---

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

             Tuesday, August 17, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 161

                             Headlines

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN HOLDING: Hindo Securities Complaint Pending
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Class Action
ARTHROCARE CORP: Court Allows Certain Claims to Continue
AT&T MOBILITY: Sued Over Excessive International Roaming Fees
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Suit Complains About Self-Exclusion Program

BROWARD COUNTY: Suit Complains About Voluntary Wellness Program
CIRCUS WORLD: Recalls 800 Levana Wireless Video Baby Monitors
CONTINENTAL AIR: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: S.D. Tex. Chapter 13 Debtor Class Certified
CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Still Pending

DENDREON CORP: Notice of Pendency of Class Action Issued
EXPRESSJET HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims
GREAT SOUTHERN: Macpherson + Kelley Gears Up for More Class Suits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Board Faces Class Suit Over Mark Hurd's Departure
HUMANA INC: Sacred Heart Complaint v. Humana Military Pending

HUMANA INC: May 2011 Hearing Set for Southeast Georgia Case
INVESCO LTD: Settlement of Shareholder Suit Pending Approval
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Charging Excessive Overdraft Fees
KAISER FOUNDATION: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
KENEXA CORP: Continues Defense in Securities Suit in Pennsylvania

KEYCORP: Ohio District Court Dismisses ERISA Class Action
LOS ANGELES: Sued Over Trash Collection Charges
LUCKY CASH: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 12 in Nevada
MEDCATH CORP: Still No Class Certified in Bakersfield Heart Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Suit Complains About Defective E-Class Vehicles

NCR CORP: Appeal in "Death Benefits" Suit Pending
NVR INC: Suits Over Overtime Wages Remain Pending
PHLX: 3rd Circuit Affirms Approval of Settlement Release
SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Settles Foreign Levies Class Action
SMITHTOWN BANCORP: Bid to Consolidate Securities Suits in NY

SMITHTOWN BANCORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Proposed Acquisition
STORM FINANCIAL: Levitt Firm Ruffled by CBA Chief's Comments
SOUTH CAROLINA: $2.5MM Settlement Reached in Payday Lending Suit
SOUTHERN COPPER: Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger Continues
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Deadline to File Motion to Dismiss Expires

UAL CORP: Reaches Pact to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger
VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed
VERISIGN INC: "Herbert" Suit Remanded to District Court
VERISIGN INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
VERIZON INC: Win Over ERISA Suit Upheld by 7th Circuit

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Unit Continues to Defend ERISA Plans Suit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Wage and Hour Suits Pending Certification
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Junk Suit Over Environmental Charges
WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Faces Two Class Suits in Colorado & Calif.

                            *********

ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN HOLDING: Hindo Securities Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint entitled Hindo, et al. v.
AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al., remains pending,
according to AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.'s August 2, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Oct. 2, 2003, the complaint was filed against, among others,
AllianceBernstein, Holding and the General Partner.

The Hindo Complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to
disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and
other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and "market
timing" of certain of the company's U.S. mutual fund securities,
violating various securities laws.

AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. --
http://www.alliancebernstein.com/-- is an investment manager that
administers about 80 domestic and international mutual funds.  It
serves such institutional investors as pension funds, foundations,
endowments, government entities, and insurance firms.  For retail
investors, the company provides private client services, managed
accounts, annuities, retirement plans, and college savings plans.


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, has filed the first securities fraud class
action lawsuit against American Public Education, Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
Company between February 22, 2010 and August 5, 2010, inclusive.
No class has yet been certified in this action.

If you are an APEI shareholder and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you, along with the
lead plaintiff position and its related responsibilities including
overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and just
resolution, you may, without obligation or cost to you, e-mail or
call KSF Director of Client Relations, Neil Rothstein, Esq.
(neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com), toll free at 877-694-9510, or via
cell phone any time at 330-860-4092, or KSF Managing Partner,
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), toll free 1-866-467-1400,
ext. 200, after hours via cell phone 504-301-7900. KSF attorneys
have significant experience in representing both institutional and
individual shareholders in securities fraud litigation nationwide.
KSF encourages both institutional and individual purchasers of
APEI to contact the firm to discuss the lawsuit and how it might
affect you. The ultimate outcome of any securities class action
case is strengthened through the involvement of aggrieved
shareholders and lead plaintiffs who have significant financial
losses, and who possess the will to lead and direct the lawyers in
the APEI case.

APEI and certain of its Officers are charged with making a series
of materially false and misleading statements related to the
Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that despite extensive
positive statements by defendants in press releases and SEC
filings during the Class Period regarding the Company's
operational performance and future growth projections, including
predictable revenue growth of between 36% and 39% for 2010, these
statements were false because: (1) defendants had propped up the
Company's results by fraudulently inducing students to enroll in
APEI's scholastic and educational programs and engaged in other
manipulative recruiting tactics; (2) defendants had materially
overstated the Company's growth prospects by failing to properly
disclose that defendants had engaged in illicit and improper
recruiting activities, which also had the effect of artificially
inflating the Company's reported results and future growth
prospects; and (3) APEI did not maintain adequate systems of
internal operational or financial controls, which would have
permitted APEI's reported operational statements and foreseeable
growth prospects to be true, accurate or reliable.

It was only on August 5, 2010 that investors finally began to
learn the truth about APEI after the United States General
Accounting Office issued a report that concluded that for-profit
educational institutions like APEI had engaged in an illegal and
fraudulent course of action designed to recruit students and over-
charge the federal government for the cost of such education.
Following these disclosures, shares of the Company collapsed --
falling over $12.00, or almost 30% in the single trading day as
this news reached the market.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action
lawsuit, you must request this position by application to the
court no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member. To learn more about KSF, you may visit
http://www.ksfcounsel.com/ KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm
focused on securities class action litigation with offices in New
York and Louisiana. KSF's lawyers have significant experience
litigating complex securities class actions and have recovered
millions of dollars in securities fraud class actions.

Contact:

     Neil Rothstein, Esq.,
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington St.
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     TeleTelephone: 877-694-9510
     Mobile: 330-860-4092
     Email: neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com


ARTHROCARE CORP: Court Allows Certain Claims to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a
ruling granting in part and denying in part ArthroCare Corp.'s
motion to dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint,
permitting certain claims to continue, according to the company's
Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 4, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
Federal court in the Southern District of Florida against the
company and certain of its former executive officers, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading financial statements and making material
misrepresentations regarding the company's internal controls,
business, and financial results.  On Oct. 28, 2008, the court
granted the company's motion to transfer this case to the U.S.
District Court, Western District of Texas.  The suit is captioned
McIlvaine v. ArthroCare, et al.

On July 25, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
Federal court in the Western District of Texas against the
company, and certain of its current and former executive officers,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading financial statements and making material
misrepresentations regarding the company's internal controls,
business, and financial results.  The suit is Strong v.
ArthroCare, et al.

On Oct. 28, 2008, and thereafter, the two putative securities
class actions were consolidated, along with shareholder derivative
actions, and designated: In Re ArthroCare Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated) in the U.S.
District Court, Western District of Texas.

On Dec. 10, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' counsel
were appointed in the putative consolidated securities class
action. The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on Dec. 18, 2009, seeking unspecified monetary
damages and interest.  ArthroCare filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on Feb. 16, 2010.  On
July 20, 2010, the federal court issued a ruling granting in part
and denying in part ArthroCare's Motion to Dismiss, permitting
certain claims related to statements after Dec. 11, 2007 to
continue.

ArthroCare Corp. -- http://www.arthrocare.com/-- develops,
manufactures, and markets minimally invasive surgical products.
With these products, ArthroCare targets a multi-billion dollar
market across several medical specialties, significantly improving
existing surgical procedures and enabling new, minimally invasive
procedures.  Many of ArthroCare's products are based on its
patented Coblation(R) technology, which uses low-temperature
radiofrequency energy to gently and precisely dissolve rather than
burn soft tissue -- minimizing damage to healthy tissue.  Used in
surgeries worldwide, Coblation-based devices have been developed
and marketed for sports medicine; spine/neurologic; ear, nose and
throat (ENT); cosmetic; urologic; and gynecologic procedures.
ArthroCare also has added a number of other technologies to its
portfolio, including Opus Medical sports medicine, Parallax spine
and Applied Therapeutics ENT products, to complement Coblation
within key indications.


AT&T MOBILITY: Sued Over Excessive International Roaming Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T charges
"exorbitant" international roaming fees for calls that people do
not even answer, customers claim in a federal class action.  The
class claims also that AT&T structures its bills so that customers
are unable to tell which charges are for unanswered calls.

Lead plaintiff Kenneth Thelian says he was charged $12.90 in
roaming fees while traveling in Belgium, though he did not place
or answer any calls.

Mr. Thelian says AT&T also charged him $15.81 in Canada and $92.72
in Mexico for calls he did not answer.

Mr. Thelian says AT&T reversed $8 of the Belgium charges when he
called to complain, but "did not adequately explain why these
charges were incurred."

Suing for the class, he claims that AT&T does not tell customers
how to avoid such charges while traveling abroad, and structures
bills so that customers are unable to discern which charges are
for calls they did not answer.

In 2009, AT&T changed its service agreement to inform customers
that they would be charged international roaming fees anytime
calls are routed to voicemail, but "did not inform customers that
they may be charged double for the calls.  Nor does it inform
customers that such charges may be imposed even if their phone is
off or in flight mode," the complaint states.

The complaint cites several other grievances from AT&T customers,
one of whom was charged $150 for voicemails received while on
vacation in the Caribbean, though the customer claims that AT&T
assured him that roaming fees would not be charged.

The class demands compensatory and punitive damages for fraud and
actual damages of at least $50 for false advertising.

A copy of the Complaint in Thelian v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-03440 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/11/RoamingCalls.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          L. Jay Kuo, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          853 Douglass St.
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          TeleTelephone: 415-336-6545


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Suit Complains About Self-Exclusion Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class
action, people who signed up for a "voluntary self-exclusion
program" because they "concluded that it is not in their best
interest to continue to participate in gambling," say the state-
owned British Columbia Lottery Corporation wrongfully refused to
pay them jackpots when they went ahead and gambled anyway.

Hamidreza Haghdust claims in B.C. Supreme Court that he signed up
for the lottery corporation's self-exclusion program in 2006, for
one year, and later signed up for the maximum 3-year exclusion.

But even after he signed up, Mr. Haghdust claims he "routinely"
attended casinos and was never denied entry by security.

"The BCLC failed to take reasonable measures available to it to
deny entry to B.C. gaming facilities to participants in the
voluntary self-exclusion program and instead relied solely on BCLC
security staff to identify from memory more than 6,500 persons who
were participants in the program," the complaint states.

"The BCLC knew, or ought to have known, that such memory
identification would be largely ineffective to prevent
participants in the voluntary self-exclusion program from entering
a B.C. gaming facility."

Mr. Haghdust he lost more than $250,000 playing slot machines in
B.C. casinos since November 2007, and also claims that the state
refused to pay him two jackpots totaling more than $35,000,
because he had signed up for the program.

"The BCLC's refusal to pay the plaintiff and each class member the
jackpot prizes they won, because of their execution of the
voluntary self-exclusion form, is in breach of the contract
resulting from the payment of the wager made by the plaintiff and
each class member to the BCLC," the complaint states.

If the court finds that the lottery corporation is not obliged to
pay off the jackpots because of plaintiffs' participation in the
program, Mr. Haghdust claims the lottery was unjustly enriched
because "the only consideration for the wagers was the opportunity
to win a prize as determined by the game of chance in relation to
which the wager was paid."

A copy of the Complaint in Haghdust v. British Columbia Lottery
Corporation, Case No. 5105520 (B.C. Sup. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/11/Gamblers.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Bennett, Esq.
          HORDO & BENNETT
          1801-808 Nelson St.
          Box 12146, Nelson Square
          Vancouver, BC V6Z 2H2
          TeleTelephone: 604-682-5250


BROWARD COUNTY: Suit Complains About Voluntary Wellness Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Broward
County charges employees $10 a week if they do not sign up for its
"voluntary wellness program," in Fort Lauderdale Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Seff v. Broward County, Case No. 10-cv-
61437 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/11/Govt.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & GORA, P.A.
          7777 Glades Rd., Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          TeleTelephone: 561-477-7800
          E-mail: drlevine@sbwlawfirm.com


CIRCUS WORLD: Recalls 800 Levana Wireless Video Baby Monitors
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Circus World Displays Limited, of Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada,
announced a voluntary recall of about 800 Levana Wireless Video
Baby Monitors.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Wiring in the baby monitor camera can overheat and emit smoke,
posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Circus World Displays has received two reports of the camera
portion of the monitors overheating and smoking.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves Levana wireless baby monitors with model
number LV-TW300.  The receiver front is white and green with six
round buttons and the printed word "Levana".  It is 7 inches tall
and includes a stand/base.  The camera is all white, about 5
inches tall and is attached to a 3 1/2 inch long white base.  The
camera can rotate and swivel in various directions.  The camera
and receiver each has its own A/C adapter.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10318.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
BB Buggy and Health and Safety stores nationwide and on the
Internet between February 2010 and May 2010 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using and return the baby
monitor directly to CWD for a refund or replacement with a
different model.  When returning, please include the entire
product, your complete name, mailing address and phone number in
the package and mail to Circus World Displays Ltd, Attention: Adam
Crysler, Dealer Returns Specialist, 60 Industrial Parkway Suite
Z64, Cheektowaga, NY 14227.  For additional information, contact
Circus World Displays toll-free at (866) 946-7828 between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, by e-mail
at support@svat.com or on the firm's Web site at
http://www.mylevana.com/


CONTINENTAL AIR: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Airlines, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle
regarding settlement of a consolidated action in relation to its
planned merger with UAL Corporation, according to the company's
Aug. 3, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On May 2, 2010, UAL, the company, and JT Merger Sub Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of UAL, entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, providing for a business combination of Continental and
UAL.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement on May 3, 2010,
three class action lawsuits were filed against Continental,
members of Continental's board of directors and UAL in the Texas
District Court for Harris County.

The lawsuits purport to represent a class of Continental
stockholders opposed to the terms of the Merger Agreement.  The
lawsuits make virtually identical allegations that the
consideration to be received by Continental's stockholders in the
Merger is inadequate and that the members of Continental's board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties, by among other
things, approving the Merger at an inadequate price under
circumstances involving certain conflicts of interest.  The
lawsuits also make virtually identical allegations that
Continental and UAL aided and abetted the Continental board of
directors in the breach of its fiduciary duties to Continental's
stockholders.  Each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief declaring that
the Merger Agreement was in breach of the Continental directors'
fiduciary duties, enjoining Continental and UAL from proceeding
with the Merger unless Continental implements procedures to obtain
the highest possible price for its stockholders, directing the
Continental board of directors to exercise its fiduciary duties in
the best interest of Continental's stockholders and rescinding the
Merger Agreement.

All three lawsuits have been consolidated before a single judge.

On July 30, 2010, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed an
amended and consolidated petition.

On Aug. 1, 2010, the parties to the Consolidated Action reached an
agreement in principle regarding settlement of the Consolidated
Action.  Under the Settlement, the Consolidated Action will be
dismissed with prejudice on the merits and all defendants will be
released from any and all claims relating to, among other things,
the Merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith.  The
Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including
consummation of the Merger, completion of certain confirmatory
discovery, class certification, and final approval by the District
Court.

In exchange for that release, UAL and Continental have provided
additional disclosures requested by plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action related to, among other things, the negotiations between
Continental and UAL that resulted in the execution of the Merger
Agreement, the method by which the exchange ratio was arrived at,
the procedures used by UAL's and Continental's financial advisors
in performing their financial analyses and certain investment
banking fees paid to those advisors by UAL and Continental over
the past two years.

The Settlement will not affect any provision of the Merger
Agreement or the form or amount of the consideration to be
received by Continental stockholders in the Merger.

Continental Airlines is the world's fifth largest airline.
Continental, together with Continental Express and Continental
Connection, has more than 2,700 daily departures throughout the
Americas, Europe and Asia, serving 132 domestic and 137
international destinations.  Continental is a member of Star
Alliance.  Continental has total assets of $13.60 billion against
total debts of $12.87 billion as of June 30, 2010.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: S.D. Tex. Chapter 13 Debtor Class Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that as required for the certification of a class
under the provision of the class certification rule allowing for
the maintenance of a class action on the grounds that the
defendant's generally applicable conduct made final injunctive
relief appropriate as to the class as a whole, the members of the
proposed class would benefit from the injunctive relief sought in
a class action brought by former Chapter 13 debtors against a
mortgage loan servicer, based upon the loan servicer's alleged
practice of charging unauthorized fees while debtors were in
bankruptcy, in violation of a bankruptcy rule, and then attempting
to collect such fees post-discharge.  The injunction would bar the
loan servicer from collecting or attempting to collect any fees
incurred during the pendency of a class member's bankruptcy case
that were governed by the allegedly violated rule and had not yet
been authorized pursuant to that rule.  The injunction would
prevent the bankruptcy "fresh start" from being impeded by fees
charged without authorization, since the loan servicer would be
barred from collecting them.  In addition, it would bar the loan
servicer from collecting a loan balance without crediting an
improperly collected amount to a permissible charge, and would
prevent the loan servicer from seeking to collect unauthorized
fees, which were deemed current during the class action, after the
action's conclusion.  The loan servicer, however, would not be
precluded from seeking authorization, under the rule, to collect
fees that previously were assessed without authorization.  In re
Rodriguez, --- B.R. ----, 2010 WL 2900760 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.)
(Isgur, J.).

A copy of the Honorable Marvin Isgur's opinion in Rodriguez, et
al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 08-01004
(Bankr. S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inbco20100721760

The Plaintiff Class is defined as those individuals:

  (a) who owed funds on a Countrywide serviced note as of
      February 26, 2008;

  (b) who have not fully paid the relevant mortgage note,
      fees, or costs owed to Countrywide, its successors
      and assigns;

  (c) who filed a chapter 13 proceeding in the United States
      Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas on
      or before October 15, 2005, and have confirmed chapter
      13 plans that treated mortgages serviced by
      Countrywide; and

  (d) as to whom Countrywide has assessed a fee or cost
      governed by Rule 2016(a) of the Federal Rules of
      Bankruptcy Procedure, attributable to a time after
      the filing of a bankruptcy petition and before the
      date on which the individual received a chapter 13
      discharge, unless such fee or cost was approved in
      a Bankruptcy Court order.

In this litigation, the Plaintiff-Debtors are represented by:

         Ellen C. Stone, Esq.
         THE STONE LAW FIRM PC
         4900 N. 10th St., Suite A-2
         McAllen, TX 78504
         TeleTelephone: 956-630-2822
         E-mail: estone@ellenstonelaw.com

              - and -

         Ellen C. Stone, Esq.
         THE STONE LAW FIRM, P.C.
         62 E. Price Rd.
         Brownsville, TX 78521
         TeleTelephone: 956-546-9398

              - and -

         Gary Klein, Esq.
         Shennan Alexandra Kavanagh, Esq.
         RODDY KLEIN & RYAN
         727 Atlantic Ave., 2nd Floor
         Boston, MA 02111
         TeleTelephone:  617-357-5500
         E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com
                 kavanagh@roddykleinryan.com

              - and -

         Karen L. Kellett, Esq.
         ARMSTRONG KELLETT BARTHOLOW P.C.
         11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 301
         Dallas, TX 75243
         TeleTelephone: 214-265-0808

Countrywide is represented by:

         Barbara E. Rutkowski, Esq.
         David L. Permut, Esq.
         GOODWIN PROCTER
         901 New York Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20001
         TeleTelephone: 202-346-4329
         E-Mail: brutkowski@goodwinprocter.com
                 dpermut@goodwinprocter.com

              - and -

         Thomas A. Connop, Esq.
         LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP
         2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
         Dallas, TX 75201
         TeleTelephone: 214-740-8547
         E-mail: tconnop@lockelord.com

              - and -

         Elizabeth Carol Freeman, Esq.
         PORTER & HEDGES, L.L.P.
         1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
         Houston, TX 77002
         TeleTelephone: 713-226-6631
         E-mail: efreeman@porterhedges.com

              - and -

         Thomas H. Grace, Esq.
         SPENCER CRAIN CUBBAGE HEALY & MCNAMARA
         1330 Post Oak, Suite 1600
         Houston, TX 77056
         TeleTelephone: 713-963-3669
         E-mail: tgrace@spencercrain.com


CRYSTALLEX INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crystallex International Corporation disclosed Friday in a news
release announcing its quarterly financial results that the
Company and certain officers and directors have been named as
defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit commenced in the
United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.

Crystallex believes that the complaint is without merit and will
vigorously defend itself against the action. Crystallex has filed
a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. The motion to
dismiss remains pending before the court.

Crystallex is a Canadian-based company which has been granted the
Mine Operating Contract to develop and operate the Las Cristinas
gold properties located in Bolivar State, Venezuela. Its common
shares are traded on both the Toronto Stock Exchange (symbol: KRY)
and the NYSE Amex Exchange (symbol: KRY).


DENDREON CORP: Notice of Pendency of Class Action Issued
--------------------------------------------------------
To all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of
Dendreon Corporation between March 29, 2007 and May 8, 2007, both
dates inclusive.

KENNETH MCGUIRE and DAVID WILCZYNSKI,
on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly
Situated,
      Plaintiffs,
                                    Civil Action No. C07-800 MJP
                                    CLASS ACTION
   vs.
                                    ----------------------------
DENDREON CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, MITCHELL GOLD,
and DAVID URDAL,
      Defendants.
-------------------------------------

This Summary Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington (the
"Court"), dated August 2, 2010. The purpose of this Summary Notice
is to inform you of the pendency of the above-entitled class
action (the "Action") against defendants Dendreon Corporation,
Mitchell Gold, and David Urdal.

If you purchased the common stock of Dendreon Corporation between
March 29, 2007 and May 8, 2007 (both dates inclusive), are not
otherwise excluded from the Class, and do not file a written
request for exclusion by first-class mail so that it is postmarked
on or before October 5, 2010, you are a Class member. If you do
not timely request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by
all orders and judgments in this Action, whether favorable or
unfavorable.

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must send a signed letter
by mail stating that you "request exclusion from the Class in
McGuire, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
C07-800 MJP." Your letter should state the dates, price, and
number of shares of all your purchases and sales of Dendreon
common stock during the Class Period. In addition, be sure to
include your name, address, telephone number, and your signature.
You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than
October 5, 2010 to:

McGuire, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Class Action
EXCLUSIONS c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC Notice Administrator P.O. Box
5100 Larkspur, California 94977-5100 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE
COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE. This is only a summary notice. The
full notice may be accessed at: http://www.gilardi.com/dendreon

Dated: August 2, 2010

Marsha J. Pechman UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The law firm can be reached at:

     Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
     Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1901 Avenue of the Stars
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
     TeleTelephone: (310) 789-3100


EXPRESSJET HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that ExpressJet Holdings is
selling itself too cheaply to SkyWest, for $6.75 a share or $155
million, shareholders say in several class actions in Harris
County Court, Houston.

A copy of the Complaint in Doraiswamy v. ExpressJet Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-49274 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/11/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gwendolyn Frost, Esq.
          POWERS & FROST, LLP
          One Houston Center
          1221 McKinney St., Suite 2400
          Houston, TX 77010
          TeleTelephone: 713-767-1555

               - and -

          Mark Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS LLP
          560 Sylvan Ave.
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          TeleTelephone: 201-567-7377


GREAT SOUTHERN: Macpherson + Kelley Gears Up for More Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Lawyer reports that national law firm Macpherson + Kelley
Lawyers has filed amended statements of claim in the Victorian
Supreme Court, detailing allegations in the investor class action
relating to the 2005 and 2006 Great Southern pulpwood plantation
projects.

Investors across all other Great Southern managed investment
schemes sold between 2005 and 2009 are pursuing claims for damages
and declarations that loans from interconnected lenders are void
or unenforceable, the firm said.

Macpherson + Kelley said it expects to file further similarly
themed class actions over the next few weeks.

Between 2005 and 2009 Great Southern offered finance to investors
and sold interests in its managed investment schemes for olives,
almonds, wine grapes, vineyards, beef cattle, pulpwood
plantations, renewable fibre and high value timber.

The average amount invested in Great Southern schemes through the
prior four years was $50,447 per investor, calculated from the 89
per cent of investors who had invested less than $100,000,
Macpherson + Kelley said in a statement.

That figure appeared in a submission made in July 2009 by the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the
Parliamentary Joint Committee Inquiry into agribusiness managed
investment schemes

According to the firm, based on information about total funds
raised in the various Great Southern projects and applying the
average amount invested according to ASIC, there were at least
12,000 investors who invested between 2005 and 2009 in Great
Southern's pulpwood plantation projects, 3200 in Great Southern
olive projects, 380 in an almond project, 2700 in beef cattle,
1700 in wine grapes, 570 in vineyards, 2000 in renewable fibre and
2500 in high value timber.

The firm said that, in total, more than 25,000 investors poured
money into this set of projects between 2005 and 2009. Not
everyone opted for the readily available finance arranged by Great
Southern. Of those investors who did, almost one in every three
through that period ended up with a loan held by Bendigo and
Adelaide Bank.

The bank's ASX release on August 4, 2009 stated the bank was
exposed to 8,200 borrowers in Great Southern managed investment
schemes.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank is a central defendant in each of the
class actions being brought by M+K on behalf of the Great Southern
investors.  Bendigo and Adelaide Bank in its presentation of full
year results on August 9, 2010 noted a provisioning of $25.4
million in doubtful debts against loans to Great Southern to
investors.  It also showed that loans in arrears by 90 days or
more at June 30, 2010 stood at $181.8 million, a huge jump from
$15.5 million on the prior year.  The August 4, 2009 ASX
announcement indicated the bank's exposure was $550 million.

The bank's proposed recovery action against individual borrowers
is likely to meet a brick wall in the form of the series of
investor class actions for all Great Southern projects sold
between 2005 and 2009.

The law firm is acting on behalf of more than 2,000 clients who
invested in various Great Southern projects and expects more to
seek legal representation in the class actions. Its clients also
include non-borrowers, whose claims sound in damages awards.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Board Faces Class Suit Over Mark Hurd's Departure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Warwick Ashford, writing for Computer Weekly, reports Hewlett-
Packard's directors are facing a class action lawsuit which claims
that they violated their fiduciary duties in connection with Mark
Hurd's resignation as chief executive.

The lawsuit claims HP's board violated corporate-governance
guidelines by failing to inform shareholders of the investigation
that led to Mr. Hurd's resignation, according to the Wall Street
Journal.

Mr. Hurd and HP interim chief executive Cathie Lesjak are also
named as defendants in the lawsuit filed on behalf of HP
shareholder Brockton Contributory Retirement System.

The shareholders lawsuit seeks to recover at least $12 million
(GBP7.7 million) paid as severance to Mr. Hurd, any damages caused
to HP, and punitive damages, but the funds would go to HP.

The action comes as HP tries to assure customers and partners that
it will find an appropriate successor for Mr. Hurd and remain
focused on its business strategy.

Mr. Hurd resigned two weeks ago after the conclusion of an
investigation which cleared him of sexual harassment charges by
marketing contractor Jodie Fisher.

But the investigation did find Mr. Hurd in violation of HP's
business conduct standards relating to Fisher, and this forced his
resignation.

Senior staff are jockeying for Mr. Hurd's post after Ms. Lesjak
said she would not remain in the role permanently.

Several outsiders, such as Steve Mills, head of IBM's software
group, will be considered for the post, along with HP executive
vice-presidents Todd Bradley, Dave Donatelli, Ann Livermore and
Vyomesh Joshi, according to analysts.


HUMANA INC: Sacred Heart Complaint v. Humana Military Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action, Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v.
Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062
MCR/EMT, remains pending, according to Humana Inc.'s August 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc. was named as a defendant
in the Sacred Heart class action lawsuit filed on Feb. 5, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
asserting contract and fraud claims against Humana Military.

The Sacred Heart Complaint alleged, among other things, that,
Humana Military breached its network agreements with a class of
hospitals in six states, including the seven named plaintiffs,
that contracted for reimbursement of outpatient services provided
to beneficiaries of the DoD's TRICARE health benefits program.

The Complaint alleged that Humana Military breached its network
agreements when it failed to reimburse the hospitals based on
negotiated discounts for non-surgical outpatient services
performed on or after Oct. 1, 1999, and instead reimbursed them
based on published CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges.

Humana Military denied that it breached the network agreements
with the hospitals and asserted a number of defenses to these
claims.

The Complaint sought, among other things, the following relief for
the purported class members: (i) damages as a result of the
alleged breach of contract by Humana Military, (ii) taxable costs
of the litigation, (iii) attorneys fees, and (iv) any other relief
the court deems just and proper.  Separate and apart from the
class relief, named plaintiff Sacred Heart Health System Inc.
requested damages and other relief for its individual claim
against Humana Military for fraud in the inducement to contract.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the district court certified a class consisting
of all institutional healthcare service providers in TRICARE
former Regions 3 and 4 which had network agreements with Humana
Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services to
CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of Nov. 18, 1999, excluding those
network providers who contractually agreed with Humana Military to
submit any such disputes with Humana Military to arbitration.

On March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's class certification order and remanded the case to the
district court for further proceeding.

On June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs sought leave of the court to
amend their complaint to join additional hospital plaintiffs.

Humana Military filed its response to the motion on July 28, 2010.

Humana Inc. -- http://www.humana.com/-- is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky, and is one of the nation's largest publicly
traded health and supplemental benefits companies, with
approximately 10.4 million medical members and 7.2 million
specialty members.  Humana is a full-service benefits solutions
company, offering a wide array of health, pharmacy and
supplemental benefit plans for employer groups, government
programs and individuals.


HUMANA INC: May 2011 Hearing Set for Southeast Georgia Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
A May 23, 2011 hearing has been set for the case styled Southeast
Georgia Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Humana Military
Healthcare Services, Inc., according to Humana Inc.'s August 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On March 2, 2009, the named plaintiffs in the Southeast Georgia
case filed an arbitration demand, seeking relief on the same
grounds as the plaintiffs in the litigation with Sacred Heart
Health System, Inc.

The arbitration plaintiffs originally sought certification of a
class consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers
that had contracts with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-
surgical services and whose agreements provided for dispute
resolution through arbitration.

Humana Military submitted its response to the demand for
arbitration on May 1, 2009.

The plaintiffs have subsequently withdrawn their motion for class
certification.

On June 18, 2010, plaintiffs submitted their amended arbitration
complaint.  Humana Military's answer to the complaint was
submitted on July 9, 2010.

On June 24, 2010, the arbitrators issued a case management order
and scheduled a hearing to begin on May 23, 2011.

Humana Inc. -- http://www.humana.com/-- is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky, and is one of the nation's largest publicly
traded health and supplemental benefits companies, with
approximately 10.4 million medical members and 7.2 million
specialty members.  Humana is a full-service benefits solutions
company, offering a wide array of health, pharmacy and
supplemental benefit plans for employer groups, government
programs and individuals.


INVESCO LTD: Settlement of Shareholder Suit Pending Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a putative shareholder class action complaint
remains subject to court approval, according to the company's
August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 29, 2004, an amended complaint brought on behalf of
shareholders of AIM funds formerly advised by Invesco Funds Group,
Inc., was brought against company-affiliated parties.

The company and plaintiffs have reached a settlement in principle
of these lawsuits.  The proposed settlement calls for a payment by
the company in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of all
pending claims.  In addition, under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the company may incur certain costs in connection with
providing notice of the proposed settlements to affected
shareholders.

Invesco Ltd. -- http://www.invesco.com-- is an independent global
investment management company.  Invesco provides a range of
investment products for retail, institutional and high-net-worth
clients worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Charging Excessive Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that JPMorgan
Chase Bank forces customers to pay "absurdly high" overdraft fees
on debit cards in violation of a federal regulation that protects
people from such fees, according to a class action in Federal
Court.  Congress passed Regulation E in November 2009; it requires
bank customers to "opt in" before banks can charge them overdraft
fees on debit transactions.

Chase, which claims that Regulation E will cost it $500 million a
year, "is doing everything it possibly can to scare and mislead
customers into opting-in to an abusive and unfair overdraft
program, which causes significant harm to its most vulnerable
customers, while resulting in massive profits for the bank,"
according to the complaint.

The class claims Chase is aggressively pushing its customers to
opt in, bombarding them with misleading ads that "create the
impression that the customers' debit card will simply stop working
or experience significant problems in everyday usage if they do
not opt-in to being charged overdraft fees."

To bully customers into opting in to its overdraft program, the
class says, Chase has altered its available-funds policy so that
direct deposit funds are not available on the day the money is
received -- but only for customers who have not opted in.

"Chase is fully aware that many of its customers who live paycheck
to paycheck need to have access to their funds on the day that
they make deposits, such as direct pay checks from employers," the
class claims.

"However, Chase has changed its practice of making these funds
available in order to create hardships for these customers . . .
in order to coerce its customers into opting-in to the abusive
overdraft program."

Lead plaintiffs Victor Espinosa and Rhonda Closson both claim that
Chase withheld money from their paychecks, and say they were not
given notice that their money would no longer be available on the
day it was deposited.

The class seeks restitution and punitive damages for breach of
contract, conversion, fraud and unfair business practices, and an
order prohibiting Chase from running deceptive ads about its
overdraft program.

A copy of the Complaint in Espinosa, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03463 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/11/OptIn.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Kristy M. Arevalo, Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          TeleTelephone: 909-557-1250
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com
                  kma@mccunewright.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Foundation Hospitals/
The Permanente Medical Group stiff RN case managers for overtime,
a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


KENEXA CORP: Continues Defense in Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenexa Corporation continues to defend itself in a putative class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, according to the company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed June 11, 2009, against Kenexa and its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer on behalf of a
class of Kenexa's investors who purchased the company's publicly
traded securities between May 8, 2007 and Nov. 7, 2007.

The suit was filed by the Building Trades United Pension Trust
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act in connection with various public statements made by Kenexa.

The action seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Kenexa Corp. -- http://www.kenexa.com/-- provides business
solutions for human resources.  It helps global organizations
multiply business success by identifying the best individuals for
every job and fostering optimal work environments for every
organization.  For more than 20 years, Kenexa has studied human
behavior and team dynamics in the workplace, and has developed
the software solutions, business processes and expert consulting
that help organizations impact positive business outcomes through
HR.  Kenexa is the only company that offers a comprehensive suite
of unified products and services that support the entire employee
lifecycle from pre-hire to exit.


KEYCORP: Ohio District Court Dismisses ERISA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody disclosed that on August 12, 2010, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, granted KeyCorp's motion to dismiss the ERISA class
action complaint which was filed on behalf of certain participants
who held KeyCorp common stock in their accounts in the Keycorp
401(k) Savings Plan, a 401(k) defined contribution retirement
plan.

The ERISA class action, Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., No. 1:08-cv-
01927, was brought on behalf of participants in the Plan whose
Plan accounts held KeyCorp common stock at any time from December
31, 2006 to the present. The case alleged that KeyCorp and other
fiduciaries of the Plan breached their fiduciary duties by
offering KeyCorp stock as an investment option under the Plan when
KeyCorp stock was not a prudent investment for retirement savings
accounts. In dismissing the case, the Court ruled that neither of
the plaintiffs who brought the suit had suffered injury from their
holding of KeyCorp stock in their Plan accounts and, therefore,
the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

If you are or were a participant in the KeyCorp 401(k) Savings
Plan and held KeyCorp stock in your Plan account at any time from
December 31, 2006 to the present, and would like more information
about the lawsuit or about the consequences of the lawsuit's
dismissal, you may contact Plaintiffs' counsel, Stull, Stull
Brody. There is no cost or obligation.

For inquiries, contact Stull, Stull & Brody at:

     Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
     Michael J. Klein, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     TeleTelephone: 1-800-337-4983
     Facsimile: 1-212-490-2022
     Email: SSBNY@aol.com


LOS ANGELES: Sued Over Trash Collection Charges
-----------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that Los
Angeles charges for trash collection from apartment buildings and
other multiple-family dwellings even though it doesn't collect
their trash, according to a class action in Superior Court.

Named plaintiff Lilith Chakhalyan claims the city's Department of
Public Works billed her and other people who live in multifamily
housing for trash pickup, though private companies -- not the city
-- provide trash services for them.

When class members pay the city's bills and complain, they receive
a partial refund in the form of a credit balance, but the city
keeps billing them for the service it does not provide, according
to the complaint.

Ms. Chakhalyan claims that class members who live in single-family
dwellings are billed as much as $72 every 2 months for trash the
city never picks up.  Homes where multiple families live are
charged a multifamily rate by the city which is slightly less, the
complaint states.

Ms. Chakhalyan claims that class members have been told that their
claims were referred to the city attorney, but nothing has
changed.

She seeks class damages, restitution, disgorgement and an
injunction for violations of consumer laws, breach of contract,
money had and received, breach of faith and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Mark Moore, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS BARNESS LLP
          11377 West Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064


LUCKY CASH: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Oct. 12 in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------
                       DISTRICT COURT
                    CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

LUCKY CREDIT dba LUCKY CASH 4U )
                               )
     v.                        )   Case No. A493302
                               )
BOZIS, ET AL.                  )

               NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION,
    PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT,
     AND FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO SIGNED LOAN AGREEMENTS WITH LUCKY CASH
    ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 2007, WHO WERE ASSESSED OR
    ARE SUBJECT ON A CONTINUING BASIS TO BEING ASSESSED
    LATE FEES AND/OR OVER CREDIT LIMIT FEES, AND WHOSE
    DEBT FOR THESE FEES WAS NOT DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY,
    NOT FULLY SATISFIED BY PAYMENT WITHOUT LUCKY CASH
    HAVING FILED SUIT TO COLLECT THAT DEBT, AND NOT
    FINALLY ADJUDICATED IN A COURT OF LAW WHILE THE
    PERSON WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OR APPEARED AS
    A PRO SE PLAINTIFF.

PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE:

To advise all customers of Lucky Credit 4U ("Lucky Cash") who may
fall within the category of persons identified above that
Department IX of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County,
Nevada, has certified a class action on their behalf regarding the
enforceability of late fees and over-credit-limit fees in Lucky
Cash loan agreements and that a Settlement has been reached with
Lucky Cash that will provide certain benefits for the Class
Members.  Those benefits include some of the following: partial
debt forgiveness, partial judgment reduction, and/or partial cash
reimbursement, and Lucky Cash's surrender of its license.  The
Court has not decided in favor of the Class or Lucky Cash, and
Lucky Cash vigorously disagrees with the Class's allegations and
claims. But all sides have agreed to a settlement to avoid the
risks and costs of continued litigation.

FUTURE CLAIMS REGARDING LUCKY CASH'S LATE FEES AND OVER-CREDIT-
LIMIT FEES MAY BE BARRED IF YOU REMAIN A MEMBER OF THIS CLASS BY
NOT REQUESTING EXCLUSION FROM THIS CLASS ACTION.

WHAT IS THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ABOUT?

This certified class action concerns the enforceability of late
fees and over-credit-limit fees ("the Fees") assessed to customers
of Lucky Cash who failed to timely repay their Lucky Cash loans
under the terms of certain agreements entered into since September
1, 2007.  This lawsuit began as a collection action by Lucky Cash
against customer George Bozis, who filed a class action
counterclaim on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
Lucky Cash clients. Bozis and other class representatives have
alleged, on behalf of the Class, that the Fees are unenforceable
under the law.  This Class Action does not challenge or dispute
Lucky Cash's ability to collect principal or interest due under
the terms of any Lucky Cash loan agreement.

HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM PART OF THIS CLASS AND THIS SETTLEMENT?

You are a Class Member who will take part in this Settlement if
you signed a loan agreement with Lucky Cash on or after September
1, 2007, and were assessed the Fees, and your debt for the Fees
was not: 1) discharged through a bankruptcy proceeding, 2) paid
back in full without Lucky Cash having to file a lawsuit to
collect payment from you, or 3) finally adjudicated in a court of
law while you were represented by a lawyer acting on your behalf
or represented by yourself appearing as a pro se plaintiff.

IF I THINK I MAY BE A CLASS MEMBER, WHAT DO I DO NOW?

A detailed Notice will be mailed to you at the last address you
provided to Lucky Cash. If you do not receive that notice by mail,
you should call Court-appointed Class Counsel, Legal Aid Center of
Southern Nevada, at (702) 386-1070 and ask about the "Lucky Cash
Class Action." The Court has issued an Order of Preliminary
Approval of the Class Settlement and set a Fairness and Good Faith
Settlement Hearing ("Fairness Hearing") to consider the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of the Settlement on October 12,
2010, at 9:00a.m., in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Dept. 9,
Courtroom 14A of the Regional Justice Center, located at 200 Lewis
Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.  If you do not wish to take part in
this Class Action and the Settlement, you may exclude yourself by
filing no later than October 1, 2010, a Request for Exclusion that
you can obtain from Legal Aid.  You may also send a letter to the
Court, appear at the hearing, or have a lawyer do so on your
behalf, to voice any objections to the settlement.  If you do
nothing and the Court approves the Settlement, you will be deemed
a Class Member bound by the terms of the Settlement and the
outcome of the Class Action.  To be eligible to receive certain
benefits under the Settlement, you may also need to timely submit
a Claim Form that will be available after Final Settlement
Approval by the Court.


MEDCATH CORP: Still No Class Certified in Bakersfield Heart Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in a purported class action
lawsuit filed by an individual against MedCath Corp.'s
Bakersfield Heart Hospital, according to the company's August 9,
2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that under California
law, specifically under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan
Act of 1975 and under the Health and Safety Code of California,
California prohibits the practice of "balance billing" for
patients who are provided emergency services.

A class has not been certified by the court in the class action
lawsuit.

MedCath Corp. -- http://www.medcath.com/-- is a healthcare
provider focused primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of
cardiovascular disease.  The company owns and operates hospitals
in partnership with physicians. It has ownership interests in and
operates nine hospitals, including seven, in which it owns a
majority interest.  Each of its majority-owned hospitals is a
freestanding, licensed general acute care hospital that provides
a range of health services with a focus on cardiovascular care.
Each of its hospitals has a 24-hour emergency room staffed by
emergency department physicians.  The hospitals, in which the
company has ownership interests have a total of 676 licensed beds
and are located in seven states: Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Louisiana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Texas.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Suit Complains About Defective E-Class Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mercedes-Benz E-Class W-211
cars, model years 2002-2009, are prone to water leaks that can
damage the electrical system, computer and interior, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC,
Case No. 10-cv-05944 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/11/Mercedes.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Blvd.
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
          TeleTelephone: 818-225-9040
          E-mail: starresq@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          TeleTelephone: 310-575-1845
          E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com

               - and -

          Dara Tabesh, Esq.
          201 Spear St., Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          TeleTelephone: 415-595-9208
          E-mail: dtabesh@hotmail.com


NCR CORP: Appeal in "Death Benefits" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------
NCR Corporation's appeal on the Ohio federal court's decision
granting motions for summary judgment against the company in two
companion class actions remains pending, according to the
company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In August 2009, a federal court in Ohio granted motions for
summary judgment against NCR in two companion class actions
brought on behalf of certain unionized retirees, who claimed that
the company's 2003 decision to terminate certain benefits payable
on death violated collective bargaining agreements and other
rights.

The company has appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals.  If affirmed on appeal, the decision will require the
company to restore the death benefit, at an approximate cost of
US$6 million, which NCR recognized as other expense during the
third quarter of 2009.

NCR Corporation is a global technology company and leader in
automated teller machines, self-checkouts and other self- and
assisted-service solutions, serving customers in more than 100
countries.  NCR's software, hardware, consulting and support
services help organizations in retail, financial, entertainment,
travel, healthcare and other industries interact with consumers
across multiple channels.


NVR INC: Suits Over Overtime Wages Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Putative class action complaints regarding overtime wages remain
pending against NVR Inc., according to the company's August 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.

These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on
Oct. 29, 2004 by another former employee in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees
and interest, and where available, multiple damages.

The suits were filed as purported class actions.  However, while a
number of individuals have filed consents to join and assert
federal claims in the New York action, none of the groups of
employees that the lawsuits purport to represent have been
certified as a class.  The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been stayed pending
further developments in the New York action.

NVR Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- operates in two business
segments: homebuilding and mortgage banking.  The homebuilding
unit sells and constructs homes under the Ryan Homes, NVHomes and
Fox Ridge Homes trade names.  NVR Mortgage provides a variety of
financing programs, while settlement and title services for buyers
of NVR homes are provided by NVR Settlement Services.


PHLX: 3rd Circuit Affirms Approval of Settlement Release
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
a judgment that a state court release bars the claims asserted in
a federal action in McGowan Investors LP v. Frucher, No. 07-3980
(August 12, 2010).

Stockholders of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange brought two class
actions -- one in Delaware state court and one in federal court.
Both challenges involve a similar set of underlying facts, similar
defendants, and similar proposed remedies.

The case brought before the Third Circuit involves the
enforceability of a release that was negotiated as part of a
court-approved settlement in the state court action.  That
settlement released not only state law claims, but also federal
claims that could not have been brought in state court.  On
appeal, McGowan Investors LP, et al., argue that the settlement is
not entitled to full faith and credit in federal court.  But the
Third Circuit disagreed and affirmed the judgment of the District
Court.

A copy of the Third Circuit's opinion is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100812089

Appellants were represented by:

     Steven B. Mirow, Esq.
     249 South 12th Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19107-0000

Appellees were represented by:

     Adam M. Finkelstein, Esq.
     Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq.
     Paul Lantieri, III, Esq.
     Edward D. Rogers, Esq.
     BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
     1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103

          - and -

     Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
     4 Times Square
     New York, NY 10036-0000

          - and -

     Paul J. Lockwood, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
     One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 636
     Wilmington, DE 19899-0000

          - and -

     Kristen V. Grisius, Esq.
     Stephen J. Senderowitz, Esq.
     WINSTON & STRAWN
     35 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
     Chicago, IL 60601-0000

          - and -

     Jack L. Gruenstein, Esq.
     VAIRA & RILEY
     1600 Market Street, Suite 2650
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000

          - and -

     Frances E. Bivens, Esq.
     John B. Gaffney, Esq.
     DAVIS, POLK & WARDWELL
     450 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-0000

          - and -

     Scott A. Edelman, Esq.
     Robert C. Hora, Esq.
     Stacey J. Rappaport, Esq.
     MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY
     One Chase Manhattan Plaza
     New York, NY 10005-0000

          - and -

     C. Paul Scheuritzel, Esq.
     LARSSON & SCHEURITZEL
     Centre Square West, Suite 3510
     1500 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19102-0000

          - and -

     John G. Harkins, Jr., Esq.
     Eleanor M. Illoway, Esq.
     HARKINS CUNNINGHAM
     2005 Market Street
     2800 One Commerce Square
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000

          - and -

     Daniel Segal, Esq.
     HANGLEY, ARONCHICK, SEGAL & PUDLIN
     One Logan Square
     18th & Cherry Streets, 27th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000


SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Settles Foreign Levies Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Belloni, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
the Screen Actors Guild has reached a tentative settlement of the
class action lawsuit accusing it of withholding millions of
dollars of overseas distribution revenues from members, the last
of the major guilds to make a deal in the so-called "foreign
levies" cases.

The settlement, first reported by the LA Daily Journal and
confirmed by the plaintiffs' lawyer Neville Johnson, brings an end
to a case filed in 2007 by lead plaintiff Ken Osmond (Eddie
Haskell from "Leave It to Beaver"). The class action on behalf of
more than 30,000 actors claimed the guild failed to distribute to
members more than $8 million in monies from taxes levied on
foreign TV broadcasts and rentals since 1992.

Similar class action cases were filed by Mr. Johnson against the
DGA and WGA West.  Those cases settled with the directors and
writers guilds agreeing to an independent review of their foreign
levy programs and an attempt to pay out the undistributed funds
within three years.

Mr. Johnson says the amount of the unpaid SAG levies has increased
to $12 million since the lawsuit was filed, though it's not clear
what the framework of the settlement will be. The SAG deal must
still be approved by judge Carl West of the Los Angeles Superior
Court.

Plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:

     Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
     JOHNSON & JOHNSON, LLP
     439 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     TeleTelephone: (310) 975-1080


SMITHTOWN BANCORP: Bid to Consolidate Securities Suits in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to consolidate putative securities class action against
Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. is pending, according to the company's
August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Feb. 25, 2010 and March 29, 2010, the company and several of
its officers and its directors were named in two lawsuits
commenced in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York on
behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
purchased the company's common stock between March 13, 2008 and
Feb. 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, the company's loan loss
reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired assets
and its internal and disclosure controls were materially false,
misleading or incomplete.

On April 26, 2010, the Plaintiffs in the Feb. 25, 2010 action
moved to consolidate their action with the action filed on March
29, 2010, to have itself appointed lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action and to obtain approval of its selection of
lead counsel.

Hauppauge, N.Y.-based Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. --
http://www.bankofsmithtownonline.com/-- is the parent holding
company of Bank of Smithtown, a 100 year-old community bank with
approximately $2.3 billion in assets and 30 branches on Long
Island and in Manhattan.


SMITHTOWN BANCORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Proposed Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. faces putative class action lawsuits
concerning the recently announced proposed acquisition of the
company, according to its August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On July 20, 2010, the first of two putative class action lawsuits
was filed in New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County,
against, among others, the company and the members of its Board of
Directors, over a proposed acquisition of the company.

The complaints allege that the members of the Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duty by causing the company to agree to
the proposed acquisition, and that the company aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of duty.

The complaints seek, among other relief, an order enjoining the
consummation of the proposed acquisition and rescinding the
acquisition agreement.

Hauppauge, N.Y.-based Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. --
http://www.bankofsmithtownonline.com/-- is the parent holding
company of Bank of Smithtown, a 100 year-old community bank with
approximately $2.3 billion in assets and 30 branches on Long
Island and in Manhattan.


STORM FINANCIAL: Levitt Firm Ruffled by CBA Chief's Comments
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Bell, writing for the Australian Associated Press, reports
that a law firm says comments by the Commonwealth Bank of
Australia that the firm declined to accept test cases put forward
to help settle a class action brought by Storm Financial victims
are false and pressure clients to settle on the cheap.

The law firm Levitt Robinson commenced a class action on July 1 on
behalf of about 300 clients unhappy with a deal to settle claims
under a resolution scheme that was created by CBA in June 2009
with plaintiff lawyers Slater & Gordon.

Storm Financial victims lost money when the Townsville-based
financial services firm collapsed in 2008 at the height of the
global financial crisis, owing millions of dollars to investors.

Many were burned after they took Storm's advice to borrow against
their homes to invest in the share market.

Levitt Robinson on Friday referred to comments by CBA chief
executive Ralph Norris in Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper on
Thursday in which he was quoted saying Storm investors represented
by Levitt Robinson could still have their cases considered in the
bank's resolution scheme.

Levitt Robinson principal solicitor Stewart Levitt said in an open
letter to Mr. Norris that the comments appeared to be a concession
by CBA that investors may participate in both the resolution
scheme and the class action.

Mr. Norris's reported statement that "the bank had offered to put
these clients through test cases but Levitt Robinson had declined"
was "neither accurate nor in fact contextually true", Mr. Levitt
said.

Mr. Levitt said test case negotiations were suspended by the CBA
on June 7 because its customer relations manager told him the bank
was concerned any payment made to Levitt Robinson on behalf of its
clients would end up in the law firm's war chest to be used
against the bank.

Mr. Levitt said he assumed CBA had now waived privilege regarding
previous confidential discussions held between the bank's senior
legal counsel, customer relations manager and himself.

He said the comments attributed to Mr. Norris in the newspaper
article traversed the contents of those discussions.

Mr. Levitt said at the time that it began the class action in July
that the resolution scheme's settlement terms was "a shelter for
the bank with too many investors left heavily exposed".

"It's based on a formula which doesn't recognize anywhere near the
full scale of the bank's liability or the full entitlement to
recoup damages that the clients have," Mr. Levitt told AAP on
July 2.

On Friday Mr. Levitt said CBA refused to treat Levitt Robinson's
clients similarly to Slater & Gordon's clients within its
resolution scheme and made no attempt to resume negotiations
before the class action was brought.

Since then, the bank and Slater & Gordon have tried to pressure
Levitt Robinson's clients to return to the bank's resolution
scheme so it could settle their claims at a "low end price"
without further negotiation or litigation, he said.

On Friday Levitt Robinson filed the first statement of claim
against the bank in the Federal Court on behalf of one Storm
victim.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Stewart Levitt, Esq.
     LEVITT ROBINSON SOLICITORS
     PO Box 850 Darlinghurst 1300 DX
     11563 Sydney Downtown
     TeleTelephone: + 61 (02) 9286 3133
     Facsimile: + 61 (02) 9283 0005


SOUTH CAROLINA: $2.5MM Settlement Reached in Payday Lending Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roddie Burris, writing for The State newspaper in South Carolina,
reports a $2.5 million settlement has been reached in the 2007
class-action lawsuit brought by South Carolina borrowers against
the state's payday lending industry.

The sweeping agreement could yield small settlement claims --
about $100 -- for anyone who took out a short-term, high-interest
payday loan with such lenders as Advance America, Check Into Cash
of South Carolina and more than a dozen others between 2004 and
2009.

Richland County Circuit Judge Casey Manning first must approve the
terms of the settlement, and a fairness hearing on that matter is
scheduled for Sept. 15. The payday lending industry maintains it
has not broken any laws, as the lawsuits allege.

Payday lending customers in the affected time period who want to
be part of the settlement have until Sept. 1 to file a one-page
claim application, available at scpaydayclaimsettlement.net.

"We think we can stand before the judge and advocate to the court
why this settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, under the
given circumstances," said Mario Pacella, an attorney with
Columbia's Strom Law Firm, one of several firms representing
plaintiffs in the case.

Before state lawmakers last year passed new regulations on payday
lenders, they could extend loans of $300 or $600 usually for two-
week periods. The borrower would exchange cash for a post-dated
check to the lender. The checks covered the principal and interest
for the two weeks, which on a $300 advance totaled $345.

If the borrower could not repay at the end of the period, the
loans were often rolled over, and the customer would be assessed
an additional $45 interest fee on the same outstanding $300 loan.
Some borrowers would take out multiple loans to cover outstanding
loans.

The result, according to consumer advocates, customers, and
industry experts, was legions of borrowers trapped in spiraling
cycles of debt. The lawsuits claim the industry loaned money to
customers knowing they could not pay it back, escalating payday
lending profits through additional fees.

The industry has defended itself as a low-cost solution for short-
term credit, a market banks and credit unions have largely
abandoned.

In court papers the industry argues its loans "were proper and
legal, in all respects, at all times."

                       Conflict of Interest?

Several state lawmakers also have had leading legal roles in the
payday lending lawsuit, including 2010 Democratic gubernatorial
nominee Vincent Sheheen of Camden, Sen. Luke Rankin, an Horry
County Republican, and former Spartanburg Sen. John Hawkins, a
Republican. Those current and former lawmakers could share in the
$1 million in legal fees the case could yield, something some
members of the General Assembly criticized.

Mr. Sheheen said he did not know much about the settlement because
he's been running for governor full time. But he thinks there is
no conflict of interest.

"To some degree, lawmakers regulate everything," Mr. Sheheen said,
adding it is virtually impossible for lawmakers who are lawyers to
avoid cases involving state-regulated industries.

"The only question lawyers need to answer is whether there's a
direct conflict of interest," Mr. Sheheen said. "And in this case,
obviously there wasn't."

                        $100 to Customers

The defendants will put up $2.5 million to settle the cases, and
attorney fees could reach $1 million, according to Mr. Pacella,
but that is not considered an admission of wrongdoing.

Attempts to get comments on the case and the settlement from
attorneys representing the payday lenders were unsuccessful.

Mr. Pacella said several factors entered into the decision to seek
the settlement, including time, expense and uncertainty of an
ultimate victory through litigation.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the original
complainants, or class representatives, will receive at least
$2,500 in incentive pay.

Class members who have done business with payday lenders and sign
on before the Sept. 1 deadline may receive up to $100 under terms
of the settlement.

The proposal also contains one-time debt relief for borrowers who
took out payday loans in 2008, in which the amounts owed the
lender would be reduced.

Mr. Pacella said plaintiff attorneys sent out 350,000 notices to
payday customers.

Plaintiffs are represented, among others, by:

     Mario A. Pacella, Esq.
     STROM LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
     J.P. Strom Jr.
     2110 N. Beltline Blvd.
     Columbia, SC 29204-3999
     TeleTelephone: 803-252-4800
                888-490-2847
     Facsimile: 803-252-4801


SOUTHERN COPPER: Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. continues to defend a consolidated class
action derivative lawsuit filed before the Delaware Court of
Chancery, New Castle County, over the company's acquisition of
Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions were
filed against the company.  On Jan. 31, 2005, three suits were
consolidated into one action, In Re Southern Copper Corporation
Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 961-N.

These three suits were:

     (1) Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 961-N,

     (2) Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
         Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-N,
         and

     (3) James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al.,
         Civil Action No. 978-N.

The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the operative
complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The consolidated action
purports to be brought on behalf of the company's common
stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the
result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's directors
and is not entirely fair to the company and its minority
stockholders.

The suit seeks, among other things, a preliminary and permanent
injunction to enjoin the acquisition, the award of damages to the
class, the award of damages to the Company and such other relief
that the court deems equitable, including interest, attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Southern Copper Corp. -- http://www.southernperu.com/-- is an
integrated copper producer.  The company produces copper,
molybdenum, zinc and silver. All of its mining, smelting and
refining facilities are located in Peru and in Mexico, and it
conducts exploration activities in those countries and Chile.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Deadline to File Motion to Dismiss Expires
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reports Synovus Financial Corp., one
of a number of defendants in a federal lawsuit, had until Friday
to file a motion to dismiss the action, court records state.

The suit, filed in the Northern District of Georgia in July 2009,
argues that Synovus and other defendants misled the plaintiffs in
the class action lawsuit about its relationship with Sea Island
Co., the latter's "troubled" financial situation and how it would
impact Synovus.

It claims that Synovus issued false information around July 8,
2008, which the suit states was around the same time the market
began learning about Synovus' lending practices with Sea Island
and that Synovus' fourth-quarter loan loss provision would be
around $350 million, among other items.

                       Parties in the Case

Plaintiffs include the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund.

When the market closed on April 22, 2009, the defendants said that
the company's nonperforming loans had increased by $519 million
from the past quarter, mainly due to Sea Island. The market
reacted over the next few days, and Synovus' stock dropped to $3 a
share -- a 26 percent loss from April 22, the suit states.

Thomas J. Prescott and Mark G. Holladay -- two of the defendants
-- sold significant amounts of their common stock holdings, lining
their pockets as other investors suffered, the suit claims.

Sea Island filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition late last
Tuesday in the Southern District of Georgia. It intends to sell
all of its assets to two investment firms for $197.5 million.

The plaintiffs want compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
expert fees paid and a jury trial.


UAL CORP: Reaches Pact to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
UAL Corporation has reached an agreement in principle regarding
settlement of a consolidated action in relation to its planned
merger with Continental Airlines, Inc., according to the company's
Aug. 3, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On May 2, 2010, the company, Continental, and JT Merger Sub Inc.,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, providing for a business combination
of Continental and UAL.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement on May 3, 2010,
three class action lawsuits were filed against Continental,
members of Continental's board of directors and UAL in the Texas
District Court for Harris County.

The lawsuits purport to represent a class of Continental
stockholders opposed to the terms of the Merger Agreement.  The
lawsuits make virtually identical allegations that the
consideration to be received by Continental's stockholders in the
Merger is inadequate and that the members of Continental's board
of directors breached their fiduciary duties, by among other
things, approving the Merger at an inadequate price under
circumstances involving certain conflicts of interest.  The
lawsuits also make virtually identical allegations that
Continental and UAL aided and abetted the Continental board of
directors in the breach of its fiduciary duties to Continental's
stockholders.  Each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief declaring that
the Merger Agreement was in breach of the Continental directors'
fiduciary duties, enjoining Continental and UAL from proceeding
with the Merger unless Continental implements procedures to obtain
the highest possible price for its stockholders, directing the
Continental board of directors to exercise its fiduciary duties in
the best interest of Continental's stockholders and rescinding the
Merger Agreement.

All three lawsuits have been consolidated before a single judge.

On July 30, 2010, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed an
amended and consolidated petition.

On Aug. 1, 2010, the parties to the Consolidated Action reached an
agreement in principle regarding settlement of the Consolidated
Action.  Under the Settlement, the Consolidated Action will be
dismissed with prejudice on the merits and all defendants will be
released from any and all claims relating to, among other things,
the Merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith.  The
Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including
consummation of the Merger, completion of certain confirmatory
discovery, class certification, and final approval by the District
Court.

In exchange for that release, UAL and Continental have provided
additional disclosures requested by plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action related to, among other things, the negotiations between
Continental and UAL that resulted in the execution of the Merger
Agreement, the method by which the exchange ratio was arrived at,
the procedures used by UAL's and Continental's financial advisors
in performing their financial analyses and certain investment
banking fees paid to those advisors by UAL and Continental over
the past two years.

The Settlement will not affect any provision of the Merger
Agreement or the form or amount of the consideration to be
received by Continental stockholders in the Merger.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, UAL Corporation --
http://www.united.com/-- is the holding company for United
Airlines, Inc.  United Airlines is the world's second largest air
carrier.  The airline flies to Brazil, Korea and Germany.


VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned Cheryl
Bentley et al. v. NBC Universal Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
03647-FMC-VBK, remains stayed.

Initially, on June 5, 2007, plaintiff Cheryl Bentley, on behalf of
herself and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a complaint
against VeriSign, m-Qube Inc., and other defendants.  The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants collectively operate an
illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing
viewers of the NBC television show "The Apprentice" to incur
premium text message charges in order to participate in an
interactive television promotion called "Get Rich With Trump."

The company sought to dismiss the case, which request was denied
by the District Court.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit is Cheryl Bentley, et al. v. NBC Universal Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK, (C.D. Calif.) (Cooper, J.).

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michiyo M. Furukawa, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-617-1200
          Facsimile: 213-617-1975
          E-mail: mfurukawa@milberg.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444
          Facsimile: 310-854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Ronald L. Johnston, Esq.
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-243-4000
          E-mail: ronald_johnston@aporter.com

               - and -

          Chad S. Hummel, Esq.
          Manatt Phelps & Phillips
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Telephone: 310-312-4000
          E-mail: chummel@manatt.com


VERISIGN INC: "Herbert" Suit Remanded to District Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed
VeriSign, Inc.'s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the
case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Also named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Endemol USA,
     -- Verisign, Inc.,
     -- M-Qube, Inc., and
     -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc.

The named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi
Eberhart and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet promotion,
known as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents per text
message, is a game of chance that offers a winner a shot at "Deal
or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million grand prize.

At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold briefcases
(different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are displayed
on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to participate in the
Promotion by submitting the number one through six that they
believe corresponds to the winning gold briefcase.  The game ends
when one briefcase is opened on-air to reveal that night's "Lucy
Case."

The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal
gambling: consideration, chance and prize.  Viewers of the program
enter the promotion via text message for which they incur a
premium text message fee, or via the Internet.  The potential
winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random, and have the
opportunity to win cash and other prizes.

The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show,
the plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from
California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against
gambling.

The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as
follows:

     (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its
         rules and conditions;

     (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal";

     (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the
         "Lucky Case Game";

     (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message
         entries to the "Lucky Case Game";

     (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by
         entrants in the promotion;

     (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the
         promotion;

     (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly
         select and contact the potential prize winner amongst
         the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case";

     (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to
         winning entrants; and

     (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky
         Case Game."

The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action suit pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of a class consisting of all
persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message
charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game,"
and who did not win a prize.

The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual capacities,
and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a class action
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all persons and entities who have paid or incurred premium text
message charges in connection with entering the "Lucky Case Game"
Promotion, and who have not won any prize.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal
        gambling;

     2. the extent of each defendants' participation in
        conducting the promotion;

     3. whether defendants' conduct violated California
        Business and Professions Section 17200;

     4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately
        caused injury to plaintiffs and the class;

     5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs
        and the class are entitled to damages, restitution,
        disgorgement, or other monetary remedies;

     6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or
        related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws
        ch. 137, Section 1:

     7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
        recover the amount of premium text messages paid to
        enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and

     8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
        the "Lucky Case Game."

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against
        conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion;

     -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion
        constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
        class as may be just and proper; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

The company and the other defendants had sought to dismiss the
case, but this request was denied by the District Court.

A motion to dismiss ruling in Herbert is on appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On July 8, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the
case to the district court.

The suit is Karen Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No.
07-cv-3537FMC, (C.D. Calif.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444
          Facsimile: 310-854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

               - and -

          William A. Pannell, Esq.
          WILLIAM A. PANNELL, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: 404-353-2283
          E-mail: billpannell@mindspring.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq.
          Kevin T. Moore, P.C.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E.
          Building C, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: 770-396-3622
          E-mail: kaw30328@aol.com


VERISIGN INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement resolving a consolidated
complaint against VeriSign, Inc., according to the company's Aug.
3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On May 15, 2007, a putative class action styled Mykityshyn v.
Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, was filed in Superior Court for the
State of California, Santa Clara County, naming VeriSign and
certain current and former officers and directors, alleging false
representations and disclosure failures regarding certain
historical stock option grants.

The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned
VeriSign's common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the 1998
Option Plan.  The complaint also seeks to enjoin the company from
granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any
currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
costs and attorneys fees.

The identical case was filed in the Superior Court for the State
of California, Santa Clara County under a separate name (Pace. v.
Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on June 19, 2007, and on October 3,
2007 (Mehdian v. Bidzos, et al.).

On Dec. 3, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed in Superior
Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County.

The current directors and officers named in this consolidated
class action are D. James Bidzos, William L. Chenevich, Roger H.
Moore and Louis A. Simpson.  VeriSign and the individual
defendants dispute all of these claims.

Defendants' collective pleading challenges to the putative
consolidated class action complaint were granted with leave to
amend in August 2008.  By stipulation and Court order, plaintiff's
obligation to file an amended consolidated class action complaint
has been continued pending informal efforts by
the parties to resolve the action.

The parties have reached an agreement to resolve all of the option
grant related matters.

The Federal Action is subject to approval of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On March 5, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement of the Federal Action.

The court gave its final approval to the settlement on June 2,
2010.

The Federal Action and parallel state court proceedings have been
dismissed.  The company discloses that the settlement amount is
not significant.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is the trusted
provider of Internet infrastructure services for the networked
world.  Billions of times each day, VeriSign helps companies and
consumers all over the world engage in communications and commerce
with confidence.


VERIZON INC: Win Over ERISA Suit Upheld by 7th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that a
class of Bell Atlantic pension plan participants filed suit
against Bell successor Verizon, claiming that Verizon
miscalculated -- by $1.67 billion! -- the lump-sum cash payments
they were due because it applied a particular multiplier only
once, not twice. It turned out that the sentence in the ERISA plan
that implied the multiplier should be applied twice was a drafting
error: An in-house Verizon lawyer inadvertently neglected to
delete a phrase about the multiplier from the end of a sentence
after he inserted the same phrase in the middle of the sentence.

In November 2009, after hearing days of testimony about Verizon's
creating and application of the ERISA plan, Chicago federal
district court magistrate Morton Denlow entered judgment for the
company.  "The phrase calling for a second multiplication was a
drafting error," he wrote. "To enforce the erroneous plan
provision now would result in an enormous windfall to the class
participants."

On August 10, 2010, a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld Judge Denlow's judgment. "Although [the
plaintiffs class] raises some forceful arguments," the panel
concluded in a 29-page opinion, "we conclude that ERISA's rules
are not so strict as to deny an employer equitable relief from the
type of 'scrivener's error' that occurred here." (The opinion,
written by 7th Circuit judge John Tinder, actually begins with a
quotation from another 2010 appellate ruling in an ERISA case:
"People make mistakes. Even administrators of ERISA plans.")

The panel, which also included 7th Circuit judge Joel Flaum and
senior judge William Bauer, found that Verizon clearly
communicated its intentions to plan participants, who, until the
class action began, didn't object to the lump-sum payments they
received.  And though the appellate court said it was "baffling
that a major corporation would not invest greater resources to
ensure accuracy in the drafting of such an important document,"
the judges concluded that Verizon hadn't demonstrated a lack of
good faith.

"They got the main point -- this was a mistake and no one relied
on it," said Jeffrey Huvelle of Covington & Burling, who
represented Verizon at the June 1 oral argument. "ERISA is a very
important public policy statute. There's no public policy benefit
in enforcing a mistake." Mr. Huvelle said this is the first time
in the 36 years since ERISA was passed that a circuit court has
addressed the correction of an error in a pension plan formula.

But plaintiffs lawyer Matthew Heffner of Susman Heffner & Hurst,
who argued the appeal for the class, said there's a split in the
federal circuits on how to deal with drafting errors in ERISA
plans. He said the class is gratified that the 7th Circuit opinion
says plan administrators can't unilaterally correct purported
mistakes without going to court, but the plaintiffs are
considering an appeal.  "The [Seventh Circuit] panel members were
mainly concerned with the question of, if a drafting mistake
occurs in a defined benefits plan, there has to be a procedure for
the plan sponsor to correct it," he said. "We think there are
fertile grounds for appeal."

Verizon is represented, among others, by:

     Jeffrey G. Huvelle, Esq.
     COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
     1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20004-2401
     TeleTelephone: 202.662.5526
     E-mail: jhuvelle@cov.com

Plaintiffs are represented, among others, by:

     Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
     SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP
     Two First National Plaza
     20 South Clark Street, Suite 600
     Chicago, Illinois  60603
     TeleTelephone: 312-346-3466
     Facsimile: 312-346-2829


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Unit Continues to Defend ERISA Plans Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Waste Management, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
relating to its Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans,
according to the company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

In April 2002, two former participants in the ERISA plans of WM
Holdings, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al.
v. James E. Koenig, et al.  The lawsuit named as defendants WM
Holdings; the members of WM Holdings' Board of Directors prior to
July 1998; the administrative and investment committees of WM
Holdings' ERISA plans and their individual members; WMI's
retirement savings plan; the investment committees of WMI's plan
and its individual members; and State Street Bank & Trust, the
trustee and investment manager of the ERISA plans.

The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA
plan participants based on allegations related to both the events
alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class
action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998 and the
securities class action against WMI that was settled in 2001.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints on the
pleadings, and the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions in the first quarter of 2009.

However, in December 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to overcome
the dismissal of certain claims and the motion for leave to file a
substitute fourth amended complaint to add two new claims.

Each of Mr. Pope, Mr. Rothmeier and Ms. San Juan Cafferty, members
of the company's Board of Directors, was a member of the WM
Holdings' Board of Directors and therefore was a named defendant
in these actions.  Additionally, Mr. Simpson, the company's Chief
Financial Officer, is a named defendant in these actions by virtue
of his membership on the WMI ERISA plan Investment Committee at
that time.

The defendants again moved to dismiss the fourth amended
complaint, and during the second quarter of 2010, the Court
dismissed certain claims against individual defendants, including
the claims against Messrs. Pope and Rothmeier and Ms. San Juan
Cafferty.

All of the remaining defendants intend to continue to defend
themselves.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is based in
Houston, Texas, and is the leading provider of comprehensive waste
management services in North America.  Through subsidiaries, the
company provides collection, transfer, recycling and resource
recovery, and disposal services.  It is also a leading developer,
operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-to-energy
facilities.  The company's customers include residential,
commercial, industrial, and municipal customers throughout North
America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Wage and Hour Suits Pending Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. continues to face two wage and hour
lawsuits each seeking class certification, according to the
company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Two separate wage and hour lawsuits were commenced in October 2006
and March 2007, respectively, that are pending against certain of
the company's subsidiaries in California.

The actions were coordinated to proceed in San Diego County
Superior Court.

Both lawsuits make the same general allegations that the
defendants failed to comply with certain California wage and hour
laws, including allegedly failing to provide meal and rest periods
and failing to properly pay hourly and overtime wages.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is based in
Houston, Texas, and is the leading provider of comprehensive waste
management services in North America.  Through subsidiaries, the
company provides collection, transfer, recycling and resource
recovery, and disposal services.  It is also a leading developer,
operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-to-energy
facilities.  The company's customers include residential,
commercial, industrial, and municipal customers throughout North
America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Junk Suit Over Environmental Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action over fuel and environmental charges is pending, according
to the company's August 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In July 2008, the company was named as a defendant in a purported
class action in the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama,
which was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

This suit pertains to the the company's fuel and environmental
charge and generally alleges that such charges were not properly
disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to contract.

The company filed a motion to dismiss.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is based in
Houston, Texas, and is the leading provider of comprehensive waste
management services in North America.  Through subsidiaries, the
company provides collection, transfer, recycling and resource
recovery, and disposal services.  It is also a leading developer,
operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-to-energy
facilities.  The company's customers include residential,
commercial, industrial, and municipal customers throughout North
America.


WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Faces Two Class Suits in Colorado & Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldie Blumenstyk, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education,
reports that long before it was spotlighted in a U.S. Senate
hearing [two weeks ago] as an example of aggressive and misleading
recruiting tactics at for-profit institutions, Westwood College
"flourished in the unscrupulous culture of the for-profit college
industry," say former students in two separate lawsuits filed
Wednesday last week.

The college and its top executives "engage in deceptive trade
practices at every step of the process from recruitment to
postgraduate job placement," claim the lawsuits, one of which was
filed in federal court in Colorado and the other in a state court
in California. College officials "follow a simple formula: Recruit
those with the greatest financial need and enroll them in high-
cost institutions to maximize the amount of federal funding" they
receive, the lawsuits say.

In a written statement sent to The Chronicle Thursday night,
Westwood officials strongly denied the allegations.

The lawsuits, which seek class-action status, accuse the college
of training its recruiters to systematically misrepresent not only
the cost of attending, but also job prospects for graduates and
the nature of its accreditation.

The complaints also accuse Westwood, a 17-campus system based in
Denver, and an affiliated institution, Redstone College, of
deceiving prospective students by employing admissions
representatives whom it puts forth as academic counselors but who
are actually hired for their sales skills. The representatives are
trained by Westwood to find prospects' "point of pain and dig,"
the plaintiffs say.

In return for enrolling high numbers of students, the lawsuits
allege, recruiters are compensated with free trips and other
incentives -- in one case cited in a court document filed with the
complaints, "a fun-packed fully paid vacation in sunny Cancun."

That document is a copy of a May 2008 e-mail that begins "Ay
Caramba" and exhorts recruiters to do their best to gain "Elite"
status and win the trip. Another exhibit shows the company's
training materials, including advice to the admissions
representatives: "Call new leads within 15 minutes; Call 3 times
1st and 2nd day."

In its statement, Westwood said the law firm representing the
students "does not now, nor has it ever represented a class of
former students. Indeed, the law firm's continued diminution of
the hard work and education earned by thousands of satisfied
Westwood  College graduates and existing students injures the very
persons the lawyers purport to represent -- an inescapable
conflict of interest that the law firm conveniently ignores.

"Westwood maintains (and stands ready to prove in the appropriate
forum) that the accusations made by the 'strike suit' firm are
opportunistic, not representative of the experiences of the
overwhelming majority of Westwood students and graduates, and
therefore cannot proceed on a class basis."

The suits were filed by a Florida-based law firm, James, Hoyer,
Newcomer, Smiljanich & Yanchunis, which says it has been contacted
by more than 700 Westwood students and 50 former employees in the
course of investigating the latest complaints and prior lawsuits
it has filed against Westwood and Alta Colleges Inc., Westwood's
parent company.

The firm had previously sought class-action status for a complaint
raising similar allegations that was filed in Colorado as an
arbitration action in 2009 on behalf of other former students. (As
part of their enrollment agreements, students promise to pursue
any disputes with the college via arbitration, a practice that
many other for-profit colleges also follow.) In July an
arbitrator, on procedural grounds, denied the request to have that
case proceed as a class action.

The James Hoyer firm specializes in class actions and whistle-
blower cases, and includes several former prosecutors on its legal
staff. It is also the sponsor of a Web site, WestwoodScammed.me,
which it uses to publicize the status of its cases and to solicit
contact with current and former Westwood employees and students
with complaints about the college. (Reports of the latest lawsuits
appeared on the site on Thursday.)

In March, Westwood and Alta sued the firm and two of its lawyers,
alleging "a conspiracy to damage and defame" the college via that
Web site, a Facebook page, and other "new media Internet weapons."
Westwood also accused the law firm of having "published defamatory
comments" about the college, and of creating "a national media
circus" over the Colorado arbitration case, which the company
maintained was baseless.

The law firm has argued that the college's suit is an unlawful
attempt to muzzle it, akin to what's commonly known as a Slapp
suit (for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

In April 2009, Alta paid $7-million to the federal government to
settle allegations that Westwood had obtained federal student aid
by falsely claiming that it complied with state-licensing
requirements. Such licensing is required to receive federal aid.
The company maintained that it acted lawfully but said it settled
to avoid the time and expense of a legal fight.

                    'Little to No Instruction'

The new lawsuit in Colorado was filed on behalf of Krystle Bernal,
a 2008 fashion-merchandising graduate of Westwood's Denver South
campus, who is now facing federal and private student-loan debt of
$75,000; Amanda Krol, a 2009 criminal-justice graduate of Westwood
Online who has more than $86,000 in student-loan debt; and
thousands of potential others.

The suit in California was filed on behalf of Jesus A. Contreras,
a 2007 graduate of its Inland Empire campus, in Upland, who had
agreed to pay more than $54,000 for a 34-month program in
information technology. In the suit, Mr. Contreras alleges that
instructors provided "little to no instruction" and frequently
failed to show up at all. In those instances, the suit alleges,
students were "still instructed to sign an attendance roster," to
give the appearance that the class had taken place.

Mr. Contreras also says Westwood sought to charge him $20,000 in
additional fees and has continued to seek to collect that money
since he graduated. (The lawsuit is a response to a collection
action against Mr. Contreras.)

The suit states that it seeks class-action status under California
law on the grounds that "defendants' business practices are
substantially injurious to consumers; offend public policy, and
are immoral, unethical, and unscrupulous." Both lawsuits note that
the recruiting abuses documented by the Government Accountability
Office and featured at the Senate hearing -- including testimony
from a former Westwood recruiter and hidden-camera scenes at some
of its campuses -- have since become part of a national
conversation on for-profit-college abuses.

The college has said that the practices highlighted at the hearing
were "unauthorized actions taken by a few Westwood employees."
Still, it announced this week that it would alter some of its
admissions and recruiting policies, and pledged to "set a new
standard for the student-enrollment process."

The lawsuits also name as defendants the Westwood College system's
president, George Burnett, who is a former chief marketing officer
at Qwest Communications; Westwood's lawyer, William Ojile; and
various related companies. They seek unspecified financial damages
on behalf of thousands of students.

Alta Colleges, Westwood's parent company, is majority-owned by
Housatonic Partners, a private-equity firm. In 2008, Alta's
revenue included some $27.5-million in Pell Grants and more than
$154-million in federal student loans, one of the lawsuits says.
The story of Alta's founding, by two Harvard Business School
graduates, Kirk Riedinger and James Turner, has been chronicled in
a case study at the Stanford Graduate School of Business developed
by H. Irving Grousbeck, who is a consulting professor at Stanford
and a special limited partner at Housatonic and an Alta board
member. He is also managing partner of the Boston Celtics.

                           *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *