers violated federal securities laws by,
among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's financial
results for year-end 2006 and the first quarter of 2007.  This
case and other actions arising out of the same circumstances and
alleged acts were consolidated.  Earlier this year, the court
certified a class, appointed class counsel and appointed a class
representative.  On March 23, 2012, the parties agreed to a
preliminary settlement pursuant to which the Company would pay $35
million to be funded by its insurers, which settlement is subject
to final Court approval.  The settlement is also subject to
certain termination rights of the parties and the satisfaction of
certain conditions precedent.  The Company can provide no
assurance that it will finalize the settlement.  The Company
continues to vigorously deny all claims asserted against it.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Appeals in Consolidated Suit vs. AMC Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the consolidated litigation against Americas Mining
Corporation, et al., remain pending, according to Southern Copper
Corporation's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Three purported class action derivative lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (New Castle County) late in December
2004 and early January 2005 relating to the proposed merger
transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
(the "Transaction"), which was completed effective April 1, 2005.
On January 31, 2005, the three actions -- Lemon Bay, LLP v.
Americas Mining Corporation ("AMC"), et al., Civil Action No. 961-
N, Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and Southern
Peru Copper Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 969-N, and James
Sousa v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation, et al., Civil Action
No. 978-N -- were consolidated into one action, captioned, In re
Southern Peru Copper Corporation Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Consol. Civil Action No. 961-N; the complaint filed by
Lemon Bay was designated as the operative complaint in the
consolidated lawsuit.  The consolidated action purports to be
brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders; the
defendants in the consolidated action are AMC, German Larrea Mota-
Velasco, Genaro Larrea Mota-Velasco, Oscar Gonzalez Rocha, Emilio
Carrillo Gamboa, Jaime Fernando Collazo Gonzalez, Xavier Garcia de
Quevedo Topete, Armando Ortega Gomez and Juan Rebolledo Gout
(together, the "AMC Defendants"), Carlos Ruiz Sacristan, Harold S.
Handelsman, Gilberto Perezalonso Cifuentes, and Luis Miguel
Palomino Bonilla (together, the "Special Committee Defendants").

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Transaction was the result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Company's directors and was not entirely fair to the Company and
its minority stockholders.  On December 21, 2010, the Court
dismissed the Special Committee Defendants from the action.

On October 14, 2011, the Court issued an opinion on this action
finding that SCC had paid AMC too much stock consideration in the
Transaction.  The Court issued a revised final order and judgment
on December 29, 2011.  The Court decided that the AMC Defendants
were jointly and severally liable for damages in the amount of
$1,347 million plus $684.6 million of pre-judgment interest.
Post-judgment interest continues to accrue from October 15, 2011.
The Court decided that the award is payable by AMC with cash, or
with the return of a number of shares of SCC equal in value to
award, or by SCC cancelling an equivalent number of shares owned
by AMC, or by any combination thereof, so long as the total is
equivalent to the amount of the judgment plus accrued post-
judgment interest.  The Court also awarded attorneys' fees and
expenses in the amount of $304.7 million, or 15% of the judgment,
plus post-judgment interest, payable by SCC out of the award and
not from existing SCC's cash.

On January 20, 2012, the AMC defendants appealed the Court's
decisions.  On the same date, SCC appealed the Court's decision
related to the award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  On May 3,
2012, the Court accepted the security provided by AMC and granted
a stay of the judgment pending final resolution of the appeal.


SPRINT NEXTEL: To Arbitrate Claims for Bogus Roaming Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that claims that
Sprint Nextel improperly charges bogus roaming fees will head to
arbitration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Elevent
Circuit ruled, declining to find the class action waiver
unconscionable.

James Pendergast brought a federal class action against Sprint
Nextel, Sprint Solutions and Sprint Spectrum in 2008 for breach of
contract, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).  The seven-year
Sprint client estimated his individual damages at about $20.
Pointing to a 2007 amendment to its Terms and Conditions, however,
Sprint said that clients had to arbitrate all disputes except for
those within small claims court jurisdiction.

After the Southern District of Florida compelled arbitration under
the Federal Arbitration Act, Mr. Pendergast told the Atlanta-based
federal appeals court that the class action waiver is
unconscionable, and that this also dooms the arbitration clause.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court defended arbitration clauses
against bans enacted by some states in Concepcion v. AT&T Corp.

Citing this case and Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, its own decision
adopting Concepcion, the 11th Circuit affirmed on Aug. 20.

"Resolution of Pendergast's appeal requires only a straightforward
application of Concepcion and Cruz," Judge Frank Hull wrote for a
three-member panel.  "We need not decide whether the class action
waiver here is unconscionable under Florida law or if it
frustrates the remedial purposes of the FDUTPA, because to the
extent Florida law would invalidate the class action waiver, it
would still be preempted by the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act].

"Pendergast's rationales for invalidity of the class action waiver
under Florida unconscionability doctrine and the FDUTPA are
essentially the same.  Pendergast contends the class action waiver
precludes him and other Sprint customers from obtaining meaningful
relief because their claims cannot, as a practical matter, be
pursued individually."

He added: "We conclude that we need not reach the questions of
whether Florida law would invalidate the class action waiver in
the parties' contract because, to the extent it does, it would be
preempted by the FAA.  Under Concepcion, both the class action
waiver and the arbitration clause must be enforced according to
their terms."

A copy of the Opinion in Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corporation,
et al., No. 09-10612 (11th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910612.pdf


ST. LOUIS, MO: Inmates Want to Turn Suit Into Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a lawyer
representing men who were held for months in the city jail in
cases of mistaken identity asked to turn the federal cases into a
class action against the St. Louis police, sheriff's office,
corrections and city officials.

James O. Hacking, who represents Cedric M. Wright and Dwayne A.
Jackson, says four other inmates have told him they too were
wrongfully arrested and jailed.

Mr. Wright, in his complaint filed in January, claims he was held
in jail for 2 months on charges against another man who was
already in jail.

Mr. Jackson, in his complaint filed this month, says he spent 3
months in jail on charges against another man with the same name.

"Local news reports have indicated that there are many more
individuals who have been wrongfully incarcerated due to the
inadequate policies and procedures used by the defendants in
identifying individuals," attorney Mr. Hacking wrote in his
amended complaint.

The class would include all those jailed by officials' mistakes
since April 2010.

A copy of the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action
Complaint in Wright v. Slay, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00107 (E.D.
Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/24/IDClass.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James O. Hacking, III, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Shoulberg, Esq.
          HACKING LAW PRACTICE, LLC
          34 N. Gore, Suite 101
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 961-8200
          E-mail: jim@hackinglawpractice.com


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend Commercial Claims Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The operations of Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") are subject to all operating hazards and risks
normally incidental to handling, storing and delivering
combustible liquids such as propane.  The Partnership has been,
and will continue to be, a defendant in various legal proceedings
and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as
a result of these operating hazards and risks, and as a result of
other aspects of its business.  In this last regard, the
Partnership currently is a defendant in lawsuits in several
states, including two putative class actions in which no class has
yet been certified.  The complaints allege a number of commercial
claims, including as to the Partnership's pricing, fee disclosure
and tank ownership, under various consumer statutes, the Uniform
Commercial Code, common law and antitrust law.  Based on the
nature of the allegations under these commercial lawsuits, the
Partnership believes that the lawsuits are without merit and the
Partnership is contesting each of these lawsuits vigorously.  With
respect to the pending commercial lawsuits, other than for legal
defense fees and expenses, based on the merits of the allegations
and discovery to date, no liability for a loss contingency is
required.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 23, 2012.


TRAVELZOO INC: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelzoo Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's August 3,
2012, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Beginning on August 9, 2011, two purported class action lawsuits
were commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  On January 6, 2012, a Consolidated
and Amended Class Action Complaint was filed. The complaint
asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") alleging that
between March 16, 2011, and July 21, 2011, the Company and/or the
individual defendants purportedly issued materially false and
misleading statements.  In particular, the complaint asserts,
among other things, allegations challenging certain statements
relating to the Company's growth.  The complaint also makes
allegations regarding the Company's Getaways business and asserts
that certain officers and directors sold stock while in possession
of materially adverse non-public information.  The action seeks
unspecified damages and the Company is unable to estimate the
possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result
from the action.  The Company believes that the action is without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


TRUE NUTRITION: Recalls Whey Protein Products
---------------------------------------------
True Nutrition is announcing a recall of Whey Protein Isolate,
Whey Protein Concentrate and Hydrolyzed Whey Protein, because
their labels fail to declare milk as the source of the whey.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk and milk
derivatives run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

Whey Protein Isolate, Whey Protein Concentrate and Hydrolyzed Whey
Protein were distributed through the Web site
http://www.truenutrition.com/

These products can be identified by the following names and lot
numbers:

   * Whey Protein Concentrate (1lb) - Batch/lot: 0120712,
     Exp. Date: 05/2015

   * Whey Protein Isolate Cold-Filtration (1lb) - Batch/lot:
     0030812, Exp. Date: 07/2015

   * Whey Protein Isolate MicroFiltrated (1lb) - Batch/lot:
     0040812, Exp. Date: 07/2015

   * Whey Protein Isolate Cross-Flow Microfiltration (1lb) -
     Batch/lot: 0730712, Exp. Date: 07/2015

   * Hydrolyzed Whey Protein High Grade (1lb) - Batch/lot:
     0680512, Exp. Date: 05/2015

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm316892.htm

As most customers know whey protein is derived from milk.  True
Nutrition shipped the above whey protein products beginning May
2nd 2012 without stating: whey is derived from 'milk' on their
labels through a company printing mistake.  This product recall
notice has been initiated because said products contain milk
ingredients but do not list on the labels that the ingredients are
derived from milk.

If you are allergic or have extreme sensitivity to milk, you
should discontinue use.  In addition, if you may have further
distributed this product, please identify these individuals and
notify them at once of this product recall.

If you have any questions, call Carl Manes at 760-433-5376, Monday
through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time).

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.


UNITED COLLECTION: Court Allows FDCPA Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM, reports that a federal
appeals court on Aug. 24 ruled that a consumer's Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case against a collection agency
can proceed even though the consumer was found to be part of a
class that had previously settled with the firm.  The panel found
that the firm had given insufficient notice to all potential
members of the class.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York sided with the
consumer in Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.  The three-
judge panel noted that the company's notification of a previous
class action settlement for the exact violations Hecht alleged was
not sufficient and that her case should be allowed to move
forward.

Hecht initially filed suit against United Collection Bureau, Inc.
(UCB), alleging that the debt collector violated the FDCPA by
"plac[ing] telephone calls without meaningful disclosure of the
caller's identity," and by failing to disclose in its initial
communication "that the debt collector [wa]s attempting to collect
a debt and that any information obtained w[ould] be used for that
purpose."  UCB moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  UCB argued that Hecht's suit was
precluded under the doctrine of res judicata because Hecht alleged
facts and violations already litigated, settled, and disposed of
by a final judgment of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York in Gravina.

A District Court judge in Connecticut agreed with UCB and
dismissed Hecht's case.

In the Gravina case, UCB agreed to pay $13,254 to a class of
consumers.  Since the class was potentially so large (some two
million people), the company paid the money to a charity.  Each
named plaintiff also received $1,000 under the FDCPA and an
additional $1,500 "in recognition for their services to the
Settlement Class Members."

To notify potential class members of the settlement, UCB ran one
announcement in national newspaper USA Today.

In opposing her case's dismissal, Hecht did not dispute that she
was included in the Gravina Settlement Class definition, nor did
she dispute that she had not attempted to opt out of the Gravina
settlement, to ask the Gravina court to reconsider its Settlement
Order, or to appeal the Settlement Order.  Instead, Hecht argued
that the Settlement Order did not bind her because the USA Today
notice did not comport with due process.

The court agreed and overturned the ruling, sending it back down
to the District Court for further action.  Specifically, the panel
said "aside from individual mailed notice, the defendant could
have also undertaken a more extensive notification campaign --
including electronic media, local publications, and the like --
that would have been more than the 'mere gesture' exemplified by
the one-time USA Today notice."


UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Cert. Ruling in One of Two Canadian Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to certify a class in one of the two outstanding class
action lawsuits in Canada, according to the Company's August 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In Canada, three purported class-action cases were filed against
the Company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec
(2006).  The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning
the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by the
Company under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada.  The British Columbia class-
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge.  That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
the Company's favor.  The Ontario class action was certified in
September 2011.  Partial summary judgment was granted to the
Company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court.  The
complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed.  No appeal is
being taken from that decision.  The allegations of inadequate
disclosure were granted and the Company is appealing that
decision.  The request to certify the case in Quebec was heard in
February 2012.

The Company has denied all liability and its vigorously defending
the two outstanding cases.  The Company says there are multiple
factors that prevent it from being able to estimate the amount of
loss, if any, that may result from these matters, including: (1)
the Company is vigorously defending itself and believes that it
has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are
unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to
the ultimate resolution of these matters.  Accordingly, at this
time, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range
of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether
such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operation or liquidity.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. --
http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S.
Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain &
Freight.


UNITED PARCEL: Price-Fixing Suit Still Pending in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services.  United Parcel Service, Inc. was not
named in this case.  In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as
defendants.  UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60
defendants named in the amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
case.  There are multiple factors that prevent the Company from
being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result
from these matters including: (1) the magistrate judge recommended
that the district court grant the Company's motion to dismiss,
with leave to amend, and the scope of the plaintiffs' claims is
therefore unclear; (2) the scope and size of the proposed class is
ill-defined; (3) there are significant legal questions about the
adequacy and standing of the putative class representatives; and
(4) the Company believes that it has a number of meritorious legal
defenses.  Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not able to
estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from
these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. --
http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S.
Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain &
Freight.


UNITED PARCEL: Defends Two Suits Over Rebranding of UPS Store
-------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. is defending itself and a subsidiary
against two lawsuits relating to the rebranding or purchase of The
UPS Store franchises, according to the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

UPS and its subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are defendants in two
lawsuits about the rebranding or purchase of The UPS Store
franchises -- Morgate (California Superior Court) and Samica
(United States District Court).

   * In Morgate, the plaintiffs are 125 individual franchisees
     who did not rebrand to The UPS Store and a certified class
     of all franchisees who did rebrand.  The trial court entered
     judgment against a bellwether individual plaintiff, which
     was affirmed in January 2012.  The trial court granted the
     Company's motion for summary judgment against the certified
     class, which was reversed in January 2012.

   * In Samica, about half of the approximately 200 plaintiffs
     rebranded and half purchased new The UPS Store franchises.
     Summary judgment for UPS was affirmed by the United States
     Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in December 2011.
     Plaintiffs have filed a petition for certiorari with the
     United States Supreme Court.

The Company says there are multiple factors that prevent it from
being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result
from whatever remaining aspects of these cases proceed including:
(1) the Company is vigorously defending itself and believes it has
a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) it remains
uncertain what evidence of damages, if any, plaintiffs will be
able to present.  Accordingly, at this time, the Company is not
able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result
from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any,
would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, United Parcel Service, Inc. --
http://www.ups.com/-- a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S.
Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain &
Freight.


US NURSING: Accused of Not Paying All Wages to Replacement Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shameka Bolton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. U.S. Nursing Corp., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. RG12640766 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 25,
2012) is brought on behalf of a class of replacement staff to
challenge the alleged unfair and unlawful practices in which the
Defendants have engaged with regard to paying the Replacement
Staff all the wages they have earned and doing so in a timely
manner.

The Plaintiff seeks restitution and compensation on behalf of
herself and the Replacement Staff for unpaid wages, including meal
and rest period premiums, overtime premiums, statutory penalties,
and interest.  The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Ms. Bolton is a resident of California.  She worked for U.S.
Nursing at four health care facilities in California between
January 2011 and the present.

U.S. Nursing is a Colorado corporation headquartered in Greenwood
Village, Colorado.  U.S. Nursing is a temporary services employer
that contracts with health care facilities in California to supply
health care providers to perform services for the client health
care facilities during trade disputes.  The Plaintiff does not
know the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Company removed the lawsuit on August 24, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  U.S. Nursing argues that the removal is proper
because citizenship of the parties is diverse.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-04466 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan E. Gertler, Esq.
          Dan L. Gildor, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: jon@chavezgertler.com
                  dan@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas E. Geidt, Esq.
          Paul W. Cane, Jr., Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Michalowski, Esq.
          Chase W. Ensign, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: tomgeidt@paulhastings.com
                  paulcane@paulhastings.com
                  effmichalowski@paulhastings.com
                  chaseensign@paulhastings.com


VOLUME SERVICES: Sued for Denying Tips to Servers & Runners
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Volume Services America dba
Centerplate swiped the mandatory tips from its servers and runners
at Yankee Stadium, a class action claims in New York County
Supreme Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ryan v. Volume Services America, Inc.
d/b/a Centerplate, et al., Index No. 652970/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/24/AtYankee.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


W. ROSS MACDONALD: Crown Blames Government in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In a Statement of Defence released on Aug. 23, Ontario's Crown
claims that any inadequacies in the operation and management of
the Brantford-area W. Ross Macdonald School for the blind were the
result of funding decisions made at the "highest levels of
government."

"I am shocked that the Crown would blame the abuse of vulnerable
children solely on Ontario government ministers and the Premier of
Ontario," said Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP, representing the
plaintiffs. "The Crown needs to stop blaming others and finally
take responsibility for what happened at the W. Ross Macdonald
School."

The case involves allegations that the Ontario government failed
to operate or supervise the W. Ross Macdonald School in a way that
ensured the safety and well-being of its students.  It is alleged
that those caring for the students at W. Ross Macdonald were
abusive and took advantage of the students' visual disabilities
and that they endured physical, sexual and mental abuse.  The
action was commenced by Robert Seed, a former student who attended
the school from 1954 to 1965 as a young boy.

"These former students were children and teenagers when they were
abused," said Mr. Baert.  "The Crown needs to realize that it had
a duty to care for these children.  Since it did not, at least let
former students see justice in their lifetime."

The W. Ross Macdonald School opened in 1872 as the Ontario
Institution for the Education of the Blind.  It is one of two
Ontario-run residential schools in Ontario for blind, deafblind
and visually impaired students.

For further information:

          Kirk Baert, Esq.
          Koskie Minsky LLP
          Telephone: (416) 595-2117
          E-mail: kbaert@kmlaw.ca


XCEL ENERGY: Appeal From 2nd "Comer" Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against
Xcel Energy Inc., et al., remains pending, according to the
Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., filed a second
lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal
companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint
alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of
Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly
sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on
public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the
defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc. and its
subsidiary Northern States Power Company (NSP-Minnesota).  The
amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  The
defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is
without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In March
2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal.
In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

While Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given
the nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it could
potentially have a material impact on Xcel Energy's consolidated
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.  No
accrual has been recorded for this matter.


ZIPCAR INC: Class Suit Over Late Fee Charges Dismissed in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit relating to Zipcar, Inc.'s late fee charges
was dismissed in July 2012, according to the Company's August 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On July 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-
11340-RGS.  The lawsuit alleged that the Company's late fees were
unlawful penalties.  The lawsuit purported to assert claims
against the Company for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
for declaratory judgment, and for unfair and deceptive trade
practices under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93A, and requested
certification of a class consisting of all Zipcar members who have
incurred late fees at the presently imposed rates.  The plaintiff
sought unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement of the
revenues and/or profits that the Company allegedly received from
imposing late fees, as well as a declaration that such late fees
were void, unenforceable, and/or unconscionable, and an award of
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  On November 10, 2011,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss, and on July 31, 2012, the
court granted its motion to dismiss, dismissing the lawsuit with
prejudice.


                           *********

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  * * *