---

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

             Wednesday, August 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 152

                             Headlines

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Bang" Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Arbitration Denial Still Pending
AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Compel Arbitration
AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due August 18
AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty's Motion to Dismiss Conn. Suit Pending

AFFINION GROUP: Units Face Class Suits in Arizona and Oregon
ARCTIC GLACIER: Can Pay First Installment Under Settlement
ATLANTIC COAST: Sued Over Fraudulent Billing Practices
AVON PRODUCTS: Defends Securities Class Action Suit in New York
BRAVO SPORTS: Recalls 159,000 Disney-Branded Pogo Sticks

BRISTOL-MYERS: Obtains Final Settlement Order on AWP Suit in Mass.
BRITISH PETROLEUM: Class Action May Have Prompted ARCO Closure
CALIFORNIA: Courts Face Class Action Over Construction Fund
CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOC: Regina Lawyer to File Class Action
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Trial in Securities Suit Set for June 25, 2012

CHIQUITA BRANDS: May Be Sued for Torture, Extrajudicial Killings
CITY OF TACOMA, WA: Judge Okays Class Action Settlement
CMS ENERGY: Court Junks Claims vs. Gas Price Suit Defendants
COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Piechur" Suit in Illinois
COINSTAR INC: Trial in Securities Litigation Set for Sept. 9, 2013

COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Face Consolidated Suit in Ill.
COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend Class Actions in California
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in New York
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Part of $112.5MM Settlement Balance Due Oct.
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Court Drops Securities Claims vs. 2 Ex-Execs

COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Israeli Court to Hear "Deutsch" Case in Oct.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
COSTAR GROUP: Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition-Related Suit
DENTSPLY INT'L: "Weinstat" Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
DENTSPLY INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending in Penn.

DEPUY INT'L: South Australians Take Part in Class Action
DPL INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over AES Merger Deal
EBIX INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
GLOBE ALL WELLNESS: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Diet Pills
GOLFSMITH INT'L: Awaits Approval of "O'Flynn" Suit Settlement

GOLFSMITH INT'L: Continues to Defend "Leo" Suit in California
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Appeal From Certification Denial Still Pending
HURON CONSULTING: Issued 474,547 Shares of Stock Under Settlement
IMAX CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
IMAX CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Canada

IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Ottawa Not Liable for Damages in Tobacco Suits
INTERNAP NETWORK: Still Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss
JBI INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mortgage Fraud Claims
KB HOME: Sales Staff's Overtime Class Action Dismissed

LEHMAN BROTHERS: San Mateo County Class Action Pending
LINN ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Royalty Class Suit
LIZ CLAIBORNE: Motion to Dismiss "Tyler" Suit Remains Pending
LORILLARD INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Scott" Class Suit
LORILLARD INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit in California

LORILLARD INC: Appeal From Judgment in "Cleary" Suit Still Pending
MASCO CORP: Continues to Defend Columbus Drywall Case
MCKESSON CORP: Obtains Final Okay of "Rodriguez" Suit Settlement
MEAD JOHNSON: Sept. 26 Enfamil Class Settlement Hearing Still On
MEDCO HEALTH: Being Sold for Too Little, Delaware Suit Claims

MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xbox LIVE Subscriptions
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Final Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Nov. 2
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend "Silverman" Suit in Ill.
NEUROMETRIX INC: No Rehearing on Appeal From Suit Dismissal
NUFARM: Faces Two Investor Class Actions

ONLINE TRAVEL COS: Faces Class Action Over Room Rental Taxes
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal in "Lane" Suit Remains Pending
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Hines" Suit
REPUBLIC BANCORP: Unit Faces Suit in Florida Over Overdraft Fees
REVLON INC: "Garofalo" Plaintiff Intends to File Amended Complaint

SEOCHO, KOREA: May Face Class Action Over Landslides
SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeals Certification of "Garcia" Class Suit
SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeal From Claims Dismissal Still Pending
SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over W.G. Krummrich Site
SOLUTIA INC: Unit Dismissed in West Virginia Class Suit

STRYKER CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Michigan
SUPERVALU INC: Wisc. Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in IOS D&O Suit
SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend C&S Transaction Suit in Minn.
TELENAV INC: Reaches Preliminary Settlement of Securities Suit
TIME WARNER: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in "Fink" Suit

TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Calzada" Suit in California
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Antitrust MDL
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Seek Review of "Brantley" Suit Dismissal
TIME WARNER: Swinegar Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Judgment
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in ADT Dealer Class Suit Pending

UNITED STATES: Settles PSTD Lifetime Disability Class Action
UNITIL CORP: Unit Expects Decision on Mass. Class Suit This Fall
VARIAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Massachusetts
VATICAN: Victims of Pedophile Priests to File Class Action
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending

VIEWPOINT FINANCIAL: FLSA Suit Set for Mediation This Month
WASTE MANAGEMENT: ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending in Columbia
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Court Okays Settlement of Calif. Labor Suits
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend Alabama Class Suit
WIVENHOE DAM: Flood Victims Await Inquiry Interim Report

WYETH INC: Accused of Monopolizing Effexor XR Market
YOURTRAVELBIZ.COM: 7th Cir. Revives Pyramid Scheme Claims
ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Accused of Making False Statements in Ohio




                             *********

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Bang" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is awaiting a court order on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in Illinois,
the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

A lawsuit captioned Bang v. Acura Pharmaceuticals, et al, was
filed on September 10, 2010, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case
1:10-cv-05757) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between February 21, 2006 and April 22, 2010.  The complaint
alleged that certain Company officers made false or misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material facts in order to make
statements not misleading, relating to the Company's Acurox(R)
with Niacin Tablet product candidate, resulting in violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
complaint further alleges that such false or misleading statements
or omissions had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the Company's common stock.  On March 14, 2011, an amended
complaint was filed in this lawsuit.  The amended complaint
asserts the same claims as the initial complaint based on the same
alleged false or misleading statements, and has added three of the
Company's current directors as defendants.  The Court has changed
the caption of the case to In re Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
case on May 13, 2011.  The Company believes that the allegations
in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend the litigation.

Acura Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in research, development and manufacture of product
candidates intended to provide abuse deterrent features and
benefits utilizing the Company's proprietary Aversion(R) and
Impede(TM) Technologies.


AFFINION GROUP: Appeal From Arbitration Denial Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., and Trilegiant Corporation's appeal from the
denial of their motion to compel arbitration remains pending with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and its subsidiary, Trilegiant Corporation, in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, and California False Advertising Law.  On
September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit.  On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion.  On
March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration.  The Company does not know when the appeal
will be decided. Notwithstanding the appeal, the case is currently
proceeding in the district court.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
the lawsuit.


AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Compel Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its motion to compel
individual arbitration in a class action lawsuit pending in New
York, according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On November 10, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company, its subsidiary Trilegiant Corporation, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A. in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of several
putative nationwide classes that largely overlap with one another.
The claims asserted are in connection with the sale by Trilegiant
of its membership programs, including claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and New York's General Business Law.  On April 6, 2011, the
Company and Trilegiant filed a motion to compel individual (non-
class) arbitration of the plaintiff's claims.  The Company's co-
defendant, 1-800-Flowers.com, joined in the motion to compel
arbitration, and co-defendant Chase Bank filed a motion to stay
the case against it pending arbitration, or alternatively to
dismiss.  The Company does not know when the court will issue a
ruling on these motions.


AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due August 18
-------------------------------------------------------
On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., and one of its clients in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
alleging, among other things, violations of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust
enrichment, fraud, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false
advertising and California Consumer Business Practice violations.
Affinion Group, Inc., acquired Webloyalty in January 2011.  This
lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and
after October 1, 2008.  On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit.  On
April 12, 2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and
dismissed all claims against the defendants.

On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Pursuant to the Time Schedule Order issued by the court of
appeals, the plaintiff's opening brief is due on August 18, 2011,
the defendant's answering brief is due on September 19, 2011, and
plaintiff's reply brief, if any, is due on October 3, 2011,
according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.


AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty's Motion to Dismiss Conn. Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty Holdings, Inc., one of its former clients and one of
the credit card associations in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act violations.  This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008.  On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit, which had since been amended in its entirety.  The court
has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's motion,
according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Affinion Group, Inc., acquired Webloyalty in January 2011.


AFFINION GROUP: Units Face Class Suits in Arizona and Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries are facing class action
lawsuits in Arizona and Oregon over a subsidiary's sale of
membership programs, according to the Company's July 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 13, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Affinion Group, LLC, Trilegiant Corporation, Apollo Global
Management LLC, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona.  The complaint asserts
various causes of action on behalf of putative nationwide classes
in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership
programs, including claims under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and state
common law.  The case was recently filed and there has been no
other activity in the case.

On July 14, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against AGLLC,
Trilegiant, Apollo Global Management, LLC, Avis Rent A Car System,
LLC, Avis Budget Car Rental LLC, Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Bank
of America, N.A. in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon, Portland Division.  The complaint, which is
substantially similar to the Arizona class action, asserts various
causes of action on behalf of putative nationwide classes in
connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs,
including claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and state common law.
The case was recently filed, and there has been no other activity
in the case.


ARCTIC GLACIER: Can Pay First Installment Under Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Abhiram Nandakumar, writing for Reuters, reports that packaged ice
maker Arctic Glacier Income Fund said it reached an agreement with
its lenders to waive some covenants in its credit facilities,
taking some heat off the debt-ridden company.

Arctic Glacier, which has been struggling to cope with expenses
related to antitrust lawsuits, said the waivers allowed it to pay
the first installment of the $2.5 million related to a U.S. class
action settlement before August 4.

The company said the waivers meant it could now pay the final
interest payment for its 6.50% unsecured debentures and issue
trust units to these securities holders to settle the principal
amount due.

The fund continues to look at alternatives and is in talks with
lenders to further amend terms of credit agreements.

Arctic Glacier has been under fire since 2007, when the government
went after Reddy Ice, Arctic and privately owned Home City Ice,
for an alleged conspiracy to eliminate smaller competition and
keep retail prices higher than market levels.


ATLANTIC COAST: Sued Over Fraudulent Billing Practices
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Atlantic Coast Media Group
and Hydroxatone advertise a free trial for beauty products, then
use information they get for the $7.95 "shipping and handling"
charge to bill suckers $209 for a 3-month supply, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Margolis v. Atlantic Coast Media Group
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 12395 in Case
No. 33-av-00001 on July 27, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/29/IntScam.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Margolis, Esq.
          483 Longspur Road
          Richmond Heights, OH 44143
          Telephone: (440) 446-0489
          E-mail: margornl@aol.com

               - and -

          Noel Crowley, Esq.
          CROWLEY & CROWLEY
          20 North Park Place, Suite 206
          Morristown, NJ 07960-7102
          Telephone: (973) 829-0550
          E-mail: cclawnj@aol.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Defends Securities Class Action Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., and certain of its former officers and
directors are defending themselves against a securities class
action lawsuit in New York for allegedly providing false and
misleading information to shareholders, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2011.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. The
complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons or entities who either (1) were Avon shareholders as
of the close of business on March 17, 2011, March 17, 2010,
March 18, 2009, March 14, 2008, or March 15, 2007 and therefore
were eligible to vote proxies or (2) purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through
and including May 24, 2011. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and
omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's
internal controls. In light of, among other things, the early
stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of the matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate
of the amount or range of loss that could result from an
unfavorable outcome.


BRAVO SPORTS: Recalls 159,000 Disney-Branded Pogo Sticks
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bravo Sports, of Santa Fe Springs, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 159,000 Disney-branded pogo sticks.
Disney licensed its brand name to Bravo Sports.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bottom rubber tip attached to the pogo stick frame can wear
out prematurely, posing a fall hazard to consumers.  Also, the end
caps on the handlebars can come off, exposing sharp edges.  This
poses a laceration hazard to consumers.

Bravo and CPSC have received 82 reports of the bottom tip wearing
out on the pogo sticks, including five reports of injuries.  A
9-year-old girl suffered a skull fracture and chipped a tooth.
Another 9-year-old girl cut her lip and chin, requiring stitches.
Other injuries included scrapes, hits to the head and teeth pushed
in.

Consumers can visit the search page on SaferProducts.gov to view
incident reports about Bravo's recalled pogo sticks.

This recall includes pogo sticks in various colors.  The models
included in this recall are the Disney Hannah Montana Pogo Stick,
the Disney/Pixar Toy Story Cruising Cool Pogo Stick, the
Disney/Pixar Cars Pogo Stick, the Disney Princess Pogo Stick and
the Disney Fairies Cruising Cool Pogo Stick.  The pogo sticks have
Disney labels between the handlebars.  The manufacturing date
codes between 01/01/2009-022CO and 11/30/2010-022CO are on a clear
label on the stem of the pogo stick near the foot pedals.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11290.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory, Kmart, Kohls.com, Target and Toys R Us
from February 2009 through June 2011 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pogo sticks and
contact Bravo Sports for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Bravo Sports toll-free at (855) 469-3429
between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.bravopogorecall.com/


BRISTOL-MYERS: Obtains Final Settlement Order on AWP Suit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, together with a number of other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of
private class actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys
general of various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege
that defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of
their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government
programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs
based on AWPs. The Company is a defendant in five state attorneys
general suits pending in state courts around the country.
Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial
in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court),
brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010,
the jury issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the
Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court Judge issued a
decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not
go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million and
enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs. The Company has moved to vacate the decision and
the Commonwealth has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the
verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. These motions are
currently pending before the Commonwealth Court. In June 2011, the
Company reached an agreement in principle with the State of Alaska
to resolve its AWP lawsuit for an amount that is not material to
the Company.

One set of class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL). In August 2009,
the District Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims against the Company
for $19 million and in July 2011, the District Court issued a
formal, final order and judgment approving the settlement of the
AWP MDL, according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.


BRITISH PETROLEUM: Class Action May Have Prompted ARCO Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Evanosky, writing for The Alameda Sun, reports that it has
been a month since workers mysteriously appeared and shuttered the
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) station and AM/PM Market at
Encinal Avenue and Park Street.  Without any announcement to the
public trucks pulled up to the station, workers locked the doors
and methodically boarded up the windows and the gas pumps.

Alamedans have been wondering what caused the sudden closure of
this popular, and seemingly thriving, business.

"Nobody knows and nobody's saying anything," said Debbie George,
president of the Park Street Business Association.

The Alameda Sun has learned a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California could stand
behind the closing.  In May, attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf
of ARCO AM/PM franchise owners against British Petroleum (BP) and
Retalix LTD.  ARCO has been a subsidiary of BP for more than 10
years.

The suit alleges that BP violated obligations to the franchise
owners that resulted in substantial monetary harm.  The suit
further alleges that BP is requiring the franchise holders to
install RetalLTD's centralized point-of-sale computer system.  The
suit alleges that the system is defective and has resulted in
"lost operation time, lost revenue, lost or inaccurate inventory,
lost receivables and cash, and increased operating costs and
burdens."  Alameda's gas station and market is one of some 1,600
franchised BP and ARCO gas stations and AM/PM stores across the
country.

The case is entitled Green Desert Oil Group Inc. et al. v. BP West
Coast Products LLC et al. (NDCA case number CV-11-2087), with
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero presiding.

The Alameda Sun was not able to speak with the local franchise
owners for comment.


CALIFORNIA: Courts Face Class Action Over Construction Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims California's Administrative Office of the
Courts and the state Supreme Court are "using the Administrative
Office of the Courts as a collection agency to build new
courthouses for themselves," by adding fees for a "Courthouse
Construction Fund" to traffic tickets and other fines.

Lead plaintiff Jessee Welch, Jr., calls this "self dealing" by the
defendant agencies, which have an unbearable conflict of interest
that can be expressed by a simple equation: "Convictions =
Courthouse, No Convictions = No Courthouse."

The budget disaster suffered by California's Administrative Office
of the Courts has been extensively reported by Courthouse News.
Mr. Welch says that "the sole source of money for the courthouses
is the 'Courthouse Construction Fund.'"

"The entire funding scheme implemented by statute and being
embraced fully by the court is an assessment that has as its sole
condition precedent the conviction of people," Mr. Welch says.
"If there is no conviction, there is no assessment.  Without
assessments there can be no courthouses.  The court wants
courthouses.  Therefore, the court must convict."

He adds: "There is a dollar for dollar, conviction for conviction,
direct benefit bestowed upon the Court.  The very court that will
make the rules, interpret the laws, determine credibility, and
exercise almost unfettered discretion in every criminal case.  All
state appeals, up to and including the Supreme Court of
California, have the same issue of ethics and conflict of interest
and are therefore incompetent to hear this case."

Mr. Welch says he got a speeding ticket in June 2009, which he
fought unsuccessfully.

He claims that he was "denied evidence, ordered to return to court
numerous times, denied numerous dismissal motions, and subject to
unethical conduct by both the prosecutor and the traffic
commissioner.  Welch, finally exhausted by the burdens placed upon
him and under the advice of counsel, plead[ed] to the offense and
filed a timely appeal."  But he lost that too, so he paid the fine
and the cost of his insurance increased.

Mr. Welch claims no California court should hear his case, as they
all have the same conflict of interest.

"If (any) person is found to have violated any law, i.e. found
guilty or admits, then the Administrative Office of the Courts
shall impose an assessment.  The sole purpose of that assessment
is to build new courthouses for the benefit of the very court that
heard the case.  In fact, the fund the assessment must be
deposited to is named 'Courthouse Construction Fund.'"

Mr. Welch says the courts violated his right to due process: "the
California court hearing Welch's case never informed him that the
California court was going to construct new courthouses and the
sole source of money for the courthouses is the 'Courthouse
Construction Fund.'  Welch was not told that to contribute to the
'Courthouse Construction Fund' Welch must first be found liable
for any offense."

He claims to represent all people whose cases were heard by
California's criminal courts.

He seeks compensation for costs and fees, reimbursement for
increased insurance costs, wants his ticket expunged, and he wants
the courts enjoined from assessing fees for construction funds.

