CAR_Public/120919.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, September 19, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 186

                             Headlines

ALABAMA: State Prisons Sued for Segregating HIV-Positive Inmates
ALABAMA: Beverage Board Sued Over Cities' Alcohol Sale Taxes
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Two Suits Over Royalty Payments
BEIJING BENZ: Mercedes-Benz C-Class Drivers Mull Class Action
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Defends Class Suit Over ARM & HAMMER Deodorant

COMMONWEALTH BANK: Resolves ASIC Dispute Over Storm Collapse
CREDO PETROLEUM: Inks Class Action Settlement Agreement
CUT FRUIT: Recalls Fresh Cut Fruit Products With Cantaloupe
CVS CAREMARK: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in "Lauriello" Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit

CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Law Violation Suits
DISNEY: Judge Refuses to Approve ADA Class Action Settlement
EXPEDIA INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: All Medco Merger-Related Suits Now Dismissed
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Irwin" Suit

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Supreme Court Decision in "Beeman" Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: "North Port" Suit Dismissal Bids Pending
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Suits Over Containerboard Products
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Class Action Over Bogalusa Incident
KUEHNE & NAGEL: To Settle Antitrust Class Action for $28 Million

LEGGETT & PLATT: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Suits Remain Pending
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Lacks Cash to Cover Class Action Costs
MARQUEE STAFFING: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
MERCK & CO: Awaits Rulings in Vytorin Securities Litigation
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits

MERCK & CO: Discovery in Vioxx Securities Litigation Ongoing
MERCK & CO: Discovery Proceeding in Suits Over Fosamax Product
MERCK & CO: Faces Suits by Health Insurers Over Coupon Programs
MERCK & CO: Hearing on Vytorin ERISA Suit Settlement on Sept. 25
MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: ACLU Sues Over Prisoner Discrimination

POLK COUNTY, FL: Jail Faces Class Action Over Pepper Spray Use
SERENADE FOODS: Recalls 2,250 Lbs. of Crunchy Chicken Strips
SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Defrauds SpeedyPC Pro Consumers, Suit Says
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal in "Sanders" Suit Remains Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Okay of Tennessee Suit Settlement

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend FCRA Violations Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Discrimination Class Suit Dismissed in May
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Two Wage and Hour Suits Pending in Calif.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: In Mediation With "Ridderbush" Suit Parties
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Still Pending in Arizona

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Suit Remains Pending in Washington
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend "Garza" Suit
TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From Privacy Suit Deals Dismissed in May
TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From "White" Class Suit Deal Pending
TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Defend Virginia Public Records Suit

TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Class Action Over Inaccurate OFAC Alert Info
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
UNIVERSITY CREAMERY: Recalls Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt Products
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: Faces Discrimination Class Action
VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action


                          *********

ALABAMA: State Prisons Sued for Segregating HIV-Positive Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon McCormack, writing for Huffington Post, reports that Alabama
state prisons unnecessarily and cruelly keep inmates with HIV
segregated from the rest of the population, according to a class-
action lawsuit that was set to go to trial on Sept. 17.

"It's an HIV ghetto," according to a blog post by the American
Civil Liberties Union, which is bringing the suit.

The ACLU writes:

The Alabama Department of Corrections automatically excludes all
prisoners with HIV from a host of rehabilitative and vocational
programs that ADOC offers to all prisoners who don't have HIV --
including trade schools, work release jobs, residential drug-
treatment programs for prisoners struggling with substance abuse,
and programs for prisoners suffering from serious mental illness.
Prisoners with HIV are even barred from the faith-based dormitory
and the dormitory for seniors.

Prisoners with HIV are also required to wear white armbands at all
times, according to the ACLU.

A spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Corrections did not
respond to a request for comment from The Huffington Post, but
according to the Birmingham News, the state claims the policy was
put in place for financial and safety reasons.

Prison officials said the current system allows the inmates to be
treated by specialists, and the care would be too pricy to dole
out if it were provided to everyone.  In its editorial, the
Birmingham News dismisses that argument, since "all prisons
already provide medical care; dispensing HIV medications isn't
going to add to the bill."

As for the claim that HIV-positive inmates are kept out of
rehabilitative programs, the Birmingham News alleges that in
recent years, the state has made it so that affected inmates can
take part in education and religious programs and "in theory, get
work-release jobs."

Rehabilitative and educational programs have been shown to reduce
recidivism.

Prison officials also say the policy helps guard against the
spread of HIV.

But Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU's National
Prison Project, told HuffPost that justification doesn't hold
water.  She notes that, while many states instituted segregation
policies when HIV and AIDS first emerged, medical evidence on how
the disease is spread have made separating inmates an ineffective
and unnecessary step.  Currently, only Alabama and South Carolina
separate prisoners based on their HIV status.

"The absolute most important thing which has made transmission
plummet in prisons is the use of the new anti-retroviral
therapies," Ms. Winter said.

"Medical care providers are now allowed to start treatment as soon
as someone tests positive for HIV.  When that happens, in the vast
majority of cases, the virus drops to an undetected level."

Ms. Winter notes that both the Centers for Disease Control and the
National Commission on Correctional Health Care both do not
condone HIV prisoner segregation.

Ms. Winter also notes that HIV-positive prisoners in Alabama come
in contact with other inmates outside of their living quarters and
in jails, among other locales.

"The only point of the system is to keep prisoners out of scores
of incredibly important rehabilitative and vocational programs
because they have HIV," Ms. Winter said.  "It's a sham."


ALABAMA: Beverage Board Sued Over Cities' Alcohol Sale Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Bullard, writing for The Cullman Times, reports that four
residents of Cullman County have filed a class action lawsuit
against Hanceville, the Alabama Beverage Control Board and 26
other Alabama cities and towns, alleging their recent
transformation into 'wet' municipalities is invalid, and that the
taxes they collect on the sale of alcohol are illegal and have
caused harm to the plaintiffs.

In spirit, the suit represents an effort to overturn the state
legislature's approval of a law two years ago that opened the way
for smaller Alabama cities and towns to conduct wet/dry referenda.
The suit claims that the legislature violated the Alabama
Constitution when it passed a bill amending an older statute that
had previously allowed only cities with populations of 7,000 or
more the same privilege.

That bill, HB 175, amended the Alabama Municipal Option law of
1984.  Controversial at the time of its 2009 passage, HB 175 was
vetoed by then-governor Bob Riley, a move that was subsequently
overturned by the legislature.

The four plaintiffs -- Jeremy Eddleman, David Holmes, Jason Hunt
and Gregory Shedd -- recently filed the lawsuit in Montgomery
County circuit court.  The plaintiffs are all residents of Cullman
County; Hunt and Shedd reside in the City of Cullman.  Local
attorney Todd McLeroy, along with Huntsville-based attorneys
Morris, King & Hodge and the Glasscox law firm in Birmingham, are
representing the plaintiffs.

In order for the plaintiffs to claim they were harmed by paying
allegedly invalid taxes on alcoholic beverages, the four made
alcohol purchases in each of the cities and towns named as
defendants in the lawsuit.

In Hanceville, the allegedly injurious purchase was made by Mr.
Holmes.  The suit indicates he also bought alcohol in Sulligent
and Sumiton, two other towns where voters have recently approved
legal alcohol sales under provisions established with the passage
of HB 175.

Hanceville Mayor Kenneth Nail called the suit 'frivolous' on
Sept. 12, saying the complainants don't have a vested interest in
each of the cities and towns they're suing, and should let the
will of the people in each municipality prevail over their
personal agendas.

"The people here voted, and it's absolutely frivolous to have four
people who don't live in Hanceville filing a lawsuit -- one that
puts a hardship on small towns to spend money that they don't have
defending themselves -- over something that's none of their
business," Mr. Nail said on Sept. 12.  "We're wet now; the
residents of Hanceville made that decision, and this lawsuit is an
insult to our residents.  It's disgusting."

Mr. McLeroy declined to comment on Sept. 12 on how the four
plaintiffs came together to recognize and act upon their alleged
injuries at the defendants' actions.

He emphasized the lawsuit is, in spirit, aimed at overturning HB
175 -- a product of what he described as 'bumbling legislation' --
in favor of new legislation unencumbered by legal inconsistencies.

"Yes, we filed this lawsuit, but if we hadn't filed it -- believe
me, someone else would have," said Mr. McLeroy.  "The reason we
filed this lawsuit has nothing to do with the towns.  It's not the
towns' fault; it's the legislature's fault: they passed a bill
that is unconstitutional.

"They can fix it; they can go back and pass it correctly and allow
these municipalities to hold their referenda again.  We're not
trying to hurt these towns -- in fact, you notice that the state
ABC board is named as a defendant -- but the towns are the victims
of bumbling legislation."

The suit recounts in detail the history of HB 175's movement
through the regular session of the 2009 legislature.  It alleges
the bill illegally was amended to address more than one statutory
subject; it further claims the bill assumed the force of a local
act, without its proponents offering the required public notice,
when it excluded Blount, Clay and Randolph counties from its
enforcement.

"The way the legislature changed the law was wrong," Mr. McLeroy
said.  "They took a bill that had to do with club licenses in
Shelby County, and they tacked on this municipal option amendment,
which has two subject matters -- a violation of the constitution.
Governor Riley actually vetoed the bill on that basis.

"The law is also unconstitutional because it exempts three
counties from operating under it, which makes it a local bill.
And local bills have to be advertised in the counties that are
affected, which, without question, never happened in this case."

The suit asks that the court deliver an injunction halting the
defendant municipalities from issuing liquor licenses. It also
seeks a preliminary injunction that would stop the cities and
towns from collecting taxes on alcohol sales until the case has
been decided.  It asks the defendants to bear the cost of
attorneys' fees.

Because the number of plaintiffs under the class action could
easily exceed the few whose names are listed in the lawsuit,
attorneys also are asking the court to recognize the four
plaintiffs as class representatives.


APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Two Suits Over Royalty Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation continues to defend itself from two class
action lawsuits related to oil and gas royalties, 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.

Two potential class action lawsuits are pending in respect of oil
and gas royalties paid by the Company: Foster v. Apache
Corporation, Civil Action No. CIV-10-0573-HE, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and Joyce
Holder Trust v. Apache Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-
03872, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.  There has not yet been class
certification in these cases.  Plaintiffs in the Foster case have
asserted recently that they may seek damages of approximately $100
million.  No facts have been introduced that would support that
amount or any lesser amount.  No specific dollar amount has been
claimed in either case.  Apache says it intends to vigorously
defend against these claims.


BEIJING BENZ: Mercedes-Benz C-Class Drivers Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Ye, writing for Global Times, reports that some Mercedes-
Benz C-Class drivers plan to file a class action lawsuit against
Beijing Benz Automotive Co for potential health problems caused by
the smell in cars.

"Designated persons are collecting information about the affected
drivers and will bring a class action suit over quality problems
of C-Class cars to the court after detailed discussion with
lawyers," said a Benz driver surnamed Chen who declined to tell
his full name, a member of an online right protection group on QQ,
which had 395 members from all over the country by press time.

"My Benz C200 has a strange smell ever since I bought it, making
me too uncomfortable to drive," said a Benz driver surnamed Yuan
who bought a car from Suzhou Lei Shing Auto Services, an
authorized Benz retailer in East China's Jiangsu Province, on
April 29.

During a test on June 21, the Jiangsu-based Detection Technology
Co found that Yuan's car contained 0.404 milligrams of
formaldehyde, a cancer-causing chemical, per cubic meter, over
three times higher than the national standard, Yuan said.

"Many people around me have encountered the same quality problems
which are unacceptable because of the health risks.  But until now
I have not received any constructive solutions from either Beijing
Benz or Lei Shing," Yuan told the Global Times on Sept. 13.

Lei Shing's gate has been blocked by drivers for more than a week
now, he said.

Beijing Benz Automotive Co, a joint venture founded by Beijing
Automotive Group, Daimler AG and Daimler Northeast Asia Ltd, could
not be reached for comment.

Liu Tangshan, an after-sales service manager at Lei Shing,
revealed to the Global Times on Sept. 13 that Lei Shing was
summoned by Wuzhong District People's Court in Suzhou over the
smell in Benz cars which could cause health problems.

"We have actively reacted to this allegation and will obey the
court's decisions," Liu told the Global Times on Sept. 13.

"Beijing Benz is jointly responsible for the cars its retailers
sell.  The drivers can either sue Beijing Benz or the retailers
for the quality problems in the cars," Wang Xu, a lawyer from
Beijing-based Lantern Law Firm, told the Global Times on Sept. 13.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Defends Class Suit Over ARM & HAMMER Deodorant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful advertising, marketing and
sales of ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant, 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 has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of
ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant.  Specifically, on March
9, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephen Trewin and Joseph Farhatt, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act and breach of implied warranty.  Plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the Company uses a marketing and
advertising campaign that is centered around the claim that the
ARM & HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant is a "natural" product
that contains "natural" ingredients and provides "natural"
protection.  The complaint alleges the advertising and marketing
campaign is false and misleading because the product contains
artificial and synthetic ingredients.  Among other things, the
complaint seeks an order certifying the case as a class action,
appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives and appointing
Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class.  The complaint also
seeks restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by the
Company as a result of the alleged misconduct; compensatory,
actual, statutory and other unspecified damages allegedly suffered
by Plaintiffs and the purported class; up to treble damages for
alleged violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; punitive
damages for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act; an order requiring the Company to immediately cease
its alleged wrongful conduct; an order enjoining the Company from
continuing the conduct and acts identified in the Complaint; an
order requiring the Company to engage in a corrective notice
campaign; an order requiring the Company to pay to Plaintiffs and
all members of the purported class the amounts paid for ARM &
HAMMER Essentials Natural Deodorant; statutory prejudgment and
post-judgment interest; and, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations asserted in the Complaint.  While an adverse outcome
in this matter is reasonably possible, at this initial stage of
the litigation it is not possible to estimate the amount of any
damages or determine the impact of any equitable relief that may
be granted.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Resolves ASIC Dispute Over Storm Collapse
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the Commonwealth Bank
has reached a resolution with the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) over the collapse of Storm
Financial.

But the bank will continue to defend a separate class action
before the Federal Court in Brisbane.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) says the agreement will
make an additional AUD136 million available to many of its
customers who invested through Storm Financial, including those
who took part in the group's resolution scheme.

"The total of the payments already provided to customers, together
with the additional funds to be made available through this
agreement, will be in the vicinity of AUD270 million," the bank
said in a statement.

ASIC Chairman Greg Medcraft said 2,400 investors would get back 55
per cent of what they lost.

"It was always my view that it needed to be above 50 per cent," he
told reporters in Sydney.

"The outcome is 55 per cent of loss, which I think is a fair
outcome.

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

Mr. Medcraft said there was always a reasonable chance of court
action being unsuccessful.

"Many of these investors are elderly, and this has placed an
enormous amount of strain on those investors," he said.

"Rather than spending years in the court system through appeals
etcetera, frankly I think the CBA has taken a very wise move in
doing the right thing."

Mr. Medcraft said the Sept. 17 class action trial in the Federal
Court in Brisbane would go ahead.

"Monday's trial will proceed against Macquarie Bank, the Bank of
Queensland and Storm, and in respect of this settlement we will
lodge a settlement with the court on Monday with the basis of not
continuing to proceed in our action against the Commonwealth
Bank," he said.


CREDO PETROLEUM: Inks Class Action Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Wright, writing for Denver Business Journal, reports that
Credo Petroleum Corp., an oil and gas company based in Denver,
announced on Sept. 14 it has signed an agreement to settle a
shareholder class-action lawsuit over a planned acquisition by
Forestar Group Inc., based in Austin, Texas.

Forestar said in June it was planning to buy Credo for $146
million in cash.  But an investor in Credo then filed the lawsuit
in a Delaware court in an effort to block the proposed takeover at
$14.50 per share.

The plaintiff alleged that the company directors breached their
fiduciary duties by trying to sell the company at an unfair price
and without considering other offers.

Credo agreed to a settlement in the case, it said, to avoid the
costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The company denies all
claims in the lawsuit and any breach of fiduciary duty, as
alleged.

The settlement provides, among other things, that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement, which the court
then would have to approve.

A special meeting of Credo stockholders is scheduled for Sept. 25.


CUT FRUIT: Recalls Fresh Cut Fruit Products With Cantaloupe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cut Fruit Express, Inc. of Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota is
voluntarily recalling, out of an abundance of caution, packaged
fruit products containing cantaloupes, distributed through
September 5, 2012, with certain Use-by Dates, since they contain
cantaloupe which have been recalled by supplier DFI Marketing
Inc., due to potential contamination with Salmonella.

No illnesses have been reported specific to the Cut Fruit Express
Products that are the subject of this voluntary, precautionary
recall.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella may experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The voluntary recall extends only to the products with certain
Use-by Dates and sold in the following states: Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin

No other Cut Fruit Express products are included in the recall.

Consumers who may have purchased the affected product are advised
not to eat any of the affected product, immediately dispose of the
product or return the product to the place of purchase for credit.
Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 651-438-8834.

Retailers should check their inventories and store shelves to
confirm that none of the products are present or available for
purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories.

Cut Fruit Express, Inc. has earned an outstanding safety record
and has taken immediate precautionary measures to protect public
health by issuing this voluntary recall.  Cut Fruit Express
service representatives have already contacted all customers
impacted and are in the process of confirming that the recalled
products are not in the stream of commerce.


CVS CAREMARK: Awaits Class Cert. Bid Ruling in "Lauriello" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a motion
for class certification in the lawsuit initiated by John
Lauriello, 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.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others.  Other defendants include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.  The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.  A similar
lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in
Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark
and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement.
This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but
McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello
action.  A hearing was held in May 2012 on class certification and
adequacy issues, but the court has not yet issued a ruling on
these matters.


CVS CAREMARK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their securities class
action lawsuit originally filed in Rhode Island, according to CVS
Caremark Corporation's August 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009, and November 4, 2009.  The lawsuit
names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the Company concerning the pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") business and allegations of insider trading.  In addition,
a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the
same court against the directors and certain officers of the
Company.  A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder
purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against
directors and officers of the corporation.  This lawsuit, which
was stayed pending developments in the related securities class
action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities
fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further
alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at
allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program.  In
January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

In June 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the securities class action.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a
notice of appeal of the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed pending the outcome of
this appeal of the securities class action.


CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Law Violation Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that CVS Caremark
Corporation has violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing
and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.
In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community
Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against
Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief.  This case was initially sent to arbitration
based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.
In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.,
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark and two pharmacy benefit management ("PBM")
competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief.  The
North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities
named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and
the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark.  The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties
pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.  Caremark appealed the
decision which vacated the order compelling arbitration and
staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the
appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling
arbitration of the Bellevue case.  Plaintiffs in the Bellevue case
dismissed their lawsuit in federal court and determined not to
seek arbitration and are again pursuing an appeal to the Court of
Appeals of the district court ruling compelling arbitration.
Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy
case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain
additional class discovery and briefing.  The consolidated action
is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.

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.


DISNEY: Judge Refuses to Approve ADA Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that for the second
time, a California judge on Sept. 14 declined to approve a class
action settlement requiring Disney to make its theme parks more
accessible to the visually impaired, saying a release of damages
claims needs to be worded more narrowly.

U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee gave attorneys for Walt Disney
Parks & Resorts US Inc. and visually impaired park users three
more weeks to come up with language that protects class members'
due process rights.


EXPEDIA INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that hotel operators and travel
Web sites conspired to fix the price for room reservations, a
class says in a suit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, echoing the claims of the
past month.

A copy of the Complaint in Wittenberg v. Expedia, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-04754 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/14/expedia.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd A Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Ruthanne Gordon, Esq.
          Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Candice J. Enders, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: rgordon@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net
                  cenders@bm.net


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: All Medco Merger-Related Suits Now Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
All cases arising from the merger with Medco Health Solutions,
Inc. are now dismissed, Express Scripts Holding Company 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.

On July 20, 2011, Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI") entered into a
definitive merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") with Medco
Health Solutions, Inc. ("Medco"), which was amended by Amendment
No. 1 thereto on November 7, 2011, providing for the combination
of ESI and Medco under a new holding company named Aristotle
Holding, Inc.  The transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement (the "Merger") were consummated on April 2, 2012.
Aristotle Holding, Inc. was renamed Express Scripts Holding
Company (the "Company" or "Express Scripts") concurrently with the
consummation of the Merger.  For financial reporting and
accounting purposes, ESI was the acquirer of Medco.

Several lawsuits were filed by stockholders of Medco challenging
the Merger following the announcement on July 21, 2011, that ESI
and Medco had entered into a definitive merger agreement.  The
complaints in the actions name as defendants Medco and/or various
members of Medco's board of directors as well as ESI and certain
of its subsidiaries that are party to the merger agreement.
Twenty-two complaints were filed in three different venues: the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and in the Superior
Court of the State of New Jersey.  The plaintiffs in the purported
class action complaints generally alleged, among other things,
that (i) the members of Medco's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Medco and its stockholders by authorizing the
proposed merger and (ii) ESI and three of its subsidiaries --
Plato Merger Sub, Inc., the Company (then Aristotle Holding, Inc.)
and Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc. -- aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by Medco and its directors.  The
plaintiffs sought, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the merger transaction on the agreed-upon terms,
and unspecified compensatory damages, together with the costs and
disbursements of the action.  A class was certified in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The cases filed in the
Superior Court of the State of New Jersey were stayed on August
26, 2011.

On November 7, 2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which they agreed upon the terms of settlement,
and plaintiffs agreed to withdraw applications for preliminary
injunction of the acquisition and stay all further litigation
pending court approval of the settlement.  The terms of the
settlement are reflected in the Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and
Plan of Merger, which was included as Exhibit 2.1 to ESI's Current
Report on Form 8-K filed November 8, 2011.

On April 18, 2012, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey approved the settlement and dismissed the
cases before it.  On May 30, 2012, the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware dismissed the cases before it with prejudice.
On June 12, 2012, the cases pending before the Superior Court of
New Jersey were dismissed by consent of parties.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Irwin" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit styled Irwin v. WellPoint
Health Networks, 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 March 25, 2003, plaintiff in Irwin v. WellPoint Health
Networks, et al. (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services)
filed a complaint in California state court against WellPoint
Health Networks and certain related entities, including one of the
acquired NextRX subsidiaries (collectively "WellPoint"), the
Company's predecessor, Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI"), and other
pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs") alleging his right to sue under
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  ESI was dismissed in
2008, but WellPoint remains a defendant.  This case purported to
be a class action against the PBM defendants on behalf of self-
funded, non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 health
plans and individuals with no prescription drug benefits that have
purchased drugs at retail rates.  On
May 6, 2004, WellPoint invoked an arbitration clause and the case
against WellPoint was stayed and sent to arbitration.  On February
24, 2006, plaintiff served an arbitration demand against WellPoint
alleging that numerous WellPoint business practices violated the
UCL and making claims on behalf of California residents who paid
taxes, California residents who were beneficiaries of non-ERISA
health plans, and California residents who obtained prescription
benefits from non-ERISA health plans.  On October 11, 2006,
WellPoint filed its response to the arbitration demand.  No
further activity occurred until July 16, 2012, when WellPoint
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's arbitration demand for
failure to prosecute the case for over nine years.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Awaits Supreme Court Decision in "Beeman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Holding Company is awaiting a supreme court ruling
in connection with an appellate court's request for an
authoritative decision in the class action lawsuit filed by Jerry
Beeman, 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 December 12, 2002, a complaint was filed against Express
Scripts and NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC
and several other pharmacy benefit management companies, captioned
Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (Case No.021327, United
States District Court for the Central District of California).
The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies as a
putative class action, alleges rights to sue as a private attorney
general under California law.  The complaint alleges that the
Company, and the other defendants, failed to comply with statutory
obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide
the Company's California clients with the results of a bi-annual
survey of retail drug prices.  On July 12, 2004, the case was
dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing to bring the action.  On June 2, 2006, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district
court's opinion on standing and remanded the case to the district
court.  The district court's denial of defendants' motion to
dismiss on California state first amendment constitutionality
grounds is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  Plaintiffs
have filed a motion for class certification, but that motion has
not been briefed pending the outcome of the appeal.  On July 19,
2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On August 16, 2011, defendants
filed a petition for rehearing en banc for the Ninth Circuit's
reconsideration of its ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss,
which was granted on October 31, 2011.

On June 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit certified the first amendment
issue for the Supreme Court of California's review and requested
an authoritative decision on the question of California
constitutional law.  The Supreme Court of California accepted the
Ninth Circuit's request on July 18, 2012, and the Company awaits
the Court's ruling.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: "North Port" Suit Dismissal Bids Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss an amended complaint in the class action
lawsuit initiated by North Port Firefighters' Pension against a
subsidiary of International Paper Company remain pending,
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.

Temple-Inland Inc. is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North
Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in
November 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas and subsequently amended.  The lawsuit alleges a
class action against Temple-Inland and certain individual
defendants contending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the
financial condition of Guaranty Financial Group, Temple-Inland's
former financial services business which was spun off by Temple-
Inland in 2007, during the period
December 12, 2007, through August 24, 2009.  Temple-Inland
distributed the stock of Guaranty Financial Group to its
shareholders on December 28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial
Group was an independent, publicly held company.  The action is
pled as a securities claim on behalf of persons who acquired
Guaranty Financial Group stock during the putative class period.
Although focused chiefly on statements made by Guaranty Financial
Group to its shareholders after it was an independent, publicly
held company, the action repeats many of the same allegations of
fact made in the lawsuit captioned Tepper v. Temple-Inland Inc.
On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company believes the claims made against Temple-Inland in the
North Port lawsuit are without merit, and it intends to defend
them vigorously.  The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, and
thus, the Company believes it is premature to predict the outcome
or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, which may be
incurred.

Each of the individual defendants in both the Tepper litigation
and the North Port litigation has requested advancement of their
costs of defense from Temple-Inland and has asserted a right to
indemnification by Temple-Inland.  The Company is advancing costs
of defense which have been expensed as incurred and believes that
all or part of these costs and any potential damages awarded
against the individual defendants and covered by any Temple-Inland
indemnity would be covered losses under Temple-Inland's directors
and officers insurance.  The carriers under the applicable
policies have been notified of the claims and each has responded
with a reservation of rights letter.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Suits Over Containerboard Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company continues to defend itself and its
subsidiary against class action lawsuits brought by purchasers of
its containerboard products, 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 September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland Inc., were named as
defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a
civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuit is
captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D.
Ill.).  The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in
August 2005, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products.  The alleged class is all
persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any
defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period August 2005 to November 2010.  The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.  Four similar
complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois.  Moreover, in January 2011, International
Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court
in Cocke County, Tennessee, alleging that International Paper
violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix
the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present.
Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class
of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products,
damages and costs, including attorneys' fees.  The Company
disputes the allegations made and intends to vigorously defend
each action.  However, because both actions are in the preliminary
stages, the Company is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Class Action Over Bogalusa Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company is facing a class action lawsuit over
a fish kill incident at its subsidiary's Bogalusa, Louisiana paper
mill, 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 August 2011, the Bogalusa, Louisiana paper mill of a Temple-
Inland Inc. subsidiary received predictive test results indicating
that Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) limits for permitted
discharge from the wastewater treatment pond into the Pearl River
were exceeded after an upset condition at the mill and
subsequently confirmed reports of a fish kill on the Pearl River
(the Bogalusa Incident).  Temple-Inland, a Company subsidiary,
promptly initiated a full mill shut down, notified the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) of the situation and
took corrective actions to restore the water quality of the river.
On September 2, 2011, Bogalusa mill operations were restarted upon
receiving approval from the LDEQ.  The LDEQ, the Mississippi DEQ,
and other regulatory agencies in those states have each given a
notice of intent to levy penalties and recover restitution damages
resulting from the Bogalusa Incident.  To date, the Company have
settled for a total of approximately $1 million the known claims
of various Mississippi regulatory agencies and the Louisiana Fish
and Wildlife Department (LDWF).  However, the settlement with the
LDWF for restitution damages related to the Bogalusa Incident is
being challenged in the state district court for Washington
Parish, Louisiana, in a lawsuit brought by the district attorney
for Washington Parish.

Temple-Inland Inc. (or its affiliates) is a defendant in 17 civil
lawsuits in Louisiana related to the Bogalusa Incident.  One case
is the LDWF lawsuit filed by the district attorney for Washington
Parish.  Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana
state court and have been removed and consolidated in an action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana along with a civil case originally filed in that court
styled McGehee v. TIN Inc. (filed September 20, 2011).

On August 2, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit related to the
Bogalusa Incident was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi on behalf of certain Mississippi
property owners.  Additional lawsuits may be filed in connection
with the Bogalusa Incident following the date of this report.

At this preliminary stage, the Company says it cannot reasonably
estimate the potential loss and other effects from these pending
proceedings.  However, the Company believes many of the claims are
without merit, and it is defending them vigorously.


KUEHNE & NAGEL: To Settle Antitrust Class Action for $28 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that Swiss logistics company Kuehne &
Nagel International AG on Sept. 14 said it will pay $28 million to
settle an antitrust law suit in the U.S.

MAIN FACTS:

- Kuehne & Nagel has entered into an agreement to settle a US
class action lawsuit alleging anticompetitive practices in
relation to certain surcharges for freight forwarding services

- The US based class action lawsuit sought civil damages for
conduct previously investigated by the US Department of Justice.

- The class action settlement, which is subject to US court
approval, provides that Kuehne + Nagel will pay an amount of $28
million, and in addition, assign proceeds itself receives from a
pending class action against airlines.  The payment will be
effected from a provision built for this purpose.

- Karl Gernandt, Chairman of Kuehne + Nagel International AG said:
"With this settlement we will be able to finally conclude the
painful litigation in the United States related to past antitrust
allegations -- already in November 2011 the respective United
States District Court approved the plea agreement between Kuehne +
Nagel and the US Department of Justice."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated continues to face antitrust class
action lawsuits commenced by purchasers of polyurethane foam
products in the U.S. and Canada, 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.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated
in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20
defendants alleging that competitors of the Company's carpet
underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane
foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and
Canadian antitrust laws.

A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.  Of the U.S. cases remaining, the Company has been
named as a defendant in (a) three direct purchaser class action
cases (the first on November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended
class action complaint filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf of a
class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products; (b)
an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed
on March 21, 2011 (although the underlying lawsuits do not name
the Company as a defendant); and an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011; and (c) 29 individual direct
purchaser cases, (i) one filed March 22, 2011, (ii) another
amended August 24, 2011, to remove class allegations, (iii) one
amended August 25, 2011, to name the Company as a defendant, (iv)
three others filed October 31, 2011, (v) one filed November 4,
2011, (vi) three filed December 6, 19 and 30, respectively, (vii)
one filed January 27, 2012, (viii) five filed March 19, 2012, (ix)
one amended March 30, 2012, to name the Company as a defendant,
(x) one filed April 27, 2012, (xi) three filed April 30, 2012,
(xii) two filed May 11, 2012, (xiii) one filed May 17, 2012, (xiv)
four filed May 25, 2012, and (xv) one filed June 12, 2012.  All of
the pending U.S. cases in which the Company has been named as a
defendant, have been filed in or have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In
re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-
02196.

In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of
unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present.  Each plaintiff also seeks attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and
injunctive relief against future violations.  On April 15 and
May 6, 2011, the Company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct
purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated
case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim.  On July
19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery
is underway in the U.S. actions.

The Company has been named in two Canadian class action cases (for
direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products),
both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164
(amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30,
2011).  In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 15
defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged,
general and special damages in the amount of $100 million,
punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action.  The
Company is not yet required to file its defenses in the Canadian
actions.  In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class
action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane
foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v.
Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior
Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-06-00524-104,
filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add the
Company and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as
defendants in this case.

On June 22, 2012, the Company was also made party to a lawsuit
brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis
Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs.
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated - Polyurethane Foam Class Action."
The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect
purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri,
alleged that the Company violated the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act based upon its alleged illegal price inflation of
flexible polyurethane foam products.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of
reasonable attorney fees.  The Company has not yet filed its
response to this action.

The Company denies all of the allegations in all of these actions
and will vigorously defend itself.  This contingency is subject to
many uncertainties.  Therefore, based on the information available
to date, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of
potential loss, if any.

Based in Carthage, Missouri, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated is a
manufacturer of components for residential furniture and bedding,
power foundations, carpet underlay, components for office
furniture, drawn steel wire, automotive seat support and lumbar
systems, and bedding industry machinery.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Lacks Cash to Cover Class Action Costs
----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Griggs, writing for The Advocate, reports that Louisiana
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. may have to borrow $100 million
through bonds to cover the cost of Hurricane Isaac claims and
proposed settlements for two class-action lawsuits the insurer's
board of directors approved on Sept. 13.

Citizens must keep at least $125 million in cash on hand -- enough
to cover the cost of one hurricane and the cost of purchasing
reinsurance to protect itself from excessive claims, Citizens
Chief Financial Officer Steve Cottrell told board members.

However, Citizens expects to pay out an estimated $50 million to
$75 million to cover 15,000 to 17,000 Isaac-related insurance
claims and potentially $21 million and $40 million for the two
proposed lawsuit settlements.

That means Citizens could be spending between an estimated $111
million and $136 million total.  There's also a chance the
settlements could be rejected at the levels offered.

If nothing is done to solve the problem as estimated, Citizens
will run out of cash in early 2013 after paying the Isaac claims
and the legal settlements, Mr. Cottrell said.

"We're at least $100 million short," Mr. Cottrell said.

The board did not vote to borrow any money on Sept. 13.  However,
the board did vote to take a technical step that preserves
Citizens' right to issue more bonds.

In other action, the Citizens board approved a proposal to
increase commercial property insurance rates by an average of 56.9
percent statewide.  Citizens has 5,687 commercial policies and 75
percent of them are wind-and-hail-only coverage, which covers
hurricane damage.

Almost all of those policies are in the New Orleans area and
coastal parishes, according to Citizens.

The increase includes the cost for enough reinsurance to cover the
damage caused by a 1-in-100-year storm and a risk component, Mr.
Cottrell said.  All of the major insurance companies carry at
least that much reinsurance, he said.

Citizens now buys the level of reinsurance that covers a 40-year
event because it hasn't had the money for the higher coverage
level, Mr. Cottrell said.  If Citizens bought enough reinsurance
for a 100-year-storm, the chance that the company would have to
issue an assessment on insurers in the state would drop to less
than 1 percent.

Even with the 56.9 percent increase, Citizens' wind-only policies
will cost less than the amount private insurers charge for that
portion of the coverage, Mr. Cottrell said.

As for the two lawsuits Citizens proposed settling, one is known
as the Orill class-action lawsuit, a dispute over late payment of
hurricane Katrina and Rita claims.  Citizens is offering to pay
$1,000 per claim, less attorney's fees and expenses, and is
setting aside $21 million.

The other case is the second phase of what is called the Oubre
class-action lawsuit, a dispute over the length of time it took
Citizens to begin the claims process for hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in 2005.  Citizens is offering $4,500 per claim and $900,000
to cover administrative and court costs, and is setting aside $40
million, Citizens Chief Executive Officer Richard Robertson said.

Citizens was forced to pay close to $105 million -- roughly $12
million of that legal interest -- in a judgment in the first phase
of the Oubre lawsuit.  That class included 18,573 policyholders.

The board also listened to a proposal for Citizens' staff to take
over the management of claims and payments and to issue all
policies by 2014.

The move could conservatively save $7 million a year, Citizens
Chief Operating Officer Vijay Ramachandran said, and possibly up
to $10 million.

The savings include the cost to add 18 to 22 staff positions,
according to the proposal.  Citizens would handle around 40
percent of its non-catastrophe claims in-house.  Citizens now
contracts with two private companies to handle all of the claims
and policies issued, and those companies would continue to handle
claims from hurricanes.

Mr. Cottrell presented two long-term options for covering the $100
million shortfall that Citizens faces:

Issuing more bond debt. In 2006, Citizens issued $978 million in
bonds to cover Hurricane Katrina claims, paying on it over time
through assessments that Citizens placed on other insurers in the
state.  The insurers passed the cost on to property owners
throughout the state, but the Legislature is allowing a tax credit
that many homeowners fail to claim each year.

Under its bond agreements, Citizens has the right to borrow more
money if the Katrina claims exceeded the original amount,
Mr. Cottrell said.  The actual cost for Katrina claims has been
around $340 million higher than the original estimate.

However, under the bond agreements, Citizens can only borrow the
money to recover the expenses over the last 60 days, which include
the $105 million Oubre payment.

After expenses, Citizens would clear $100 million to $101 million,
Mr. Cottrell said.

This option would require Citizens to continue collecting an
assessment from property owners for three extra years, until 2029,
Mr. Cottrell said.

But the assessment amount in those three years would be less than
1 percent of the premiums property owners paid (0.86 percent in
2027, 0.83 percent in 2028 and 0.80 percent in 2029.)

Next year, the average homeowner will pay $54, a 3.74 percent
assessment, to cover the bond payments.  At current prices, the
average homeowner's assessment would be less than $15 a year
during the three extra years.

The major advantage to this approach is that property owners would
get a tax credit for the assessment, said board member Sen. Dan
"Blade" Morrish, R-Jennings.

Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said the bond debt gives
Citizens the opportunity to spread the payment among all Louisiana
taxpayers rather than limiting it to property insurance
policyholders.

Declare a 2012 deficit and collect a regular assessment, which can
be up to 10 percent of property premiums, from the insurance
industry. Citizens could raise up to $200 million within 30 days
under this option, Mr. Cottrell said.

Mr. Donelon said the major disadvantage for this option is that
insurance companies can pass the assessment along to
policyholders, something 99 percent of them did after the Katrina
bonds assessment.

The board will take the matter up again at its November meeting.
By then, Mr. Donelon said the insurer should have a better idea of
its Isaac claims, and Citizens will also know if it needs to cover
the damage from another hurricane.


MARQUEE STAFFING: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego labor lawyers Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed
a class action complaint against Marquee Staffing on September 6,
2012, alleging that the company required their employees to work
off the clock while donning and doffing their work uniforms.
Lawson, et al. v. Marquee Staffing, Case No. 37-2012-00103717-CU-
OE-CTL is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior
Court.

The class action Complaint alleges that Marquee required the
employees to wear company provided uniforms, which consisted of a
cloth apron, hair nets, and latex gloves.  Marquee also allegedly
required the employees to change into their uniforms upon arriving
at work and change back into their regular clothes before leaving
work.  The complaint further alleges that Marquee never paid the
employees for the time spent donning and doffing their uniforms or
for the time spent walking to and from the dressing area and time
clock station.

Managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norm
Blumenthal states, "the time spent putting on and taking off
company provided uniforms and safety gear at the start and end of
work is compensable work time."

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that represents California employees with wage and hour
claims against their current or former employer.  If you are
seeking to collect unpaid wages, contact Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik for a free confidential consultation by calling (866) 771-
7099.


MERCK & CO: Awaits Rulings in Vytorin Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is awaiting court decisions on motions for class
certification and summary judgment pending in the federal
securities lawsuit captioned In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin
Securities Litigation, 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 2011, the Company announced the latest phase of its global
restructuring program (the "Merger Restructuring Program") that
was initiated in conjunction with the integration of the legacy
Merck and legacy Schering-Plough Corporation businesses.  This
Merger Restructuring Program is intended to optimize the cost
structure of the combined company.  As part of this latest phase,
the Company expects to reduce its workforce measured at the time
of the Merger by an additional 12% to 13% across the Company
worldwide.

In April 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in federal court which has been consolidated in the
District of New Jersey with another federal securities lawsuit
under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities
Litigation.  An amended consolidated complaint was filed in
October 2008 and named as defendants Merck; Merck/Schering-Plough
Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors.  The complaint alleges that Merck
delayed releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical
trial regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Merck made false
and misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing that
once the results of the ENHANCE study were released, sales of
Vytorin would decline and Merck's earnings would suffer.  In
December 2008, Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss
this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for which relief can be granted.  In September 2009, the
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.  In June 2011, lead
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to further amend the
consolidated complaint, which was granted on February 7, 2012.  On
February 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, which defendants answered on February 23, 2012.  In
February 2012, the parties completed briefing on lead plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  That motion is now pending before
the court.  On March 1, 2012, defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment.  That motion is now fully briefed and pending
before the court.

There is a similar consolidated, putative class action securities
lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by a
Schering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its former
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred Hassan,
under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCE
Securities Litigation.  The amended consolidated complaint was
filed in September 2008 and names as defendants Schering-Plough;
Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors; and underwriters who
participated in an August 2007 public offering of Schering-
Plough's common and preferred stock.  In December 2008, Schering-
Plough and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this
lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
for which relief can be granted.  In September 2009, the court
denied defendants' motions to dismiss.  In February 2012, the
parties completed briefing on lead plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  That motion is now pending before the court.  On
March 1, 2012, the Schering-Plough defendants filed a motion for
partial summary judgment and the underwriter defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment.  Those motions are now fully briefed
and pending before the court.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that
delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and
consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its
joint ventures.  The Company's operations are principally managed
on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,
which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and
Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the
Pharmaceutical segment.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Remaining Vioxx Liability Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend remaining lawsuits arising
from the use or purchase of its Vioxx product, 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 September 30, 2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx, its
arthritis and acute pain medication, from the market worldwide.

Merck is a defendant in approximately 100 federal and state
lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging
personal injury or economic loss as a result of the purchase or
use of Vioxx.  Most of the remaining cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.

There is one U.S. Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuit currently
scheduled for trial in 2012.  Merck has previously disclosed the
outcomes of several Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits that were
tried prior to 2012.  All post-trial appeals have been resolved.

There are pending in various U.S. courts putative class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or users of
Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss.  In the
Vioxx MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain.
In June 2010, Merck moved to strike the class claims or for
judgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint, which
includes the 30 cases, and briefing on that motion was completed
in September 2010.  The Vioxx MDL court heard oral argument on
Merck's motion in October 2010 and took it under advisement.

In 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouri
plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating
to Vioxx.  The Vioxx MDL court issued an order in April 2012
enjoining the Missouri plaintiffs from offering any evidence that
does not sufficiently exclude damages attributable to claims
already settled through the prior personal injury and third-party
payor settlements and from executing any judgment obtained through
admission of such evidence.  The Missouri plaintiffs have appealed
that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
which has set an expedited briefing schedule on plaintiffs'
appeal.  Trial has been rescheduled for November 1, 2012, in light
of the appeal.  In Indiana, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the
Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana.  That case has been
dormant for several years.  In April 2010, a Kentucky state court
denied Merck's motion for summary judgment and certified a class
of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket
costs relating to Vioxx.  The trial court subsequently entered an
amended class certification order in January 2011.  Merck appealed
that order to the Kentucky Court of Appeals and, on February 10,
2012, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
amended class certification order and denied certification.  The
plaintiff has petitioned the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the
Court of Appeals' order.  Merck opposed the petition, and the
Kentucky Supreme Court has not yet ruled.

Merck has also been named as a defendant in several lawsuits
brought by, or on behalf of, government entities.  Six of these
lawsuits are being brought by state Attorneys General and one has
been brought on behalf of a county.  All of these actions except
for an action brought by the Kentucky Attorney General are in the
Vioxx MDL proceeding.  These actions allege that Merck
misrepresented the safety of Vioxx.  These lawsuits seek recovery
for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care
programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer
Fraud Act violations.  Judge Fallon remanded the Kentucky case to
state court on January 3, 2012.  Merck's petition to appeal that
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was
denied.  The lawsuit brought by the county is a putative class
action filed by Santa Clara County, California on behalf of all
similarly situated California counties.  Merck moved for judgment
on the pleadings in the case brought by Santa Clara County in
September 2011.  The court granted Merck's motion on March 20,
2012, but gave the county leave to file an amended complaint.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that
delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and
consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its
joint ventures.  The Company's operations are principally managed
on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,
which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and
Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the
Pharmaceutical segment.


MERCK & CO: Discovery in Vioxx Securities Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is currently proceeding in the consolidated securities
litigation related to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Vioxx product, 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 addition to the liability lawsuits over the Company's Vioxx
product, various putative class actions and individual lawsuits
under federal securities laws and state laws have been filed
against Merck and various current and former officers and
directors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits").  The Vioxx Securities
Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley
R. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes.  In
August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
in the consolidated securities action.  Among other things, the
claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary
withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed.
In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class
Action Complaint.  Discovery is currently proceeding in accordance
with the court's scheduling order.

As previously disclosed, several individual securities lawsuits
filed by foreign institutional investors also are consolidated
with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.  In October 2011, plaintiffs
filed amended complaints in each of the pending individual
securities lawsuits.  Also in October 2011, a new individual
securities lawsuit was filed in the District of New Jersey by
several foreign institutional investors; that case is also
consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.  On January 20,
2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual
lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit").  Briefing on the motions to dismiss
was completed on March 26, 2012.  On August 1, 2012, Judge Chesler
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP
Lawsuit.  Among other things, certain alleged misstatements and
omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all state law claims
were dismissed in full.  By stipulation and order, defendants are
not required to respond to the complaints in the remaining
individual securities lawsuits until on or about September 15,
2012.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that
delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and
consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its
joint ventures.  The Company's operations are principally managed
on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,
which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and
Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the
Pharmaceutical segment.


MERCK & CO: Discovery Proceeding in Suits Over Fosamax Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in product liability lawsuits relating to
Merck & Co., Inc.'s Fosamax product, 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.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation").  As of
June 30, 2012, approximately 3,615 cases, which include
approximately 4,175 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were
pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including
one case which seeks class action certification, as well as
damages and/or medical monitoring.  In approximately 1,200 of
these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they
have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction
or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the
use of Fosamax.  In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 2,415 of
these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures
and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with
the use of Fosamax.

        Cases Alleging ONJ and Other Jaw Related Injuries

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the "JPML") ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases
pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ
MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  The Fosamax ONJ MDL
has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  As a result of the
JPML order, approximately 950 of the cases are before Judge
Keenan.  In the first Fosamax ONJ MDL trial, Boles v. Merck, the
Fosamax ONJ MDL court declared a mistrial because the eight person
jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.  The Boles case was
retried in June 2010 and resulted in a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in the amount of $8 million.  Merck filed post-trial
motions seeking judgment as a matter of law or, in the
alternative, a new trial.  In October 2010, the court denied
Merck's post-trial motions but sua sponte ordered a remittitur
reducing the verdict to $1.5 million.  Plaintiff rejected the
remittitur ordered by the court and requested a new trial on
damages, which is scheduled to take place on September 18, 2012.
Merck intends to appeal the verdict in Boles after the new trial
on damages has concluded.  Three other cases have been tried to
verdict in the Fosamax ONJ MDL.  Defense verdicts in favor of
Merck were returned in each of those three cases.

In February 2011, Judge Keenan ordered that there will be two
further bellwether trials conducted in the Fosamax ONJ MDL.  Spano
v. Merck and Jellema v. Merck were selected by the court to be
tried in 2012, but each case was dismissed by the plaintiffs.  On
March 28, 2012, the court selected Scheinberg v. Merck as the next
case to be tried and set the trial date for January 14, 2013.

Outside the Fosamax ONJ MDL, in Florida, Carballo v. Merck has
been set for trial on October 15, 2012, and Anderson v. Merck has
been set for trial on January 14, 2013.

In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the Atlantic
County Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all of the
Fosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for mass tort
designation and centralized management before one judge in New
Jersey.  In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered
that all pending and future actions filed in New Jersey arising
out of the use of Fosamax and seeking damages for existing dental
and jaw-related injuries, including ONJ, but not solely seeking
medical monitoring, be designated as a mass tort for centralized
management purposes before Judge Carol E. Higbee in Atlantic
County Superior Court.  As of June 30, 2012, approximately 240 ONJ
cases were pending against Merck in Atlantic County, New Jersey.
In July 2009, Judge Higbee entered a Case Management Order (and
various amendments thereto) setting forth a schedule that
contemplates completing fact and expert discovery in an initial
group of cases to be reviewed for trial.  In February 2011, the
jury in Rosenberg v. Merck, the first trial in the New Jersey
coordinated proceeding, returned a verdict in Merck's favor.  In
April 2012, the jury in Sessner v. Merck, the second case tried in
New Jersey, also returned a verdict in Merck's favor.

In California, the parties are reviewing the claims of two
plaintiffs in the Carrie Smith, et al. v. Merck case and the
claims in Pedrojetti v. Merck. The cases of one or more of these
plaintiffs are expected to be tried in 2013.

Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax ONJ MDL litigation, the New
Jersey coordinated proceeding, and the remaining jurisdictions
where Fosamax cases are pending.  The Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits.

                 Cases Alleging Femur Fractures

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML
seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings.  The Motion to Transfer was granted in May
2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur
Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict
litigation in the District of New Jersey (the "Fosamax Femur
Fracture MDL").  As a result of the JPML order, approximately 510
cases were pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of
June 30, 2012.  A Case Management Order has been entered that
requires the parties to review 40 cases (later reduced to 33
cases) with a fact discovery deadline of July 31, 2012, and an
expert discovery deadline of November 28, 2012.  Judge Joel Pisano
has selected four cases to be tried as the initial bellwether
cases in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and has set an April 8,
2013 trial date for the first bellwether case.

As of June 30, 2012, approximately 1,535 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and are
pending before Judge Higbee in Atlantic County Superior Court.
The parties have selected an initial group of 30 cases to be
reviewed through fact discovery.  Plaintiffs subsequently
dismissed or advised that they will dismiss seven of the cases
that were selected and discovery in the remaining cases is
continuing.  Judge Higbee has set March 4, 2013, as the date for
the first trial of the New Jersey state Femur Fracture cases.

As of June 30, 2012, approximately 350 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in California state court.  A petition
was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in
California state court before a single judge in Orange County,
California.  The petition was granted and Judge Steven Perk is now
presiding over the coordinated proceedings.  No scheduling order
has yet been entered.

Additionally, there are nine Femur Fracture cases pending in other
state courts.  A trial date has been set for August 12, 2013, for
the Barnes case pending in Alabama state court.

Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and in
state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the
Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that
delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and
consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its
joint ventures.  The Company's operations are principally managed
on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,
which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and
Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the
Pharmaceutical segment.


MERCK & CO: Faces Suits by Health Insurers Over Coupon Programs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is facing class action lawsuits brought by
health insurers allegedly injured by its coupon programs,
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.

Since March 2012, a number of private health plans have filed
separate putative class action lawsuits against the Company
alleging that Merck's coupon programs injured health insurers by
reducing beneficiary co-payment amounts, thereby allegedly causing
beneficiaries to purchase higher-priced drugs than they otherwise
would have purchased and increasing the insurers' reimbursement
costs.  The actions, which were filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey and the Southern District of Illinois,
seek damages and injunctive relief barring the Company from
issuing coupons that would reduce beneficiary co-pays on behalf of
putative nationwide classes of health insurers.  Similar actions
relating to manufacturer coupon programs have been filed against
several other pharmaceutical manufacturers in a variety of federal
courts.  The Company says it intends to defend against these
lawsuits.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that
delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and
consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its
joint ventures.  The Company's operations are principally managed
on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,
which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and
Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the
Pharmaceutical segment.


MERCK & CO: Hearing on Vytorin ERISA Suit Settlement on Sept. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on final approval of Merck & Co., Inc.'s settlement of a
consolidated lawsuit brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 over its Vytorin product is scheduled for
September 25, 2012, 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 2011, the Company announced the latest phase of its global
restructuring program (the "Merger Restructuring Program") that
was initiated in conjunction with the integration of the legacy
Merck and legacy Schering-Plough Corporation businesses.  This
Merger Restructuring Program is intended to optimize the cost
structure of the combined company.  As part of this latest phase,
the Company expects to reduce its workforce measured at the time
of the Merger by an additional 12% to 13% across the Company
worldwide.

In April 2008, a member of a Merck ERISA plan filed a putative
class action lawsuit against Merck and certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors alleging they breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA.  Since that time, there have
been other similar ERISA lawsuits filed against Merck in the
District of New Jersey, and all of those lawsuits have been
consolidated under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin
ERISA Litigation.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
February 2009, and names as defendants Merck and various current
and former members of the Company's Board of Directors.  The
plaintiffs allege that the ERISA plans' investment in Merck stock
was imprudent because Merck's earnings were dependent on the
commercial success of its cholesterol drug Vytorin, and defendants
knew or should have known that the results of a scientific study
would cause the medical community to turn to less expensive drugs
for cholesterol management.

On May 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of settlement, conditional certification of a
settlement class, approval of the class notice, and scheduling of
a final fairness hearing.  The court granted that motion on June
22, 2012, and scheduled a hearing on final approval of the
settlement for September 25, 2012.  Pursuant to the settlement
agreement, Merck's insurers have paid $10.4 million into a
settlement fund which (after enumerated costs, fees, and awards
are withdrawn) will be allocated to members of the settlement
class according to a plan of allocation to be approved by the
court.  The settlement agreement provides that, in exchange for
such consideration, the plaintiffs and settlement class members
will issue broad releases with prejudice.

There was a similar consolidated, putative class action ERISA
lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by a member
of a Schering-Plough ERISA plan against Schering-Plough and
certain of its then-current and former officers and directors,
alleging they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, bearing
the caption In re Schering-Plough Corp. ENHANCE ERISA Litigation.
The consolidated amended complaint was filed in October 2009 and
named as defendants Schering-Plough, various then-current and
former members of Schering-Plough's Board of Directors and then-
current and former members of committees of Schering-Plough's
Board of Directors.  On February 10, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an
executed class action settlement agreement and preliminary
approval order.  The court signed the preliminary approval order
on February 16, 2012, and held a final fairness hearing on May 30,
2012.  On May 31, 2012, the court issued an opinion, order, and
final judgment.  Among other things, the final judgment dismissed
this action with prejudice, provided releases to the defendants,
and approved the settlement agreement pursuant to which Merck's
insurers have paid $12.25 million into a settlement fund.

Discovery in the lawsuits referred to in this section
(collectively, the "ENHANCE Litigation") has concluded.  The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the ENHANCE
Litigation and intends to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.  The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
matters and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss with respect to the ENHANCE Litigation.
Unfavorable outcomes resulting from the ENHANCE Litigation could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, liquidity and results of operations.

Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck & Co. Inc. --
http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health care company that
delivers innovative health solutions through its prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and
consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its
joint ventures.  The Company's operations are principally managed
on a products basis and are comprised of four operating segments,
which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Consumer Care and
Alliances segments, and one reportable segment, which is the
Pharmaceutical segment.


MISSOULA COUNTY, MT: ACLU Sues Over Prisoner Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robin O'Day, writing for KPAX News, reports that the American
Civil Liberties Union of Montana has filed a class action lawsuit
against Missoula County over discriminatory treatment of female
and juvenile prisoners.

A handful of female and juvenile prisoners at the Missoula County
Detention Center say they are not getting fresh air, sunlight or
any outdoor time, causing them physical and emotional distress.

The A.C.L.U. filed the class action lawsuit on Sept. 12, stating
that the plaintiffs are not getting adequate time outside and as a
result are experiencing anxiety, depression, along with hair loss
and skin problems.

The A.C.L.U. says this has been an on-going issue since the jail
was built in 1999, while the Missoula County Sheriff's Department
says each inmate has access to fresh air.

"Many people who are in that jail, the females and juveniles are
for long periods of time, never see the light of day and the women
have actually been known to actually try and stand in a square of
sunlight inside the gym that shines in from one of the upper
windows just to get sunlight," says A.C.L.U. Cooperating Attorney,
Greg Munro.

"When people are arrested or incarcerated they are unhappy and
sometimes we see the results of that.  Certainly again, we want
respect people's civil rights of course and we'll be doing
everything we can, if there's a problem, to address it," Missoula
County Sheriff's Department Public Information Officer Jason
Johnson said.

Mr. Munro says the County has up to 20 days to respond to the
lawsuit, but they may request an extension on that deadline.  The
Missoula County Sheriff's Office says they will hire outside
counsel to handle the case.


POLK COUNTY, FL: Jail Faces Class Action Over Pepper Spray Use
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elvia Malagon, writing for The Ledger, reports that a Polk County
jail official told a federal judge on Sept. 13 that a detention
deputy improperly used pepper spray on the ground around a holding
cage where a juvenile inmate was placed, which is cited by a civil
rights group trying to halt the use of the spray.

But Capt. Kim Marcum, who is in charge of the central county jail,
defended the use of pepper spray at the facility and said in the
majority of the cases, using the spray was appropriate and
prevented injuries to inmates and deputies.

"Any of the deputies, their goal is to try (not to use pepper
spray) . . . but the nature is that they (juveniles) are not
always going to comply," she said.  "Our responsibility is to
maintain order."

Ms. Marcum's testimony came in the fourth day of a five-day
hearing on a request by a civil rights group to temporarily halt
some practices involving juveniles housed at the jail, such as the
use of pepper spray.  The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a
federal class-action civil rights lawsuit, alleging mistreatment
of juvenile inmates.

The hearing was scheduled to end on Sept. 13.  U.S. Magistrate
Judge Mark Pizzo hasn't said when he will rule on the SLPC's
request for an injunction.

Ms. Marcum told Judge Pizzo that the jail doesn't have a perfect
record and she cited a fight among teens that led to her reviewing
video.  She said she found that a deputy was not doing rounds
properly and further investigation resulted in two detention
deputies being disciplined.

The episode led to a new protocol in which a lieutenant reviews
video footage at random to ensure rounds are being completed
properly.

Since the SPLC filed the federal civil rights lawsuit, deputies
also added blinds to rooms and frosted windows in the visitation
area to prevent adults from seeing juveniles.


SERENADE FOODS: Recalls 2,250 Lbs. of Crunchy Chicken Strips
------------------------------------------------------------
Serenade Foods, Inc., a Milford, Indiana establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,250 pounds of crunchy chicken strip
products that may contain foreign materials, fragments of plastic,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 7.5-lb cases containing 30-oz. cartons of "Milford Valley
     Farms Crunchy Chicken Strips"

The cartons bear the establishment number "P-2375" inside the USDA
mark of inspection and the UPC code 0-73981-32286-7.  The products
have a use by date of January 17, 2014.  The products were
packaged on January 17, 2012, and shipped to a distributor in
Lakeland, Florida for further distribution.  A picture of the
recalled products' label is available at: http://is.gd/4czQn1

The Company alerted FSIS of the problem after receiving two
consumer complaints.  FSIS and the firm have received no reports
of injury or illnesses associated with consumption of this
product.  Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a
healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks (including at
restaurants) to verify recalling firms notify their customers of
the recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that
the product is no longer available to consumers.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact
Janelle Deatsman, Communications Manager, at 1-866-873-7589.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Defrauds SpeedyPC Pro Consumers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Bastion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SpeedyPC Software, a British Columbia
company, Case No. 3:12-cv-04730 (N.D. Calif., September 11, 2012)
accuses SpeedyPC of defrauding consumers through the deceptive
design and sale of its SpeedyPC Pro software.

SpeedyPC develops software that it claims will increase the speed,
performance, and stability of a consumer's personal computer,
protect against privacy risks, and remove harmful system errors,
Ms. Bastion asserts.  She alleges that SpeedyPC Pro does not
perform any credible diagnostic testing on the consumer's
computer, and instead, it invariably and ominously reports that
the consumer's PC needs repair and is at risk of harmful errors,
privacy risks, and other computer problems, regardless of the real
condition of the computer.

Ms. Bastion is a citizen of the state of California.

SpeedyPC is a company organized under the laws of British
Columbia, Canada, and is headquartered in Vancouver, British
Columbia.  SpeedyPC is a "utility" software company that develops
computer security and optimization software products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Appeal in "Sanders" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Sanders against Swift Transportation Company and Interstate
Equipment Leasing, LLC ("IEL"): Michael Sanders individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation
Co., Inc. and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Case No. 10523440 in
the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, or the
Sanders Complaint.  The putative class involves both owner-
operators and driver employees alleging differing claims against
Swift and IEL. Many of the claims alleged by both the putative
class of owner-operators and the putative class of employee
drivers overlap the same claims as alleged in the Sheer Complaint
with respect to owner-operators and the Burnell Complaint as it
relates to employee drivers.  As alleged in the Sheer Complaint,
the putative class includes owner-operators of Swift during the
four years preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company
misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various
California state laws and that such owner-operators should be
considered employees.  As also alleged in the Sheer Complaint, the
owner-operator portion of the Sanders Complaint also raises
certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that
certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL.  As alleged in
the Burnell Complaint, the putative class in the Sanders Complaint
includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four years
preceding the date of filing alleging that the Company failed to
provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate
wage statements upon separation from employment, and failed to
timely pay wages upon separation from employment.  The Sanders
Complaint also raises two issues with respect to the owner-
operators and two issues with respect to drivers that were not
also alleged as part of either the Sheer Complaint or the Burnell
Complaint.  These separate owner-operator claims allege that the
Company failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to
properly compensate for waiting times.  The separate employee
driver claims allege that the Company failed to reimburse business
expenses and coerced driver employees to patronize the employer.
The Sanders Complaint seeks to create two classes, one which is
mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the Sheer Complaint and
another which is mostly (but not entirely) encompassed by the
Burnell Complaint.  Upon the Company's motion, the Sanders
Complaint has been transferred from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Alameda to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On January 17, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing
plaintiff's case and granting Swift's motion to compel
arbitration.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the
January 17, 2012 order.

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.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Awaits Okay of Tennessee Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit brought by
former students of its Tennessee driving academy, 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 March 11, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed by Michael
Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf, and Francis Wolf on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation: Michael Ham, Jemonia Ham, Dennis Wolf and Francis
Wolf v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-
STA-dkv, or the Ham Complaint.  The case was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western Section of Tennessee Western
Division.  The putative class involves former students of the
Company's Tennessee driving academy who are seeking relief against
the Company for the suspension of their Commercial Driver
Licenses, or CDLs, and any CDL retesting that may be required of
the former students by the relevant state department of motor
vehicles.  The allegations arise from the Tennessee Department of
Safety, or TDOS, having released a general statement questioning
the validity of CDLs issued by the State of Tennessee in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in the State of
Tennessee.  The Company has filed an answer to the Ham Complaint.
The Company has also filed a cross claim against the Commissioner
of the TDOS, or the Commissioner, for a judicial declaration and
judgment that it did not engage in any wrongdoing as alleged in
the complaint and a grant of injunctive relief to compel the
Commissioner to redact any statements or publications that allege
wrongdoing by the Company and to issue corrective statements to
any recipients of any such publications.  The Commissioner's
motion to dismiss the Company's cross claim has been dismissed by
the court.

On or about April 23, 2009, two class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively:
Michael Pascarella, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Sharon A. Harrington, Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission, and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the
Tennessee Department of Safety, Case No. 09-1921(JBS), in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, or
the Pascarella Complaint; and Shawn McAlarnen et al. v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., Janet Dolan, Director of the Bureau of
Driver Licensing of The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
and David Mitchell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of
Safety, Case No. 09-1737 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the McAlarnen
Complaint.  Both putative class action complaints involve former
students of the Company's Tennessee driving academy who are
seeking relief against the Company, the TDOS, and the state motor
vehicle agencies for the threatened suspension of their CDLs and
any CDL retesting that may be required of the former students by
the relevant state department of motor vehicles.  The potential
suspension and CDL re-testing was initiated by certain states in
response to the general statement by the TDOS questioning the
validity of CDL licenses the State of Tennessee issued in
connection with the Swift Driving Academy located in Tennessee.
The Pascarella Complaint and the McAlarnen Complaint are both
based upon substantially the same facts and circumstances as
alleged in the Ham Complaint.  The only notable difference among
the three complaints is that both the Pascarella and McAlarnen
Complaints name the local motor vehicles agency and the TDOS as
defendants, whereas the Ham Complaint does not.  The Company
denies the allegations of any alleged wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend its position.  The McAlarnen Complaint has been
dismissed without prejudice because the McAlarnen plaintiff has
elected to pursue the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing
of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for damages.  The
Company has filed an answer to the Pascarella Complaint.  The
Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner for
a judicial declaration and judgment that it did not engage in any
wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for
injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any
statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company
and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such
publications.  The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's
cross claim has been dismissed by the court.

On May 29, 2009, the Company was served with two additional class
action complaints involving the same alleged facts as set forth in
the Ham Complaint and the Pascarella Complaint.  The two matters
are Gerald L. Lott and Francisco Armenta on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc. and David Mitchell the Commissioner of the Tennessee
Department of Safety, Case No. 2:09-cv-02287, filed on May 7,
2009, in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee, or the Lott Complaint; and Marylene Broadnax on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6486-7, filed on May
22, 2009, in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of
Georgia, or the Broadnax Complaint.  While the Ham Complaint, the
Pascarella Complaint, and the Lott Complaint all were filed in
federal district courts, the Broadnax Complaint was filed in state
court.  As with all of these related complaints, the Company has
filed an answer to the Lott Complaint and the Broadnax Complaint.
The Company has also filed a cross-claim against the Commissioner
for a judicial declaration and judgment that it did not engage in
any wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint and a request for
injunctive relief to compel the Commissioner to redact any
statements or publications that allege wrongdoing by the Company
and to issue corrective statements to any recipients of any such
publications.  The Commissioner's motion to dismiss the Company's
cross claim has been dismissed by the court.  The portion of the
Lott complaint against the Commissioner has been dismissed as a
result of a settlement agreement reached between the approximately
138 Lott class members and the Commissioner granting the class
members 90 days to retake the test for their CDL.

The Pascarella Complaint, the Lott Complaint, and the Broadnax
Complaint are consolidated with the Ham Complaint in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
discovery is ongoing.

On July 1, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee Western division entered an order of court
granting class certification of the consolidated matters.  The
Company believes that the court committed reversible error in
granting class certification and on July 15, 2011, the Company
filed a motion for reconsideration of the class certification
determination.

In November 2011 and February 2012, the Company engaged in
voluntary mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter and
mitigate costs and risks of ongoing litigation.  On June 14, 2012,
the parties submitted to the court a petition for approval of a
settlement agreement in resolution of the entire matter.  Subject
to preliminary and final approval of the settlement by the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Swift
has agreed to make certain payments to qualifying class members on
a claims made basis which will be within a dollar range of $2
million to $2.5 million and Swift will also agree to relinquish
any legal claims to amounts owed by class members for unpaid
academy tuition.  The cost of settlement to Swift, including cash
payments, related costs and charge offs, is not expected to result
in any additional material charges or financial impact to the
Company.  Although Swift will relinquish its legal rights to
amounts owed to it by class members for unpaid academy tuition,
such amounts were fully reserved for in prior periods in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and thus
no additional charges will be recorded for the relinquishment of
such unpaid tuition receivables in connection with the settlement.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend FCRA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 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 August 8, 2011, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed by
Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Swift
Transportation Corporation: Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and
Robert R. Bell, Jr. et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation, in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, case
number 2:11-CV-01548-ROS, or the Daniel Complaint.  Plaintiffs
sought employment with Swift Transportation of Arizona, LLC
("Swift Arizona") and that entity has answered the complaint. The
putative class includes individuals throughout the United States
who sought employment with Swift Arizona and about whom Swift
Arizona procured a criminal background report for employment
purposes during the application process.  The complaint alleges
Swift Arizona violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
Among the allegations are that the Company did not make adequate
disclosures or obtain authorizations for applicants; ii) did not
issue pre-adverse action notices for in-person applicants who were
not hired in whole or in part because of a background report that
contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the
person under Swift Arizona's hiring policies; and iii) did not
issue adverse action notifications to applicants who were not
hired in whole or in part because of a background report that
contained at least one derogatory item that would disqualify the
person from under Swift Arizona's hiring policies.  In October
2011, in response to a partial motion to dismiss filed by Swift
Arizona, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which Swift
Arizona answered in part, and after the court denied a partial
motion to dismiss, Swift Arizona filed an answer addressing the
remaining allegations.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend certification of
the class as well as the merits of these matters should the class
be certified.  The final disposition of this case and the impact
of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at
this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Discrimination Class Suit Dismissed in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
A discrimination class action lawsuit filed by Steve C. Bluford
against Swift Transportation Company was dismissed in May 2012,
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 October 3, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Steve C.
Bluford on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Steve C. Bluford v Swift v.
Transportation, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, case number 1-
11CV-06932, or the Bluford Complaint.  The putative class includes
all African American employee drivers who worked from the Illinois
terminal during the two year statutory period alleging that the
Company failed to treat similarly situated African American
employees in the same manner as Caucasian employees.  The named
plaintiff, Steve Bluford, previously filed an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission complaint raising the same allegations
which was dismissed by the EEOC as having no merit.  On May 16,
2012, the Court granted Swift's motion to dismiss the class, but
any class member retains their rights to pursue individual claims
if they so elect.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Two Wage and Hour Suits Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company is facing two wage and hour class
action lawsuit in California, 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 March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint.  On June 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was
removed to the United States District Court for the central
District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP.  The putative
class includes drivers who worked for the Company during the four
years preceding the date of filing alleging that it failed to pay
the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and
rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from
employment.  The Burnell Complaint is currently subject to a stay
of proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case
unrelated to Swift, Brinker v Hohnbaum, which is currently pending
before the California Supreme Court.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint.  This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernadino, or the Rudsell
Complaint.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend certification of
the class in both matters as well as the merits of these matters
should the classes be certified.  The final disposition of both
cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: In Mediation With "Ridderbush" Suit Parties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 it engaged in a voluntary
mediation session with the parties in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Glen Ridderbush.

On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint.  The Montalvo Complaint was
removed to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-
01827-L.  Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded to
state court and the Company filed an appeal to this remand.  On
July 11, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen Ridderbush
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against
Swift Transportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift Transportation
Co. of Arizona LLC and Swift Transportation Services, LLC in the
Circuit Court for the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, or the
Ridderbush Complaint.  The Ridderbush Complaint was removed to
federal court on August 24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01028.  Both
putative classes include employees alleging that candidates for
employment within the four year statutory period in California and
within the three year statutory period in Oregon, were not paid
the state mandated minimum wage during their orientation phase.

On July 17, 2012, the Company engaged in a voluntary mediation
session with the parties involved in the Ridderbush Complaint in
an attempt to resolve the matter in order to avoid litigation and
mitigate legal expense.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains
all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against certification of the class as well as
the merits of this matter should the class be certified.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Sheer" Suit Still Pending in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation Company and Interstate Equipment Leasing, LLC
("IEL"): John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and
Chad Killebrew, Case No. 09-CIV-10376 filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Sheer
Complaint.  The putative class involves owner-operators alleging
that the Company misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees.  The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit.  Upon the Company's motion, the matter has
been transferred from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the United States District Court
in Arizona.  On May 10, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize
notice to the potential class members.  On June 23, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who
are in default under their lease agreements and related relief.
On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion
to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed
pending the outcome of arbitration.  The court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification.  The Court also denied
plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.  The
plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that the
District Court's order be vacated.  On July 27, 2011, the court
denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and plaintiff
filed another request for interlocutory appeal.  On December 9,
2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their
interlocutory appeal.

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.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against any
arbitration proceedings.  The final disposition of this case and
the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this
time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Slack" Suit Remains Pending in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation Company: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or
the Slack Compliant.  The Slack Compliant was removed to federal
court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-11438-0.  The putative
class includes all current and former Washington State-based
employee drivers during the three year statutory period alleging
that they were not paid overtime in accordance with Washington
State law and that they were not properly paid for meal and rest
periods.  The Company intends to vigorously defend certification
of the class as well as the merits of these matters should the
class be certified.  The final disposition of this case and the
impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined
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.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend "Garza" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend against a class
action lawsuit commenced by Leonel Garza, 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 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV07-0472.  The putative class originally involved
certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a
2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year.  The
putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed
owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted
and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles.
The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.  On November 14, 2008,
the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme
Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence
of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of
Appeals.  On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination.  Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed
the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all
persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who
contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,
1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles
driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees.  Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three month
period under a one year contract that no longer exists.  In
addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.  On April 7,
2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear
this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition
for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.  On August 31, 2011, the
Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the
Arizona Court of Appeals.

During the month of April 2012, the court issued the following
rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied
Swift's motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request
to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is
no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit
class size based on statute of limitations.

The Company says it intends to continue to pursue all available
appellate relief supported by the record, which the Company
believes demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and,
further, that the claims raised have no merit.  The Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages.  The
final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.


TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From Privacy Suit Deals Dismissed in May
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from TransUnion Corp.'s settlements of the Privacy
Litigation and the Louisiana Action were dismissed in May 2012,
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 sixteen purported class actions that
arose from activities of its Performance Data Division that was
discontinued over 10 years ago.  Fifteen of these purported class
actions alleging violations of federal law were consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) and are known as
In Re TransUnion Corp. Privacy Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1350.
These matters are referred to as the "Privacy Litigation."  A
companion class action alleging violation of Louisiana state law
was filed in 2002 (Andrews v. Trans Union LLC, case No. 02-18553,
Civil District, Parish of Orleans, Louisiana), the "Louisiana
Action."

The Privacy Litigation, which began in 2000, was the result of the
Company's sale of information, including names and addresses of
individuals, to businesses for marketing purposes.  The Federal
Trade Commission (the "FTC") challenged the Company's target
marketing practice in 1992, which challenge resulted in a final
decision rendered in 1999 holding that certain target marketing
lists that the Company sold were consumer reports as defined in
the FCRA, and were sold for purposes not permitted under the FCRA.
Following that decision, the fifteen purported class actions were
filed, alleging that each target marketing list was sold in
willful violation of the FCRA and seeking statutory damages.

A settlement of the Privacy Litigation and the Louisiana Action
was approved on September 17, 2008 (the "Settlement").  Pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement the Company paid $75.0 million into
a fund for the benefit of class members on July 7, 2008, and the
Company provided approximately 100,000 individuals with free
credit monitoring services.  All class members released their
procedural rights to pursue the claims alleged in these matters
through the pending, or any new, class action.  However, all class
members (other than the named plaintiffs in the Privacy Litigation
and the Louisiana Action) did retain their right to bring a
separate, individual claim against the Company for the violations
alleged in these matters provided these claims were asserted on or
before September 16, 2010 (the "PSCs").  The Settlement provides
that any money remaining in the fund after payment of notice
costs, class counsel fees and administrative expenses will be used
to satisfy any such PSCs, with remaining funds distributed on a
pro-rata basis to class members who elected to receive a potential
cash payment in the Settlement as part of the consideration to
release their procedural rights.

The Company has been advised that there are approximately 100,000
PSCs seeking payment from the Settlement fund.  Through court
monitored mediation with counsel representing the class members
and the PSCs claimants, the Company has entered into agreements to
settle substantially all of these PSCs for payments from the
Settlement fund to bring this matter to conclusion.  The Court, on
May 25, 2011, and September 8, 2011, rejected all objections made
by class counsel to the settlements entered into with respect to
the PSCs, and confirmed and approved these settlements as being in
accordance with the Settlement.  Class counsel in the Settlement
appealed these rulings by the Court seeking to obtain either
additional attorney fees from counsel to the PSCs claimants or a
return of attorney fees received by counsel to the PSCs claimants
to the Settlement fund. On May 22, 2012, the U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals summarily dismissed these appeals, confirming the
actions of the Court.  The Company believes the amount in the
Settlement fund is sufficient to meet all demands asserted either
by any settling or non-settling PSCs.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data
and information management services to companies and individual
consumers.


TRANSUNION CORP: Appeals From "White" Class Suit Deal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging the approval of TransUnion Corp.'s settlement
of a class action lawsuit over reporting of consumer debt
obligations remain pending, 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 a matter captioned White, et al v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California), plaintiffs sought class action status against
Equifax, Experian and the Company in connection with the reporting
of delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a
consumer report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy
proceeding.  The claims allege that each national consumer
reporting company did not automatically update a consumer's file
after their discharge from bankruptcy and such non-action was a
failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum file
accuracy, a requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

Without admitting any wrongdoing, the Company has agreed to a
settlement of this matter.  On August 19, 2008, the Court approved
an agreement whereby the Company and the other industry defendants
voluntarily changed certain operational practices.  These changes
require the Company to update certain delinquent records when the
Company learns, through the collection of public records, that the
consumer has received an order of discharge in a bankruptcy
proceeding.  These business practice changes did not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's operations or those of
its customers.

In 2009, the Company also agreed, with the other two defendants,
to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter for
$17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total), which amount has
been, or will be, paid into a settlement fund that will be used to
pay the class counsel's attorney fees, all administration and
notice costs of the fund to the purported class, and a variable
damage amount to consumers within the class based on the level of
harm the consumer is able to confirm.  The Company's share of this
settlement is fully covered by insurance.  Final approval of this
monetary settlement by the Court occurred on July 15, 2011.
Certain objectors to this monetary settlement have appealed the
decision of the Court.

The Company expects these appeals to be consolidated and resolved
sometime in 2013.  If the monetary settlement is not upheld the
Company expects to vigorously litigate this matter and to assert
what it believes are valid defenses to the claims made by the
plaintiffs.  Although the Company believes it has valid defenses
and has not violated any law, and although it has additional
insurance coverage available with respect to this matter, the
ultimate outcome of this matter is not certain.  However, the
Company does not believe any final resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data
and information management services to companies and individual
consumers.


TRANSUNION CORP: Continues to Defend Virginia Public Records Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action captioned Donna K. Soutter v. Trans
Union LLC No. 3:10-cv-00514-HEH, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, was filed in 2010 and alleges
that TransUnion Corp. fails to maintain reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible file accuracy with respect to the
collection and reporting of the satisfaction, release, dismissal
or appeal of judgments entered in the Virginia state court system.
The Company, like its competitors, contract with a third-party
vendor to collect public records on a timely basis.  The plaintiff
alleges that the diligence used to gather and report
satisfactions, releases, dismissals or appeals is inadequate and
that the established intervals between trips to the various state
courthouses to gather this information is too infrequent.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend this matter as it believes it
has acted in a lawful manner.

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.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, TransUnion Corp., with annual
revenues over $900 million, is a provider of credit reporting data
and information management services to companies and individual
consumers.


TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Class Action Over Inaccurate OFAC Alert Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that credit
reporting agency TransUnion frightens innocent customers into
believing the Treasury Department considers them a "match or
possible match to some suspected criminal" on a terrorist watch
list, a class action claims.

Named plaintiff Brian Larson sued TransUnion in Superior Court.

He claims the consumer reporting agency violates the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act by "willingly failing to
provide consumers with complete and truthful" Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC) alert information it sells to third parties.

OFAC alerts supposedly advise financing companies if a credit
applicant is a terrorist, money launderer, drug trafficker or
other enemy of the United States.

Mr. Larson claims TransUnion breaks state law by refusing to allow
consumers to see, dispute and correct inaccurate or incomplete
OFAC alert information before it sells the report.

Under California law, consumers have the right to dispute
inaccurate information in their credit files.  The credit
reporting agency must correct incorrect information within 30
days.

Mr. Larson says he got a copy of his TransUnion credit report in
October 2011.  After disclosing the usual information found on a
credit report, and beneath the heading, "End of Credit Report," he
says, he saw "Additional Information."

"'The following disclosure of information is provided as a
courtesy to you.  This information is not part of your TransUnion
credit report, but may be provided when TransUnion receives an
inquiry about you from an authorized party.  This additional
information can include special messages, possible OFAC name
matches, income verification and inquiry analysis information.
Any of the previously listed information that pertains to you will
be listed below,'" the complaint states.

It continues: "TransUnion continues to intentionally misrepresent
to consumers, such as plaintiff, that OFAC alerts are not actually
part of their reports or files.  This practice is also in
contravention to the clear statutory requirements of the CCRAA.

"Because defendant states that OFAC alerts are 'additional
information' provided only as a 'courtesy,' consumers such as
plaintiff are misguided into believing that they cannot dispute,
and have corrected, inaccurate OFAC information that defendant
alone is attributing to them.

"Worse, plaintiff's file with defendant does not actually disclose
the OFAC alert that defendant has determined matches with
plaintiff.  The file states:

"'Possible OFAC Match

"'The OFAC database contains a list of individuals and entities
that are prohibited by the U.S. Department of Treasury from doing
business in or with the United States.  Financial institutions are
required to check customers' names against the OFAC Database, and
if a potential name match is found, to verify whether their
potential customer is the person on the OFAC Database.  For this
reason, some financial institutions may ask for your date of
birth, or they may ask to see a copy of a government-issued form
of identification, such as a driver's license, Social Security
card, passport or birth certificate.  Some financial institutions
will search names against this database themselves, or they may
ask another company, such as TransUnion, to do so on their behalf.
We want you to know that this information may be provided to such
authorized parties.

"'As a courtesy to you, we also want to make sure you are aware
that the name that appears on your TransUnion credit file is
considered a potential match to information listed on the United
States Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control
(OFAC) Database.

"'The OFAC record that is considered a potential match to the name
on your credit file is: [Intentionally left blank].'"

Mr. Larson says his credit report directed him to a Treasury
Department Web site for more information about the OFAC database.
He says TransUnion told him he is not merely a "possible match,"
but an actual "match" to the OFAC list.

Since the incomplete OFAC list information is part of his credit
file, Mr. Larson says, his file is "not a complete and proper file
disclosure" as required by California law and the federal Credit
Reporting Act.

He claims that TransUnion's violations include "a. TransUnion
falsely represented that the OFAC information was not part of
plaintiff s credit report; b. The OFAC information was not
included in the consumer's file but was instead set forth
separately in a different disclosure labeled 'Additional
Information;' c. TransUnion represented that plaintiff 'is
considered a potential match to information listed on' the OFAC
Database (emphasis in original), but did not disclose the OFAC
record considered a potential match that it would sell to a third
party."

But Mr. Larson says he "is neither a match to the OFAC list, nor a
possible match, nor does any other entity or person 'consider'
plaintiff to be a potential match."

He claims TransUnion is misleading him and others about what
information it reports to third parties, and is uncertain if
TransUnion is reporting that he is on the watch list.

"Further, plaintiff was deprived of all information in his file,
to which he is entitled, and the opportunity to dispute and
correct the inaccurate OFAC alert that defendant inaccurately
associated with him on his report," Mr. Larson says in his
complaint.

TransUnion is no stranger to such complaints.

Courthouse News reported in 2008 that TransUnion, a credit union
and mortgage company, denied Thomas Hassan Kubbany a mortgage "on
the basis of erroneous information . . . (in his) credit report
indicating that . . . he was or might be a son of Saddam Hussein
of Iraq."

Mr. Kubbany claimed the "match" with a name on a list provided by
the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control was
solely because of his middle name, and that the defendants failed
to timely respond to his attorney's demand the "match" be deleted.

A copy of the Complaint in Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No.
12-524131 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/14/OFACAlert.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq.
          Carol M. Brewer, Esq.
          ANDERSON OGILVIE & BREWER, LLP
          600 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 651-1952
          E-mail: andy@aoblawyers.com

               - and -

          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action (12-cv-4801), filed in United States
District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Ubiquiti between October
14, 2011 and August 9, 2012, inclusive, and/or who acquired shares
of Ubiquiti common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued
in connection with its October 14, 2011 initial public offering
("IPO").  This class action seeks to recover damages caused by
Ubiquiti's violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of the
1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ubiquiti securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 6, 2012 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Ubiquiti offers a portfolio of wireless networking products and
solutions, including systems, high performance radios, antennas
and management tools, designed for wireless networking and other
applications in the unlicensed radio frequency ("RF") spectrum.
The Company offers solutions that incorporate its RF technology,
antenna design and firmware technologies, which it refers to as
Air Technologies.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business and operation.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(i) the true magnitude of the risks the Company faced from
counterfeit goods in connection with the Company's products
including the popular and profitable AirMax; (ii) the widespread
nature and extent of the counterfeit operations and the impact the
counterfeit activities would have on the Company's future
operating results; (iii) the increased risks to the Company's
operations due to its unique business model, whereby it relied
exclusively upon distributors to sell its products to end
customers; (iv) that the Company lacked the proper internal
controls to prevent its product designs from being stolen and
replicated; and (v) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On or about October 14, 2011, Ubiquiti filed its Prospectus for
the IPO, in which approximately 7.038 million shares of Ubiquiti
common stock were sold to the public at $15 per share, raising
$105.6 million in gross proceeds for the Company and the selling
shareholders.

On May 1, 2012, the Company announced disappointing third quarter
fiscal year 2012 financial results.  Ubiquity also acknowledged
that one of its distributors, Kozumi USA Corp., had stolen source
codes and proprietary designs for the Company's popular and
profitable AirMax line of products, and was engaged in a scheme to
manufacture and distribute counterfeit Ubiquiti products in
emerging markets like South America.  As a result, Ubiquiti shares
plummeted $6.10 per share, or more than 17%, to close at $28.90
per share on May 2, 2012.

On August 9, 2012, Ubiquiti announced its fourth quarter fiscal
2012 financial results and disappointing guidance for the first
quarter of fiscal 2013.  Ubiquiti admitted that the distribution
of the unauthorized copies of its communication gear was more
widespread than previously disclosed and would have a detrimental
impact on the Company's future results.  As a result, Ubiquiti
shares declined $6.30 per share or nearly 42%, to close at $8.71
per share on August 10, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is a law firm
that specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and
antitrust class litigation.  It has with in New York, Chicago and
San Diego.


UNIVERSITY CREAMERY: Recalls Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erring on the side of caution and safety for the consuming public,
the University Creamery at Penn State is voluntarily recalling all
ice cream and frozen yogurt made between May 16, 2012, and August
11, 2012, because of isolated incidents involving reports of small
plastic foreign objects in the product.  The recalled ice cream
was manufactured and sold from the Berkey Creamery on the
University Park campus of Penn State and also was available for
purchase on the Internet from the Creamery's Web site.

In mid-August, University police began a criminal investigation
into several isolated incidents involving reports of small foreign
objects in ice cream manufactured by the University Creamery on
the University Park campus.  The Creamery has received three
reports of consumers finding small plastic pieces in the ice
cream, specifically, three small pieces of plastic less than 21 mm
(about .82 inches) in size.

While the reports have only related to half-gallon containers, the
Creamery is extending the recall to cover all ice cream and frozen
yogurt in all container sizes made during the time period.  Ice
cream subject to the recall will bear a BEST IF USED BY date on
the label falling on or between February 10, 2013, and
August 11, 2013.  Consumers who have purchased ice cream covered
by this recall are urged to not eat the ice cream and to return
any product subject to the recall to the place of purchase for a
full refund or exchange.  Consumers with questions may contact the
Creamery at 1-855-677-0464 (toll-free).

No illnesses or injuries have been reported in connection with
this situation.  Anyone that believes they may have ingested an
object should immediately consult a healthcare professional.

"The safety of the public is our No. 1 concern," said Tom Palchak,
Creamery manager.  "Although by all accounts these appear to be
isolated incidents, they are troubling to say the least.  We have
a longstanding reputation for safety at the Creamery and a product
that consumers trust.  We are erring on the side of caution with
this recall and in taking the actions we are taking to prevent any
recurrence."

An independent investigation of the reports of foreign objects
conducted for the Creamery, while not conclusive, suggests that
the objects did not enter the ice cream during the manufacturing
process.  The Creamery has extended the recall to cover not only
the dates when the ice cream was made that were subject to the
reports, but to also include all ice cream made during a buffer
period after the last known production date, up to the point when
the Creamery instituted enhanced security measures to protect
against the chances of undetected objects being placed in the ice
cream.  These measures include limiting access to production and
packaging areas, increased surveillance systems, purchase of an X-
ray device and metal detectors, and notification of ingredient
suppliers.  In the near future, the Creamery also will move to a
tamper-resistant packaging solution.

This recall is being conducted with the full knowledge of the U.S.
Food & Drug Administration (FDA).


UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA: Faces Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lori Pilger, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that a
Nebraska man turned away from a handicapped parking spot when he
tried to take his family to Morrill Hall on a home football game
day in 2010 has sued the University of Nebraska.

In the lawsuit filed on Sept. 13, Richard Norton Jr. alleges the
Board of Regents violated federal law when it put hoods on two
handicapped meters in front of the museum to let football
tailgaters or donors park there.

His attorney, Kathleen Neery, said they intend to pursue class-
action status.

"If it happened to Rick Norton, it happened to someone else," she
said.

A copy of the lawsuit was obtained too late in the day on Sept. 13
to get a response from university officials.

Ms. Neery said that on Oct. 30, 2010, Mr. Norton and his family
went to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to see an exhibit at
Morrill Hall.

Mr. Norton, who lives south of Lincoln, has a neurological and
orthopedic disability.

That day, when he tried to park in a designated handicapped
parking spot in front of the museum, Ms. Neery said, he was
verbally harassed and ridiculed by a university employee and
ultimately not allowed to park there.

Ms. Neery said the employee told him the spots were being held for
donors.

Mr. Norton was told to park in an area at least two blocks east of
Morrill Hall, where an employee tried to charge him $15.

Ms. Neery said eventually he was allowed to park free of charge
but was told his car would be towed if he returned "even one
minute late" of the two hours he said they would be at Morrill
Hall.

After he walked from the parking area to the museum, Ms. Neery
said, he experienced extreme pain in his legs and feet and had to
seek medical attention.

A month later, Mr. Norton filed a complaint with the Office for
Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education.

This May, Ms. Neery said, the office concluded that the university
had not complied with the Rehab Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) when it blocked off the dedicated
accessible parking spaces.

She said the university acknowledged the violations and
deficiencies with handicapped parking in front of Morrill Hall and
promised to address the issue before Sept. 1, this year's first
home game.

But Ms. Neery said they failed to do so.

"The university is clearly not taking these law violations
seriously," she said.  "And if it takes this lawsuit to get the
university to comply with federal law and show the proper respect
to disabled people, so be it."

The ADA doesn't have an exception clause for home football games,
Ms. Neery said.


VALENCE TECHNOLOGY: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Grattan, writing for Austin Business Journal, reports that
Delaware-based Rigrodsky & Long P.A. has filed a lawsuit alleging
that Austin-based Valence Technology Inc. misled shareholders
about the condition of the company's finances and business
prospects.

The class-action suit is filed on behalf of all people who bought
Valence stock between Aug. 3, 2011 and July 12, 2012.

The suit contends that Valence knew, but concealed, that the
company's chairman of the board and investor Carl Berg would no
longer fund the company to support its debt, that Valence would
not raise capital by selling equity and that as a result, the
company was headed for bankruptcy.

As a result, the company's stock traded at inflated prices during
the class period, Rigrodsky & Long said in the statement.

Valence recently secured a $10 million line of credit from GemCap
Lending I LLC.  The company expects to file a restructuring plan
by the end of the year.


                           *********

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  * * *