CAR_Public/120913.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 13, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 182

                             Headlines

AHMC INC: Agrees to Pay $6MM to Settle Overtime Class Action
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: App. Court Refuses to Revive Class Action
AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Cramming
AURORA ORGANIC: Settles Organic Milk Class Actions for $7.5MM
BAYER: March 2013 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

BELFORD HIGH: Ordered to Pay $22.7 Million in Class Action
CANADA: Non-Striking Students File Class Action v. Quebec Gov't.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Brantley" Plaintiffs to Appeal to Sup. Ct.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in "Marchese" Class Suit Ongoing
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in N.Y. Consumer Suit Ongoing

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Has to Answer "Livingston" Suit by Sept. 14
CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit Still Pending in Indiana
CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: "Collins" Class Suit Dismissed in July
DEL MONTE CORP: Sued Over Dangerous Chicken Jerky Dog Treats
FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Rulings in Mich. Suit Over Transfer Taxes

FEDERAL HOME: Discovery in "OPERS" Securities Suit Ongoing
FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Class Action Suit Remains Dormant
FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Appeal Denied in Suit vs. Underwriters
FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Rulings on Pending Bids in "Kuriakose" Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Ohio Class Suit Pending in Sup. Ct.

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Defends Suits Over Bruce Mansfield Plant
FOREVER CHEESE: Recalls Ricotta Salata Frescolina Brand
GENESEE & WYOMING: Sued Over Proposed RailAmerica Acquisition
GEOEYE INC: Faces Two Suits Over Proposed DigitalGlobe Merger
ILLINOIS: Health Dept. Faces Suit for In-Home Nursing Funding Cuts

ISTAR FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $29 Mil.
KINDER MORGAN: Settles El Paso Shareholder Suits for $110 Mil.
LAW SCHOOL: Government Intervention Sought in LSAT Class Action
LEUCADIA NAT'L: Debt-Collection Suit Gets Class-Action Status
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Loan Officers File Overtime Class Action

SEC: Must Face Class Action Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme
SYNGENTA: Montgomery Water Systems Join Class Action Settlement
TARGET CORP: Sued Over Failure to Pay Laid-Off Employees' Wages
TD BANK: Faces Class Action in Penn. For Uncompensated Overtime
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces Class Action in California

ULTRAMAR: Court Approves Gas Price Hike Class-Action Expansion
UNITED STATES: Judge to Hear Mentally-Disabled Immigrants' Suit
VERTEX PHARMA: Issues Correction to Sept. 6 Class Action Release
WET SEAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action


                          *********

AHMC INC: Agrees to Pay $6MM to Settle Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Winnick, writing for Law360, reports that hospital chain AHMC
Inc. has agreed to pay $6 million to settle a class action
alleging it shorted about 2,500 workers on overtime and breaks,
but a California judge held off on approving the deal on Sept. 7,
saying she needs more information about the value of their claims.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michelle R. Rosenblatt declined
to grant a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by
AHMC and several related hospital entities.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: App. Court Refuses to Revive Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
appellate court on Sept. 7 refused to revive a class action
looking to prevent Allstate Insurance Co. and other auto insurers
from denying drivers coverage for diminished vehicle values under
their policies' uninsured and underinsured motorist provisions,
ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

The court noted that the appeal didn't concern whether a third-
party action for a vehicle's diminished value following an
accident could stand, but instead whether the plaintiffs could
obtain a ruling requiring the insurers to pay such claims in the
future.


AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Cramming
-----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T Mobility "very
deliberately" crams for itself and allows third-party crammers to
use it, a class action claims in Superior Court.


AURORA ORGANIC: Settles Organic Milk Class Actions for $7.5MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Organic Dairy on Sept. 7 disclosed that it has reached an
agreement to settle all claims in the consolidated class action
lawsuits pending before the U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the
district court confirmed that Aurora's milk was at all times
properly labeled and sold as organic, and that Aurora's milk has
been certified as organic by a USDA-accredited certifying agent
since 2004.  As such, the only remaining action in this lawsuit,
which was originally filed in 2007, concerned marketing claims
made by Aurora and its customers.

While the courts confirmed Aurora's organic certifications have
always been valid and the Company is confident it would prevail in
trial on the remaining marketing claims, Aurora reached the
settlement to avoid the cost and distraction of protracted
litigation.  According to the agreement, the Company will pay a
one-time amount of $7.5 million to cover all settlement class
costs, including class claims, attorneys' fees for up to 60 or
more plaintiffs' lawyers, and the costs of notice and
administration.  The Company also will continue for three years
certain existing farming practices at its Platteville dairy.  The
settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval,
dismisses all claims brought against Aurora and its retail
customers, and contains no admission of wrongdoing by any of the
parties.

"Since our inception in 2004, Aurora Organic Dairy's mission has
been to provide American families with high-quality organic milk,"
said Marc Peperzak, founder and CEO of Aurora Organic Dairy.
"Without exception, we have always produced organic dairy products
without chemical fertilizers, synthetic pesticides, antibiotics
and artificial growth hormones according to USDA organic
standards.  Aurora's products have been continuously certified as
organic since 2004 with the USDA Organic Seal, the marketplace
standard that American families rely on and trust."

To ensure the highest quality organic dairy products, Aurora
follows a strict set of guidelines for organic livestock
operations and management.  In accordance with USDA organic
regulations, Aurora cows receive a diet of organic-certified feed,
including pasture, grown without the use of chemical fertilizers
or synthetic pesticides, and other prohibited substances.  With
more than 8,200 acres of organic pastures for grazing, Aurora
farms consist of free-stall barns, open housing and best-in-class
milking parlors.  Aurora processes its milk in its own state-of-
the-art processing facility to ensure that organic standards are
followed at each level of its sustainable-scale organic dairy,
from the farm to the carton.

"As the market for organic products expands, more people want to
know how their food is made," said Scott McGinty, President of
Aurora Organic Dairy.  "Our sustainable-scale, integrated organic
dairy model assures retailers and consumers they have the very
best organic milk in the marketplace. As a result, more families
are able to access high-quality organic milk they can trust."

"From our milking facilities to our barns, we pride ourselves on
maintaining the highest standards for animal welfare, and I
personally have worked to secure Aurora's position as a pioneer in
the care and treatment of our animals," said Dr. Juan Velez,
Executive Vice President of Farm Operations for Aurora Organic
Dairy.  "As organic farmers, we fundamentally understand that
high-quality milk can only come from healthy cows, and we place
extreme focus on science-based disease prevention and on keeping
our cows healthy and stress-free."

Aurora's commitment to exacting animal welfare standards is
evidenced by its continual certification from Validus, an
independent third-party animal welfare auditor.  With stringent
standards for animal welfare accreditation, Validus' comprehensive
audit system was developed by leading animal welfare experts,
including; Dr. Jim Reynolds, Western University, CA; Dr. Dennis
Armstrong, Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona; John Smith
Ph.D., University of Arizona and Mike Gamroth, Oregon State
University.  In addition, the program is annually reviewed by
world-renowned animal welfare expert, Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado
State University.

Aurora Organic Dairy is a producer of private-brand organic milk
and butter for U.S. retailers.  Based in Boulder, Colorado, it
operates a calf ranch and organic dairy farms in Colorado and
Texas, as well as an organic dairy processing plant in
Platteville, Colorado.


BAYER: March 2013 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Douglas & London P.C. on
Sept. 7 issued a statement pursuant to an order of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York:

If you purchased either of the following Bayer Aspirin products in
the U.S., you may be entitled to compensation.

Bayer(R) Aspirin With Heart Advantage 1/1/08 - 7/23/12

Bayer(R) Women's Low-Dose Aspirin + Calcium 1/1/00 - 7/23/12

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? Plaintiffs claim that Bayer
overcharged consumers for Bayer(R) Aspirin With Heart Advantage
and Bayer(R) Women's Low-Dose Aspirin + Calcium ("Combination
Aspirin Products") or that these products should not have been
sold, because these products were not FDA-approved, could not
provide all advertised health benefits and were inappropriate for
long-term use.  Bayer denies it did anything wrong.  The Court has
not decided who is right and who is wrong.  The lawsuit is called
In re Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Products Marketing & Sales
Practices Litigation, No. 09-MD-2023 (BMC) (JMA) in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT? Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, each Settlement Class Member who submits a
valid claim may be entitled to money.  Bayer has agreed to make
payments totaling $15,000,000.00 to settle Plaintiffs' claims,
including attorneys' fees and costs.  For more details, write to
the address or visit the Web site identified below.

ARE YOU AFFECTED? If you purchased either of the listed
Combination Aspirin Products in the U.S. for personal, family or
household uses within the specific time stated, then you are a
member of a Settlement Class.  Be sure to visit the Web site for
complete Class Member definitions.

WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS? You have a choice of whether to stay in
any Settlement Class or not, and you must decide soon -- the
deadline for exclusion is December 20, 2012.

Stay In: you will be legally bound by the terms of the settlement,
and you won't be able to sue Bayer-as part of any other lawsuit-
for any claims arising from or related to the Combination Aspirin
Products except for any personal injury claims.  To receive
benefits from the settlement, you must submit a valid, sworn Claim
Form.  The Claim Form must be postmarked or submitted online by
April 29, 2013.  Any member of any Settlement Class that does not
timely submit a valid, sworn Claim Form will not be entitled to
settlement benefits.

To file a Claim Form, visit
http://www.BayerCombinationAspirinSettlement.com

Get Out: If you get out, you will not receive benefits from the
proposed settlement, but you will keep rights to sue Bayer for
these claims, and will not be bound by the terms of the
settlement.  To be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
act before December 20, 2012.  If you wish to be excluded from one
or more of the Settlement Classes visit
http://www.BayerCombinationAspirinSettlement.com

Object: If you stay in any Settlement Class, you can object to the
Settlement and must act by February 5, 2013.

WHO REPRESENTS ME? The Court has appointed Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP and Douglas & London P.C. to represent the Settlement
Classes.  You may hire your own attorney, if you wish, at your own
expense.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern, to determine
whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and to approve attorney fees and costs.  The Hearing will be at
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201.  If you are a member
of a Settlement Class who did not seek to be excluded, you may
write to the Court to object to the proposed settlement, and you
may ask to speak at the hearing about the fairness of the proposed
settlement.

HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions, visit
http://www.BayerCombinationAspirinSettlement.com,call 1-877-257-
5766, or write to Bayer Combination Aspirin Litigation Settlement,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 808061, Petaluma, CA 94975-8061.


BELFORD HIGH: Ordered to Pay $22.7 Million in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick DeSantis, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education,
reports that a federal judge has ordered a Pakistani man and two
of his companies, Belford High School and Belford University, to
pay $22.7-million in a class-action lawsuit originally filed by a
Michigan woman who accused the businesses of selling worthless
degrees, according to the news Web site MLive.com.

The judgment, handed down by Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S.
District Court in Flint, Mich., reflects the roughly $250 price of
each diploma sold to 30,500 American students from 2003 to 2009,
when the lawsuit was filed, multiplied by three.  The defendant,
Salem Kureshi, had argued that his operations were not a sham, but
the judge rejected his claims and ordered him to comply with the
terms of the judgment.

A spokesman for Belford University, which is based in Humble,
Tex., declined to comment on the lawsuit.


CANADA: Non-Striking Students File Class Action v. Quebec Gov't.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nickeesha Swaby at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class
action against 25 colleges and Quebec, Canadian students say the
schools didn't do enough to protect students who did not want to
strike against tuition increases this spring.

About 150,000 of Quebec's 460,000 post-secondary students went on
strike this spring, challenging the government's plan to increase
tuition by $325 a year over 5 years.

University students in Quebec pay about $2,520 a year in tuition:
the lowest in Canada and less than half of what students in most
other provinces pay, according to Statistics Canada.

Lead plaintiffs Kim Laganiere and Mihai Adrian Graghici sued 25
universities and junior colleges and the attorney general of
Quebec, claiming their education and job prospects were injured
when winter term classes were terminated.

Ms. Laganiere, a 20-year-old nursing student at College
Montmorency, says she voted against the strike vote, but was
unable to finish her academic session when winter classes were
terminated.  She says she will get her diploma 6 months later than
expected, and wants compensation for the time she will miss in the
work force.

Ms. Graghici says she is in a similar situation, as her studies at
the Universite Laval were also disrupted.

During the protests, Quebec courts issued temporary injunctions
for several post-secondary institutions, intended to force
students to end picket lines and return to class.  In May, Bill 78
was enacted to ensure that post-secondary students have the right
to attend classes without obstruction.

Bill 78 restricts protesting on college grounds and requires
protest groups of 50 or more people to submit protest routes and
agendas to police for approval.

But the class claims in its complaint, "This measure did not
address the damage already caused to students wanting to pursue
their courses."

The class blasts the government for "doing nothing" to facilitate
the resumption of classes, before Bill 78.  It claims that
government officials tried to negotiate with student associations
that organized the strikes "while they knew or should have known
that these associations had no legitimacy to do so."

The newly elected Parti Quebecois government has promised to scrap
the tuition hikes and repeal Bill 78, which was implemented by
outgoing Premier Jean Charest.

The class seeks compensation for lost earnings, lost work
experience, and loss of tuition and scholarships.

The class is represented by Michel Savonitto.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/Quebec.pdf


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Brantley" Plaintiffs to Appeal to Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation disclosed in its August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that plaintiffs in the
lawsuit titled Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al.
filed a petition seeking leave to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
the dismissal of their class action suit.

On September 20, 2007, individual cable and satellite subscribers,
purportedly on behalf of a nationwide class of cable and satellite
subscribers, filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Cablevision and
several other defendants, including other cable and satellite
providers and programming content providers.  The complaint, as
amended, alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by agreeing to the sale and licensing of
programming on a "bundled" basis and by offering programming in
packaged tiers rather than on an "a la carte" basis.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
On June 12, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On October 15, 2009, the District Court
granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the third amended
complaint with prejudice for failure to plead foreclosure of any
non-defendant programmers, which the Court held to be a necessary
element of the alleged antitrust injury.  On April 19, 2010,
plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

On March 30, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the case.  On April 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed
petitions for rehearing which the Ninth Circuit denied on May 4,
2012.  On August 2, 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition seeking
leave to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Company says it intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in "Marchese" Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuit captioned
Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC
Holdings, LLC, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.  After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision-compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.  On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.

On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a decision
dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization claim, but
allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state common law
claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer to the third amended
complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.  Discovery is
proceeding.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Discovery in N.Y. Consumer Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated consumer litigation
against Cablevision Systems Corporation, according to the
Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on
October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the
programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations
and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television
systems.  On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an
agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and
networks, and carriage was restored.  Several purported class
action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's
customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those
lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned In re
Cablevision Consumer Litigation, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011.  Plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer
fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims which were dismissed.  On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract.  The Company's answer was filed on
May 2, 2012.  Discovery is proceeding.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Has to Answer "Livingston" Suit by Sept. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation has until September 14, 2012, to
answer the amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned
Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al., according
to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a
Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between
February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011.  The complaint alleges
that Cablevision and the individual defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by allegedly issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding (i) the
Company's customer retention and advertising costs, and (ii) the
Company's loss of video customers, especially in the New York
area.  The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same
alleged conduct.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.  On March 26, 2012, the
Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical
Pension Fund submitted a joint application to serve as lead
plaintiffs.  The Court granted the application on April 13, 2012.
On June 29, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants have until September 14, 2012, to answer or otherwise
respond.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit, but is
unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: "Leathermon" Suit Still Pending in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including Carriage Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries
that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on
behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods
and services at Grandview Cemetery.  The case is styled
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al.,
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case
No. 4:07-cv-137.  Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and
claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently,
breached Plaintiffs' contracts, and made misrepresentations
regarding the cemetery.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the
claims occurred prior, during and after the Company owned the
cemetery.  On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from
Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District
of Indiana.  On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been
scheduled to file their briefs, in opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their
complaint to add new class representatives and claims, while also
seeking to abandon other claims.  The Company, as well as several
other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their
complaint and add parties.  In April 2009, two Defendants moved to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing
Plaintiffs in this action.  On June 30, 2010, the Court granted
the Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.  In that
order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain
new counsel.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the
trial court's order of disqualification of counsel.  On May 19,
2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus.  On
July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for
writ of mandamus.  Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order,
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010, in which to
retain new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf.
Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial court granted the
newly retained Plaintiffs' counsel 90 days to review the case and
advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek leave to
amend their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are
currently stated therein and whether or not they would seek leave
to amend the proposed class representatives for class
certification.  Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both the class
representatives and the allegations stated within the complaint.
Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments.  The Court issued
an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the
class representatives and a portion of their claims; however,
certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed.  Discovery in
this matter will now proceed.  The Company says it intends to
defend this action vigorously.  Because the lawsuit is in its
preliminary stages, the Company is unable to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to it or to estimate the
amount or range of any potential loss, if any, at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: "Collins" Class Suit Dismissed in July
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Deborah A. Collins in
Washington was dismissed in July 2012, Concur Technologies, Inc.
said in its August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On February 15, 2012, an alleged derivative and class action
complaint, captioned Deborah A. Collins v. S. Steven Singh, et
al., No. 12-2-05878-4-SEA, was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for King County against Concur Technologies,
Inc. as a nominal defendant and certain of its directors and
executive officers by a plaintiff who claims to be a shareholder.
Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that certain restricted
stock units and bonuses granted to officers were improper and
subjected Concur to unnecessary tax liability, and that Concur's
2012 proxy statement was false and misleading.  Plaintiff
purported to bring both derivative claims on Concur's behalf and a
direct claim on behalf of shareholders, and sought relief
including damages, disgorgement, equitable remedies and attorneys'
fees and costs.  Concur moved to dismiss the complaint on the
grounds that all of the claims are derivative, and that plaintiff
failed to establish her standing to assert such claims on Concur's
behalf inasmuch as she did not make a pre-suit demand on the Board
of Directors and failed to plead adequately that such demand was
excused.  On July 20, 2012, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss with prejudice.

From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings
that arise in the ordinary course of its business.  Any such
proceedings, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming,
costly, and result in the diversion of significant operational
resources or management time.

Although the outcomes of legal proceedings are inherently
difficult to predict, the Company is not currently involved in any
legal proceeding in which the outcome, in its judgment based on
information currently available, is likely to have a material
adverse effect on its business or financial position.


DEL MONTE CORP: Sued Over Dangerous Chicken Jerky Dog Treats
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Del Monte and Kroger
continued to sell dangerous, Chinese-made Milo's Kitchen chicken
jerky dog treats though they knew they could poison dogs, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Langone v. Del Monte Corp., Case No.
12-cv-04671 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/DogBiscuits.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grenville Pridham, Esq.
          2522 Chambers Road, Suite 100
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 486-5144
          E-mail: grenville@grenvillpridham.com


FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Rulings in Mich. Suit Over Transfer Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is awaiting court decisions
in a lawsuit related to real estate transfer taxes pending in
Michigan, according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 20, 2011, Oakland County (Michigan) and the Oakland County
Treasurer filed a lawsuit against Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
alleging that the enterprises failed to pay real estate transfer
taxes on transfers of real property in Oakland County where the
enterprises were the grantors.  The Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) later intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae.  On November 10, 2011, Genesee County (Michigan) and the
Genesee County Treasurer filed a class action lawsuit in the same
court on behalf of itself and the other 82 Michigan Counties
raising similar claims against FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac,
and Fannie Mae.  The Court later certified the class, with two
Michigan counties opting out.  The Michigan Department of Attorney
General and the Michigan Department of Treasury intervened in both
actions against the defendants.  In both actions, FHFA, Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae asserted that they were not liable for the
transfer taxes based on statutory tax exemptions applicable to
each.

On March 23, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment against FHFA
(as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae in both actions,
determining that the statutory exemptions did not exempt them from
Michigan's state and county transfer tax.  On April 24, 2012, the
plaintiffs in the Oakland County case sought leave to file a
second amended complaint to cover purportedly taxable transactions
where the enterprises received property as grantees through a
Michigan Sheriff's deed or a deed in lieu of foreclosure.  Also on
April 24, 2012, FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae
requested that the Court certify its March 23, 2012 orders
granting plaintiffs summary judgment for an interlocutory appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and stay the
actions pending resolution of any resulting appeal.  On April 26,
2012, the plaintiffs in the Genesee County case sought leave to
file an amended complaint to cover purportedly taxable
transactions where the enterprises received property as grantees
through a Michigan Sheriff's deed or a deed in lieu of
foreclosure.  On May 21, 2012, FHFA (as Conservator), Freddie Mac,
and Fannie Mae filed a petition for permission to appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The Court has not
yet ruled on the defendants' motion for certification of an
interlocutory appeal and motion for a stay, the Oakland
plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint or the
Genesee plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint, nor has
it addressed the amount of damages the plaintiffs contend are owed
in either case.

On or about June 22, 2011, Curtis Hertel (individually and as
Register of Deeds of Ingham County, Michigan) filed a lawsuit in
Michigan state court against Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and others
alleging, among other things, that the defendants failed to pay
real estate transfer taxes on transfers of real property in Ingham
County where the enterprises were the grantors and grantees.  FHFA
later intervened as Conservator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,
and the Michigan Department of Attorney General and the Michigan
Department of Treasury intervened against the enterprises.  The
defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan and then filed motions to dismiss
and/or for summary judgment. The Court dismissed plaintiff Hertel
from the case concluding that Hertel was not a proper plaintiff,
but the Court has not yet ruled on the enterprises' and FHFA's
motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment as to the claims
asserted by the Michigan Department of Attorney General and the
Michigan Department of Treasury.

The plaintiffs in the Oakland County, Genesee County, and Ingham
County cases are all seeking a declaration that the enterprises'
statutory exemptions do not cover recording taxes such as the
Michigan transfer taxes, damages against the enterprises for
unpaid state transfer taxes, as well as penalties, interest, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company is also a defendant in similar lawsuits in 13 states
and the District of Columbia.  These lawsuits, other than the one
in the District of Columbia, were all filed after the Company
received the unfavorable ruling in Michigan on March 23, 2012.
Each of these lawsuits generally challenges the Company's
statutory exemption from transfer taxes imposed on the transfer of
real estate properties and seeks damages in an amount yet to be
determined for unpaid transfer taxes on transfers to and/or from
the defendants as well as other items, which may include
penalties, interest, liquidated penalties, pre-judgment interest,
costs or attorneys' fees.  These lawsuits may lead to additional
similar lawsuits in other states and jurisdictions that impose
these taxes.

At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the
probable outcome of these lawsuits or any potential effect on its
business, financial condition or results of operation.  In
addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss with respect to these
lawsuits due to the following factors, among others: (a) none of
the plaintiffs have demanded a stated amount of damages they
believe are due; (b) with respect to the Oakland County and
Genesee County lawsuits, the scope of permissible claims has not
yet been determined and discovery regarding the amount of damages
is still in the early stages; and (c) with respect to the other
lawsuits, discovery regarding the amount of damages has not yet
begun.


FEDERAL HOME: Discovery in "OPERS" Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by Ohio
Public Employees Retirement System, according to Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

The putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et
al., was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on
January 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006, through November 20, 2007.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's business, risk management and the
procedures the Company put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry.  On April 10, 2008, the Court
appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of
counsel.  On September 2, 2008, defendants filed motions to
dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.  On November 7, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which removed certain
allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, and Eugene
McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading allegations against only
Patricia Cook.  The second amended complaint also extends the
damages period, but not the class period.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees.  On November 19,
2008, the Court granted the motion of Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) to intervene in its capacity as Conservator.  On
April 6, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

On January 23, 2012, the Court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss and set a briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend its complaint.  On February 13, 2012, plaintiff
filed motion for leave to amend, which sought leave to file a
third amended complaint and add allegations based on a non-
prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC
on December 15, 2011.  On March 27, 2012, the Court granted the
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, and plaintiff filed its
third amended complaint on March 28, 2012.  On April 26, 2012,
defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint.
The Court denied the motions on May 25, 2012.  All defendants have
filed answers to the third amended complaint.  Discovery is
ongoing.

At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the
probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on its
business, financial condition, or results of operations.  In
addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse
judgment in the matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; and the fact
that the parties have not yet briefed and the Court has not yet
ruled upon motions for class certification or summary judgment.
In particular, absent the certification of a class, the
identification of a class period, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range
of possible loss.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Class Action Suit Remains Dormant
--------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation officers and others styled Jacoby vs. Syron, Cook,
Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and
FTN Financial Markets.  The complaint, as amended on December 17,
2008, contends that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in connection with Freddie Mac's September
2007 offering of non-cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-
rate preferred stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated
Freddie Mac's capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie
Mac's exposure to mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting
standards and risk management procedures."  The complaint further
alleges that Syron, Cook, and Piszel made additional false
statements following the offering.  Freddie Mac is not named as a
defendant in this lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave
notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity
and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in this case,
including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal
counsel.  The case is currently dormant and the Company believes
plaintiff may have abandoned it.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


FEDERAL HOME: Motion to Appeal Denied in Suit vs. Underwriters
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied in May
2012 plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the denial of their
bid for class certification in the consolidated lawsuit involving
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's underwriters, according
to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

By letter dated October 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
vs. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the Company's November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of
8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock.

On January 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled Kreysar vs. Syron, et al. On April 30, 2009, the
Court consolidated the Mark case with the Kreysar case, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 2,
2009.  The consolidated complaint alleged that three former
Freddie Mac officers, certain underwriters and Freddie Mac's
auditor violated federal securities laws by making material false
and misleading statements in connection with the Company's
November 29, 2007 public offering of $6 billion of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.  The
complaint further alleged that certain defendants and others made
additional false statements following the offering.  The complaint
named as defendants Richard Syron, Anthony Piszel, Patricia Cook
Cty., Goldman, Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Securities Inc., Banc of
America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

After the Court dismissed, without prejudice, the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, amended consolidated complaint, and second
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Messrs.
Syron and Piszel, omitting Ms. Cook and the underwriter
defendants, on November 14, 2010.  On January 11, 2011, the Court
granted the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
with respect to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, but denied the motion
with respect to Messrs. Syron and Piszel.  On April 4, 2011, Mr.
Piszel filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.  The
Court granted that motion on April 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs moved
for class certification on June 30, 2011, but withdrew this motion
on July 5, 2011.  The plaintiffs again moved for class
certification on August 30, 2011, which motion was denied on March
27, 2012.  Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of this denial on
April 11, 2012.  The Court denied the motion for reconsideration
on May 2, 2012.  On May 31, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal
the denial of class certification.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in the consolidated
lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave notice to Freddie
Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity and contribution
under the underwriting agreement in this case, including
reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their legal counsel.
At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the
probable outcome of the lawsuit or any potential effect on the
Company's business, financial condition or results of operations.
In addition, the Company is are unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse
judgment in the matter due to the inherent uncertainty of
litigation and the fact that plaintiffs may appeal the denial of
class certification.  Absent the certification of a specified
class, the identification of a class period, and the
identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive
dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss.


FEDERAL HOME: Awaits Rulings on Pending Bids in "Kuriakose" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is awaiting rulings on
several motions pending in the securities class action lawsuit
captioned Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook Cty.,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Piszel and Cook Cty., is another
putative class action lawsuit filed against Freddie Mac and
certain former officers on August 15, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged violations
of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November 21, 2007, through
August 5, 2008.  The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false
and misleading statements about Freddie Mac's business that
artificially inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and
seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On February
6, 2009, the Court granted Federal Housing Finance Agency's motion
to intervene in its capacity as Conservator.  On May 19, 2009,
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, purportedly on
behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from November
20, 2007, through September 7, 2008.  Freddie Mac filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on February 24, 2010.  On March 30, 2011,
the Court granted without prejudice Freddie Mac's motion to
dismiss all claims, and allowed the plaintiffs the option to file
a new complaint, which they did on July 15, 2011.  The defendants
have filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint.

On February 17, 2012, plaintiff served a motion seeking leave to
file a third amended consolidated complaint based on the non-
prosecution agreement entered into between Freddie Mac and the SEC
on December 15, 2011.  These motions have been fully briefed and
remain pending before the Court.

At present, it is not possible for the Company to predict the
probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on its
business, financial condition, or results of operations.  In
addition, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse
judgment in the matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; the fact that
the Court has not yet ruled upon the defendants' motions to
dismiss the second amended complaint or plaintiffs' motion seeking
leave to file a third amended complaint; and the fact that the
Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class certification or
summary judgment.  In particular, absent the certification of a
class, the identification of a class period, and the
identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive
dispositive motions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appeal in Ohio Class Suit Pending in Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action lawsuit in Ohio remains pending in the
Ohio Supreme Court, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s August 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy; The Cleveland
Electric Illuminating Company, an Ohio electric utility operating
subsidiary; and Ohio Edison Company, an Ohio electric utility
operating subsidiary, seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief, as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential
damages, on behalf of a class of customers related to the
reduction of a discount that had previously been in place for
residential customers with electric heating, electric water
heating, or load management systems.  The reduction in the
discount had been approved by the Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio.  In March 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion
to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction.  The court
granted the motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.  The Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint by the Court of Common
Pleas on all counts except for one relating to an allegation of
fraud which it remanded to the trial court.  The Companies timely
filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio on
December 5, 2011, challenging this one aspect of the Court of
Appeals opinion.  The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to hear the
appeal.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Defends Suits Over Bruce Mansfield Plant
----------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. continues to defend its subsidiary against
lawsuits related to its Bruce Mansfield Plant, according to the
Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs
were filed against FirstEnergy Generation Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking
damages based on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield
Plant.  Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the Bruce
Mansfield Plant from operating except in a "safe, responsible,
prudent and proper manner."  One complaint was filed on behalf of
twenty-one individuals and the other is a class action complaint
seeking certification as a class with the eight named plaintiffs
as the class representatives.  FGCO believes the claims are
without merit and intends to defend itself against the allegations
made in these complaints.


FOREVER CHEESE: Recalls Ricotta Salata Frescolina Brand
-------------------------------------------------------
Forever Cheese Inc. is recalling all Ricotta Salata Frescolina
brand, Forever Cheese lot # T9425 and/or production code 441202,
from one specific production date due to possible Listeria
Monocytogenes contamination, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The cheese was sold to distributors for retailers and restaurants
in CA, CO, D.C., FL, GA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OH,
OR, PA, VA, WA between June 20 and August 9, 2012.  Products were
sold to supermarkets, restaurants and wholesale distributors.

The cheese in question is Ricotta Salata brand Frescolina from one
production date coded 441202 on the original wheel.  There have
been 14 reported illnesses in 11 states which may be related to
this.  Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm318846.htm

The potential for contamination was noted after illness was
reported in connection with eating cheese.  Each and every
distributor and retailer are being contacted in an effort to
recall any and all remaining product in the marketplace.

If you believe that you have purchased any of this cheese please
contact your distributor or retailer for a full refund.  If you
have any questions please call Forever Cheese (888)930-8693,
contact Jeff DiMeo from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time and mention Recall.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Sued Over Proposed RailAmerica Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee & Wyoming Inc. is facing class action lawsuits in
connection with its proposed acquisition of RailAmerica, Inc.,
according to the Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On July 23, 2012, the Company and RailAmerica, Inc. (RailAmerica)
jointly announced their entry into an agreement under which the
Company will acquire RailAmerica for a cash purchase price of
$27.50 per share, or $1.4 billion based on a 50.8 million diluted
share count, plus the assumption of net debt of approximately $600
million (RailAmerica Acquisition).

In connection with the agreement with RailAmerica, four putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in state courts
located in Florida and Delaware.  On July 26, 2012, John Langan v.
RailAmerica Inc., et al., No. 16-2012-CA-008207 was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit for Duval County,
Florida, Civil Division against RailAmerica, the RailAmerica
directors, the Company and the merger subsidiary.  The complaint
alleges, inter alia, that the RailAmerica directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their decision to sell
RailAmerica to the Company via an allegedly flawed process and
failed to obtain the best financial and other terms.  The
complaint also alleges that RailAmerica, the Company and the
merger subsidiary aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
duty.  The complaint requests, among other relief, an order to
enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger
agreement, and attorneys' fees.  On July 31, 2012, Nicolas Sambuco
v. RailAmerica Inc., et al., No. 16-2012-CA-008339 was filed in
the same court, names the same defendants, and alleges
substantially similar claims.  Also on July 31, 2012, plaintiffs
Langan and Sambuco filed a motion to consolidate the two Florida
actions, appoint plaintiffs Langan and Sambuco as lead plaintiffs,
and appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel in
the proposed consolidated action.  Brian T. Ford v. RailAmerica,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 7744, and KBC Asset Management N.V.
v. RailAmerica, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 7755, were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on August 2, 2012,
and August 7, 2012, respectively.  The Delaware complaints name
the same defendants and allege substantially similar claims as the
Florida actions.  Both Delaware actions seek, among other relief,
an order to enjoin consummation of the merger and attorneys' fees.
The Ford complaint also seeks damages.


GEOEYE INC: Faces Two Suits Over Proposed DigitalGlobe Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
GeoEye, Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits arising from its
proposed merger with DigitalGlobe, Inc., according to the
Company's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On July 22, 2012, GeoEye entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with DigitalGlobe, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, or DigitalGlobe, 20/20 Acquisition Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
DigitalGlobe, or Merger Sub, and WorldView, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of
DigitalGlobe, or Merger Sub 2, pursuant to which, at the effective
time of the Merger, or the Effective Time, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company, or the Merger, and the separate
corporate existence of Merger Sub will cease and the Company will
continue as the surviving corporation in the Merger, or the
Surviving Corporation.  Immediately after the Effective Time, the
Surviving Corporation will be merged with and into Merger Sub 2,
or the Subsequent Merger and, together with the Merger, the
Combination, and the separate corporate existence of the Surviving
Corporation will cease and Merger Sub 2 will continue as the
surviving company in the Subsequent Merger.  The Combination is
intended to qualify as a reorganization for federal income tax
purposes.

Two putative stockholder lawsuits styled as class actions have
been filed against the Company and its Board of Directors
challenging its proposed merger with DigitalGlobe (the lawsuit
also names DigitalGlobe as a defendant).  The lawsuits are:

   (1) Plaintiff: Dan Behnke

       Defendants: GeoEye, Inc., James A. Abrahamson, Matt
                   O'Connell, Joseph M. Ahearn, Michael P.C.
                   Carns, Martin C. Faga. Michael F. Horn, Sr.,
                   Lawrence A. Hough, Roberta E. Lenczowski,
                   James M. Simon, Jr., Robert G. Warden,
                   DigitalGlobe, Inc., 20/20 Acquisition Sub,
                   Inc., and WorldView, LLC

       Court: United States District Court - Eastern District of
              Virginia

       Date Filed: July 26, 2012

   (2) Plaintiff: James Crow

       Defendants: James A Abrahamson, Joseph M. Ahearn, Michael
                   P.C. Carns, Martin C. Faga. Michael F. Horn,
                   Sr., Lawrence A. Hough, Roberta E. Lenczowski,
                   Matt O'Connell, James M. Simon, Jr., Robert G.
                   Warden, GeoEye, Inc., DigitalGlobe, Inc.,
                   20/20 Acquisition Sub, Inc., and WorldView,
                   LLC

       Court: United States District Court - Eastern District of
              Virginia

       Date Filed: July 30, 2012

The lawsuits generally allege that the members of the Company's
board of directors, aided and abetted by the Company, and
DigitalGlobe, breached their fiduciary duties to its stockholders
by entering into the Merger Agreement for merger consideration
plaintiff claims is inadequate and pursuant to a process plaintiff
claims to be flawed.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, to
enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger on the agreed-
upon terms or to rescind the Merger to the extent already
implemented, as well as damages, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and it
intends to vigorously defend against such claims.  There may be
additional lawsuits of a similar nature.


ILLINOIS: Health Dept. Faces Suit for In-Home Nursing Funding Cuts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Illinois
illegally, and drastically, cuts in-home nursing funding for
disabled people when they turn 21, though numerous lawsuits have
successfully challenged the policy, a class action claims in
Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Don Harris, through his mother Lisa Jorgensen, sued
Julie Hamos, director of the Illinois Department of Health and
Services, in federal court.

Mr. Harris, who will turn 21 this month, is blind, developmentally
disabled, and has seizures, spastic quadriplegia and severe
scoliosis, his mother says in the complaint.

He requires "approximately 12 hours a day skilled nursing level of
care at his home at a cost of approximately $12,000 per month, so
that he does not have to be institutionalized or hospitalized for
his entire life at a rate of approximately $55,000 per month," the
complaint states.

Mr. Harris receives government assistance to pay for his in-home
nurse through the Private Duty Nursing (PDN) program.

However, "enrollment in the PDN program is only available to
persons under the age of 21.  When those persons in the PDN
program turn 21, the defendant's policy and practice is to reduce
the existing medical funding by approximately 50 percent based
solely on the fact that the person is 21," the complaint states.
"This reduction in funding is no due to a change in the
plaintiff's medical needs but on the fact that the plaintiff's
funding at age 21 comes from a different state program, which has
significant caps on funding.  The reduction in funding will either
result in the plaintiff becoming institutionalized (hospitalized)
or if he remains in the family home without sufficient skilled
nursing care, then he faces a strong possibility of imminent death
or a life-threatening episode."

Mr. Harris's mother claims that five other disabled plaintiffs
have successfully sued Illinois for reducing medical funding at
age 21.

"Despite the fact that the defendant has not prevailed to provide
reduced medical funding in these 5 separate federal and state
lawsuits brought by similarly situated persons like the plaintiff
who were turning 21, the defendant continues the same practice to
date to reduce medical funding at age 21 as evidence by the
plaintiff's case."

What's more, 23 medical fragile plaintiffs have obtained interim
relief in a related class action, Hampe v Hamos, filed in 2010 in
Chicago Federal Court, according to the complaint.

It adds: "Plaintiff brings this lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of a class, seeking injunctive relief to prevent the
defendant from reducing the level of funding for medical care
currently provided to the plaintiff and the putative class, which
is necessary to prevent institutionalization (hospitalization),
which is a more costly and a more restrictive setting than the
current home placement."

Mr. Harris' mother seeks an injunction requiring the department to
maintain the same level of PDN funding to disabled people when
they become 21.

A copy of the Complaint in Harris v. Hamos, Case No. 12-cv-07105
(N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/disabilities.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert H. Farley, Jr., Esq.
          ROBERT H. FARLEY, JR., LTD.
          1155 S. Washington Street
          Naperville, IL 60540
          Telephone: (630) 369-0103
          E-mail: farleylaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Mary Denise Cahill, Esq.
          CAHILL & ASSOCIATES
          1155 S. Washington Street
          Naperville, IL 60540
          Telephone: (630) 778-6500
          E-mail: mdcahill@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Michelle N. Schneiderheinze, Esq.
          2401 E. Washington Street, Suite 300C
          Bloomington, IL 61704
          Telephone: (309) 533-7340
          E-mail: michelle@mnslawoffice.com


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $29 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that real estate
financing company iStar Financial Inc. on Sept. 7 agreed to pay
$29 million to settle a putative shareholder class action that
accused the company and its principals and underwriters of
withholding information during a public offering.

Lead plaintiffs Plumbers' Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings Inc. are seeking preliminary approval of the
deal in New York federal court.


KINDER MORGAN: Settles El Paso Shareholder Suits for $110 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Pulsinelli, writing for Houston Business Journal, reports
that Kinder Morgan Inc. said Sept. 7 that it has reached a $110
million settlement agreement in El Paso shareholder lawsuits.

The lawsuits resulted from Houston-based Kinder Morgan's
acquisition of Houston-based El Paso Corp., Kinder Morgan said in
its Sept. 7 statement.

According to a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, shareholders filed several putative class action
lawsuits against the board of directors of El Paso in the days
following the merger announcement on Oct. 16.  The lawsuits were
filed in Texas, Delaware and New York and alleged "that the
director-defendants breached their fiduciary duties" to El Paso
shareholders and "that EP and KMI 'aided and abetted' the alleged
breaches by the EP directors," according to the SEC filing.
In February, El Paso shareholders tried to block the merger vote,
but a Delaware court denied their motion, the SEC filing states.
The merger was completed May 24, and the parties in June began
settlement discussions with the assistance of a mediator, the SEC
filing states.  In July they reached an agreement in principle to
settle for $110 million.

The settlement is subject to approval by the Delaware Chancery
Court, among other conditions, according to Kinder Morgan's
Sept. 7 statement.

"While the acquisition of El Paso benefited both KMI and El Paso
shareholders, the company believes that resolving these claims at
this time, avoiding the expense and uncertainty of continued
litigation, and putting this matter behind it are in the best
interest of its shareholders,"  Kinder Morgan said in its
statement.

The settlement also includes concessions by Goldman Sachs Group
Inc., which served as El Paso's financial adviser in the sale,
Bloomberg reports.

Goldman Sachs at one time owned 19 percent of Kinder Morgan, and
it has agreed to forgo its $20 million fee in the deal as part of
the settlement, Bloomberg reports.


LAW SCHOOL: Government Intervention Sought in LSAT Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that the
federal government seeks to intervene in a federal class action
accusing the Law School Admission Council of discriminating
against disabled people who take the LSAT exam.

The government claims it has a right to intervene based on its
"significant protectable interest" in enforcing the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing sued the admission
council in March, claiming it failed to provide adequate testing
accommodations for disabled people, placed cumbersome
documentation requirements on applicants who asked for extra time
taking the LSAT, and "flagged" disabled test takers before sending
their scores to member law schools.

The council removed the case to federal court on April 12 and
filed a motion to dismiss the following month, challenging the
ADA's permissible scope of implementation.

That's when the United States decided to step in, claiming it is
the agency charged by Congress with implementing Title III of the
ADA, which outlaws discrimination based on disability.

The government claims it should be allowed to intervene "as of
right" or by permission, because the plaintiffs' interests "may
not sufficiently align with those of the United States," and their
representation "may be inadequate to protect the United States'
interests."

And the government's claims against the council "share common
questions of law and fact with those in the pending litigation,"
according to its motion to intervene.

"Credentialing examinations, such as the LSAT, are increasingly
the gateway to educational and employment opportunities, and the
ADA demands that each individual with a disability have the
opportunity to fairly demonstrate their abilities so they can
pursue their dreams," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney
General for the Civil Rights Division.  "The Justice Department's
participation in this action is critical to protecting the public
interest in the important issues raised in this case."

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion by the United States to
Intervene and Points and Authorities in Support in The Department
of Fair Employment and Housing v. Law School Admission Council,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01830 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/vD9JzZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Perez, Esq.
          Eve L. Hill, Esq.
          Gregory B. Friel, Esq.
          Roberta Kirkendall, Esq.
          Kathleen P. Wolfe, Esq.
          Nabina Sinha, Esq.
          Megan E. Schuller, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - NYA
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 307-0663
          E-mail: Nabina.Sinha@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Melinda Haag, Esq.
          Sara Winslow, Esq.
          Melanie L. Proctor, Esq.
          450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 436-6730
          E-mail: Melanie.Proctor@usdoj.gov


LEUCADIA NAT'L: Debt-Collection Suit Gets Class-Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Engquist, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports that
more than 100,000 New Yorkers could get their day in court after a
federal judge granted them class-action status in a civil case
that alleges they were victimized by a debt-collection ring.

The suit, brought by MFY Legal Services, the Neighborhood Economic
Development Advocacy Project, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &
Abady, charges that a robo-signing operation defrauded their
clients of millions of dollars and violated federal racketeering
and debt collection laws.

"This is a huge scheme that they've been running for years," said
Susan Shin, a Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project
staff attorney.  The case came to her organization's attention
when alleged victims called its hotline.

The defendants include Leucadia National Corp., a public
corporation that Ms. Shin said buys debts for pennies on the
dollar; Mel S. Harris and Associates, described by the suit as one
of the largest debt collection law firms in the state; and
Samserv, Inc., a process serving company.

"Default judgments were obtained with bogus affidavits," Ms. Shin
said.  Some debtors did not find out about the judgments until
their wages were garnished, she added.

Federal Judge Denny Chin granted the class-action status in a 42-
page decision released by the plaintiffs on Sept. 7.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Loan Officers File Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Hubbard, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that
Regions Financial Corp. has been sued in a putative class-action
which says the largest bank based in the state requires loan
officers to work more than 40 hours a week to meet quotas and does
not pay them for the overtime.

Two former loan officers for Regions who worked in northern
Alabama filed the suit last week in U.S. District Court in
Birmingham.  It says they routinely worked weekends and nights to
fill loan quotas and weren't paid for the extra labor as required
by federal labor law.

Regions, the largest bank based in Alabama, employs and has
employed hundreds or thousands of loan officers at about 1,700
branches in 16 states.  The suit seeks back wages, overtime wages
and unspecified damages on behalf of all loan officers who are or
were similarly situated as the former ones who filed the suit.

"Because payment was on a commission basis, loan officers often
work weeks where their wages fell below the federal minimum wage,"
the suit says.  "Given this compensation structure, there were
many weeks in which plaintiffs and class members did not receive
pay despite working significant hours."

Regions, which employs 23,000 people nationwide, doesn't comment
on pending litigation, spokeswoman Evelyn Mitchell said.

The suit will now face a process called certification, during
which a judge will determine if the circumstances warrant
authorizing it to proceed on behalf of all loan officers.

According to the lawsuit, loan officers are not managerial
employees and therefore are not exempt from federal overtime laws.
They exercise no judgment over an applicant's creditworthiness,
the suit says, but rather perform data entry tasks, leaving a
computer to make lending decisions.

"This process involves no exercise of discretion or independent
judgment on the part of the loan officer," the suit says.  "Loan
officers do not evaluate risk. They do not determine loan
acceptability.  They do not determine the appropriate premium
levels."

Regions is the largest employer in the Birmingham area, with about
6,000 workers.  Shares of the company have risen about 70 percent
in the past year.


SEC: Must Face Class Action Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge ruled on Sept. 7 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission must face a putative class action alleging it should
have reported Stanford International Bank Ltd., Robert Allen
Stanford's bank, to a securities industry liquidator after
realizing it was running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. partly denied the SEC's
Feb. 14 motion to dismiss the suit by Carlos Zelaya and George
Glantz.


SYNGENTA: Montgomery Water Systems Join Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Waibel, writing for Gazette.net, reports that some
Montgomery County water systems could get several thousand dollars
through a class action settlement for systems that have detected
traces of a particular pesticide in their water.  Local water
systems officials say they did not find enough of the chemical to
be dangerous, but they can still file for payments.

Under the settlement, the pesticide company Syngenta will pay $105
million into a fund for water systems around the country that
detected the herbicide atrazine in their water.  Rockville's mayor
and council voted to include themselves in the settlement last
month.

Craig Simoneau, Rockville's director of public works, said joining
the settlement made good business sense, but customers should not
be worried about their water quality.

"There's no health implications; it was a business decision on our
part," he said.  Mr. Simoneau said the city is probably entitled
to at least $5,000 from the settlement, although they won't know
for sure how much the city will get for several more months.  The
amount Rockville gets will probably depend on how many people
apply for money through the settlement, how big their water
systems are and how serious their atrazine problems are, he said.

Atrazine is used as a herbicide, but can work its way into water
through runoff from row crops.  Syngenta uses the chemical in
several of its herbicides, including Gesaprim, Aatrex and Bicep II
Magnum.

Ed Crow, an entomologist in the state Department of Agriculture's
pesticide regulation unit, said atrazine is commonly used for corn
production.

"It is pretty widely used, not just here in Maryland, but across
the nation," he said.

In a 2004 survey issued by the U.S. and Maryland departments of
agriculture, atrazine was the second most used herbicide in the
state, in terms of the number of pounds used.  Marylanders used an
estimated 1.1 million pounds of atrazine that year.

Because of the concerns about atrazine getting into surface and
groundwater, Ms. Crow said people who apply the herbicide have to
be trained and certified in how to use it safely.

"There are concerns about surface and groundwater with a lot of
the herbicides, not just the atrazine," he said.

Maryland, like most states, relies on the Environmental Protection
Agency to evaluate pesticides, Ms. Crow said.

The maximum level for atrazine in drinking water set by the EPA is
three parts per billion or 0.003 milligrams per liter.  According
to WSSC's Web site, one part per billion is equivalent to one-half
teaspoon of contaminant in an Olympic-size swimming pool.

According to the EPA, people who drink water with significantly
more than the maximum level of atrazine for many years could have
problems with their cardiovascular or reproductive systems.

From 2006 to 2012, Rockville city tested its water for atrazine 14
times and detected low levels of the chemical twice.  The levels
were so low, however, that the city didn't have to do anything to
remove the chemical.

"To some degree, it's free money," he said.  "The only direct cost
we have is the cost of our testing and the cost of preparing all
this."

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, which serves most of
Montgomery County, has also filed for a payment from the
settlement, spokeswoman Lyn Riggins said in an e-mail.  WSSC has
not detected the chemical on a regular basis, however. Ms. Riggins
said the highest level of atrazine WSSC has detected was around
1.5 parts per billion.

"We see it in the spring, which coincides with the planting of
corn since it is primarily used for weed control," she said.

Wade Yost, Poolesville town manager, said Poolesville's water
system has not detected atrazine in the water. He said that is
probably because the town uses groundwater from wells, while
Rockville and WSSC use surface water from rivers.

"They receive water . . . that runs off of fields and things, so
that's why they would have (atrazine)," Mr. Yost said.

The settlement stems from a suit filed by community water systems
operators in six different states who argued that Syngenta should
have to pay for testing for the herbicide and filtering it out of
their water if necessary.

The company issued a statement in May saying it agreed to the
settlement to end the business uncertainty and expense of
continued litigation.

"Syngenta acknowledges no liability and continues to stand by the
safety of atrazine," the statement said.


TARGET CORP: Sued Over Failure to Pay Laid-Off Employees' Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that Target Corp. was
hit with a putative class action alleging the retail giant failed
to pay the final wages of laid-off employees, among other wage
violations, according to a suit removed to the Northern District
of California on Thursday.

Named plaintiff Aileen Bernardino claims Target failed to pay her
for her final day's wages when she was terminated in January about
20 minutes after clocking in for her shift, according to the
complaint.


TD BANK: Faces Class Action in Penn. For Uncompensated Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Rose, writing for The Delaware County Daily Times, reports
that a Folcroft woman has filed a class action complaint against
TD Bank N.A. alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as well as state law claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law.

According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 4 by former TD Bank
employee Aubrey Keller, the bank requires employees opening the
bank branch to come to work 15 minutes early to perform certain
security tasks.

Ms. Keller claims employees cannot log onto a computer application
that allows them to clock-in until after the security measures are
completed.  But much of the pre-shift work, which can take between
15 and 20 minutes, carries employees over the bounds of the 40-
hour work week and is therefore uncompensated overtime, according
to the complaint.

Ms. Keller had worked at the bank's Folsom branch on MacDade
Boulevard for about 1 1/2 years, ending in August, according to
the complaint.  The suit names only the bank and John Does
numbered 1-10, who allegedly execute bank policies or have control
over payroll processing.

Under the FLSA and Minimum Wage Act, employers must pay employees
1 1/2 times their base rate if they work more than 40 hours in a
week.  The Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law requires
employers to pay for all of the wages due an employee.

The suit is looking to recover allegedly lost overtime wages for
all similarly situated employees going back three years, as well
as liquidated damages equal to the amount sought in the suit, or
double the alleged lost wages.

"TD Bank has maintained an unlawful wage payment system for at
least the last three years, and has enforced such unlawful
policies nationwide at all of its facilities throughout the United
States," the complaint states.

Ms. Keller has demanded a jury trial and is seeking an order
prohibiting TD Bank from any future alleged violations of state
and federal wage laws, as well as legal fees.

TD spokesperson Rebecca Acevedo did not return an e-mail seeking
comment.  No attorneys for the bank have been listed on court
records and no hearing date has been set.

"This case is simply about trying to ensure TD Bank pays its
employees for all the time they work for TD Bank," said Ms.
Keller's attorney, Justin L. Swidler, of Swartz Swidler LLC in
Cherry Hill, N.J.  "All my client is asking for is that she be
paid for the time she worked."


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Faces Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ubiquiti Networks concealed
negative trends such as the proliferation of counterfeit AirMax
wireless gear by Kozumi USA, a former distributor that had stolen
its source codes, a class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Bell v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-04677 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/10/ubiquiti.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164


ULTRAMAR: Court Approves Gas Price Hike Class-Action Expansion
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that gas stations could pay up to $100 million if
the court rules in the plaintiffs' favor in a class-action lawsuit
expansion over alleged gasoline price-fixing in several major
cities in Quebec, said George Iny, head of the Automobile
Protection Association, who filed the lawsuit.

On Sept. 6, Quebec's highest court authorized the lawsuit against
Ultramar, Orco, Irving, Couche-Tard, Petroles Cardin, Petroles
Global and Philippe Gosselin and associates.

The first criminal accusations in June 2008 were made in
Sherbrooke, Magog, Victoriaville and Thetford Mines after an
investigation by the competition bureau.

The expansion, filed by Daniel Thouin and the Automobile
Protection Association, takes aim at 23 additional markets.

According to the plaintiffs, businesses were contacting each other
and collectively hiking prices.

Mr. Iny said the lawsuit was broadened based on evidence uncovered
by an independent researcher.

"His conclusion is that in many markets, the prices for all three
grades of gasoline were identical even though the markets were not
next to one another. So, as a consequence, [the researcher] says
it's impossible that pure chance [. . .] would result in the exact
same prices over the exact same days over a period of six months,"
Mr. Iny said.

If the suit turns in favor of the plaintiffs, gas stations could
have to pay out as much as $100 million, he said.

The suit against the big oil companies covers motorists who filled
up between January 2002 and June 2006 in Quebec City, Trois-
Rivieres and other major cities.

To date, 27 people and seven businesses have pleaded guilty.


UNITED STATES: Judge to Hear Mentally-Disabled Immigrants' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruxandra Guidi, writing for Southern Public Radio, reports that a
federal judge in Los Angeles agreed to hear a class-action lawsuit
on behalf of mentally-disabled immigrants in detention who lack
legal representation.

The class action lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union.  It centers around the case of Jose Antonio Franco-
Gonzalez, an illegal immigrant who, in 2004, threw a rock and
injured someone in a gang fight.  He was sentenced to a year in
jail for assault with a deadly weapon.

While in federal detention, it became clear that Mr. Franco-
Gonzalez suffered from mental retardation.  A judge ruled he was
unfit to stand trial and ordered his case closed, but the process
kept him in detention for four years.

Ahilan Arulanantham represents the plaintiffs in the case; he's
the deputy legal director of the ACLU of Southern California.

"Now, there's nothing wrong with that if you release people, and
if you have a procedure to release people and provide them with
lawyers that can argue for their release.  Then that's a perfectly
sensible approach," says Mr. Arulanantham.  "But when you don't
give lawyers, and people don't understand the system and the
government doesn't allow them to be released, then administrative
closure is just a recipe for disaster."

Detained immigrants have to find their own legal representation
because they are ineligible to have a public defender.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not comment on pending
litigation.

A department spokesperson said while in detention, immigrants with
mental disabilities are given the care they need, and the agency
will soon be implementing a program to provide increased screening
of detainees with mental health issues.


VERTEX PHARMA: Issues Correction to Sept. 6 Class Action Release
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott LLP issued a correction to the September 6, 2012,
release regarding the Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated class
action.

In the second sentence of the release dated September 6, 2012, the
second date of the Class Period should read June 27, 2012 (sted
June 28, 2012).

The corrected release reads:

Scott+Scott LLP filed a securities class action complaint against
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Vertex common stock
between May 7, 2012 and June 27, 2012, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Vertex issued false and misleading
public statements concerning a pharmaceutical study of its
products VX-809 and Kalydeco.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that at the start of the Class Period on May 7, 2012, Vertex
announced positive "interim data" from its Phase 2 study of VX-809
and Kalydeco. This caused a significant increase in the Company's
stock price -- from $37.41 to $58.12 per share.  As Defendants
continued heralding the positive and "unexpected" interim Phase 2
study results, the Company's stock traded as high as $64.85 on May
25, 2012. Certain of the individual Defendants took advantage of
this stock price increase to sell approximately $30 million of
Vertex stock.

On May 29, 2012, the Company announced that the exceptional
results of the Phase 2 study of the two medications were grossly
overstated. On this news, the Company's stock price fell from a
close of $64.85 on May 25, 2012 to a close of $57.80 on May 29,
2012.  Then, approximately one month later, on June 28, 2012, the
Company again revised the test results downward. In response to
this news, the Company's stock price plummeted from a close of
$61.11 on June 27, 2012, to a close of $51.18 on June 28, 2012.

You can view a copy of the complaint filed by Scott+Scott at:

     http://is.gd/rBTByz

If you purchased Vertex common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than November 5, 2012 to serve as lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the investor class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Michael Burnett, Esq. at
Scott+Scott -- mburnett@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860)
537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott Web site --
http://www.scott-scott.com/-- for more information.  There is no
cost or fee to you.

Scott+Scott is a class action law firm in the United States, with
offices in New York, Connecticut, Ohio and California.  The firm
has been directly responsible for the recovery of hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of its clients through the
prosecution of major securities, antitrust and employee retirement
plan class action lawsuits.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, businesses, and other entities
worldwide.


WET SEAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Anne-Marie Green, writing for CBS, reports that a store in King of
Prussia, Montgomery County is at the center of a class action
lawsuit in the works.  The Wet Seal clothing chain is accused of
racial bias.  A former employee leveling the accusation spoke to
eyewitness news reporter Anne-Marie Green.

"I was shocked and I was humiliated."

That's how Nicole Cogdell felt just moments after meeting the vice
president of teen clothing store Wet Seal at the King of Prussia
Mall in January of 2009.  She had been manager there for a month
and was looking forward to meeting former vice president Barbara
Bachman, but she says right after the introduction she heard Ms.
Bachman say, "'That's the store manager? I wanted someone with
blond hair and blue eyes,'" said Ms. Cogdell.

Four days later Cogdell was fired.

"I loved working for wet seal."

And Wet Seal seemed to love her, at least for a time.  The company
promoted her a number of times.

After losing her job she was disappointed, but she was downright
livid when an e-mail sent by that same vice president surfaced.
In it Ms. Bauchman writes, "Store teams need diversity.  African
American-dominate, huge issue."

She also has a glowing review for the King of Prussia store but it
says of Ms. Cogdell, "not right fit for the store."  Ms. Cogdell
filed a racial discrimination complaint with the EEOC.

"It's not right.  It's just not right."

After filing her complaint, Wet Seal offered her job back, but
when she returned she found her concerns had not been addressed.

She quit shortly after returning to the store and hired a lawyer.
They are now seeking class action status

"We believe the fact that this came from a senior vice president
is not an accident," said Ms. Cogdell's attorney, Nancy Demis.
"They certainly wanted to keep African-Americans in certain stores
and not in their high end showcase stores."

Wet Seal sent CBS a statement saying it will vigorously fight the
lawsuit and that it has an anti-discrimination policy.  The
statement continues on to say,

"More than half of our store management level employees are
members of minority groups, and we are proud of the diversity of
our workforce."

Ms. Cogdell's attorney has set up a Web site for those who believe
they may have been victims of discrimination while working at Wet
Seal.  She says they have already received a large number of
responses.


                           *********

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  * * *