A copy of the Complaint in Welch v. Vickrey, Case No. 11-cv-01957
(E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/29/Tix.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis L. Fleming, Esq.
          1112 N. Main St., #382
          Manteca, CA 95336
          Telephone: (209) 825-6528


CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOC: Regina Lawyer to File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Gousseau, writing for CTV Regina, reports that a Regina lawyer
is launching a class-action lawsuit against the Canadian Standards
Association and the federal government for what he calls a multi-
billion dollar "foul-up."

The C$8-billion Canada-wide suit centers around what are known as
ready-to-move homes.

Regina lawyer Tony Merchant says as many as 15,000 prefabricated
homes across the country are unsellable because they were
certified by the CSA without federal approval.

"The damages in the result are huge for people because they own
homes that aren't saleable," Mr. Merchant said in an interview
with CTV News.

"They can't show that the home complied with building codes and
standards in Canada and with thousands of the homes there are
serious defects."

He says those defects mainly involve problems with the vapor
barriers in the homes.

Two statements of claim have been filed in court, one by a
Saskatoon-area woman and the other by an Edmonton man.

A spokesperson for the CSA says the association hasn't been served
any court documents, and that it has to review any allegations
before responding to them.

The lawsuit is expected to go to court as early as next summer.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Trial in Securities Suit Set for June 25, 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington has set a June 25, 2012, trial date for the securities
class action lawsuit filed against Cell Therapeutics, Inc.,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On March 12, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, styled Cyril Sabbagh, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics,
Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No.
2:10-sv-00414), or the Sabbagh action. On March 19, 2010, a
substantially similar class action complaint was filed in the same
court, styled Michael Laquidari, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A.
Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-cv-00480), or
the Laquidari action. On March 31, 2010, a third substantially
similar class action complaint was filed in the same court, styled
William Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Phillip M.
Nudelman, Louis A. Bianco, John H. Bauer, Richard L. Love, Mary O.
Mundinger, Jack W. Singer, Frederick W. Telling and Rodman &
Renshaw, LLC (Case No. 2:10-cv-00559), or the Snyder action. The
securities actions are pending before Judge Marsha Pechman in the
Western District of Washington. The securities complaints allege
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
certain alleged false and misleading statements. The plaintiffs in
the Sabbagh and Laquidari actions seek unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 5, 2009 through February 8, 2010. The
plaintiffs in the Snyder action seek unspecified damages on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
May 5, 2009 through March 19, 2010, including purchasers of
securities issued pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
July 22, 2009 public offering. On August 2, 2010, the court
consolidated the securities actions, appointed lead plaintiffs,
and approved lead plaintiffs' counsel. On September 27, 2010, lead
plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint with a purported
class period of March 25, 2008 through March 22, 2010.

On October 27, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on
December 3, 2010, and defendants filed their reply on December 22,
2010. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on January 28,
2011. On February 4, 2011, the court issued an order denying in
large part the defendants' motion. The court has set a trial date
of June 25, 2012 for the securities class action.

Discovery has commenced in the securities class action. The
Company says that it believes that the securities class action is
without merit and intend to defend it vigorously.


CHIQUITA BRANDS: May Be Sued for Torture, Extrajudicial Killings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that relatives of
banana-plantation workers, political and social activists, and
other civilians killed by Colombian paramilitary forces may sue
Chiquita over claims of torture, extrajudicial killings, war
crimes and crimes against humanity, a federal judge ruled.

In a multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs accused Chiquita
Brands International and Chiquita Fresh North America of
complicity in hundreds of deaths because of its direct and
indirect payments to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia
(known by its Spanish abbreviation AUC).  Chiquita was also
allegedly involved with arms shipments into Colombia.

The AUC was created in the 1990s to fight left-wing guerillas led
by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the
National Liberation Army (ELN), which have been engaged in a
decades-long conflict with the Colombian government.  The AUC,
claiming to have 11,000 members by 2001, terrorized civilians
throughout Colombia, engaging in executions, rape, torture and
large-scale attacks on civilians whom the AUC considered guerrilla
supporters or sympathizers.  The AUC also targeted "socially
undesirable" groups, such as indigenous persons, people with
psychological problems, drug addicts and prostitutes.

Although the Colombian government criminalized membership in and
support of paramilitary groups in 1991, it allowed for the
creation of private security groups known as "convivir" units,
under AUC leadership.  The units claimed to provide security from
left-wing attacks in high-risk areas such as the Uraba region,
where Chiquita operated its banana plantations.

The U.S. government designated the AUC as a foreign terrorist
organization in September 2001.

The plaintiffs -- all family members of AUC victims -- claim
Chiquita paid the AUC to drive the guerillas out of Chiquita's
banana-growing areas and used AUC forces to suppress union
activity on the plantations.

Despite advice from U.S.-based counsel, Chiquita continued to pay
the AUC through its Colombian subsidiary, Banadex, until February
2004.  According to the plaintiffs' complaints, Chiquita made
direct payments to the AUC and also used the accounts of Banadex
executives to indirectly fund the paramilitaries.

Chiquita sold Banadex in June 2004, but it continues to import
Colombian bananas from independent suppliers.

The plaintiffs claimed they first learned of Chiquita's assistance
to the AUC in 2007, when the company pleaded guilty to violating
federal anti-terrorism laws.  The D.C. Circuit sentenced Chiquita
to five years' probation and a $25 million criminal fine.

In their amended complaints, the plaintiffs alleged various claims
against Chiquita, including material support for terrorism,
torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes, extrajudicial
killing and other human-rights violations.

Chiquita asked the court to dismiss all claims for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra addressed Chiquita's arguments
in four separate rulings in Florida's West Palm Beach- and Fort
Lauderdale-based federal courts.

In the lengthy rulings, Judge Marra rejected the plaintiffs'
contention that Chiquita was directly liable for terrorism and for
providing material support to the AUC, a terrorist organization,
under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).  Although the court found that
non-U.S. nationals could raise terrorism claims under the ATS, it
noted that "a claim for terrorism in general, or material support
thereof, is not based on a sufficiently accepted, established, or
defined norm of customary international law to constitute a
violation of the law of nations," and therefore the court lacked
jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' terrorism-based claims under the
ATS.  "Reliance on domestic laws, even those of the United States,
cannot support recognition of an international norm under the
ATS," the order states.

Judge Marra added that the "plaintiffs' allegations are not
limited to any specific, narrow category of conduct, such as
hijacking civilian aircraft or suicide bombing civilian targets.
Rather, plaintiffs allege a broad range of alleged terrorist acts,
linked only by the facts that the victims are civilians and the
intent is to intimidate."

In a second motion to dismiss, Chiquita argued that the court's
ruling on the terrorism-related claims disposed of the plaintiffs'
remaining ATS claims.

The court rebuffed the argument and upheld the plaintiffs' claims
for torture and extrajudicial killing.  Judge Marra noted that
Chiquita had paid the AUC with the intent to assist the
organization's war crimes, being fully aware that the AUC would
direct its war efforts in the areas in which the plaintiffs'
decedents lived.

What's more, the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded state action -- a
prerequisite for torture and extrajudicial-killing claims -- by
alleging that the Colombian government had played a role in
training and arming the AUC, according to the ruling.

The court also upheld the plaintiffs' claim for war crimes,
finding that the complaints sufficiently claimed that the AUC had
committed the alleged crimes because of, and not merely during,
the civil war in Colombia.  Judge Marra's rulings cite various
excerpts from the complaints, reflecting the AUC's intention to
torture and kill the plaintiffs' relatives to further its military
objectives.

As for the claim of crimes against humanity, the court found that
the plaintiffs alleged facts of both "widespread" and "systematic"
attacks by the AUC against civilians in Colombia.  And, while some
complaints contained stray allegations of victims killed for
partly personal reasons, most complaints asserted allegations of
crimes carried out in furtherance of the war, the ruling states.

When addressing Chiquita's liability for the alleged crimes,
Judge Marra concluded that the complaints "contain sufficient
'factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference' that Chiquita assisted the AUC with the intent that the
AUC commit torture and killing in the banana-growing regions."

The order adds that "the fact that Chiquita may not have had a
military objective of its own, or that it was motivated by
financial gain, is not dispositive.  A 'lack of motive does not
negate intent to assist the underlying acts that may be war
crimes.'"

Judge Marra also upheld the plaintiffs' claims for torture and
extrajudicial killing under the Torture Victim Protection Act but
dismissed their state-law claims, finding that the civil laws of
different U.S. states do not apply to the extraterritorial conduct
alleged in the complaints.

The court declined to rule on the plaintiffs' claims under
Colombian law.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in In Re: Chiquita Brands
International Inc. Alien Tort Statute and Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 08-01916 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/29/Chiquita.pdf


CITY OF TACOMA, WA: Judge Okays Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge approved a settlement agreement between the Skokomish Tribe
and the city of Tacoma's public utilities department, possibly
ending a decade-long, $6 billion litigation dispute over fishing
rights and dam construction.

The Skokomish Tribe filed a class action in 1999, claiming that
Tacoma's 75-year-old Cushman hydroelectric dam project has had
"pervasive and destructive environmental, economic, social,
cultural and other impacts" on the tribe's fishing rights in the
Skokomish River.

It named as defendants the United States, the city of Tacoma, its
public utilities department and five board members.

Among other things, the tribe said the two Cushman dams "virtually
eliminated the salmon and steelhead productivity of the entire
North Fork" of the Skokomish.

The tribe also said the dams caused a "significant rise in
groundwater levels beneath the reservation, which reduced the
amount of habitable and agricultural land on the reservation, and
degraded operation of septic systems during much of the year."

The 1924 license for the dam project authorized the city to flood
8.8 acres of federal land, but the dams ended up creating two
lakes.  Lake Cushman has 23 miles of shoreline, and Kokanee Lake
is 150 acres.

U.S. District Judge Franklin Burgess dismissed the United States
as a defendant in 2000, and in 2001 dismissed all the claims
against Tacoma.

Judge Burgess found the city had followed regulations when it
licensed the dams and that statute of limitations had expired on
the tribes' other claims.

In June 2003, a three-judge panel for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision, and ruled
that the tribe's claims should be transferred to the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims.

From 2007 through 2009, Tacoma and the tribe negotiated a
settlement under the supervision of the 9th Circuit's mediation
program to resolve all claims.  The agreement became effective on
July 18.

The settlement releases all the tribe's claims against the city of
Tacoma and the United States.

To settle their damages claims, the city agreed to pay the tribe
$6 million in compensation, $5 million for flood mitigation and
$1.6 million to settle the tribe's trespass claims against the
United States.

The settlement also grants $23 million worth of land around the
Skokomish River, including a camp on Lake Cushman and a 500-acre
ranch and park on the Hood Canal.

U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan approved the consent decree
between parties on July 27, finding it to be "fundamentally fair,
adequate, and reasonable."

A copy of the Consent Decree, Order, and Final Judgment in
Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States of America, et al.,
Case No. 99-cv-05606 (W.D. Wash.), is available at
http://is.gd/RoVfBi

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mason D. Morisset, Esq.
          MORISSET, SCHLOSSER, JOZWIAK & SOMERVILLE
          801 Second Avenue, Suite 1115
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 386-5200
          E-mail: m.morisset@msaj.com

               - and -

          Matthew A. Love, Esq.
          VAN NESS FELDMAN, PC
          719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
          Seattle, WA 98104-1728
          Telephone: (206) 623-9372
          E-mail: mal@vnf.com


CMS ENERGY: Court Junks Claims vs. Gas Price Suit Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------
A multidistrict litigation court dismissed claims filed against
the remaining defendants in a consolidated class action lawsuit
arising from alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting,
according to CMS Energy Corporation's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2002, CMS Energy notified appropriate regulatory and
governmental agencies that some employees at CMS Marketing,
Services and Trading Company and CMS Field Services, Inc.,
appeared to have provided inaccurate information regarding natural
gas trades to various energy industry publications which compile
and report index prices. CMS Energy cooperated with an
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the
matter. Although CMS Energy has not received any formal
notification that the DOJ has completed its investigation, the
DOJ's last request for information occurred in 2003, and CMS
Energy completed its response to this request in 2004. CMS Energy
says it is unable to predict the outcome of the DOJ investigation
and what effect, if any, the investigation will have on CMS
Energy.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, are named as
defendants in various lawsuits arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information. Allegations include manipulation of the New
York Mercantile Exchange natural gas futures and options prices,
price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial
inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri, and Wisconsin.

The class action lawsuits are:

   * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
     named as defendants in a putative class action filed in
     Kansas state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et
     al. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a
     scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. The
     plaintiffs are seeking statutory full consideration damages
     consisting of the full consideration paid by plaintiffs for
     natural gas allegedly purchased from defendants.

   * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
     Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in Missouri
     state court alleging violations of Missouri antitrust laws.
     Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS
     MST, are alleged to have violated the Missouri antitrust
     laws.

   * Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co.
     v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought on
     behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in
     Colorado, was filed in Colorado state court in 2006.
     Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS
     MST, are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act
     of 1992. Plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages.

   * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
     Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state
     court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities. The
     defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas
     Company, are alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust
     statute. The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration
     damages, plus exemplary damages and attorneys' fees. After
     dismissal on jurisdictional grounds in 2009, plaintiffs filed
     a new complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
     District of Michigan. In 2010, the MDL judge issued an
     opinion and order granting the CMS Energy defendants' motion
     to dismiss the Michigan complaint on statute-of-limitations
     grounds and all CMS Energy defendants have been dismissed
     from the Arandell (Michigan) action.

   * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
     CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood
     County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
     Company, and others. The plaintiff is seeking full
     consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and
     attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL. CMS Energy was dismissed from the Learjet, Heartland,
and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other CMS Energy defendants
remained parties. All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from
the Breckenridge case in 2009. In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas
Company were dismissed from the Newpage case and the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM. In July 2011, all
claims against remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL cases
were dismissed based on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
preemption.  Appeals are possible, the Company said.

The cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions, the Company added.  Presently, any estimate of
liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's
possible loss would be based on widely varying models previously
untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals is
unfavorable, these cases could have a material adverse impact on
CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition, and results of
operations.


COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Piechur" Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CoinStar, Inc.'s redbox subsidiary continues to defend itself from
a putative class action complaint filed by Laurie Piechur in
Illinois, according to the Company's July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Ms. Piechur, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's redbox subsidiary in
the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleges that, among other things,
redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and other state statutes and is seeking monetary
damages and other relief as appropriate. In November 2009, redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. In February 2010, this court remanded the
case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St.
Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the state court denied
redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and also denied
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit and intend
to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual
had been established as it was not possible to estimate the
possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Trial in Securities Litigation Set for Sept. 9, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Washington district court set September 9, 2013 ,as the trial
date in a consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re
Coinstar, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to CoinStar,
Inc.'s July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On January 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against Coinstar and certain of its officers. The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Five substantially similar complaints were later filed
in the same court. Pursuant to an order of the court dated
March 14, 2011, these six putative class actions were consolidated
as a single action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc. Securities
Litigation. On April 19, 2011, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff and approved
its selection of lead counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed
on June 17, 2011. The Company's motion to dismiss this complaint
was filed on July 15, 2011. The court has set a trial date for
September 9, 2013. This case purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock during the period from October 28, 2010 to February 3, 2011.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws during this period of time by, among other things,
issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's
current and prospective business and financial results. Plaintiffs
claim that, as a result of these alleged wrongs, the Company's
stock price was artificially inflated during the purported class
period. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive
relief. The Company believes that the claims against it are
without merit and it intends to defend itself vigorously in this
matter. Failure by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of
the claims set forth in the complaints could have a material
adverse effect on its business, results of operations and
financial condition. Currently, no accrual had been established as
it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
because this matter had not advanced to a stage where it could
make any such estimate.

                Shareholder Derivative Actions

On March 2 and 10, 2011, shareholder derivative actions were filed
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County),
allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Coinstar, against
certain of its current and former directors and officers. Coinstar
was named as a nominal defendant. On April 12, 2011, the court
consolidated these actions as a single action entitled In re
Coinstar, Inc. Derivative Litigation. A third substantially
similar complaint was later filed in the same court. On April 18,
2011, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On
May 26, 2011, the court consolidated the federal derivative
actions and joined them with the securities class actions,
captioned In re Coinstar Securities Litigation, for pre-trial
proceedings. The derivative plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was
filed on July 15, 2011. The court has set a trial date for
September 9, 2013. The state and federal derivative complaints
arise out of many of the factual allegations at issue in the class
action, and generally allege that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to Coinstar by selling Coinstar
stock while in possession of material non-public information, and
participating in or failing to prevent misrepresentations
regarding redbox expectations, performance, and internal controls.
The complaints seek unspecified damages and equitable relief,
disgorgement of compensation, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses. Because the complaints are derivative in nature, they do
not seek monetary damages from Coinstar. However, Coinstar may be
required to advance the legal fees and costs incurred by the
individual defendants. Currently, no accrual had been established
as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of
loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the
Company could make any such estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Face Consolidated Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CoinStar, Inc.'s redbox subsidiary continues to defend itself from
a consolidated putative class action lawsuit alleging that redbox
violated Video Privacy Protection Act, according to the Company's
July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
plaintiff alleges that redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2710, et seq. A substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk.
Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest. The court has
consolidated the cases, and redbox has moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims. The Company believes that the claims against
it are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in
this matter. Currently, no accrual had been established as it was
not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
because this matter had not advanced to a stage where the Company
could make any such estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Unit Continues to Defend Class Actions in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
CoinStar, Inc.'s redbox subsidiary continues to defend itself from
three separate putative class action lawsuits filed by Michael
Mehrens, John Sinibaldi and Richard Schiff in California,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2011.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's redbox
subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles. The plaintiff alleges that, among other
things, redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 with respect to the collection and recording of consumer
personal identification information, and violated the California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 based on the alleged
violation of Song-Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations
of Song-Beverly and the right to privacy generally, was filed in
March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, by a California resident, John Sinibaldi. A
third similar complaint alleging only a violation of Song-Beverly,
was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, by a California resident, Richard
Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and civil
penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and
interest. Redbox has removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, and the Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. The Sinibaldi case subsequently
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, where the Mehrens case is pending. Redbox
has moved to dismiss each of the three cases. The Company believes
that the claims against it are without merit and intend to defend
itself vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual had been
established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss
or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage
where the Company could make any such estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
redbox and Coin segments.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act in New York, according to the
Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants. Two other putative class actions filed earlier
in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees'
Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-
Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-
Palmolive ERISA Litigation. The complaint in the consolidated
action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not
include a claim for age discrimination. The relief sought includes
recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-
judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. This
action has not been certified as a class action as yet.  The
parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to determine
whether the action can be settled.  The Company and the Plan
intend to contest this action vigorously should the parties be
unable to reach a settlement.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Part of $112.5MM Settlement Balance Due Oct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc., says that, as a result of its receipt
of net proceeds from the redemption of certain auction rate
securities, a portion of the $112.5 million payable under the $165
million settlement agreement for the consolidated shareholder
class action on November 15, 2011, will be payable in cash on or
before October 18, 2011, according to the Company's July 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 14, 2006, CTI announced the creation of a Special
Committee of its Board of Directors composed of outside directors
to review CTI's historic stock option grant practices and related
accounting matters, including, but not limited to, the accuracy of
the stated dates of option grants and whether all proper corporate
procedures were followed.  In November 2006, the Special
Committee's investigation was expanded to other financial and
accounting matters, including the recognition of revenue related
to certain contracts, errors in the recording of certain deferred
tax accounts, the misclassification of certain expenses, the
misuse of accounting reserves and the misstatement of backlog.
The Special Committee issued its report on January 28, 2008.
Following the commencement of the Special Committee's
investigation, CTI, certain of its subsidiaries and some of CTI's
former directors and officers and a current director were named as
defendants in several class and derivative actions, and CTI
commenced direct actions against certain of its former officers
and directors.

           Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture

In July 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed a forfeiture action against
certain accounts of Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, CTI's former Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, that resulted in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District entering an order freezing
approximately $50 million of Mr. Alexander's assets.  In order to
ensure that CTI receives the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts, in July 2007, CTI filed with the U.S. Attorney a
Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture requesting remission of
any funds forfeited by Mr. Alexander.  The United States District
Court entered an order on November 30, 2010, directing that the
assets in such accounts be liquidated and remitted to CTI.  The
process of liquidating such assets has been completed and the
proceeds from the assets in such accounts have been transferred to
a class action settlement fund in conjunction with the settlements
of the Direct Actions, the consolidated shareholder class action
and shareholder derivative actions.  The agreement to settle the
shareholder class action was approved by the court in which such
action was pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to settle the
federal and state derivative actions was approved by the courts in
which such actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and September 23,
2010, respectively.

                    Shareholder Class Action

Beginning on or about April 19, 2006, class action lawsuits were
filed by persons identifying themselves as CTI shareholders,
purportedly on behalf of a class of CTI's shareholders who
purchased its publicly traded securities. Two actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, and three actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On
August 28, 2006, the actions pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. A consolidated amended complaint under the caption In re
Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV- 1825, was filed
by the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Menorah Group, on March 23,
2007. The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf of
a purported class of CTI shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2001 and November 14, 2006.
The complaint named CTI and certain of its former officers and
directors as defendants and alleged, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in connection with prior statements made by CTI with respect to,
among other things, its accounting treatment of stock options. The
action sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.
The parties to this action entered into a settlement agreement on
December 16, 2009, which was amended on June 19, 2010 and approved
by the court in which the action was pending on June 23, 2010.
The Company recorded a charge associated with the settlement
during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007.

                      Settlement Agreements

On December 16, 2009 and December 17, 2009, CTI entered into
agreements to settle the consolidated shareholder class action and
consolidated shareholder derivative actions.  The agreement to
settle the consolidated shareholder class action was amended on
June 19, 2010. Pursuant to the amendment, CTI agreed to waive
certain rights to terminate the settlement in exchange for a
deferral of the timing of scheduled payments of the settlement
consideration and the right to a credit in respect of a portion of
the settlement funds that would have been payable to a class
member that elected not to participate in and be bound by the
settlement. In connection with the settlements, CTI dismissed its
Direct Actions against Jacob Alexander, David Kreinberg, and
William Sorin, who, in turn, dismissed any counterclaims they
filed against CTI.

As part of the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class
action, as amended, CTI agreed to make payments to a class action
settlement fund in the aggregate amount of up to $165.0 million
that were paid or remain payable as follows:

   * $1.0 million that was paid following the signing of the
     settlement agreement in December 2009;

   * $17.9 million that was paid in July 2010 (representing an
     agreed $21.5 million payment less a holdback of $3.6 million
     in respect of the anticipated Opt-out Credit, which holdback
     is required to be paid by CTI if the Opt-out Credit is less);

   * $30.0 million that was paid in May 2011; and

   * $112.5 million (less the amount, if any, by which the Opt-out
     Credit exceeds the holdback) payable on or before
     November 15, 2011.

Of the $112.5 million due on or before November 15, 2011, $30.0
million is payable in cash and the balance is payable in cash or,
at CTI's election, in shares of CTI's common stock valued using
the ten day average of the closing prices of CTI's common stock
prior to such election, provided that CTI's common stock is listed
on a national securities exchange on or before the payment date,
and that the shares delivered at any one time have an aggregate
value of at least $27.5 million. In addition, under the terms of
the settlement agreement, CTI had the right to make the $30.0
million payment made in May 2011 in shares of CTI's common stock
if, prior thereto, CTI had met the conditions to using shares as
payment consideration. CTI, however, did not meet those conditions
and accordingly, made the $30.0 million payment in cash.

If CTI receives net cash proceeds from the sale of certain ARS
held by it in an aggregate amount in excess of $50.0 million, CTI
is required to use $50.0 million of those proceeds to prepay the
settlement amounts and, if CTI receives net cash proceeds from the
sale of the ARS in an aggregate amount in excess of $100.0
million, CTI is required to use an additional $50.0 million of
such proceeds to prepay the settlement amounts.  As of October 31,
2010 and January 31, 2010, CTI had $32.8 million and $17.1 million
of restricted cash received from sales or redemptions of ARS
(including interest thereon) to which these provisions of the
settlement agreement apply, respectively. As a result of certain
redemptions of ARS, through July 20, 2011, CTI had received net
cash proceeds from the sale of certain ARS held by it in an
aggregate amount in excess of $50.0 million and, as a result,
believes it is required to prepay $20.0 million of the remaining
$112.5 million due under the settlement agreement on November 15,
2011 on or before October 18, 2011 (as $30.0 million of such net
proceeds were used to fund the May 2011 payment).

Under the terms of the settlement agreement prior to its
amendment, CTI agreed to (i) exercise the UBS Put on June 30,
2010, (ii) within 48 hours after receipt of payment, pay to the
plaintiff class the proceeds received from all sales of ARS held
in an account with UBS (including as a result of the exercise of
the UBS Put), which payment would reduce the amount of $51.5
million payable on or before August 15, 2010. These provisions
restricted CTI's ability to use proceeds from sales of such ARS
for any purpose other than the payment of such amount due under
the settlement agreement.

As part of the amendment to the settlement agreement, the payment
schedule under the settlement agreement was revised and the
$51.5 million payment due on or before August 15, 2010 was reduced
to $17.9 million (representing an agreed $21.5 million payment
less a holdback of $3.6 million in respect of an anticipated Opt-
Out Credit). Certain applicable provisions of the settlement
agreement remained unchanged by the amendment. Pursuant to the
amendment, CTI continued to be obligated to exercise the UBS Put
on June 30, 2010 but was required to pay only such reduced payment
using the proceeds received from the sales of the ARS held in an
account with UBS, with any additional proceeds to remain with CTI.
UBS purchased approximately $41.6 million in aggregate principal
amount of ARS from CTI prior to June 30, 2010. Effective June 30,
2010, CTI exercised the UBS Put for the balance of $10.0 million
aggregate principal amount of ARS that were subject to the UBS
Put. In July 2010, CTI paid $17.9 million to the plaintiff class
as required under the settlement agreement, as amended.

In addition, CTI granted a security interest for the benefit of
the plaintiff class in the account in which CTI holds its ARS
(other than the ARS that were held in an account with UBS) and the
proceeds from any sales thereof, restricting CTI's ability to use
the proceeds from sales of such ARS until the amounts payable
under the settlement agreement are paid in full. As of October 31,
2010 and January 31, 2010, the Company had $32.8 million and $26.1
million, respectively, of cash proceeds received from sales and
redemptions of ARS (including interest thereon) that were
restricted under the terms of the consolidated shareholder class
action settlement agreement. As of October 31, 2010, all cash
proceeds were classified within "Restricted cash and bank time
deposits." As of January 31, 2010, $9.0 million received from
sales of ARS held with UBS were classified in "Restricted cash and
bank time deposits" and $17.1 million, including interest, were
classified within "Other assets" as long-term restricted cash. As
of April 30, 2011 and January 31, 2011, the Company had $34.0
million and $33.4 million, respectively, of cash received from
sales and redemptions of ARS (including interest thereon) to which
these provisions of the settlement agreement apply which were
classified in "Restricted cash and bank time deposits."

In addition, as part of the settlements of the Direct Actions, the
consolidated shareholder class action and shareholder derivative
actions, Mr. Alexander agreed to pay $60.0 million to CTI to be
deposited into the derivative settlement fund and then transferred
into the class action settlement fund. All amounts payable by Mr.
Alexander have been paid. Also, as part of the settlement of the
shareholder derivative actions, Mr. Alexander transferred to CTI
shares of Starhome B.V. representing 2.5% of its outstanding share
capital.

Pursuant to the amendment, Mr. Alexander agreed to waive certain
rights to terminate the settlement and received the right to a
credit in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that would
have been payable to a class member that elected not to
participate in and be bound by the settlement. CTI's settlement of
claims against it in the class action for aggregate consideration
of up to $165.0 million (less the Opt-out Credit) is not
contingent upon Mr. Alexander satisfying his payment obligations.
Certain other defendants in the Direct Actions and the shareholder
derivative actions have paid or agreed to pay to CTI an aggregate
of $1.4 million and certain former directors agreed to relinquish
certain outstanding unexercised stock options. As part of the
settlement of the shareholder derivative actions, CTI paid, in
October 2010, $9.4 million to cover the legal fees and expenses of
the plaintiffs. In September 2010, CTI received insurance proceeds
of $16.5 million under its directors' and officers' insurance
policies in connection with the settlements of the shareholder
derivative actions and the consolidated shareholder class action.

Under the terms of the settlements, Mr. Alexander and his wife
relinquished their claims to the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts that were subject to the forfeiture action, and the
United States District Court entered an order on November 30, 2010
directing that the assets in such accounts be liquidated and
remitted to CTI. The process of liquidating such assets has been
completed and the proceeds from the assets in such accounts have
been transferred to the class action settlement fund.

The agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action,
as amended, was approved by the court in which the action was
pending on June 23, 2010. The agreement to settle the federal and
state derivative actions was approved by the courts in which such
actions were pending on July 1, 2010 and September 23, 2010,
respectively.

The Company had accrued liabilities for the matter of
$155.8 million and $173.6 million as of October 31, 2010, and
January 31, 2010, respectively, and $146.1 million as of April 30,
2011, and January 31, 2011.

The Company also disclosed that, as a result of CTI's receipt of
net proceeds from the redemption of certain ARS, a portion of the
amount otherwise payable under the settlement agreement for the
consolidated shareholder class action on November 15, 2011, will
be payable in cash on or before October 18, 2011.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Court Drops Securities Claims vs. 2 Ex-Execs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A district court has dismissed claims filed by shareholders
against two of Comverse Technology, Inc.'s former officers,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On September 28, 2010, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the
caption Maverick Fund, L.D.C., et al. v. Comverse Technology,
Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-4436. Plaintiffs allege that they are CTI
shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly traded securities in
2005, 2006 and 2007. The plaintiffs, Maverick Fund, L.D.C. and
certain affiliated investment funds, opted not to participate in
the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class action
entered in 2009.  The complaint names CTI, its former Chief
Executive Officer and certain of its former officers and directors
as defendants and alleges, among other things, violations of
Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and negligent misrepresentation in
connection with prior statements made by CTI with respect to,
among other things, its accounting treatment of stock options,
other accounting practices at CTI and the timeline for CTI to
become current in its periodic reporting obligations. The action
seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in December 2010, and a
hearing on the motion was conducted on March 4, 2011. On July 12,
2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims related to their
purchase of CTI's securities in 2007 and the claims against Andre
Dahan, CTI's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Avi
Aronovitz, CTI's former Interim Chief Financial Officer, and
otherwise denied CTI's motion to dismiss. The Company reserved for
the potential liabilities as if the plaintiffs had not opted-out
and the Company has no information that indicates that any other
amount is probable and estimable at this time.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Israeli Court to Hear "Deutsch" Case in Oct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court has scheduled a preliminary hearing in October
2011 in the case filed by a former employee of a subsidiary of
Comverse Technology, Inc., according to the Company's July 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

CTI and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in
four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly
prevented certain current or former employees from exercising
certain stock options. The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The
Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees. By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases. As of June 30, 2011, the stay has not yet been
lifted.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively. The
Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16,
2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case
Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd. The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court. The Katriel case has been consolidated with the
Katriel case filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number
1334/09) and is subject to the stay.  The Deutsch case has been
scheduled for a preliminary hearing in the Tel Aviv District Court
in October 2011.

The Company says it did not accrue for these matters as the
potential loss is currently not probable or estimable.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Consumer Affairs Legal
Center dba Consumer Affairs Processing Center, of Irvine, stiff
workers for overtime and violates other labor laws, according to a
class action in Orange County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Poyet, et al. v. Consumer Affairs Legal
Center Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2011-00494482 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/29/Irony.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Dente, Esq.
          THE DENTE LAW FIRM
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 550-3475
          E-mail: matt@dentelaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Conrad B. Stephens, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsumeda.com
                  cstephens@robbinsumeda.com

               - and -

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Meredith Matthews, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  mmathews@l-bl-law.com


COSTAR GROUP: Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CoStar Group, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding in
the lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition of LoopNet,
Inc., according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On April 27, 2011, the Company signed a definitive agreement to
acquire LoopNet, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOOP).  The transaction is subject
to customary closing conditions, including antitrust clearance.
The LoopNet stockholders approved the adoption of the merger
agreement with the Company on July 11, 2011.  The Company engaged
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC to act as its financial advisor in
connection with the acquisition.  The Company is obligated to pay
$4.0 million to J.P. Morgan if the acquisition closes.  The
Company currently expects the acquisition to be completed by the
end of 2011.

In May 2011, LoopNet, the Board of Directors of LoopNet and/or the
Company were named as defendants in three purported class action
lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet stockholders challenging
LoopNet's proposed merger with the Company.  The stockholder
actions allege, among other things, that (i) each member of the
LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties to LoopNet and its
stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet to the Company,
(ii) the merger does not maximize value to LoopNet stockholders,
(iii) LoopNet and the Company have made incomplete or materially
misleading disclosures about the proposed transaction and (iv)
LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the LoopNet
Board.  The stockholder actions seek class action certification
and equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation
of the merger.  The parties have stipulated to the consolidation
of the actions, and to permit the filing of a consolidated
complaint.  In June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a
settlement of this litigation, which could result in a loss to the
Company of approximately $100,000.  The proposed settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an
appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the merger
and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court.


DENTSPLY INT'L: "Weinstat" Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit relating to DENTSPLY International Inc.'s
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers remains pending in San Francisco,
California, according to the Company's July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures.  The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for
use in oral surgery.  The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims.  The class that was certified is
defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used
one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of
oral surgical procedures.  The Company filed a motion for
decertification of the class and this motion was granted.
Plaintiffs appealed the decertification of the class to the
California Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed the
decertification decision of the trial Court.  The case has been
remanded to and is pending in the San Francisco County Court and
the plaintiffs have filed a Motion to redefine the class to
include non-surgical periodontal use.  The Company has not yet
responded to this Motion.

As of June 30, 2011, a reasonable estimate of a possible range of
losses related to the litigation cannot be made, the Company said.
DENTSPLY does not believe the outcome of any of these matters will
have a material adverse effect on its financial position.  In the
event that one or more of these matters is unfavorably resolved,
it is possible the Company's results from operations could be
materially impacted.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending in Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
complaint in a putative class action lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania
remains pending, according to the Company's July 28, 2011
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Plaintiffs have filed their motion for class certification to
which the Company has filed its response.  The Company also filed
other motions, including a motion to dismiss the claims of
Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of standing.  The Court
granted this motion for lack of standing of the individuals and
did not allow the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to substitute
their corporate practices, leaving Dr. Goldman as a putative class
representative in Pennsylvania, raising a question of jurisdiction
of the U.S. District Court.  The plaintiffs have filed another
complaint in which they named the corporate practices of
Drs. Hildebrand and Jaffin as class representatives.  The Company
has moved to dismiss this complaint.

As of June 30, 2011, a reasonable estimate of a possible range of
losses related to the litigation cannot be made, the Company said.
DENTSPLY does not believe the outcome of any of these matters will
have a material adverse effect on its financial position.  In the
event that one or more of these matters is unfavorably resolved,
it is possible the Company's results from operations could be
materially impacted.


DEPUY INT'L: South Australians Take Part in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
David Jean, writing for The Advertiser, reports that South
Australians with faulty hip implants are likely to share in
millions should a class action succeed.

South Australians make up a disproportionately large amount of the
700-odd group members Sydney firm Maurice Blackburn is acting on
behalf of, in a case principal Ben Slade says is one of the
"biggest international product liability disasters ever".

DePuy International implants were recalled globally last year and
there have since been many cases reported in which patients
recorded high levels of cobalt and chromium in their blood.

About 14% of those who received a conventional hip replacement
have required revision surgery, along with 11% who had hip
resurfacing surgery.

Mr. Slade predicted a successful case would result in damages
ranging from AU$50,000 to millions, depending on individual cases.

South Australians were the recipients of roughly 1,500 of the
5,500 potentially faulty hips implanted nationally before the
recall.

Many of the implants in this state were carried out at Sportsmed
SA by now-retired surgeon Dr. Roger Oakeshott.

"It is a defective product that in South Australia was
aggressively promoted and sold to hapless victims who deserve some
form of compensation," Mr. Slade said.

Some victims have joined Brisbane-based firm Shine, which will
proceed with a class action to America, while others are
considering individual proceedings.

Mr. Slade said a federal class action in Australia had advantages.

Individuals would have no cost impost from the firm representing
them and any Australian affected by a dodgy DePuy hip would be
represented unless they opted out.

Mr. Slade met a group of victims in Port Lincoln last week.

He has spoken with firms representing about 250 South Australians
so far about the class action.

In May, leading orthopaedic surgeon Professor Ross Crawford --
speaking on the ABC's Four Corners program -- warned that
recipients of metal-on-metal hips may be suffering from blood
poisoning even if their device was not failing.


DPL INC: Continues to Defend Class Suits Over AES Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
DPL, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits related to its merger agreement with The AES Corporation,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

The merger transaction was valued at approximately $3.5 billion
plus the assumption of $1.2 billion of debt.  Upon closing, DPL
will become a wholly owned subsidiary of AES.

Each of the lawsuits seeks, among other things, one or more of the
following: to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Proposed
Merger until certain conditions are met, or to rescind the
Proposed Merger or for rescissory damages, or to recover damages
if the Proposed Merger is consummated or to commence a sale
process and/or obtain an alternative transaction or to promptly
notice an annual shareholder meeting or to recover an unspecified
amount of other damages and costs, including attorneys' fees and
expenses, or a constructive trust or an accounting from the
individual defendants for benefits they allegedly obtained as a
result of their alleged breach of duty or an injunction
specifically preventing DPL from paying a termination fee.

On April 21, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL and each member of
DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants.
The lawsuit is a purported class action filed by Patricia A.
Heinmullter on behalf of herself and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc.
aided and abetted such breach.

On April 25, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a
nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by The Austen Trust is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES aided and abetted such breach.

On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District, Western Division, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants and
naming DPL as a nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Stephen
Kubiak is a purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an
alleged class of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative
action on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the proposed Merger of DPL and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc.
aided and abetted such breach.

On April 26, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants and
naming DPL as a nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Sandra
Meyr is a purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an
alleged class of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative
action on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.  On May 31, 2011, the Court
granted the plaintiff's voluntary motion to dismiss the lawsuit
without prejudice.

On April 27, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's
board of directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a
nominal defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Thomas Strobhar is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of
DPL.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES aided and abetted such breach.

On April 27, 2011, another lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL, each member
of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as
defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Laurence D. Paskowitz is a
purported class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class
of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
DPL's directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.

On April 28, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL and each member of
DPL's board of directors as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by
Payne Family Trust is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the proposed Merger of DPL and AES.

On May 4, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, naming DPL, each
member of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as
defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Patrick Nichting is a purported
class action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of DPL.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On May 6, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming DPL, each member of DPL's board
of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. as defendants.  The
lawsuit filed by Robin Mahaffey, Jerome R. Baxter, and Donald and
Patricia Aydelott is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that DPL and AES aided and abetted such breach.  On June 24,
2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice this
lawsuit.

On May 10, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's board of
directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a nominal
defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Glenda E. Hime, Donald D.
Foreman, Donald Moberly, James Sciarrotta, Barbara H. Sciarrotta,
Robert Krebs and Frances Krebs is a purported class action on
behalf of plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders and
a purported derivative action on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that AES aided and abetted such breach.

On May 20, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, naming DPL,
each member of DPL's board of directors, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc.
as defendants.  The lawsuit filed by Ralph B. Holtmann and
Catherine P. Holtmann is a purported class action on behalf of
plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL shareholders.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the proposed Merger of DPL and AES
and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and abetted such
breach.

On May 24, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Montgomery County, Ohio, naming each member of DPL's board of
directors and AES as defendants and naming DPL as a nominal
defendant.  The lawsuit filed by Maxine Levy is a purported class
action on behalf of plaintiff and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and a purported derivative action on behalf of DPL.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that DPL's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the proposed Merger
of DPL and AES and that AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and
abetted such breach.

On June 13, 2011, the three actions pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio were consolidated.  On
June 14, 2011, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of
Ohio granted Plaintiff Nichting's motion to appoint lead and
liaison counsel.  On June 30, 2011, Plaintiffs in the consolidated
federal action filed an amended complaint that adds claims based
on alleged omissions in the preliminary proxy statement that DPL
filed on June 22, 2011 -- the "Preliminary Proxy Statement".
Plaintiffs, in their individual capacity only, assert a claim
against DPL and its directors under Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported omissions in the
Preliminary Proxy Statement and a claim against DPL's directors
for control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  In addition, Plaintiffs purport to assert state law claims
directly on behalf of Plaintiffs and an alleged class of DPL
shareholders and derivatively on behalf of DPL.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that DPL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement for the
Proposed Merger of DPL and AES and that DPL AES and Dolphin Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted such breach.

A number of other similar putative class action lawsuits by
purported shareholders of DPL on behalf of themselves and other
shareholders of DPL and/or derivative lawsuits by purported
shareholders of DPL on behalf of DPL may be filed in federal or
state court in Ohio.  Such complaints may name as defendants DPL
and its directors and, in certain cases, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc.

The complaints may allege, among other things, that DPL's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders of DPL
in connection with DPL's entry into the proposed Merger with AES
and that DPL, AES and Dolphin Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the
directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duties and that DPL's
proxy statement related to the approval of the proposed Merger
contains misrepresentations and omissions.  The complaints may
seek, among other things, class action status, an order enjoining
the proposed transaction, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and expenses.

DPL is vigorously defending against all of the claims in the
purported class action lawsuits.

DPL Inc. is a diversified regional energy company organized in
1985 under the laws of Ohio.


EBIX INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on behalf of purchasers of Ebix, Inc. common stock during the
period between May 6, 2009, and June 30, 2011.

If you wish to obtain information concerning joining this action
you can do so under the "Join Lawsuit" section of our Web site or
by clicking here: http://www.faruqilaw.com/EBIX

The complaint charges Ebix and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (a) the
Company's internal controls were wholly inadequate in the face of
its torrid acquisition pace and the Company was unable to prepare
materially accurate financial statements for its acquisitions or
on a consolidated basis; (b) the Company's statements about
Organic growth were misleading in that they mischaracterized
purchased contracts as "organic"; (c) the Company's tax provisions
violated generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"); and
(d) the Company materially and improperly inflated the Company's
cash flows and gross margins.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, Ebix stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching its Class Period high of $30.35
per share on March 24, 2011.

On March 24, 2011, Seeking Alpha published a report by Copperfield
Research, titled Ebix: Not a Chinese Fraud, but a House of Cards
Nonetheless detailing the myriad of problems at Ebix.  On this
news, Ebix's stock declined over 23% from a March 24, 2011
intraday, class period high of $30.35 to close that day at $22.52
per share on heavy trading volume.  In addition, on June 30, 2011,
it was disclosed that a former shareholder of a company Ebix
purchased in 2009 had sued the Company, claiming that after Ebix
purchased its accounting systems mismanagement had prevented it
from accurately accounting for an earn-out owed and from paying
certain receivables the former shareholders retained upon sale.
The allegations confirmed several of the points raised in the
March 24, 2011 Seeking Alpha analysis.  On this news Ebix's stock
price fell 9% from an intraday high of $20.93 on June 30, 2011 to
close that day at $19.05 on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and all
other individual and institutional investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ebix common stock between May 6, 2009, and
June 30, 2011, excluding Defendants and their affiliates.

If you purchased Ebix securities during the Class Period, you may,
not later than September 12, 2011, move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  In order to serve as
lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.
If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact:

          Anthony Vozzolo, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue
          10th Floor New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                    (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com


GLOBE ALL WELLNESS: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Diet Pills
--------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that recidivist
abusers of drug laws are selling a diet drug with bogus claims it
is "exclusively from all-natural herbs," though it is
"intentionally spiked" with Sibutramine, a dangerous appetite
suppressant banned by the FDA, according to a class action.

Named plaintiff Catherine Hyde sued Globe All Wellness LLC and its
owner-operators, Alexander Treynker and Eran Hamami, in Broward
County Court.  Neither man has any medical training, the class
says.

Ms. Hyde says that she bought a bottle of SlimXtreme Herbal
Slimming because its label claimed "it was 100 percent natural and
would help her to lose weight."

She says the pills gave her "unpleasant side effects including
dizziness, anxiousness, and severe pain in her groin area."

And it's just one of five products the defendants sell that
contain illegal drugs, Ms. Hyde says.

"This is not Treynker's first rodeo," the complaint states.  "He
is a prolific marketer of 'all natural' 'herbal' dietary
supplements spiked with illegal drugs.  In October 2010, the
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found three of
Treynker's 'all natural' 'sexual enhancement' supplements actually
contained Phentolamine, a prescription drug.  In June 2011, the
FDA found that another of Treynker's 'all natural' 'sexual
enhancement' supplements contained Sildenafil, the prescription
drug that is the active ingredient in Viagra.  The FDA issued
warning letters about these dangerous mislabeled products."

Ms. Hyde says that "Hamami also has a history of marketing 'all
natural' dietary supplements spiked with illegal drugs.  In
June 2011, the FDA found that ViaExtreme Sexual Enhancer for Men,
a 'sexual enhancement' supplement that Hamami marketed with
Treynker through Global Wellness LLC ('Global Wellness') also
contained Sildenafil.

Ms. Hyde adds: "Treynker and Hamami have no education or
experience in any form of medicine, in the development of drugs or
dietary supplements, or in any related field.  So it might be
plausible to conclude that the presence of an illegal drug in an
'all natural' product they 'developed' was accidental, or just due
to their gross incompetence.  That might be plausible if it
happened once.  Maybe twice.  But not five times."

The class claims that Mr. Treynker "uses his collection of limited
liability companies to fraudulently promote the sale of
purportedly 'all natural' supplements intentionally laced with
illegal drugs and conceals the proceeds of that fraud to avoid
liability."

Mr. Treynker formed Global Wellness in August 2007, listing
himself and Mr. Hamami as managers; in August 2009 he formed Globe
All Wellness listing only Mr. Hamami as manager, with the same
address as Global Wellness, according to the complaint.

In September 2009, Mr. Treynker voluntarily dissolved Global
Wellness, leaving Globe All Wellness "in its place and his name
'technically' and conveniently not linked to the company," the
class claims.

Global Wellness is based in Hollywood, Fla.  Mr. Treynker lives in
Boca Raton, Mr. Hamami in Fort Lauderdale, according to the
complaint.

Ms. Hyde seeks class certification and damages for breach of
warranty and unfair and deceptive trade.

Congress has repeatedly refused to rein in the so-called "diet
supplement" industry.

A copy of the Complaint in Hyde v. Treynker, et al., Case No.
11016511 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/29/Skinny.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 206
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 239-0007
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2121 North California Boulevard, Suite 1010
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 482-1515
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com

               - and -

          Barry L. Davis, Esq.
          Daniel R. Lever, Esq.
          THORNTON, DAVIS & FEIN, P.A.
          80 SW Eighth Street, 29th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 446-2646
          E-mail: davis@tdflaw.com
                  lever@tdflaw.com


GOLFSMITH INT'L: Awaits Approval of "O'Flynn" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc., is still awaiting court
approval of its agreement to settle the class action lawsuit
commenced by David O'Flynn, according to the Company's July 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.

On October 23, 2009, David O'Flynn, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the
California Superior Court in Orange County against Golfsmith USA,
LLC asserting denial of meal and rest breaks, failure to timely
pay final wages or commissions and failure to provide itemized
employee wage statements in violation of the California Labor
Code.  During the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company reached an
agreement to settle the O'Flynn claim, subject to court approval.

The Company's provision for estimated losses on this legal action
of $0.2 million, net of insurance, has been recorded in accrued
expenses and other current liabilities as of July 2, 2011.


GOLFSMITH INT'L: Continues to Defend "Leo" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2010, Ed Leo, together with three other plaintiffs,
filed a lawsuit against Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc.,
in the California Superior Court of San Diego County in connection
with a Women's Night promotional event held by the Company on
March 25, 2010.  The plaintiff's claim is based on alleged
violations of the Unruh Act, California legislation which has been
interpreted to prohibit promotional activities that discriminate
on the basis of certain protected classes.

While the plaintiffs in this action have alleged that the Company
engaged in conduct that was discriminatory and actionable, the
Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously contest
the lawsuit. At this time, it is not possible to estimate the
amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any, that might
result from an adverse resolution of this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 2, 2011.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Appeal From Certification Denial Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from the denial of class certification relating to an
antitrust class action against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2005 the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., and its
former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary (now wholly-
owned by Hillenbrand, Inc.), and three national funeral home
businesses.

The district court has dismissed the claims and denied class
certification, but in October 2010, the plaintiffs appealed these
decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  If the plaintiffs were to succeed in reversing the
district court's dismissal of the claims, but not the denial of
class certification, then the plaintiffs would be able to pursue
individual damages claims: the alleged overcharges on the
plaintiffs' individual casket purchases, which would be trebled as
a matter of law, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

If the plaintiffs were to (1) succeed in reversing the district
court's dismissal of the claims, (2) succeed in reversing the
district court order denying class certification and certify a
class, and (3) prevail at trial, then the damages awarded to the
plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have
a significant material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.  The plaintiffs
filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging
from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion
before trebling on behalf of the purported class of consumers they
seek to represent.

Hill-Rom and Hillenbrand, Inc., have entered into a judgment
sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential
liabilities associated with this litigation between the Company
and Hillenbrand, Inc.  The Company believes that it has committed
no wrongdoing as alleged by the plaintiffs and that it has
meritorious defenses to class certification and to plaintiffs'
underlying allegations and damage theories.


HURON CONSULTING: Issued 474,547 Shares of Stock Under Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huron Consulting Group Inc. issued 474,547 shares of its common
stock in June 2011 in fulfillment of its obligation under a
settlement agreement resolving a consolidated class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In August 2009, the SEC commenced an investigation with respect to
the restatement and an investigation into the allocation of time
within a certain practice group.  The Company also conducted a
separate inquiry, in response to the initial inquiry from the SEC,
into the allocation of time within that certain practice group.
This matter had no impact on billings to the Company's clients,
but could have impacted the timing of when revenue was recognized.
Based on the Company's internal inquiry, which is complete, the
Company has concluded that an adjustment to its historical
financial statements is not required with respect to this matter.
The SEC investigations with respect to the restatement and the
allocation of time within a certain practice group are ongoing.
The Company is cooperating fully with the SEC in its
investigations.

In addition, the following purported shareholder class action
complaints were filed in connection with the Company's restatement
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois: (1) a complaint in the matter of Jason Hughes v. Huron
Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren and Gary L. Burge, filed on
August 4, 2009; (2) a complaint in the matter of Dorothy DeAngelis
v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 5,
2009; (3) a complaint in the matter of Noel M. Parsons v. Huron
Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge, Wayne
Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 5, 2009;
(4) a complaint in the matter of Adam Liebman v. Huron Consulting
Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed
on August 5, 2009; (5) a complaint in the matter of Gerald Tobin
v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on August 7, 2009; (6) a
complaint in the matter of Gary Austin v. Huron Consulting Group
Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge and Wayne Lipski, filed on
August 7, 2009; and (7) a complaint in the matter of Thomas Fisher
v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren, Gary L. Burge,
Wayne Lipski and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, filed on September 3,
2009.

On October 6, 2009, plaintiff Thomas Fisher voluntarily dismissed
his complaint.  On November 16, 2009, the remaining lawsuits were
consolidated and the Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement
Fund of Chicago, the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System,
the City of Boston Retirement Board, the Cambridge Retirement
System and the Bristol County Retirement System were appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
on January 29, 2010.  The consolidated complaint asserts claims
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary
Holdren and Gary Burge and claims under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against Gary Holdren, Gary Burge and Wayne Lipski.
The consolidated complaint contends that the Company and the
individual defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results and compliance with
GAAP.  Lead Plaintiffs request that the action be declared a class
action, and seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred in
connection with the action, including attorneys' fees.  On
March 30, 2010, Huron, Gary Burge, Gary Holdren and Wayne Lipski
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On
August 6, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.

On December 6, 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with Lead Plaintiffs to settle the litigation, pursuant to which
the plaintiffs will receive total consideration of approximately
$39.6 million, comprised of $27.0 million in cash and the issuance
by the Company of 474,547 shares of the Company's common stock.
The proposed Class Action Settlement received final Court approval
and the case was terminated on May 6, 2011.  The Settlement Shares
were issued on June 6, 2011.  The settlement contained no
admission of wrongdoing.

The Settlement Shares had an aggregate value of approximately
$12.6 million based on the closing market price of the Company's
common stock on December 31, 2010.  As a result of the Class
Action Settlement, the Company recorded a non-cash charge to
earnings in the fourth quarter of 2010 of $12.6 million
representing the fair value of the Settlement Shares and a
corresponding settlement liability.  During the first six months
of 2011, the Company recorded an additional $1.1 million non-cash
charge related to the Settlement Shares to reflect the change in
fair value of the Settlement Shares through June 6, 2011, the date
of issuance, resulting in a cumulative non-cash charge of $13.7
million.  In accordance with the proposed settlement, in the
fourth quarter of 2010 the Company also recorded a receivable for
the cash portion of the consideration, which was funded into
escrow in its entirety by the Company's insurance carriers in the
first quarter of 2011, and a corresponding settlement liability.
There was no impact to the Company's Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the cash consideration as the Company concluded
that a right of setoff existed in accordance with Accounting
Standards Codification Topic 210-20-45, "Other Presentation
Matters".  The total amount of insurance coverage under the
related policy was $35.0 million, and the insurers had previously
paid out approximately $8.0 million in claims prior to the final
$27.0 million payment.  As a result of the final payment by the
insurance carriers, the Company will not receive any further
contributions from the Company's insurance carriers for the
reimbursement of legal fees expended on the finalization of the
Class Action Settlement or any amounts (including any damages,
settlement costs or legal fees) with respect to the SEC
investigation with respect to the restatement, the USAO's request
for certain documents and the purported private shareholder class
action lawsuit and derivative lawsuits in respect of the
restatement.


IMAX CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Imax Corporation continues to defend itself from a consolidated
amended class action complaint alleging securities fraud,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws.  These eight actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight
class action lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital
Management, Inc. as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On October 2, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.
The amended complaint, brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 27, 2003 and
July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue
recognition of theater system installations, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue
recognition practices.  The amended complaint also added
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as a
defendant.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
costs, and expenses.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 10, 2007.

On September 16, 2008, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and
order, denying the motion. On October 6, 2008, the defendants
filed an answer to the amended complaint.  On October 31, 2008,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Fact
discovery on the merits commenced on November 14, 2008.  On
March 13, 2009, the Court granted a second prospective lead
plaintiff's request to file a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order naming Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the
lead plaintiff and issued an order denying without prejudice
plaintiff's class certification motion pending resolution of the
motion for reconsideration.  On June 29, 2009, the Court granted
the motion for reconsideration and appointed Snow Capital
Investment Partners, L.P. as the lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.
Westchester Capital Management, Inc. appealed this decision, but
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied its
petition on October 1, 2009.  On April 22, 2010, the new lead
plaintiff filed its motion for class certification, defendants
filed their oppositions to the motion on June 10, 2010, and
plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2010.  On December 20, 2010,
the Court denied Snow Capital Investment Partners' motion and
ordered that all applications to be appointed lead plaintiff must
be filed within 20 days of the decision.  Two applications for
lead plaintiff were filed, on January 10, 2011 and January 12,
2011, respectively.  On April 14, 2011, the Court issued an order
appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier
Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.  The merger fund
filed a motion for class certification on June 3, 2011, and on
July 1, 2011, the Company filed its opposition.

The Company is not able to estimate a potential loss exposure at
this time.  The Company will vigorously defend the matter,
although no assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of
such proceedings. The Company's directors and officers insurance
policy provides for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred
in connection with this lawsuit as well as potential damages
awarded, if any, subject to certain policy limits and deductibles.


IMAX CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Imax Corporation continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for alleged
violations of Canadian securities laws, according to the Company's
July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006, in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.  This lawsuit was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between
February 17, 2006 and August 9, 2006.  The lawsuit is in an early
procedural stage and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as costs and expenses.  As a result, the Company
is unable to estimate a potential loss exposure at this time.  For
reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to the
Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding.  These are procedural decisions, and
do not contain any conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to
the factual or legal merits of the claim. Leave to appeal those
decisions was denied.  The Company believes the allegations made
against it in the statement of claim are meritless and will
vigorously defend the matter, although no assurance can be given
with respect to the ultimate outcome of such proceedings.  The
Company's directors and officers insurance policy provides for
reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with
this lawsuit as well as potential damages awarded, if any, subject
to certain policy limits, exclusions and deductibles.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Ottawa Not Liable for Damages in Tobacco Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on July 29
that the federal government cannot be drawn into lawsuits against
tobacco companies and held liable for damages.

The unanimous decision marks a victory for Ottawa in two cases
where it could have been on the hook for potentially billions of
dollars if the tobacco industry loses once the cases proceed.

Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., and a number of other major tobacco
companies were trying to have the Supreme Court declare the
federal government a third party in the cases.  That would have
forced Ottawa to act as a co-defendant.

The July 29 decision covers two appeals from British Columbia's
Court of Appeal and it rejects all of the arguments put forward in
both cases by the tobacco companies.

Imperial Tobacco says it is "disappointed" with the decision.

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that the
federal government is not accountable for its decisions and
actions," said Donald McCarty, Imperial Tobacco Canada's vice-
president of law.  "We nonetheless intend to set the record
straight and believe it is important for the government of Canada
to answer for its long and sustained involvement in the tobacco
industry."

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq issued a statement on July 29
saying the government is pleased Canadian taxpayers will not be
liable for the claims made against tobacco companies.
Ms. Aglukkaq said Canada is considered a world leader in tobacco
control, thanks to a variety of government initiatives to reduce
smoking.

Imperial Tobacco is facing a class-action lawsuit from smokers who
bought so-called light and mild brands of cigarettes and want
their money back.  They argue the levels of tar and nicotine
listed on Imperial's packages did not reflect the actual toxic
emissions from the cigarettes and that the smoke produced from
them was just as harmful as regular cigarettes.

In the other case, British Columbia wants tobacco companies to pay
for the health-care costs associated with smoking-related
illnesses.  The province passed legislation, the Costs Recovery
Act, to allow it to try to hold tobacco companies accountable for
health-care costs.  The B.C. government argues that by 1950, the
companies knew or ought to have known that cigarettes were
hazardous to health and that they failed to warn the public about
the health risks of their products.

                  Provinces Follow B.C.'s Lead

The legal wrangling in the case began 13 years ago, and other
provinces have since followed B.C.'s lead.  All 10 provinces have
now passed legislation similar to the Costs Recovery Act, another
three (Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador) have
initiated court proceedings and Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova
Scotia have said they intend to take legal action against tobacco
companies.  The Ontario case alone could amount to C$50 billion.

Imperial Tobacco and the other companies (including Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., Philip Morris International Inc., and
others) argued that the federal government should be a third party
on several grounds.

They argued the government was negligent in its duties both to
consumers and to the tobacco companies on a number of fronts,
including by telling the public that low-tar cigarettes are less
hazardous than other cigarettes.  It also said the government made
negligent misrepresentations to the tobacco companies about the
low-tar strains of tobacco that the government had designed and
licensed.

"The federal government has known about the risks associated with
smoking for decades and they have instigated and promoted the
development and sale of 'light and mild' products in Canada,"
Mr. McCarty said in the July 29 statement.  "It is astounding that
the government of Canada can step away from its responsibilities
and leave tobacco producers to bear the full brunt of these
allegations, when it has been fully complicit in all aspects of
the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products for decades,"
he said.

The Supreme Court judges agreed that the federal government had a
"duty of care" in some instances, but ruled that Ottawa was acting
in good faith and was following a government policy of encouraging
people who continued to smoke to switch to cigarettes with less
tar.

That policy was developed out of concern for the health of
Canadians and is therefore protected from legal action, the court
decided.

The tobacco companies had asked the Supreme Court to still declare
the federal government a third party even if it decided it wasn't
liable financially, because they wanted Ottawa to be part of the
lawsuits regardless and bound by court rules, including those that
govern the production of evidence.

The Supreme Court rejected that request also, saying the tobacco
companies' ability to mount defenses would not be impeded if the
federal government were not a third party.

             'A Very Bad Day' for Tobacco Companies

Health and anti-smoking advocates were pleased with the blow
delivered to the tobacco industry.

"The tobacco industry received a very significant defeat [Fri]day
at the hands of the Supreme Court," said Rob Cunningham, who
represents the Canadian Cancer Society.  "The tobacco industry has
caused a tobacco epidemic through their wrongful behavior over
many decades and it's the tobacco industry that should pay the
damages."

He and others say the tobacco industry was trying to shift blame
and has been mounting one legal challenge after another to block
the lawsuits against it.

Cynthia Callard, executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free
Canada, said the companies' attempts to draw the federal
government into their cases was viewed as the last major card they
had to play, and they lost.

"I think this has been a very good day for the federal government
and a very bad day for tobacco companies.  But whether or not it's
a good day for the public is yet to be seen," she said.

Had the federal government lost, it would have made it more
difficult for the provinces to take the tobacco companies to
court, she said, because in effect they would then be fighting the
federal government and that is not their intention.

She's relieved Ottawa is off the hook in these cases, she said.
"The federal government getting out of this, the major
significance is that.  . . . the real litigation efforts can
begin," she said.

Ms. Callard is worried, however, about the provinces' cases
against the tobacco companies and says they need to be more open
and transparent about what they intend to achieve with the legal
action.  If it's just to get money, that's not good enough, both
Ms. Callard and Mr. Cunningham say.

"We need some health reforms so that the behavior of the tobacco
industry in the future does not repeat what has occurred in the
past," Mr. Cunningham said.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Still Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
Internap Network Services Corporation is still awaiting a decision
on its motion to dismiss a third amended class action complaint,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its former chief
executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and
Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P.
DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF.  The complaint
alleges that the Company and the individual defendant violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as a "control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring these claims on behalf of a class of the Company's investors
who purchased its common stock between March 28, 2007, and
March 18, 2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream,
which the Company acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and
related credits due to services outages and (c) the Company's
previously reported 2007 revenue that the Company subsequently
reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs assert
that the Company and the individual defendant made these
misstatements and omissions to maintain the Company's share price.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Complaint added a
claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on
alleged misrepresentations in the Company's proxy statement in
connection with its acquisition of VitalStream.  The Amended
Complaint also added the Company's former chief financial officer
as a defendant and lengthened the putative class period.

On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.  With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended
Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs'
one final opportunity to amend the complaint.  On October 26,
2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint, which is currently pending before the Court.


JBI INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of JBI, Inc., between August 28, 2009,
and July 20, 2011, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com

The Complaint charges JBI and certain of the Company's current and
former executive officers with violations of federal securities
laws.  JBI purports to be a domestic alternative oil and gas
company.  In 2009, the Company acquired JavaCo, Inc. from Domark
International, Inc. and also issued 1 million shares of JBI to
Domark in exchange for media credits valued at $9,997,134.  The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew
or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning
JBI's business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading.  Specifically, the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the
media credits acquired by the Company in connection with the
acquisition of JavaCo were substantially overvalued; (2) that the
Company was improperly accounting for acquisitions; (3) that, as
such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 21, 2010, JBI disclosed that its previously issued
financial statements for the 2009 fiscal year and third quarter
should no longer be relied upon due to the accounting treatment
and related disclosures of two acquisitions completed in 2009, and
the valuation of media credits acquired by JBI through the
issuance of common stock.  On this news, shares of JBI declined
$0.65 per share, more than 21%, to close on May 21, 2010, at $2.40
per share, on heavy volume, and further declined $0.80 per share,
more than 33%, to close on May 24, 2010, at $1.60 per share, also
on heavy volume.

On July 20, 2011, JBI disclosed that the staff of the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of
Enforcement issued a "Wells Notice" to JBI indicating that the
staff intended to recommend that the SEC file a civil lawsuit
alleging that the Company violated certain provisions of the
federal securities laws.  JBI indicated its belief that the
proposed lawsuit related to the Company's restated financial
statements for the 2009 fiscal year and third quarter, and that
the staff may also recommend naming one or more current and former
officers of JBI as defendants.  On this news, shares of JBI
declined $0.62 per share, nearly 24%, to close on July 21, 2011,
at $2.00 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.  If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mortgage Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that JPMorgan
Chase cannot toss a class action that claims the bank defrauded
New Jersey residents who applied for the Home Affordable Mortgage
Program, a federal initiative to help homeowners in danger of
defaulting on loans, a federal judge ruled on July 29.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program directed the U.S. Department of
the Treasury to "implement a plan that seeks to maximize
assistance for homeowners," which spawned Making Home Affordable
Program and Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) in February
2009.

Months later, Chase opted into the program through Fannie Mae,
taking part in a plan designed to lower homeowners' monthly
mortgage payments to sustainable levels.

Two New Jersey men, Johny Thomas and Johnny Fields, say they never
got the benefits of the program.

In October 2009, Johny Thomas and his wife (who is not a party to
the lawsuit) say they were struggling on their home mortgage loan,
and requested a HAMP modification.

Later that month, Chase sent them a letter telling them that they
were eligible, but that they should sign up and pay for a trial-
period plan within a month.  Mr. Thomas said he and his wife made
these trial payments for about half a year, until their
application was declined in a letter falsely stating that the
application did not meet an unspecified requirement.

Chase refused to apply several of the payments before foreclosing
on their home on Aug. 2, 2010, Mr. Thomas said.

Johnny Fields applied for a HAMP modification to his mortgage in
December 2009, and he says he made trial payments like his co-
plaintiff.  But Chase eventually declined his application, citing
inadequate documentation, which Fields says he filed.

About a year later, Chase allegedly sent him a notice of intent to
foreclose.

Messrs. Thomas and Fields joined forces in an amended class action
complaint on Feb. 15, charging 10 separate claims.

On July 29, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin booted eight of
them, but ruled that the mega-bank must stand trial for counts of
violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and engaging in
negligent misrepresentation.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately reply to phone
requests for comment.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in Thomas, et al. v. JPMorgan
Chase & Co., Inc., Case No. 10-cv-08993 (S.D.N.Y.), is available
at http://is.gd/Zes3YX

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Preetpal Grewal, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          620 Fifth Avenue
          6th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960

               - and -

          Alexandra Coler Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          106-A South Columbus Street
          Alexandra, VA 22314
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960

               - and -

          Charles Joseph LaDuca, Esq.
          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          Matthew L. Wiener, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960

               - and -

          David Ian Greenberger, Esq.
          Matthew James McDonald, Esq.
          LIDDLE & ROBINSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-8500
          E-mail: dgreenberger@liddlerobinson.com
                  mmcdonald@liddlerobinson.com

               - and -

          Gerald W. Crawford, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Mauro, Esq.
          CRAWFORD QUILTY & MAURO LAW FIRM
          1701 Ruan Center
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 245-5420
          E-mail: crawford@crawfordlawfirm.com
                  mauro@crawfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Gloperud, Esq.
          HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567

               - and -

          Jonathan Minkove, Esq.
          Lawrence John Friscia, Esq.
          FRISCIA & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          17 Academy Street, Penthouse
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 500-8024

               - and -

          Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
          221 Main St., Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: MMcShane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL, NAUEN, P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue S.
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica Kaufman, Esq.
          Jamie A. Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP (NYC)
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 336-4257
          E-mail: jkaufman@mofo.com
                  jlevitt@mofo.com


KB HOME: Sales Staff's Overtime Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Richard Vanderford, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas
federal judge on July 28 dismissed a class action accusing major
homebuilder KB Home of failing to pay thousands of sales staff
members overtime, finding the workers to be legally exempt.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt ruled that sales staff that
worked in KB offices in newly developed subdivisions were legally
"outside sales staff," a group that has long been exempted under
national overtime laws.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: San Mateo County Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Durand, writing for Daily Journal, reports that a New
York federal judge's ruling last week to uphold serious investor
claims in a class action suit against Lehman Brothers executives
is paving the way for a separate lawsuit by San Mateo County which
is largely based on similar contentions, said the county's
attorney.

The county suit has been on hold pending the ruling by Judge Lewis
A. Kaplan of the South District Court of New York that the
investors have sufficiently alleged viable claims and that the
defendants -- Lehman, its executives and auditor Ernst & Young LLP
-- alleged fraud caused them to suffer losses.

"The county's case is based on similar allegations . . . and we
would expect a similar outcome.  The decision is also very
important since discovery can move forward immediately," attorney
Mark Molumphy said in a prepared statement.

Mr. Molumphy did not return a call for further comment about the
time line.

The class action suit claims Lehman misrepresented its financial
condition and used accounting gimmicks to hide losses from its
investors.  One gimmick is the so-called Repo 105 transactions
which are repurchase agreements that allow short-term loans to
appear as sales.  These moves made the firm appear in a stronger
financial state than it really was prior to the September 2008
bankruptcy that rippled throughout the financial world and leeched
hundreds of millions of dollars from investors.

The San Mateo County investment pool lost approximately $155
million for its 1,050 different accounts for cities, agencies,
special districts and school districts.

On Nov. 13, the county via the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre and
McCarthy sued Lehman Chief Executive Richard S. Fuld Jr., former
chief financial officers Christopher M. O'Meara and Erin Callan,
former president Joseph M. Gregory and accounting firm Ernst &
Young.  The suit called the Lehman case "the worst example of the
fraud committed by modern-day robber barons of Wall Street, who
targeted public entities to finance their risky practices and then
paid themselves millions of dollars in compensation while their
companies deteriorated."

The suit was considered the first directly aimed at the company's
executives and served as a template for other jurisdictions
weighing similar legal battles.  Suing the executives specifically
is an argument that high-ranking individuals are to blame rather
than economic conditions.

County officials at the time said the suit was another attempt to
recoup losses aside from seeking compensation through bankruptcy
proceedings and pleading with the U.S. Treasury to make it whole.

The county's complaint demands a jury trial for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of
California law and the federal Securities Act.

The county is also on the end of a different suit stemming from
the Lehman failure.  A collection of 12 county school districts
and the county superintendent of schools is suing San Mateo County
and former treasurer-tax collector Lee Buffington for $20 million
and interest, claiming their faulty investment practices led to
the losses.


LINN ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Royalty Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC, has been named as a defendant in a number of
lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed
royalty payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has
established reserves that management currently believes are
adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its
evaluation of these matters.  For a certain statewide class action
royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been
established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on
the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted
by the court, will result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery in
this dispute is ongoing and is not complete.  As a result, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any.  In addition, the Company is involved in
various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business.
The Company is not currently a party to any litigation or pending
claims that it believes would have a material adverse effect on
its overall business, financial position, results of operations or
liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly impacted in
the reporting periods in which such matters are resolved.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


LIZ CLAIBORNE: Motion to Dismiss "Tyler" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Claiborne, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action complaint
filed by Angela Tyler remains pending in New York, according to
the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2011.

A purported class action complaint captioned Angela Tyler
(individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) v.
Liz Claiborne, Inc, Trudy F. Sullivan and William L. McComb, was
filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District
of New York on April 28, 2009 against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, William L. McComb and Trudy Sullivan, a former
President of the Company. The complaint alleges certain violations
of the federal securities laws, claiming misstatements and
omissions surrounding the Company's wholesale business. The
Company believes that the allegations contained in the complaint
are without merit, and the Company intends to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. The Company moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint on October 4, 2010.


LORILLARD INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Scott" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc.'s principal subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company,
continues to defend itself in the class action lawsuit entitled
Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., according to the
Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In one of the class actions pending against Lorillard Tobacco
Company, Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al. (District
Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), the
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, issued a decision in
April 2010 that modified the trial court's 2008 amended final
judgment. The April 2010 Decision reduced the judgment amount from
approximately $264 million to approximately $242 million to fund a
ten year, court-supervised smoking cessation program. The April
2010 Decision also changed the date on which the award of post-
judgment interest will accrue to July 2008. Interest awarded by
the amended final judgment will continue to accrue from July 2008
until the judgment is paid. As of July 20, 2011, judicial interest
totaled approximately $37.0 million. Lorillard, Inc., which was a
party to the case in the past, is no longer a defendant. Both the
Louisiana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have denied
review of the April 2010 Decision and the case has been returned
to the District Court of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, for payment of
the judgment and implementation of the smoking cessation program.

In 1997, Scott was certified a class action on behalf of certain
cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who desire to
participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation programs
and who began smoking prior to September 1, 1988, or who began
smoking prior to May 24, 1996 and allege that defendants
undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages.

Trial in Scott was heard in two phases. At the conclusion of the
first phase in July 2003, the jury rejected medical monitoring,
the primary relief requested by plaintiffs, and returned
sufficient findings in favor of the class to proceed to a Phase II
trial on plaintiffs' request for a statewide smoking cessation
program. Phase II of the trial, which concluded in May 2004,
resulted in an award of $591 million to fund cessation programs
for Louisiana smokers.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reduced the amount
of the award by approximately $328 million; struck an award of
prejudgment interest, which totaled approximately $440 million as
of December 31, 2006; and limited class membership to individuals
who began smoking by September 1, 1988, and whose claims accrued
by September 1, 1988. In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court
denied plaintiffs' and defendants' separate petitions for review.
In May 2008, U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants' request that it
review the case. The case was returned to the trial court, which
subsequently entered an amended final judgment that ordered the
defendants to pay approximately $264 million to fund the court-
supervised smoking cessation program for the members of the
certified class. The Court of Appeal's April 2010 Decision was an
appeal from this judgment. The April 2010 Decision expressly
preserved defendants' right to assert claims on unspent or surplus
funds, should any such funds be present, at the conclusion of the
ten-year smoking cessation program.

Lorillard Tobacco's share of that judgment, including the award of
post-judgment interest, has not been determined. In the fourth
quarter of 2007, Lorillard, Inc., recorded a pretax provision of
approximately $66 million for this matter which was included in
selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated
statements of income and was reclassified from other liabilities
to accrued liabilities in the second quarter of 2010 on the
consolidated balance sheets.

The parties filed a stipulation in the trial court agreeing that
an article of Louisiana law required that the amount of the bond
for the appeal be set at $50 million for all defendants
collectively. The parties further agreed that the plaintiffs have
full reservations of rights to contest in the trial court the
sufficiency of the bond on any grounds. Defendants collectively
posted a surety bond in the amount of $50 million, of which
Lorillard Tobacco secured 25%, or $12.5 million, which is
classified as restricted cash within other current assets on the
consolidated balance sheet. While Lorillard Tobacco believes the
limitation on the appeal bond amount is valid as required by
Louisiana law, in the event of a successful challenge the amount
of the appeal bond could be set as high as 150% of the judgment
and judicial interest combined. If such an event occurred,
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the appeal bond has not been
determined.


LORILLARD INC: Unit Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco Company,
Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior
Court, San Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), the
California Supreme Court in 2009 vacated an order that had
previously decertified a class and returned Brown to the trial
court for further activity. The trial court has informed the
parties that it believes the class previously certified in Brown
has been reinstated as a result of the California Supreme Court's
ruling. The class, previously certified in Brown, is composed of
residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants'
cigarettes between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001 and who were
exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California. The trial court also has ruled that it will permit
plaintiffs to assert claims regarding the allegedly fraudulent
marketing of "light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes. Lorillard, Inc.
is not a defendant in Brown.

No updates were reported in Lorillard, Inc.'s July 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


LORILLARD INC: Appeal From Judgment in "Cleary" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco Company,
Cleary v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court,
Northern District, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998), a court allowed
plaintiffs to amend their complaint in an existing class action to
assert claims on behalf of a subclass of individuals who purchased
"light" cigarettes from the defendants, but it subsequently
dismissed the "light" cigarettes claims asserted against Lorillard
Tobacco. In June 2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
claims, and it entered final judgment in defendants' favor.
Plaintiffs have noticed an appeal from the final judgment,
including the prior ruling that dismissed plaintiffs' "lights"
claims against Lorillard Tobacco, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit. Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in Cleary.

No updates were reported in Lorillard, Inc.'s July 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


MASCO CORP: Continues to Defend Columbus Drywall Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation continues to defend itself against an antitrust
class action lawsuit filed by insulation installation companies,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

A lawsuit was brought against the Company and a number of its
insulation installation companies alleging that certain of their
practices violated provisions of the federal antitrust laws. The
case was filed in October 2004 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia by Columbus Drywall &
Insulation, Inc., Leo Jones Insulation, Inc., Southland
Insulators, Inc., Southland Insulators of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a
Devere Insulation, Southland Insulators of Delaware LLC d/b/a
Delmarva Insulation, and Whitson Insulation Company of Grand
Rapids, Inc. against the Company, its subsidiaries Masco
Contractors Services Group Corp., Masco Contractor Services
Central, Inc., and Masco Contractor Services East, Inc., and
several insulation manufacturers -- the "Columbus Drywall case".
In February 2009, the court certified a class of 377 insulation
contractors. Another suit was filed in March 2003 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by
Wilson Insulation Company, Wilson Insulation of Augusta, Inc. and
The Wilson Insulation Group, Inc. against the Company, Masco
Contractor Services, Inc., and MCS Central that alleged
anticompetitive conduct. This case has been removed from the
court's active docket. In March 2007, Albert Von Der Werth and
Valerie Good filed suit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, its
subsidiary Masco Contractor Services, and several insulation
manufacturers seeking class action status and alleging
anticompetitive conduct. This case was subsequently transferred to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia and has been administratively stayed by the court. An
additional suit, which was filed in September 2005 and alleged
anticompetitive conduct, was dismissed with prejudice in December
2006.

The Company is vigorously defending the Columbus Drywall case.
Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the Company believes
that the conduct of the Company and its insulation installation
companies, which is the subject of the lawsuits, has not violated
any antitrust laws. The Company is unable at this time to reliably
estimate any potential liability which might occur from an adverse
judgment. There cannot be any assurance that the Company will
ultimately prevail in these lawsuits, or, if unsuccessful, that
the ultimate liability would not be material and would not have a
material adverse effect on its businesses or the methods used by
its insulation installation companies in doing business.


MCKESSON CORP: Obtains Final Okay of "Rodriguez" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 7, 2010, an action was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles against, among
others, McKesson Corporation, its indirect subsidiary, NDCHealth
Corporation ("NDC") and "Relay Health," a trade name under which
NDC conducts business, Rodriguez et al. v. Etreby Computer Company
et al., (Civ. No. BC435303) ("Rodriguez"). The plaintiffs in
Rodriguez purport to represent a class of California residents
whose individual confidential medical information was allegedly
illegally released and used by defendants. Plaintiffs also purport
to bring their claims as a private Attorney General action. The
claims asserted in the complaint against the Company defendants
include negligence, statutory violations and violation of
California Business and Professions Code, Sections 17200 et seq.,
covering unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business acts and
practices. The statutory violations alleged by plaintiffs purport
to arise out of California Civil Code, Sections 56 through 56.37,
also known as the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
("CMIA"). The complaint seeks compensatory and statutory damages
under the CMIA, equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
interest and attorneys' fees and costs, all in unspecified
amounts. On May 10, 2010, defendants removed the action to United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Rodriguez et al. v. Etreby Computer Company et al., (Civil Action
No. CV 10-3522-VBF). On June 10, 2010, the Company and NDC moved
to dismiss the complaint on grounds that it fails to allege the
required element of knowledge by defendants, fails to allege
actual harm to any plaintiff and improperly names certain
defendants, including the Company and RelayHealth. On July 23,
2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds
that plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently plead any of their
causes of action and gave plaintiffs until August 9, 2010 to file
an amended pleading. On December 9, 2010, the parties executed a
settlement agreement which, in consideration of payment by the
Company of a non-material sum, resolves the claims of all class
members who do not affirmatively opt out of the class. On
January 12, 2011, the trial court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, directing notice to the
class and setting a hearing for final approval of the settlement.

The settlement was given final approval by the trial court on
June 30, 2011, fully resolving and terminating this action as to
all defendants, according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.


MEAD JOHNSON: Sept. 26 Enfamil Class Settlement Hearing Still On
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company disclosed in its July 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, that the hearing to consider
final approval of a nationwide class settlement resolving
complaints with respect to Enfamil infant formula remains set for
September 26, 2011.

On March 18, 2011, the Company's subsidiary, Mead Johnson &
Company, LLC, obtained preliminary court approval of a nationwide
class settlement with plaintiffs in eight putative consumer class
actions that had been consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suits all
involved allegations of false and misleading advertising with
respect to certain Enfamil LIPIL infant formula advertising, and
the settlement will resolve all claims in all of the pending
suits. The Court has scheduled a September 26, 2011 hearing to
decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The
settlement allows consumers who purchased Enfamil LIPIL infant
formula between October 13, 2005, and March 31, 2010, to receive
infant formula or cash. The amount each consumer can receive
depends on how long the consumer purchased the formula; consumers
who received their formula through the Women, Infants and Children
(WIC) program are not eligible to participate. If the total amount
claimed falls below $8.0 million (valuing the product at retail
value), MJC will donate the difference in the form of product to
appropriate charities. If the amount of claims otherwise would
exceed $12.0 million, benefits will be prorated. MJC also has
agreed not to oppose attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs'
counsel (not to exceed $3.6 million) and to pay costs of notice
and settlement administration. The Company does not expect the
settlement to have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations or financial condition.

Mead Johnson Nutrition Company or MJN manufactures, distributes
and sells infant formulas, children's nutrition and other
nutritional products.  MJN has a broad product portfolio, which
extends across routine and specialty infant formulas, children's
milks and milk modifiers, pediatric vitamins, dietary supplements
for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, and products for metabolic
disorders.  These products are generally sold to wholesalers and
retailers and are promoted to healthcare professionals, and, where
permitted by regulation and policy, directly to consumers.


MEDCO HEALTH: Being Sold for Too Little, Delaware Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Medco Health
Solutions is selling itself too cheaply to Express Scripts, for
$29.1 billion -- $28.80 and 0.81 of an Express share for each
Medco share.

A copy of the Complaint in Labourer's Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada v. Snow, et al., Case No. 6725 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/29/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine S. Azar, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1225
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-2540
          E-mail: cazar@labaton.com
               - and -

          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Philip C. Smith, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: mstocker@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  psmith@labaton.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xbox LIVE Subscriptions
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff Ryan Graves filed a class action
lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation in the U.S. District Court
in the Western District of Washington.  The lawsuit alleges that
Microsoft improperly charges its Xbox LIVE Gold members for the
automatic renewal of expired Xbox LIVE subscriptions.

According to the complaint, Xbox LIVE Gold is a prepaid
subscription based service.  For the past few years, Microsoft has
automatically renewed members' Xbox LIVE Gold subscriptions once
they expire, using the members' credit cards, debit cards, or
prepaid cards on file in their account.  If members do not
maintain a valid payment method in their account, then Microsoft
cancels the subscription and suspends the members' access to the
service.  If members wish to later sign up for a new subscription,
the complaint alleges, they risk being billed twice by Microsoft
-- once for the new subscription purchased and again to
"automatically" renew the old canceled subscription.

This is precisely what Plaintiff Ryan Graves claims happened to
him.  Mr. Graves did not renew his subscription immediately,
causing it to expire.  A few months later, he signed up for a new
subscription using a new debit card.  It was not until the next
month when he received his bank statement that he realized
Microsoft charged him for two subscriptions instead of one.
Thinking this was a mistake, Mr. Graves contacted Microsoft to
have one of the charges removed. He was told, according to the
complaint, that one charge was for his newly purchased
subscription and the other was to renew his old subscription.
Microsoft would not refund him for the double charge.

"Microsoft cannot just charge a consumer's credit or debit card
whenever it wants without authorization," remarks E. Michelle
Drake, Mr. Grave's attorney.  "Mr. Graves signed up to play games
on his Xbox, not to allow Microsoft to play games with his debit
card."

The class action complaint seeks relief on behalf of Mr. Graves
and other Xbox LIVE Gold members throughout the country, who have
similarly experienced Microsoft's unauthorized charges.  The
complaint asserts that Microsoft breached its contract with
members, was unjustly enriched, committed conversion, and violated
the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

The case is entitled Graves v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:11-cv-01259
(W.D. Wash.).  Plaintiff is represented by Rebekah Bailey and E.
Michelle Drake from Nichols Kaster, PLLP.  Nichols Kaster has
offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California.
Plaintiff is also represented by Beth Terrell of Terrell Marshall
Daudt & Willie, PLLC with offices in Seattle, Washington.
Additional information is located at http://www.NKA.comor may be
obtained by calling Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at
(877) 448-0492.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Final Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Nov. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final approval of a settlement resolving
the class action lawsuit filed by St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Fund against Motorola Solutions, Inc.,
formerly known as Motorola, Inc., is set for November 2, 2011,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 2, 2011.

St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund
Securities Class Action Case and Related Derivative Matter
A purported class action lawsuit, St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company on January 21, 2010, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint was amended on June 11, 2010, and again on December 3,
2010. The alleged class included purchasers of Motorola securities
between October 25, 2007 and January 23, 2008. The complaint
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the
individual defendants, the control person provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act. The primary factual allegations were that
the defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially misleading
statements concerning Motorola's financial projections and sales
demand for Motorola phones during the class period. The complaint
sought unspecified damages and other relief relating to the
purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the
class period. On February 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint in
its entirety with prejudice. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit United States Court of
Appeals. While the appeal was pending, the parties reached a
settlement following mediation with a Court-appointed mediator.
The case was remanded to the District Court for settlement
proceedings. On July 7, 2011, the Court entered an Order
preliminarily approving the settlement. The final approval hearing
is scheduled for November 2, 2011.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend "Silverman" Suit in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Motorola, Inc.,
continues to defend itself against a securities class action
lawsuit entitled Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., according to
the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2011.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006 and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed against the Company
and certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act. The factual assertions in the complaint consist
primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made
incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for
the third and fourth quarter of 2006. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period.
An amended complaint was filed December 20, 2007, and Motorola
moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008. On September 24,
2008, the district court granted this motion in part to dismiss
Section 10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain claims
related to forward looking statements, among other things, and
denied the motion in part. On August 25, 2009, the district court
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On March 10,
2010, the district court granted plaintiffs motion to file a
second amended complaint which adds allegations concerning
Motorola's accounting and disclosures for certain transactions
entered into in the third quarter of 2006. On February 16, 2011,
the district court granted summary judgment to dismiss the
remaining claims as to two individual defendants and the Section
10(b) claim as to a third individual, and denied the motion in
part. On March 21, 2011, Motorola filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the remaining claims against the Company and
other individual defendants. On July 25, 2011, the district court
denied the motion for summary judgment.


NEUROMETRIX INC: No Rehearing on Appeal From Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against NeuroMetrix, Inc., and certain of its
current and former officers.  On March 27, 2008, a related
putative securities class action complaint was filed in the same
court, against the same defendants.  These two actions were
subsequently consolidated, and the court appointed a lead
plaintiff.  On November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed, which alleged, among other things,
that between October 27, 2005, and February 12, 2008, the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by allegedly
making false and misleading statements and failing to disclose
material information to the investing public.  The plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages.  On January 30, 2009, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
the grounds, among others, that it failed to state a claim on
which relief can be granted.  On December 8, 2009, the Court
entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 6,
2010.  Oral arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal were conducted on
September 15, 2010.  On March 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
amended complaint.  On April 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
petition for rehearing en banc with the First Circuit, seeking a
rehearing of their appeal by the full members of the First Circuit
court.  The defendants' response to that petition was filed on
April 25, 2011.  On May 26, 2011, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for a rehearing, according to the Company's July 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The litigation process is inherently uncertain, and the Company
cannot guarantee that the outcome of the lawsuit will be favorable
for the Company or that it will not be material to its business,
results of operations, or financial position.  However, the
Company does not believe that a loss related to this litigation is
probable.  Accordingly, no accrual relating to this matter has
been recorded at June 30, 2011.


NUFARM: Faces Two Investor Class Actions
----------------------------------------
Jared Lynch, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
hundreds of disgruntled investors have registered for a class
action against embattled crop-protection group Nufarm, and lawyers
say the number of claimants could balloon into thousands.

Legal firms Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon have launched
two separate actions, which are seeking to recover losses from
alleged material non-disclosures.

Nufarm managing director Doug Rathbone is accused of repeatedly
misleading investors with optimistic forecasts, they say.

The company has denied any and all allegations of wrongdoing, and
said it will "defend the proceedings vigorously."

Its shares have taken a battering, falling 24.3% since February's
high of AU$5.73 to AU$4.34.

A Maurice Blackburn spokesman said the firm has been instructed by
a range of institutional and retail investors, with hundreds of
claimants registered.

"Maurice Blackburn is continuing to see more investors join as we
approach the hearing date this month," said the spokesman.  "We
could see thousands of investors come forward."

The Maurice Blackburn claim centers on sales of glyphosate, a main
ingredient in Nufarm's weedkillers, which contributes a third of
the company's revenue.

Maurice Blackburn alleges that Nufarm failed to adequately inform
the market of the adverse effect on the profitability of its
business of a falling international glyphosate market between
September 28, 2009, and August 31, 2010.

Nufarm told the market in September 2009 that 2009 glyphosate
write-downs would lead to a profit in 2010.  But a loss of AU$28.4
million in glyphosate stocks between August and December 2009 was
not announced until March the following year, the Maurice
Blackburn claim alleged.

Slater & Gordon alleges Nufarm "did not have reasonable grounds"
for a forecast of an operating profit of AU$110 million to AU$130
million for 2009-10, made by Mr. Rathbone at a March 2010
extraordinary general meeting and repeated at Nufarm's half-year
results presentation on March 30, and on April 20, when it raised
AU$250 million in new shares.

The Maurice Blackburn spokesman said a hearing was set for this
week at the Federal Court in Sydney to combine the two separate
actions.  Registrations will close on August 7.


ONLINE TRAVEL COS: Faces Class Action Over Room Rental Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Caddie Nath, writing for Summit Daily News, reports that the Town
of Breckenridge filed a class-action lawsuit on July 25 against
more than 20 online travel companies, claiming the agencies failed
to pay the full lodging and sales taxes owed to the town for rooms
the sites have sold to visitors over the last 10 or more years.

Breckenridge holds the companies, with the launch of a "merchant
model" sales tactic in the early 2000s, began purchasing rooms
from local hotels and then selling them to customers at higher
rates, but have failed to pay sales and lodging taxes to the town
government on the difference in price, according to a complaint
filed in district court last week.

"If a unit is sold to the online travel companies at a certain
rate, let's say $100," Breckenridge town manager Tim Gagen said,
"And they mark that unit up to say $125 to the person who rents
it, they have not been paying (taxes) for the $25 increase."

Estimates of what is owed to the town due to the practice,
including penalties and interest, exceed $1 million.

The online travel companies likely charge customers the full taxes
owed on the final price of the room, in the form of bundled taxes
and fees, but do not remit the dollars to municipalities,
according to Trey Rogers, a partner at Rothberger, Johnson & Lyons
LLP -- trogers@rothgerber.com -- the law firm in Denver
representing Breckenridge in the suit.

"Often the amount charged to customers approximates the full
amount of sales and lodging taxes due on the retail price," he
said.  "But based on the information that the online travel
companies provide to the customer, it's typically not possible to
tell exactly the breakout of the charges.  In essence, we do think
they're collecting the tax and then not remitting it."

The suit names such online giants as Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz,
Hotwire, Hotels.com and Priceline.  Attempts to call Expedia and
Orbitz on July 28 were unsuccessful.  Representatives of Hotwire
declined to comment.

Breckenridge is leading what officials say could be a charge of as
many as 80 home-ruled municipalities in Colorado, which may sign
on to the suit.

"Right now Breckenridge is the only name on the suit," Mr. Gagen
said. "But the other CAST communities and a number of other
(municipalities) have been looking at it and expressing interest
in getting involved.  We would expect substantial interest from a
number of places in Colorado once information is given to them on
how they get involved."

The lawsuit follows on the coattails of a similar issue last year
regarding vacation rentals by owner, many of which were found to
be rented out without the owner remitting the required lodging
taxes to the town.

Breckenridge isn't the first to take on the online travel
companies in court.  Local governments were successful in a
similar case that went to a jury in San Antonio in 2009.

"It was an absolute win for the municipalities," Mr. Rogers said.

A similar suit is under way in Georgia as well.

Denver is also going through an administrative hearing to
challenge the remittance of sales and lodging taxes by online
travel companies.

By national estimates, one in every seven room rentals is booked
through an online travel agency, Mr. Gagen said.  Breckenridge is
home to approximately 3,500 rental accommodation units.

Breck charges a 3.4 percent accommodations tax on all overnight
room rentals.

Mr. Roger's firm was expected to serve the online travel companies
as early as last week, at which point, they'd have approximately a
month to answer, either by admitting or denying each of the
allegations in the suit or by filing a motion to dismiss.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal in "Lane" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement in the class action
lawsuit commenced by Sean Lane remains pending, according to
Overstock.com, Inc.'s July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On August 12, 2008, the Company along with seven other defendants,
were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other
individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a
class action lawsuit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law.  The complaint relates to the
Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and
provided to the Company by Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon
provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data
among their Facebook friends.  The parties extended by agreement
the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer,
and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated
settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case
without requirement of financial contribution from the Company.
On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
court accepted the proposed settlement.  Various parties objecting
to the settlement have appealed and their appeal is now pending.

The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have
been asserted against the Company has been described.  However, no
estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Hines" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit commenced by Cynthia Hines,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On March 10, 2009, the Company was sued in a class action filed in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.
Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach
of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws.
The Plaintiff alleges the Company failed to properly disclose the
Company's returns policy to her and that the Company improperly
imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that
the Company's agreement with its customers requires all such
actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively,
the Company asked that the case be transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, so that
arbitration may be compelled in that district.  On September 8,
2009, the motion to dismiss or transfer was denied, the court
stating that the Company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient
under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to
arbitrate disputes in Utah.  On October 8, 2009, the Company filed
a Notice of Appeal of the court's ruling.  The appeal was denied.
On December 31, 2010, Hines filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of
contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer
protection statute and various other state consumer protection
statutes.  The amended complaint also asks for an injunction.

The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have
been asserted against the Company has been described.  However, no
estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.  The lawsuit is
in final discovery stages.  The Company filed motions to dismiss
and to decertify the class.  The court has not ruled on these
motions.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this
action.


REPUBLIC BANCORP: Unit Faces Suit in Florida Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Republic Bancorp, Inc., is defending itself from a
putative class action filed by Brenda Webb in Florida, according
to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2011.

On July 19, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District for Florida styled Brenda
Webb vs. Republic Bank & Trust Company d/b/a Republic Bank, Civil
Action No. 2:11-cv-00405-JES-SPC.  The complaint was brought as a
putative class action and seeks monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory relief allegedly arising from RB&T's assessment and
collection of overdraft fees.  Management is evaluating the claims
of this lawsuit and is unable to estimate the possible loss or
range of possible loss, if any, that may result from this lawsuit.
RB&T intends to vigorously defend this case.


REVLON INC: "Garofalo" Plaintiff Intends to File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits pending in Delaware, according to the Company's July 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange
offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to
stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews
& Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for
the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock
tendered in the Exchange Offer. On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009,
May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009, respectively, four purported class
actions were filed by each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri
Lefkowitz and T. Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware. On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was
filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New
York County. Each such lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc.,
Revlon, Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and
challenged a merger proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on
April 13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes
and certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s
outstanding Common Stock (in lieu of consummating such merger
proposal, the Company consummated the aforementioned Exchange
Offer). Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed merger transaction. On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court
consolidated the four Delaware actions, and appointed lead counsel
for plaintiffs. As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in
principle was reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action,
as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding.

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants
should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange for the
Exchange Offer information regarding the Company's financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009. On
January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in
the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint. Revlon initially believed
that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the Initial
Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement
Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon,
Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews &
Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed
in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman. Also on December 21, 2009,
a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery Court
against Revlon, Inc.'s current directors and a former director by
Lawrence Corneck. The Gutman and Corneck actions make allegations
similar to those in the amended complaints in the Sullivan action
and the Initial Consolidated Action. On January 15, 2010, the
Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and Corneck actions with
the Initial Consolidated Action. A briefing schedule was then set
to determine the leadership structure for plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. Thereafter, newly appointed
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action and the
defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their motion
to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits discovery
would proceed. Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of the
concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part of
the Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have
disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009. Merits discovery is proceeding in the
Consolidated Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former
director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law
claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer
to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's
financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.
The plaintiff in this action advised defendants that he intends to
file an amended complaint by July 29, 2011. Otherwise, defendants
and plaintiff have agreed to stay proceedings in this action,
including any response to the amended complaint, until October 31,
2011, to permit plaintiff to participate in the merits discovery
in the Consolidated Action. A similar agreement has been reached
with the plaintiff in the Sullivan action to stay that action
until August 15, 2011.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions are seeking, among other
things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of
such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of each such plaintiff's attorneys and experts.  The
Company believes the allegations contained in the amended Sullivan
complaint, the amended complaint in the Consolidated Action, and
the Garofalo complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them.

Revlon, Inc. -- http://www.revlon.com/-- is a worldwide
cosmetics, hair color, beauty tools, fragrances, skincare, anti-
perspirant deodorants and beauty care products company.  The
company's vision is glamour, excitement and innovation through
high-quality products at affordable prices.  The Company's
brands, which are sold worldwide, include Revlon(R), Almay(R),
ColorSilk(R), Mitchum(R), Charlie(R), Gatineau(R) and Ultima
II(R).


SEOCHO, KOREA: May Face Class Action Over Landslides
----------------------------------------------------
Lee Hyo-sik, writing for Korea Times, reports that residents of a
heavily-hit neighborhood of southern Seoul plan to file a class
action suit against the district office for failing to properly
warn them of the possible landslides on Mt. Umyeon on July 27,
which killed 18 and injured a dozen others.

The landslides also destroyed homes, buildings, vehicles and other
property in the areas surrounding the mountain.

Arguing that Seocho District Office neglected its duty by ignoring
a landslide warning issued by the Korea Forest Service years ago,
residents insisted the district office did not take the necessary
precautionary measures to deal with landslides and other natural
disasters.  The office also paid no attention to the clean-up
efforts.

A 55-year-old resident living in the Art Hill apartment complex in
Bangbae-dong, where three residents lost their lives due to the
landslides, told Yonhap that apartment residents will form an ad-
hoc committee soon in order to file a lawsuit against the district
office.

"Seocho office and Seoul city keep blaming the unexpected
torrential rain for the fatal landslides.  But we think it is a
man-made disaster.  We will consult with experts and secure proof
that the city government could have prevented what happened if it
had planned proper preventative measures and managed risk
factors," he said.

In a village near Mt. Umyeon, where four people were killed, a
group of residents also intends to take the matter to the court,
arguing if the district office had taken appropriate steps to deal
with the heavy rainfall and rein in reckless development, the
landslides could have been prevented.

Criticism for lack of foresight and poor management has put the
Seocho District Office under a negative spotlight since July 27.

Gangnam and other district offices in Seoul had issued warnings.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeals Certification of "Garcia" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is appealing the certification
of a class action lawsuit alleging improper burial practices in
Florida, according to the Company's July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris
Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland
Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., was
filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No.
04-25646 CA 32. Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent,
Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in
March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial
Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual
claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia.
Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping, spacing issues
and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to
purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the
decedent could not be readily located. Subsequently, the
decedent's grave was located and verified. In July 2006,
plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of
all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be
located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps,
and surveys at the cemetery. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third
amended class action complaint and added two additional named
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. On May 4,
2011, the trial court certified a class and the Company is
appealing that ruling.

The Company notes that it cannot quantify its ultimate liability,
if any, for the payment of any damages.

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services with revenues of about
$2.2 billion in the year ended December 31, 2010.  At December 31,
2010, the company operated a network of 1,405 funeral service
locations and 381 cemeteries across the US, Canada, and Puerto
Rico.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeal From Claims Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal filed by plaintiffs of an antitrust lawsuit against
Service Corporation International in Texas remains pending,
according to the Company's July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

The Company is named as a defendant in an antitrust case filed in
2005. The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394; Funeral Consumers
Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas - Houston. This was a purported class action on behalf of
casket consumers throughout the United States alleging that the
Company and several other companies involved in the funeral
industry violated federal antitrust laws and state consumer laws
by engaging in various anti-competitive conduct associated with
the sale of caskets. Based on the case proceeding as a class
action, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the
damages sought from all defendants range from approximately $950
million to $1.5 billion, before trebling. However, the trial court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class
action.

The Company denies that it engaged in anticompetitive practices
related to its casket sales, and have filed reports of its own
experts, which vigorously dispute the validity of the plaintiffs'
damages theories and calculations. The trial court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims on September 24, 2010, and the plaintiffs filed
an appeal on October 19, 2010.

The Company notes that it cannot quantify its ultimate liability,
if any, in this lawsuit.

Service Corporation International is North America's largest
provider of deathcare products and services with revenues of about
$2.2 billion in the year ended December 31, 2010.  At December 31,
2010, the company operated a network of 1,405 funeral service
locations and 381 cemeteries across the US, Canada, and Puerto
Rico.


SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over W.G. Krummrich Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. continues to defend lawsuits relating to its W.G.
Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois, according to the Company's
July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, against Solutia,
Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants alleging
the contamination of the plaintiff's property from PCBs, dioxins,
furans and other hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including the
Company's W.G. Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).  The proposed
class action is comprised of residents who live within a two-mile
radius of the Sauget facilities.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with
remediation and removal of contaminants from their property.  This
action is one of several lawsuits (primarily filed by the same
plaintiffs' counsel) over the past year regarding alleged
historical contamination from the W.G. Krummrich site.

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

Upon assessment of the terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement
and other defenses available to it, the Company believes the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to it on the Putnam County,
West Virginia; Escambia County, Florida; and St. Clair County,
Illinois and related litigation against it is remote and,
accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.
Nonetheless, if it were subsequently determined these matters are
not within the meaning of Legacy Tort Claims, as defined in the
Monsanto Settlement Agreement, or other defenses to the Company
were unsuccessful, it is reasonably possible the Company would be
liable for an amount which cannot be estimated but which could
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


SOLUTIA INC: Unit Dismissed in West Virginia Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Solutia Inc. was dismissed from a class action
lawsuit pending in West Virginia, according to the Company's
July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia, against the
Company's subsidiary Flexsys, Pharmacia, Monsanto and Akzo Nobel
(Solutia is not a named defendant) alleging exposure to dioxin
from Flexsys' Nitro, West Virginia facility, which is now closed.
The relevant production activities at the facility occurred during
Pharmacia's ownership and operation of the facility and well prior
to the creation of the Flexsys joint venture between Pharmacia
(whose interest was subsequently transferred to the Company in the
Solutia Spinoff) and Akzo Nobel.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages for loss of property value, medical monitoring and other
equitable relief.  On May 27, 2011, the West Virginia circuit
court entered summary judgment in favor of Flexsys in the class
action litigation, and dismissed Flexsys with prejudice from the
case.  Specifically, the court held that plaintiffs had presented
no evidence of contamination or distribution of dioxin by Flexsys
during its ownership of the Nitro facility.

Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo
Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in
approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was
named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court
jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County,
West Virginia.  The largely identical complaints allege that the
residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin
particles from the Nitro facility.  Plaintiffs did not specify the
amount of their alleged damages in their complaints.  In 2009,
over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were filed by
individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which named
Solutia and Flexsys as defendants, and one additional complaint
was filed in January 2011.

The claims in this matter concern alleged conduct occurring while
Flexsys was a joint venture between the Company and Akzo Nobel,
and any potential damages in these cases would be evenly
apportioned between the Company and Akzo Nobel to the extent such
claims are determined not to be Legacy Tort Claims.

Upon assessment of the terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement
and other defenses available to it, the Company believes the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to it on the Putnam County,
West Virginia; Escambia County, Florida; and St. Clair County,
Illinois and related litigation against it is remote and,
accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.
Nonetheless, if it were subsequently determined these matters are
not within the meaning of Legacy Tort Claims, as defined in the
Monsanto Settlement Agreement, or other defenses to the Company
were unsuccessful, it is reasonably possible the Company would be
liable for an amount which cannot be estimated but which could
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
statements.


STRYKER CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2010, a purported class action lawsuit against Stryker
Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2007 and November 13,
2008, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. In May 2010 the lawsuit was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan Southern Division. The Company is defending itself
vigorously.

No updates were reported in the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.


SUPERVALU INC: Wisc. Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in IOS D&O Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against SUPERVALU INC. and other companies remains
stayed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin pending the result of the criminal prosecution of
certain former officers of one of the defendants, according to the
Company's July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 18, 2011.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC,
Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc., Carolina
Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the United States
District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The
Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all
proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the
criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. Although
this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the
litigation process, based on the information presently available
to the Company, management does not expect that the ultimate
resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

SUPERVALU INC.'s business is classified into retail food and
independent business formerly supply chain services.


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend C&S Transaction Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERVALU INC. continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit arising from its sale of certain assets to
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., and its acquisition of certain assets
in Minnesota, according to the Company's July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 18, 2011.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. was a conspiracy to
restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the
Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The Company is vigorously
defending these lawsuits.

SUPERVALU INC.'s business is classified into retail food and
independent business formerly supply chain services.


TELENAV INC: Reaches Preliminary Settlement of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2011, TeleNav Inc. reached a preliminary settlement with
plaintiffs to settle federal securities law claims in a civil
class action lawsuit related to TeleNav's Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with its initial public
offering. The preliminary settlement is subject to a definitive
agreement and final approval of the court and is not expected to
have an adverse impact to TeleNav's financial results or cash
flow.

No further details were disclosed in the Company's July 28, 2011,
press release.


TIME WARNER: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in "Fink" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the class
action lawsuit commenced by Jessica Fink and Brett Noia, et al.,
remains pending, according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On September 17, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett
Noia, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint
in a purported class action in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that the Company uses a
throttling technique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a
user's high-speed data service.  Plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.  On September 25, 2009, TWC moved for summary judgment in
this action, which is pending.


TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Calzada" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in Calzada, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable LLC, filed a purported class action in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company recorded
phone calls with plaintiffs without notice in violation of
provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Unfair
Business Practices Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages, injunctive relief,
restitution and attorneys' fees.  On April 2, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in this action that, among other
things, omitted the unfair business practices claim and removed
two of the three named plaintiffs.

Time Warner Cable Inc. intends to defend against the lawsuit
vigorously, according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Antitrust MDL
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the antitrust multidistrict litigation in New York
against Time Warner Cable Inc. has appealed the dismissal of their
third amended complaint, according to the Company's July 28, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television
Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the United States.  These
actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order
transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 26, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class action
complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging that the
Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various
state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade practices
statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television services
to the leasing of set-top converters boxes.  The plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages
and an injunction to cease such alleged practices.  On September
30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011.  On June 17,
2011, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Seek Review of "Brantley" Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Brantley, et al., v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al.,
filed a petition for en banc review of a ruling reaffirming a
district court's termination of their lawsuit against Time Warner
Cable Inc., according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company.  The complaint, which also
named as defendants several other cable and satellite providers
(collectively, the "distributor defendants") as well as
programming content providers (collectively, the "programmer
defendants"), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  Among other things, the complaint alleged
coordination between and among the programmer defendants to sell
and/or license programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributor
defendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming to
subscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or "a
la carte") basis.  Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a purported
nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, are seeking,
among other things, unspecified treble monetary damages and an
injunction to compel the offering of channels to subscribers on an
"a la carte" basis.  On December 3, 2007, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in this action that, among other things, dropped
the Section 2 claims and all allegations of horizontal
coordination.  On October 15, 2009, the district court granted
with prejudice a motion by the distributor defendants and the
programmer defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended
complaint, terminating the action.  On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs
appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit and, on June 3, 2011, the court reaffirmed the district
court's decision.  On July 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition
for en banc review.

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


TIME WARNER: Swinegar Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc.,
are seeking reconsideration of an order granting Time Warner
Cable Inc.'s summary judgment motion, according to the Company's
July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action,
alleging that the Company provided to and charged plaintiffs for
equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in violation
of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 (the "Cable Act") against "negative option
billing" and that such violation was an unlawful act or practice
under California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL").  Plaintiffs
are seeking restitution under the UCL and attorneys' fees.  On
February 23, 2009, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, and on July 29, 2010, the
court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment.  On
October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition for a declaratory
ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC")
requesting that the FCC determine whether the Company's general
ordering process complies with the Cable Act's "negative option
billing" restriction.

On March 1, 2011, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling that
informed consent is adequate to satisfy the requirements under the
Cable Act.  On March 29, 2011, the Los Angeles County Superior
Court vacated its prior summary judgment ruling and, on May 12,
2011, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment.
On June 13, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
the decision.

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


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in ADT Dealer Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling dismissing plaintiffs' claims in a
class action related to ADT Worldwide and Fire Protection Services
segment's dealer practices remains pending, according to Tyco
International Ltd.'s July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24,
2011.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that ADT had charged to its authorized dealers upon
purchasing customer accounts. The investigation related to
accounting practices employed by the Company's former management,
which were discontinued in 2003. Although the Company settled with
the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and related parties
have filed lawsuits against the Company in the United States and
in other countries, including a class action lawsuit filed in the
District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, alleging breach of
contract and other claims related to ADT's decision to terminate
certain authorized dealers in 2002 and 2003. In February 2010, the
Court granted a directed verdict in ADT's favor dismissing a
number of the plaintiffs' key claims. The plaintiffs have appealed
this verdict. While it is not possible at this time to predict the
final outcome of these lawsuits, the Company does not believe
these claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


UNITED STATES: Settles PSTD Lifetime Disability Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Jenna
Greene, more than two thousand veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan who were denied disability benefits for their post-
traumatic stress disorder will receive lifetime coverage -- the
result of a class action settlement with the federal government,
the National Veterans Legal Services Program announced on July 29.

Represented pro bono by lawyers from the D.C. office of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, as well as in-house counsel working for free from
Hewlett-Packard Co. and Pfizer Inc., the veterans served between
2003 and 2008.

"For more than a thousand military families, [Fri]day's settlement
brings some well-deserved peace of mind," said James Kelley II,
lead partner for the team at Morgan Lewis, which also included
Brad Fagg and Charles Groppe.  "We are gratified that the
government will finally make good on its promise to meet the
healthcare needs of these veterans and their loved ones."

The veterans filed their complaint in the Court of Federal Claims
in December 2008, and in 2009, the court certified it as a class,
with 2,161 soldiers opting in.  The members were found by a
physical evaluation board to be unfit for continued service due,
at least in part, to post-traumatic stress disorder, but were
assigned a disability rating of less than 50% -- the rating that
entitles a veteran to disability retirement benefits.

The settlement entitles the veterans to:

    * Lifetime military disability retirement payments retroactive
to the date of discharge.

    * Eligibility to apply for Combat-Related Special Compensation
(which may increase the veteran's monthly disability payments
further).

    * Lifetime military healthcare (TriCare) for the veteran, his
or her spouse, as well as their children until at least age 18.

    * Lifetime commissary and military post exchange privileges.

    * Eligibility to purchase life insurance coverage through the
Survivor Benefit Plan.

    * Reimbursement for expenses paid for the medical treatment of
the veteran, the veteran's spouse, and the veteran's minor
children, from the date of the veteran's separation from military
service.

The settlement must still be approved by the court.

Barton Stichman and Amy Fletcher represented the National Veterans
Legal Services Program.

Bryant Snee and Douglas Mickle of the Justice Department
represented the government, as did Jacob Wolf of the Military
Personnel Branch Army Litigation Division, John Goehring of the
Air Force General Litigation Division, and Kathleen Kadlac of the
Office of the Judge Advocate General.


UNITIL CORP: Unit Expects Decision on Mass. Class Suit This Fall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation's wholly-owned subsidiary, Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company, expects a decision in the fall of 2011 on
the class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, according to the
Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
January 7, 2009 in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric
Light Company. On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed in
Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg. The Amended
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December, 2008. The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 Ice Storm. On September 4, 2009, the Superior
Court issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. The Company
anticipates that the court will decide whether the lawsuit is
appropriate for class action treatment in the fall of 2011. The
Company continues to believe the suit is without merit and will
defend itself vigorously.


VARIAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Merger-Related Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc., is facing a class
action lawsuit arising from its proposed merger with Applied
Materials, Inc., according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 1, 2011.

On May 3, 2011, the Company entered into a definitive Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Applied Materials, Inc., under which
Applied agreed to acquire Varian for $63 per share in cash for a
total price of approximately $4.9 billion on a fully-diluted
basis.  The closing of the acquisition is subject to customary
conditions, including approval by Varian's shareholders and review
by U.S. and international regulators.  At the completion of the
merger, the Company would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Applied.

On July 21, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported stockholder of the Company in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "LMPERS Action").
The complaint filed in the LMPERS Action names the Company, the
members of the board of directors of the Company, Applied and
Barcelona Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Applied,
as defendants.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the pending merger with Applied is the product of a flawed process
and that the consideration to be paid to the Company's
stockholders in the merger is unfair and inadequate.  The
complaint further alleges, among other things, that the members of
the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things, failing to maximize the value of the
Company to its stockholders, taking actions designed to deter
higher offers from other potential acquirers, and failing to
disclose all material information that would permit the Company's
stockholders to cast a fully informed vote on the merger.  In
addition, the complaint alleges that the Company and Applied aided
and abetted the actions of the Company's board members in
breaching their fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief: (i) class certification; (ii) declaratory relief;
(iii) an order rescinding the merger agreement; (iv) an injunction
preventing consummation of the merger; (v) imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff class; (vi)
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses; and (vii) such other
relief as the courts might find just and proper.

The Company says that an adverse judgment in the lawsuit may
prevent the Merger from becoming effective or from becoming
effective within the expected timeframe.  If the plaintiff
succeeds in obtaining an injunction requiring further disclosure
in advance of the August 11, 2011 special shareholder meeting or
prohibiting the parties from completing the Merger on the terms
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the injunction may prevent
the completion of the Merger in the expected timeframe or
altogether.

The Company, however, believes the lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the litigation.  The Company
cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if
any, of the potential liability of this matter; however, the
Company does not believe that the outcome of this lawsuit will
have a material adverse effect on its financial position.


VATICAN: Victims of Pedophile Priests to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Agenzia Giornalistica Italia reports that a few dozen Belgian
victims of pedophile priests are to bring a class action against
Belgian bishops, those responsible for the Catholic Church in
Belgium and the Vatican.  The case will be heard in court on
September 16 as announced by the leader of the group's legal team,
Christine Mussche, who was speaking to the Flemish language daily
newspaper De Morgen.  Of the about 80 victims initially ready to
take part in this class action, some have withdrawn.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications, Inc., is still awaiting a decision
regarding an appeal from the dismissal of class action lawsuits
concerning its alleged participation in intelligence-gathering
activities, according to the Company's July 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Verizon Communications Inc. (Verizon), and a number of other
telecommunications companies, have been the subject of multiple
class action suits concerning its alleged participation in
intelligence-gathering activities allegedly carried out by the
federal government, at the direction of the President of the
United States, as part of the government's post-September 11
program to prevent terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs generally allege
that Verizon has participated by permitting the government to gain
access to the content of its subscribers' telephone calls and/or
records concerning those calls and that such action violates
federal and/or state constitutional and statutory law. Relief
sought in the cases includes injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
and statutory and punitive damages. On August 9, 2006, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) ordered that
these actions be transferred, consolidated and coordinated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
Panel subsequently ordered that a number of "tag along" actions
also be transferred to the Northern District of California.
Verizon believes that these lawsuits are without merit. On
July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the FISA Amendments
Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of these suits by the
court based on submission by the Attorney General of the United
States of a specified certification. On September 19, 2008, the
Attorney General made such a submission in the consolidated
proceedings. Based on this submission, the court ordered dismissal
of the complaints on June 3, 2009. Plaintiffs have appealed this
dismissal, and the appeal remains pending in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


VIEWPOINT FINANCIAL: FLSA Suit Set for Mediation This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, ViewPoint Financial Group, Inc., was named in a
class action lawsuit alleging that the Company, its wholly owned
subsidiary, ViewPoint Bank, and ViewPoint Bankers Mortgage, Inc.,
doing business as ViewPoint Mortgage improperly classified VPM's
mortgage loan officers as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and thereby failed to properly compensate them for
overtime. To date, six former employees have opted in to the class
action, including the two named plaintiffs. The litigation is
presently set for mediation in August 2011. At June 30, 2011, the
Company had recorded a $225,000 pending litigation liability in
connection with this lawsuit, according to the Company's July 28,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending in Columbia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit relating to Waste Management Holdings,
Inc.'s Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans remains
pending in a district court in Columbia, according to Waste
Management, Inc.'s July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In April 2002, certain former participants in the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act plans of Waste Management Holdings,
Inc., 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 attempts to increase the recovery of
a class of ERISA plan participants on behalf of the plan 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, the litigation against WM in
Texas that was settled in 2002, as well as the decision to offer
WM common stock as an investment option within the plan beginning
in 1990, despite alleged knowledge by at least two members of the
investment committee of financial misstatement by WM during the
relevant time period.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain
claims against individual defendants, including all claims against
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Recently, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the
settlement of the securities class action against WM that was
settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of
participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually. After initially asserting broader claims as to the
plan, the plaintiffs now purport to file their complaint on behalf
of plan participants who invested in WM common stock during a time
frame ended February 24, 1998. The lawsuit now names as defendants
WM Holdings; the members of WM Holdings' Board of Directors prior
to July 1998; the administrative and investments committees of the
plan; and State Street Bank & Trust, the trustee and investment
manager of the WM common stock fund available within the plan.
Robert Simpson, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, is a named
defendant in this action by virtue of his membership on the plan
investment committee. The Company said the outcome of this lawsuit
cannot be predicted with certainty, and these matters could impact
the plan's net assets available for benefits. The plan and other
defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in this
litigation.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Court Okays Settlement of Calif. Labor Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has approved a settlement of two coordinated
class action lawsuits alleging violations of the state's wage and
hour laws, according to Waste Management, Inc.'s July 28, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Two separate wage and hour lawsuits were commenced in October 2006
and March 2007 that are pending against certain of the Company's
subsidiaries in California, each seeking class certification. The
actions were coordinated to proceed in San Diego County Superior
Court. Both lawsuits make the same general allegations that the
Company's subsidiaries 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. The Company has executed a settlement agreement in
connection with this matter. Following a hearing on July 15, 2011,
the Court executed an order approving the class action settlement
and judgment. The Company anticipates all the details with respect
to the settlement will be resolved and finally approved this fall.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend Alabama Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit pending in Alabama relating to alleged improper
disclosure of the Company's fuel and environmental charges to its
customers, according to the Company's July 28, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

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 United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama. This suit pertains to the
Company's fuel and environmental charge in its customer service
agreements and generally alleges that those charges were not
properly disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to contract.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss that was partially granted
during the third quarter of 2010, resulting in dismissal of the
plaintiffs' Rackeeter Influenced and Corrupt Organizations and
national class action claims. The Company denies all of the claims
asserted in this action and intends to continue to oppose class
certification and will vigorously defend these matters. Given the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the ultimate outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted at this time, nor can possible
damages, if any, be reasonably estimated.


WIVENHOE DAM: Flood Victims Await Inquiry Interim Report
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosanne Barrett, writing for The Australian, reports that flood
victims "holding fire" on legal action over losses suffered during
southeast Queensland's floods were eagerly awaiting the August 1
release of the floods inquiry interim report.

Potential class action suits against the operators of the Wivenhoe
Dam are being actively considered by insurers, businesses and
residents inundated in the January floods in a bid to recoup some
of the AU$5 billion in losses suffered in Brisbane and Ipswich.

Brisbane-based support group Flood Affected Businesses and
Householders is actively discussing legal options on behalf of its
growing membership base amid serious concern over the dam
operators' handling of the floods.

Organizer Ken Madsen, a Rocklea industrial real estate agent, will
be examining the interim report closely to determine if the group
of 120 could proceed to a class action.

"We'll explore all avenues available to us and ensure an outcome
is achieved through whatever legal means possible," he said.

"People are doing very well in pushing through, but . . . the
pressure will just keep mounting as the spare cash that people
might have just gets whittled away."

Any hope of a legal action will depend on whether the commission
finds that the dam's operators breached any part of the dam
manual.

A legally binding operating manual and absolute adherence to its
procedures offers indemnity to dam operators from the threatened
legal action over damage caused by the flood.


WYETH INC: Accused of Monopolizing Effexor XR Market
----------------------------------------------------
Medical Mutual of Ohio, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. Wyeth, Inc. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No.
4:11-cv-03704 (N.D. Calif., July 27, 2011) is brought to recover
damages against the Defendants arising from the manufacture and
sale of their Effexor XR, which is an encapsulated extended
release version of the compound venlafaxine hydrochloride used to
treat depression, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety
disorder and panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia in
adults.

The Plaintiff asserts that the action is brought on behalf of all
consumers and third-party payers in the United States of America
and its territories that purchased Effexor XR or its AB-rated
generic equivalents during the period June 14, 2008, through and
until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct
cease.

MMO is a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Ohio.  MMO and its members were, and are, consumers and
third-party payers for Effexor XR during the Class Period and were
injured and continued to be injured by the Defendants' unlawful
conduct, the lawsuit contends.  MMO also alleges that it paid for
the medicine in certain than it would have absent the Defendants'
unlawful monopolization and scheme to prevent generic entry.

Wyeth Inc. and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals are corporations organized
and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware.  As of
October 2009, Wyeth is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          Daniel E. Barenbaum, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6282
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  tseaver@bermandevalerio.com
                  dbarenbaum@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Pamela B. Slate, Esq.
          Clinton C. Carter, Esq.
          Matthew D. Shaddrix, Esq.
          SLATE CARTER COMER PLLC
          One Commerce Street, Suite 850
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 262-3300
          Facsimile: (334) 262-3301
          E-mail: pslate@slatecartercomer.com
                  ccarter@slatecartercomer.com
                  mshaddrix@slatecartercomer.com

               - and -

          Mark M. Sandmann, Esq.
          GIBSON & SHARPS
          9420 Bunsen Parkway, Suite 250
          Louisville, KY 40220
          Telephone: (502) 214-8605
          Facsimile: (502) 214-1064
          E-mail: mms@gibsonsharps.com


YOURTRAVELBIZ.COM: 7th Cir. Revives Pyramid Scheme Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit revived pyramid
scheme allegations in a federal class action against a Web site
whose customers sell each other the right to act as travel
agencies.

Illinois-based YourTravelBiz.com, commonly called YTB, offers
training and a Web site from which users can sell their travel
packages in exchange for a base fee and percentage of each sale.

A class action sought $5 million in damages for more than 100
individuals nationwide who have participated in YTB's at-home
travel-agency program.

YTB sells its own travel packages, but they do not represent a
substantial portion of revenue.  The class claimed that YTB relies
on its users to bring more potential "travel agents" to the site,
creating more selling opportunities for users.

"The defendant corporations have taken over half a billion dollars
from their unsophisticated customers, selling them on the dream of
cheap travel and million dollar pay-outs when the only way that
plaintiffs and their class could make a net profit was by
recruiting others to join the illegal pyramid scheme," the
complaint stated.

The business model can only deliver profits to users if other
persons continue to join the site, in violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, the class claims.

"While over half of the its customers received no travel
commissions at all, the directors of YTB International, Inc. each
paid themselves multi-million dollar salaries while also siphoning
tens of millions of dollars from their publicly traded corporation
to privately owned corporations that they owned and controlled,"
the class claimed.

But U.S. District Judge Patrick Murphy declined to rule on whether
YTB constituted a pyramid scheme.  Judge Murphy first ruled that
YTB's transactions with residents of states other than Illinois
fall outside of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and dismissed
those plaintiffs.  He then dismissed the suit, determining that
the controversy belonged in state court since there were no out-
of-state defendants.

A three-judge panel reversed, ruling that the two-step process was
improper for determining jurisdiction.

"Although the district judge many times wrote that the non-
Illinois plaintiffs lack 'standing,' the word is not an accurate
description of what the court held," Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook
wrote.

Judge Murphy's decision is more accurately described as a ruling
on the merits, which found that the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
does not apply to customers outside of Illinois.

But this determination was also a misstep, the court held.  Since
the out-of-state plaintiffs had been injured, they had standing.
And since their injury occurred in Illinois, they could be
included in a federal class action under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act.  Whether the class should be certified under Illinois
law remains a decision for the District Court.

"If we can't say that the complaint and answer contain enough to
point unerringly to Illinois law, we can say that the complaint
does not defeat application of Illinois law," Judge Easterbrook
wrote, remanding the case to Murphy for further proceedings.

A copy of the decision in Morrison, et al. v. YTB International,
Inc., et al., No. 10-2529 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/A11FFPXR.pdf


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Accused of Making False Statements in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoo Entertainment, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit in Ohio
alleging that it made false material statements, according to the
Company's July 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On July 22, 2011, Bruce E. Ricker, individually and on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of the Company from May 17,
2010, through April 15, 2011, filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.  The complaint alleges that the Company, Mark Seremet, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, and David Fremed, the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, knowingly or recklessly violated the
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false material statements or failing to
disclose material information in order to make statements not
misleading in connection with certain financial statements of the
Company.  The defendants and their counsel have not had an
opportunity to thoroughly review the class action complaint.

On July 28, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing
its receipt of the class action complaint.


                            *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *