---

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

             Thursday, August 4, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 153

                             Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend CO2 Public Nuisance Claims
APPLE: 27,800 Koreans Take Part in Privacy Breach Class Action
ARIZONA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Medicare Liens
BOIRON INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Coldcalm Class Action
CHINA SECURITY: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware

CHOICE MANUFACTURING: Misleads Consumers in Calif., Suit Says
CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Remain Pending
CINTAS CORP: Obtained Final Approval of "Veliz" Suit Settlement
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Merger-Related Suits Finally Settled
CRYOLIFE INC: Cardiogenesis Merger-Related Suits Remain Pending

E.I. DUPONT: Parker Waichman Files Two Class Actions in Iowa
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
ENERGY FUTURE: "Comer II" Suit Seeks Class Certification
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Continues to Defend Overdraft Litigation
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Continues to Defend 365/360 Interest Litigation

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Aug. 15 Settlement Hearing Set in Schneider Suit
FULL TILT: Poker Players' Class Action Deadline Looms
J.B. HUNT: Proceedings in Calif. Drivers' Class Suit Still Stayed
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Class Action Legal Fees Expected to Grow
MORGAN LEE: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois

MORGAN STANLEY: Partial Settlement Reached in Derivatives Suit
NCR CORP: Makes $3 Million Settlement Payment in Second Quarter
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend MDL on Fuel Surcharges
NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Ill.
NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ill.

OWENS & MINOR: Received $4.6-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Payment
POTTSTOWN, PA: Seeks to Dismiss Property Inspection Class Action
PRINCETON REVIEW: Sept. 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SERVIDYNE INC: Faces Two Merger-Related Class Suits in Georgia
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Ex-Loan Officer Files Overtime Class Action

U.S. BANK: 9th Cir. Revives Post-Repossession Class Action
VISA INC: Final Hearing on "Marenco" Suit Settlement Set Nov. 28
VISA INC: Sept. 12, 2012 Trial Date Likely for Interchange Suit
VISA INC: Now Facing Two Merchant Class Actions in Canada
WASHINGTON, DC: Settles 2005 Mass Arrest Class Action

WIVENHOE DAM: Flood Victims Mull Class Action
XCEL ENERGY: Continues to Defend 2nd CO2 Class Suit in Mississippi
ZEON CHEMICALS: Aug. 15 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set




                             *********

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Continues to Defend CO2 Public Nuisance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a class action complaint asserting Carbon Dioxide Public
Nuisance Claims, according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch
of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims.  The court granted petitions
for rehearing.  An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the
court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the
panel decision.  The petition was denied in January 2011.
Plaintiffs refiled their complaint in federal district court.
Management believes the claims are without merit, and in addition
to other defenses, are barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations.  Management
intends to vigorously defend against the claims.  Management is
unable to determine a range of potential losses that are
reasonably possible of occurring.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, American Electric Power Company,
Inc. generates, transmits, and distributes electric power in
Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.


APPLE: 27,800 Koreans Take Part in Privacy Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Ji-hyun, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that more than
27,800 Koreans have signed up to file a class action lawsuit
against Apple Korea for breach of privacy to pave the way for a
legal battle that may cost the company as much as KRW27 billion
won ($25.5 million).

Miraelaw law firm, which will be representing the plaintiffs, said
the official figure as of midnight, July 31 stood at 27,802.

When considering that there are about 3 million iPhone users in
Korea, about 1 percent of them have participated to file the class
action suit.

If the plaintiffs are victorious, Apple Korea will have to fork
over up to KRW27 billion ($25.5 million) as the law firm plans to
seek KRW1 million of compensation for every individual who
participated in the suit.

Miraelaw said it plans to file the suit against Apple Korea by the
middle of this month at the latest.  The firm is also considering
sending lawyers to Apple Inc.'s headquarters in California.

A lawyer of Miraelaw on June 15 became the first Korean to win a
ruling against Apple when the Changwon District Court ordered the
electronics company to pay him KRW1 million ($925) for collecting
his location log without consent.

Apple paid Kim Hyeong-seok the money, but it now will have more to
pay due to the ensuing threat of a class action suit.

The problem of location information first came to light earlier
this year when computer expert Alasdair Allan revealed that iPhone
keeps track of where the user goes and saves the related details
in servers to be stored for up to a year or more.

Miraelaw claims that this violates domestic laws on privacy.

Industry watchers added that the overwhelming enthusiasm for
pursuing the class action suit -- as witnessed when the sign-up
Web site crashed several times due to the number of visitors --
was not only about the location issue, but the overall sense of
discontent Korean users have toward Apple.

Even though there are more than 3 million iPhone users, Apple does
not operate direct, off-line stores here.

The company also faces complaints from users who complain of
frequent glitches and failures in their iPhones and have had to
replace them multiple times with refurbished ones.

Many Web sites devoted to making their case against Apple for
these problems have been set up in Korea since the iPhones first
debuted here in late 2009.


ARIZONA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Medicare Liens
-------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that Arizona is
using its Medicaid program unconstitutionally to place liens
against recipients of medical care benefits, according to a state
class action.

The class claims Arizona made "erroneous, false, mistaken and/or
fraudulent statements and representations of fact and law" to
Medicaid recipients, including that the state may "assert a lien
and collect monies from all funds a recipient recovers against a
third-party, without any limitations or restrictions."

Arizona calls its Medicaid program the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System.  It serves 1 million to 1.5 million Arizonans,
"of which a significant number of recipients are citizens who
receive acute and continuing medical care," according to the
complaint in Maricopa County Court.

Under federal law, AHCCCS's right of limited recovery "can only be
asserted against the third-party that may have caused the harm
giving rise to the payment of medical treatment," according to the
complaint.

But the state told Medicaid recipients that it was entitled to "a
portion of all sums a recipient has collected or may collect from
a third-party tortfeasor, without any limitations or
restrictions," according to the complaint.

AHCCCS is limited under federal law to recovery of money paid for
medical services "based upon a discrete formula applied to a
discrete portion of the funds a recipient may obtain from a third-
party tortfeasor," the class claims.

But they say that AHCCCS "obtained and retained money that should
have been paid over to the plaintiffs" when it collected a
percentage of the insured parties' "third-party recovery without
drawing any mathematical distinction between the sums recovered
for past medical expenses and sums recovered for all other
losses."  Federal law prevents the program from pursuing recovery
against its recipients, the three named plaintiffs say.

Lead plaintiff Ashleigh Turner-Justice says that class members did
not know that money had wrongfully been taken from them because
AHCCCS "concealed the facts giving rise to these causes of action
in the past, and it continues to do so presently, by making
representations that it is entitled to assert a lien against sums
of money recovered by the plaintiffs from third-parties to which
it is not entitled to make a claim."

The class includes "Medicaid recipients who have paid the
defendant sums in excess of what the defendant is entitled to
recover and/or recipients who are currently being requested to pay
sums in excess of what the defendant is entitled to recover via
the law, and that the conduct of the defendant AHCCCS had
prevented these plaintiffs from learning of facts that would cause
them to know that they had suffered a cognizable injury."

Turner-Justice says AHCCCS demanded that she reimburse it "the
full amount of money it paid for medial expenses to date" after it
learned she received a financial settlement from a third-party
after spinal cord injury.

The class seeks declaratory judgment, compensatory damages and
costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Turner-Justice, et al. v. Arizona
Health Care Cost Containment System Administration, et al.,
Case No. CV2011-055280 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/01/MedLiens.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry E. Cohen, Esq.
          Jo Ann Niemi, Esq.
          ANAPOL SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM
          8700 E. Vista Bonita Drive, Suite 228
          Scottsdale, AZ 85255
          Telephone: (480) 515-4745
          E-mail: ME@anapolschwartz.com


BOIRON INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Coldcalm Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to toss a class action against the makers of
allegedly useless homeopathic cold medicine made from plants,
insects, metals and poison.

Lead plaintiff Gina Delarosa sued Boiron Inc., the maker of
Children's Coldcalm homeopathic tablets, for fraud and unfair
competition in California's Central District Court.

Ms. Delarosa said the tablets, which advertises "relief from
sneezing, runny nose, nasal congestion, sinus pain, headaches and
sore throat," didn't work.

Boiron moved for a judgment on the pleadings, saying federal law
pre-empted Ms. Delarosa's claims.

U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker disagreed.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's (FDCA) definition of
"drug" includes homeopathic remedies like Coldcalm, but the Food
and Drug Administration does not "vouch for, or even investigate,
homeopathic drugs' safety and efficacy," Judge Tucker wrote.

Prior cases cited by Boiron also failed to convince the judge
since she found that they dealt with nonhomeopathic drugs
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

"Indeed, under defendant's arguments, defendant could state that
Coldcalm would relieve symptoms of allergies, lessen headaches and
back pain, improve a person's visage, and eliminate the occurrence
of body odor, regardless of whether the drug did any of these
things, without violating the FDCA," Judge Tucker wrote.

"This would create the perverse effect that Coldcalm would not
violate the FDCA if it set forth indications for use that were
false, but it would violate the FDCA if it was completely
ineffective, yet did not contain an indication for use."

Judge Tucker also found that Ms. Delarosa made her fraud claims
with "sufficient specificity."

A copy of the Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings in Delarosa v. Boiron, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01569 (C.D.
Calif.), is available at:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/01/8-10-cv-01569-JST-CW.pdf


CHINA SECURITY: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie commenced a class action lawsuit on July 21, 2011,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf
of all persons who hold shares of China Security & Surveillance
Technology, Inc. against CSR and its board of directors for
violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition
of CSR by Rightmark Holdings Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Guoshen Tu, CSR's Chairman and CEO for $6.50 per CSR share.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Acquisition, defendants filed a
materially misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement, which omitted
and/or misrepresented information that CSR shareholders would find
material in making an informed decision as to whether or not to
vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition.  The complaint further
alleges that certain of the defendants breached, or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 1, 2011.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice, please
contact Richard Acocelli or Joshua Rubin of Weiss & Lurie at 888-
593-4771, via our Web site or by e-mail at info@weisslurie.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

Weiss & Lurie has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties.  If you have information or would like legal advice
concerning possible corporate wrongdoing, consumer fraud, or anti-
trust violations, please e-mail us at info@weisslurie.com or fill
out the form on our Web site,
http://www.weisslurie.com/contact/report_fraud/

Contact: Richard Acocelli, Esq.
         Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
         Weiss & Lurie
         1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: 212-682-3025
         E-mail: info@weisslurie.com
         Web site: http://www.weisslurie.com


CHOICE MANUFACTURING: Misleads Consumers in Calif., Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Sanders, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. The Choice Manufacturing Company, Inc., a
New Jersey Corporation; NRRM, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability
Company, d/b/a Stop Repair Bills.com, f/k/a National Dealer
Warranty; and Does 3 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVMSC11-
00571 (Calif. Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty., May 19, 2011) is a
civil action seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
damages, and restitution resulting from the Defendants' creation,
institution and implementation of a common and illegal scheme to
illegally advertise, promote, market, sell, guarantee, and
administer automobile insurance policies in the state of
California.

Specifically, Mr. Sanders alleges that the Defendants' business
misleads consumers into believing that the Defendants are selling,
and acting as obligors under, extended vehicle warranties that
purport to cover the repair or replacement costs of the consumer's
vehicle in the event of certain operational or structural
failures.  However, he contends, what Defendants are offering is
not what consumers are in fact receiving, and to the contrary,
rather than an extended vehicle warranty, the Defendants are
selling, without a license, "snake oil warranties" -- lubricants,
treatments, fluids or additives that are poured into a vehicle, at
which time the maker of the additive product warrants its
obligation to repair or replace specified parts that break or
malfunction.

Mr. Sanders is a resident of Contra Costa County, California.
During the relevant Class Period, he purchased a policy from NRRM,
under which Choice was the obligor, and the terms of which he
believed required Choice to cover, whether through indemnification
or reimbursement, the repair or replacement costs of his vehicle
in the event of certain operational or structural failures.

NRRM is a Missouri limited liability company.  NRRM is engaged in
the business of, among other things, advertising, marketing, and
selling policies throughout the United States, including the state
of California.  Choice is a New Jersey corporation and is in the
business of, among other things, acting as an obligor under,
administering, and guaranteeing the Policies throughout the United
States, including the state of California.  The Plaintiff is
unaware of the true names, capacities, or basis for liability of
the Doe Defendants.

Choice removed the action on July 28, 2011, from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.  Choice removes the action on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-03725 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, APC
          75 Iron Point Circle, Ste. 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michelle C. Doolin, Esq.
          Mazda K. Antia, Esq.
          Kraig D. Jennett, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: mdoolin@cooley.com
                  mantia@cooley.com
                  kjennett@cooley.com


CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano),
filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The
Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women
in hiring into various service sales representative positions
across all divisions of Cintas. On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies. On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court in
the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor
of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the Serrano
lawsuit to female applicants for service sales representative
positions at Cintas locations within the state of Michigan.
Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants for service
sales representative positions outside of the state of Michigan
were dismissed. Similarly, any claims brought by the EEOC on
behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of the
state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit.

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit,
Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which
was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division. The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that
Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and
Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative
positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United
States. The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies. The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the
lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.

On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-American, Hispanic
and female failure to hire into service sales representative
positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division. The consolidated case was known as Mirna E.
Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Serrano/Avalos). On March 31, 2009, the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an
order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in the
Serrano/Avalos lawsuits. Following denial of class certification,
the Court permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs
to proceed separately. In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed the
remaining claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in that
case after the denial of class certification.

On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all
similarly situated plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice
of appeal of the District Court's summary judgment order in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The
Appellate Court has made no determination regarding the merits of
Davis' appeal. In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed
all private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the
13 individuals it claimed to represent. The EEOC has appealed the
District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other
rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit. The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the EEOC's
appeal, according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2011.


CINTAS CORP: Obtained Final Approval of "Veliz" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Veliz), filed
on March 19, 2003, in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California, Oakland Division, alleging that Cintas
violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable
to its service sales representatives, whom Cintas considers exempt
employees, and asserting additional related ERISA claims. On
April 5, 2004 and February 14, 2006, the Court stayed the claims
of all plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements pending
arbitration of those claims. Claims made in the Veliz action,
therefore, are pending before the United States District Court,
Northern District of California and Judge Bruce Meyerson (Ret.),
an Arbitrator selected by the parties. On August 5, 2009, the
parties in the Veliz action reached a settlement in principle.
That settlement was granted preliminary approval by the District
Court. The pre-tax impact, net of insurance proceeds, was $19.5
million in fiscal 2010. Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
Cintas paid $22.8 million on December 17, 2010. On June 3, 2011,
the Court granted final approval of the settlement. According to
the terms of the settlement agreement, Cintas will pay the
remaining settlement funds to satisfy the future income tax
liabilities of the class members as they receive their respective
shares of the settlement funds. The balance of the settlement
funds will be used to pay the fees and expenses of the settlement
administrator, according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2011.


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Merger-Related Suits Finally Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits related to Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.'s
merger with The Coca-Cola Company have been settled and dismissed,
and the matter is now closed, according to the Company's July 29,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2011.

On October 2, 2010, The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC) acquired Coca-
Cola Enterprises Inc. (Legacy CCE) through a merger (the Merger)
of a newly created TCCC subsidiary with and into Legacy CCE, with
Legacy CCE continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of TCCC. Immediately prior to the Merger, Legacy
CCE separated its European operations and transferred those
businesses, along with Coca-Cola Enterprises (Canada) Bottling
Finance Company and a related portion of its corporate segment, to
a new legal entity, International CCE Inc., which was renamed
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.

In connection with the Merger, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, and five putative class action lawsuits were filed in
Delaware Chancery Court. The lawsuits were similar and asserted
claims on behalf of Legacy CCE's shareowners for various breaches
of fiduciary duty in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits
named Legacy CCE, the Legacy CCE Board of Directors, and TCCC as
defendants; the Company assumed Legacy CCE's obligations in
connection with these lawsuits upon consummation of the Merger.
Plaintiffs in each case sought to enjoin the transaction, to
declare the deal void and rescind the transaction, to require
disgorgement of all profits the defendants receive from the
transaction, and to recover damages, attorneys' fees, and
litigation expenses. Prior to consummation of the Merger, the
parties had agreed in principle to a settlement of these cases,
which was subject to approval by the Georgia court. At the final
settlement approval hearing on June 8, 2011, the Georgia court
entered an Order and Final Judgment approving a settlement,
certifying the class of plaintiffs, and approving an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount
of $4.8 million. Per the Agreement, the liability for these
attorneys' fees and expenses was to be shared equally between the
Company and TCCC. On June 14, 2011, the Delaware court entered a
Notice and Order of Voluntary Dismissal of the Delaware
consolidated cases. In June 2011, the Company paid to plaintiffs'
counsel its equal share of the attorneys' fees totaling
approximately $2.4 million. This matter is now closed.


CRYOLIFE INC: Cardiogenesis Merger-Related Suits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action lawsuits over CryoLife, Inc.'s merger
agreement with Cardiogenesis Corporation remain pending in a
California court, according to the Company's July 29, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In conjunction with the announcement by CryoLife of its entering
into a Merger Agreement with Cardiogenesis Corporation, on
April 7, 2011 two plaintiffs filed purported class actions against
Cardiogenesis, its directors, and CryoLife and CryoLife's
subsidiary CL Falcon, Inc. in connection with the proposed offer
and merger.  These suits were filed in California Superior Court
for Orange County and alleged that the defendants breached and
aided and abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to
Cardiogenesis by seeking to sell Cardiogenesis through an
allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair
terms.  The suits sought various equitable relief that would delay
or enjoin the merger based on allegations regarding the process by
which offers or potential offers were evaluated by Cardiogenesis,
as well as fees and expenses of the plaintiffs' attorneys and
experts.


E.I. DUPONT: Parker Waichman Files Two Class Actions in Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, a national law firm representing
victims of defective products and toxic substances, together with
its partner law firms, has filed two class action lawsuits on
behalf of Iowa residents alleging DuPont's Imprelis(TM) herbicide
killed and damaged trees on their property.  The first, brought by
Daryl and Mary Ann Haley of Tipton, Iowa, was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids
Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-00085-LRRR).  A second Imprelis(TM)
lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nicholas L. Peters of Mars, Iowa,
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Sioux
City Division (Case No. 5:11-cv-04066-MWB).  Both Complaints seeks
class action status on behalf of property owners who have
sustained damage as a result of Imprelis(TM).

Plaintiffs in both lawsuits allege Imprelis(TM) was applied to
their lawns in accordance with directions and instructions
supplied by DuPont.  The Class Action Complaints allege that as a
result of the Imprelis(TM) applications, the Plaintiffs suffered
significant damage and harm to trees, and will continue to suffer
even further damage to their lawn and garden because of
Imprelis(TM).  The lawsuits further allege that rather than being
isolated incidents, thousands of trees have been reported as being
infected by Imprelis(TM), and tens of thousands more reports are
expected in the future.

Both lawsuits charge DuPont with, among other things, negligence,
strict liability, breach of express warranty and breach of implied
warranties.  The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief barring DuPont
from continued sale of Imprelis(TM), and compensatory and other
damages including the cost of replacing trees damaged by
Imprelis(TM).

Imprelis(TM), brought to market by DuPont in October 2010, is
designed to kill broadleaf weeds, including dandelion, clover and
wild violet.  It is touted by DuPont as an environmentally-
friendly herbicide and an "innovative solution to control a wide
spectrum of broadleaf weeds."  According to a New York Times
report, reports of dying trees possibly associated with
Imprelis(TM) started surfacing around Memorial Day, and have since
prompted warnings from extension services in several states.
Imprelis(TM) is now suspected of causing the death of thousands of
shallow-rooted trees, including willows, poplars and conifers, on
lawns, golf courses, parks and cemeteries throughout the country.
The reports have prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to begin gathering information on the tree deaths from state
officials and DuPont.

DuPont acknowledged it was investigating reports of tree deaths
and damage possibly associated with Imprelis(TM) in a letter to
turf management professionals dated June 17, 2011.  On July 27,
2011, the company issued another letter stating that in the course
of its review, "We have observed tree injuries associated with
Imprelis(TM), primarily on Norway spruce and white pine trees."
The problems appear to be concentrated in Minnesota, Michigan,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Wisconsin, DuPont
said.

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP and its partner firms have now filed
three class action lawsuits on behalf of property owners who claim
to have sustained damage following application of Imprelis(TM).  A
previous lawsuit was filed on behalf of an Ohio property owner in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division (Case No. 1:11-cv-01517).

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP continues to receive reports of
Imprelis(TM) tree death and damage from around the country,
including from homeowners, golf courses, universities, arboretums,
nurseries and orchards, parks and recreational sites, and
cemeteries.  Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is investigating these
complaints on behalf of property owners who have sustained damages
as a result of Imprelis(TM).  More information regarding
Imprelis(TM) side effects can be obtained at Parker Waichman
Alonso LLP's DuPont Imprelis(TM) poisoning page.  The page will be
updated regularly as more information becomes available.

For more information regarding Imprelis(TM) class action lawsuits
and Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, please visit
http://www.yourlawyer.comor call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).

Contact: Jordan Chaikin, Partner
         Parker Waichman Alonso LLP
         Telephone: (800) LAW-INFO
         (800) 529-4636


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that Electronic
Arts will have to face antitrust claims filed by twelve National
Collegiate Athletic Association athletes who accuse the video game
company of duping them into signing away their rights to profit
from their own images, a federal judge ruled.

The antitrust action, originally filed by eight former college
basketball players, was consolidated with a publicity-rights
complaint by four former college football players.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted Electronic Arts' motion
to dismiss it as a defendant in May.

Judge Wilken found that the athletes did not have enough evidence
to show that Electronic Arts was part of a price-fixing conspiracy
with the Indiana-based NCAA and or the Georgia-based College
Licensing Company.

The athletes filed an amended complaint two weeks later.

They said Electronic Arts has a "unique relationship" with the
NCAA, and that the company "used its high level of access to NCAA
'to advocate and obtain agreement on making its NCAA-themed video
games as photorealistic as possible."

The athletes also claimed Electronic Arts and the NCAA "colluded"
to allow video game players to modify their likenesses and share
their roster information online, and showed their names in
advertisements.

And they accused Electronic Arts of conspiring with the NCAA to
refuse to pay former student athletes.

Electronic Arts moved to dismiss the amended complaint, claiming
the new allegations "do not imply EA's participation in an
unlawful antitrust conspiracy" and only concern its "rational,
legitimate commercial efforts."

This time, Judge Wilken refused to dismiss the athletes' claim
that Electronic Arts went beyond simply following NCAA rules on
not paying current players, by also promising not to pay former
players.

An agreement not to compensate former athletes exceeds the NCAA's
requirements, and is enough to show that Electronic Arts may have
engaged in price-fixing to avoid paying former players, the judge
wrote.

"[It] appears that NCAA's rules on amateurism have not prevented
EA from compensating former student-athletes in limited
circumstances," Judge Wilken wrote.

Significantly, Plaintiffs allege that EA has entered into
licensing agreements with some former student-athletes to use
their images on the covers of EA's NCAA video games, although not
in the games themselves."

And the NCAA admitted in an April hearing that nothing in its
rules prohibits former athletes from cashing in on their names and
likenesses, according to the ruling, which the athletes claimed
means Electronic Arts could pay former athletes, and could even
promise money to current athletes, as long as it waited until
after graduation to hand the money over.

Electronic Arts said a promise to pay a current athlete at some
point in the future would cost the athlete her eligibility to
play.  But it did not dispute the plaintiffs' claim about its
ability to pay former athletes, the ruling states.

"The agreement not to compensate [former athletes] shows EA was
not merely 'doing business in the context of the NCAA's amateurism
policies.'  Instead, it suggests that EA was actively
participating to ensure that former student-athlete would not
receive any compensation for the use of their images, likenesses
and names," Judge Wilken wrote.

The judge also said the athletes' amended complaint suggests that
Electronic Arts participated in a "group boycott conspiracy" by
requiring athletes to sign agreements "purporting to relinquish
all rights in perpetuity to their images, likenesses and names."

"Because student-athletes retain rights to their images,
likenesses and names, and can license them once they are no longer
student-athletes, EA's alleged agreement not to offer compensation
could demonstrate its participation in the group boycott," the
judge wrote.  "If EA had not made this agreement, its attempts to
compensate former players for appearing in its video games likely
would have undermined the ability of NCAA and CLC to continue
their alleged boycott of former student-athletes."

A copy of the Order Denying EA's Motion to Dismiss in In Re NCAA
Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No.
09-cv-01967 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/01/EA%20Ruling.pdf


ENERGY FUTURE: "Comer II" Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company's subsidiary continues
to defend itself against a lawsuit seeking certification as a
class action over its greenhouse gas emissions, according to the
Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In October 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
issued a decision in the case of Comer v. Murphy Oil USA reversing
the district court's dismissal of the case and holding that
certain Mississippi residents had standing to pursue state law
nuisance, negligence and trespass claims for injuries purportedly
suffered because the defendants' emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) allegedly increased the destructive force of Hurricane
Katrina. The Fifth Circuit subsequently agreed to rehear the case,
but then dismissed the appeal in its entirety when several judges
recused themselves in the case. The Fifth Circuit's order
dismissing the appeal and vacating the earlier panel's decision
had the effect of reinstating the district court's original
dismissal of the case. In January 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court
rejected the plaintiffs' request that their appeal be reinstated
in the Fifth Circuit. In May 2011, the plaintiffs in the Comer
case filed a new lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi against Energy Future
Holdings Corp. and numerous other defendants (Comer II). The Comer
II complaint reasserts that the defendants' emissions of GHGs have
contributed to global warming and led to severe weather
consequences. The plaintiffs assert claims for public and private
nuisance, trespass and negligence, and they seek to have their
case certified as a class action. While the Company is unable to
estimate any possible loss or predict the outcome of the
litigation, it believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit, and it intends to vigorously defend this litigation.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Continues to Defend Overdraft Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation and its wholly-
owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N.A. The complaints were
brought as putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who
maintained a checking account at the Bank and who incurred one or
more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of
debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit
County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on
July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual
damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages,
interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees, according to the
Corporation's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Continues to Defend 365/360 Interest Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation's bank subsidiary continues to defend
itself against a class action lawsuit alleging improper
calculation of interest, according to the Corporation's July 29,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In August 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation's wholly-owned
subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N.A. The breach of contract complaint
was brought as a putative class action on behalf of Ohio
commercial borrowers who allegedly had the interest they owed
calculated improperly by using the 365/360 method. The complaint
seeks actual damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney
fees.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Aug. 15 Settlement Hearing Set in Schneider Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider approval of a proposed settlement resolving
a lawsuit filed by the receiver for Alan and Joanne Schneider
against FirstMerit Corporation's bank subsidiary has been set for
August 15, 2011, according to the Corporation's July 29, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Commencing in May 2006, two lawsuits were filed in the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation's
wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N.A. One complaint was
filed by the receiver for the Bank customers Alan and Joanne
Schneider, and the other complaint was filed by alleged defrauded
investors of the Schneiders seeking to represent a class of
persons who invested in promissory notes offered by the
Schneiders. The allegations against the Bank arise out of Alan
Schneider's business checking account at the Bank into which
investors' checks were deposited and from which certain investors
received payments. The complaints seek, among other things, actual
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, interest, rescission
and attorney fees. On January 14, 2011, a third-party complaint
was filed by the Bank against its insurers in the receiver's
lawsuit. By opinion dated February 10, 2011 the Cuyahoga County
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision certifying an
investor class in the case brought by the alleged defrauded
investors.

On July 20, 2011, the Bank entered into a settlement agreement in
the lawsuit with the receiver for Alan and Joanne Schneider that
provides if certain conditions are satisfied the Bank's insurer
will make a settlement payment of approximately $9.9 million and
the Bank will make a settlement payment of approximately $0.6
million. These payments will be used to pay the receiver's legal
fees and expenses and the balance distributed to the allegedly
defrauded investors by the receiver in accordance with the
settlement agreement. The Court will conduct a hearing on whether
to approve the proposed settlement on August 15, 2011.


FULL TILT: Poker Players' Class Action Deadline Looms
-----------------------------------------------------
According to CasinoScamReport.com, thousands of online poker
players who have had their money frozen by the Department of
Justice in the U.S. need to act now if they wish to join in the
class action lawsuit for reimbursement of their funds.  Sources
say that very few players have actually filed a suit and are
unaware that the deadline for this action is coming to a close
soon!  The funds in question are the result of Black Friday's
seizure of Full tilt poker, Poker stars and Absolute/Ultimate Bet
poker sites.  According to "Wired Magazine", players only have a
few days left to claim their stake in this lawsuit, which will be
judged, by a New York courtroom.

Many online poker players who have been affected by the seizure of
these popular and top rated poker sites have already found new
homes with other poker rooms that they have deemed trustworthy and
have no payment processing problems but in order to actually have
any hope of receiving funds that were lost during the Black Friday
raids need to take action now.  But it needs to be said that even
if poker players win in this highly visible lawsuit it will still
not guarantee the return of their funds because as of now, the
money is in the DOJ's hands and we all know that once the DOJ
seizes accounts from online gambling sites, they have no intention
of returning player's their rightful cash very easily.


J.B. HUNT: Proceedings in Calif. Drivers' Class Suit Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., is a defendant in certain
class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and
former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid
wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items.
Further proceedings have been stayed in these matters pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in a case unrelated to the
Company's involving similar issues.  The Company cannot reasonably
estimate at this time the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may arise from these lawsuits.

No updates were reported in the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Class Action Legal Fees Expected to Grow
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Henning, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal judge's decision to allow a securities fraud class-action
lawsuit against the former officers and directors of Lehman
Brothers to move forward means that tab for legal fees for the
defendants will continue to grow.  At some point, the insurance
pool that pays for the lawyers will be exhausted, at which point
the individuals will be on the hook for their legal fees and any
settlement payments from litigation related to the firm.

In his opinion last week, the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan in Federal
District Court in Manhattan, rejected a motion to dismiss claims
by investors against Lehman's former directors and senior
officers, including the firm's former chief executive, Richard S.
Fuld Jr.; former president, Joseph M. Gregory, and three of its
former chief financial officers, Christopher M. O'Meara, Erin
Callan and Ian Lowitt.

The complaint focuses on the so-called Repo 105 transactions by
which Lehman was able to move liabilities off its balance sheet at
the end of each quarter to make it appear the company was not as
heavily leveraged as it was.  Judge Kaplan found that the
allegations in the complaint sufficiently provided evidence of the
defendants' intent, or scienter, to mislead shareholders about the
company's precarious financial situation in the months leading up
to its collapse into bankruptcy on Sept. 15, 2008.

The securities fraud claims involved enough red flags to establish
an inference of scienter about the misleading character of the
Repo 105 transactions, even though Lehman's outside auditor, Ernst
& Young, had approved the accounting for them.  The court
explained that "[r]ed flags may exist if the complaint alleges the
existence of transactions that were large, recurrent, timed near
the end of a reporting period, and obviously lacking in business
purpose.  This may be true even if the registrant's outside
auditor has opined that the company's financial statements were
presented in accordance with GAAP," or generally accepted
accounting principles.

Judge Kaplan dismissed some claims against Ernst & Young for its
role in the Repo 105 transactions, but did allow a securities
fraud allegation regarding its role in Lehman's financial
statements in the final quarters before the bankruptcy.  The
accountants also face separate civil charges filed by the New York
attorney general regarding its role in approving the Repo 105
transactions.

Much of the class-action complaint was built on the findings in a
report filed by the bankruptcy trustee, Anton R. Valukas, in March
2010.  The report described in great detail how Lehman used
increasingly large Repo 105 transactions to dress up its balance
sheet.  The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice
Department have also been investigating Lehman's financial
statements and public disclosures, but there does not appear to be
any impending charges from those agencies.

Judge Kaplan's rejection of the motion to dismiss the class-action
claims came at a preliminary stage of the case, when all the court
considered was the complaint.  That decision, which the defendants
are likely to appeal, opens the case up for depositions of
Lehman's officers and directors named in the suit, along with
extensive document production, as the case now moves into the
discovery phase.

Lehman bought $250 million of directors and officers insurance to
cover the costs of legal fees and settlements for conduct from
2007 to 2008, and the same amount covering 2008 to 2009.  While
that sounds like quite a bit of money, the plaintiffs in the class
action bought approximately $31 billion in Lehman securities, far
outdistancing what the insurance could ever cover.  With the firm
in bankruptcy, any hope of a significant recovery from it for
securities violations is quite low.

According to a recent filing in Federal Bankruptcy Court, $70
million to $85 million in insurance coverage has already been used
for legal fees and other settlements.  Another $15 million from
the insurers will be paid to US Airways as the result of an
arbitration award related to the Lehman's sales of auction-rate
securities.

The New Jersey Department of the Treasury, which is pursuing its
own claim against Lehman in a separate case that was stayed
because of the bankruptcy, objected to payment of the $15 million
arbitration award.  It argued that the firm's insurance coverage
is gradually being whittled away, and that nothing may be left as
more fees are charged and awards paid, apparently on a first-come,
first-served basis.

The bankruptcy court rejected that argument, approving the $15
million payment on July 20 on behalf of the former Lehman
employees.  That means nearly $100 million in insurance coverage
has been used up, with no end in sight to the claims.

With the class-action case moving forward, the legal fees for the
defendants will now consume even more of the directors and
officers insurance, making less available for any eventual payout
if the case is settled.

Each Lehman officer has separate counsel, all from leading law
firms, along with the directors who are represented by another
firm.  As discovery progresses, the legal fees are likely to
increase significantly because the parties have to prepare for the
possibility that the case will go to trial.

While there is no easy way to estimate the costs being incurred,
it is certainly possible for the billings to exceed $10 million
during discovery.  If charges appear from the S.E.C. or the
Justice Department, then the legal costs will escalate even more
quickly.

As long as the lawyers can tap the insurance policies, there is an
incentive to use as much as possible for the benefit of the
officers, because once the coverage is exhausted there is no other
readily available pool of money.  Lehman is in bankruptcy, so any
claim on the company for an officer's legal fees would be treated
like that of any other unsecured creditor.  In other words, don't
hold your breath because the bills are unlikely to be paid.


MORGAN LEE: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Wehr, individually and on behalf of the class defined
herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Dennis Wehr v.
Morgan Receivables, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-26847 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., July 29, 2011) seeks redress for the conduct of the
Defendant in taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois
Collection Agency Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that although unlicensed, the Defendant
collected debts from consumers in Illinois, in violation of the
ICAA.

Mr. Wehr is a resident of County, Illinois.

Morgan Lee, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the business of
purchasing or claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts and
enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection
lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Partial Settlement Reached in Derivatives Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hausfeld LLP; Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP
on August 1 disclosed that a partial Settlement has been reached
with Morgan Stanley, one of the Defendants, in a class action
lawsuit alleging bid rigging in the sale of municipal derivatives.
The case, In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 1950, No. 08-02516, is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Class Members include all state, local and municipal government
entities, independent government agencies and private entities
that purchased:

   (a) By negotiation, competitive bidding or auction municipal
derivatives directly from an Alleged Provider Defendant or Co-
Conspirator, or through an Alleged Broker Defendant or Co-
Conspirator,

   (b) Any time from January 1, 1992, through the present in the
U.S. and its territories or for delivery in the U.S. and its
territories.

A list of the Alleged Provider and Broker Defendants and Co-
Conspirators can be found on the settlement Web site.

The Settlement affects only claims against Morgan Stanley.  The
case is continuing against the other non-settling defendants.
Morgan Stanley has paid $4,950,000 to pay claims, plus an
additional $1,550,000 to pay certain administrative and litigation
costs.  Morgan Stanley will also provide information to the
attorneys for the Class and cooperate in connection with claims
against the non-settling defendants.

Class Members who wish to remain in the Settlement do not need to
do anything now.  If the Settlement is approved, they will need to
submit a claim form in order to receive a payment.  Claim forms
are not available right now.  Class Members can register on the
Web site to receive a claim form when it becomes available.  By
remaining in the Settlement, Class Members will give up the right
to sue Morgan Stanley for the claims in this class action.
However, they will still have the right to exclude themselves from
any other class that may be certified in the case.

Class Members who do not wish to participate in the Settlement
must send a written request to be excluded postmarked no later
than October 11, 2011.  Class Members who request to be excluded
will retain their right to sue Morgan Stanley on their own for the
claims in this lawsuit.

Class Members who remain in the Class can object to or comment on
the Settlement.  They must file an objection with the Court and
deliver a copy to Class Counsel and Morgan Stanley postmarked no
later than October 11, 2011.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Hausfeld LLP; Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP; and Susman Godfrey LLP as Class Counsel to
represent all members the Class.  Class Members who want to be
represented by their own lawyer may hire one at their own expense.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on November 23, 2011, at 9:30
a.m., at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 to consider whether to
approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and
whether to approve Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of
litigation expenses.

Class Members or their lawyers may ask to appear and speak at the
hearing but they are not required to.  Class Members who want to
be heard by the Court must file a written request with the Court,
and deliver a copy to Class Counsel and Morgan Stanley no later
than October 11, 2011.  The Court may change the time and date of
the hearing.  Any change will be posted on the Web site.

For more information on this lawsuit, Class Member rights, or to
obtain a list of defendants, call 1-877-310-0512, visit
http://www.MunicipalDerivativesSettlement.comor write to:

          Municipal Derivatives Settlement
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          PO Box 2500
          Faribault, MN 55021-9500


NCR CORP: Makes $3 Million Settlement Payment in Second Quarter
---------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2009, a federal court in Ohio granted motions for
summary judgment against NCR Corporation in two companion class
actions brought on behalf of certain unionized retirees, who
claimed that the Company's 2003 decision to terminate certain
benefits payable on death violated collective bargaining
agreements and other rights. The Company appealed the decision to
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and created an accrual of
approximately $6 million for the potential liability, which NCR
recognized as other expense during 2009. While the appeal was
pending, the Company reached a settlement of approximately $3
million which received final approval from the federal district
court in March 2011. The settlement payment was made during the
three months ended June 30, 2011; the balance of the accrual was
released to other income during the three months ended March 31,
2011 as a result of the federal district court's March 2011
ruling, according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend MDL on Fuel Surcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
Norfolk Southern Corporation and other Class 1 railroads in
various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were
consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  NS believes the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intends to continue defending the
cases vigorously.  NS does not believe that the outcome of these
proceedings will have a material effect on its financial position,
results of operations, or liquidity.  A lawsuit containing similar
allegations against NS and four other major railroads that was
filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
subject to a tolling agreement entered into in August 2008.

No updates were reported in the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.


NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation continues to defend itself from a
putative class action lawsuit pending before an Illinois court
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, according to the Company's July 29, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On January 16, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in a putative
class action lawsuit currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
Corporation and others. The defendants named in the amended
complaint are the Corporation, The Northern Trust Company, the
Northern Trust Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and its
members, the Northern Trust Employee Benefits Investment Committee
and its members, and certain other officers, including the present
and former Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation,
purportedly on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of The
Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time from
October 19, 2007 to January 14, 2009. The complaint purports to
allege breaches of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act related to the Corporation's stock
being offered as an investment alternative for participants in the
Plan and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. At this
stage of the suit, it is not possible for management to assess the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any potential loss, the Company said.

Northern Trust Corporation operates as the holding company for The
Northern Trust Company that provides a range of banking and
financial services to large and mid-sized corporations and
financial institutions in the United States and internationally.

Northern Trust Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation continues to defend itself from a
securities class action lawsuit pending in an Illinois court,
according to the Company's July 29, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On August 24, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against the Corporation and three of
its present or former officers, including the present and former
Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Corporation stock during the
period from October 17, 2007 to October 20, 2009.  The amended
complaint alleges that during the purported class period the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for credit losses with
respect to the Corporation's real estate loan portfolio and
failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its securities
lending business. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.  At this stage of the suit, it is not possible
for management to assess the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss,
the Company said.

Northern Trust Corporation operates as the holding company for The
Northern Trust Company that provides a range of banking and
financial services to large and mid-sized corporations and
financial institutions in the United States and internationally.

Northern Trust Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


OWENS & MINOR: Received $4.6-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the second quarter of 2011, Owens & Minor Inc. received a
$4.6 million settlement payment related to a class action suit of
which the Company was an authorized claimant, according to the
Company's July 29, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

This payment was the Company's pro rata portion of a larger
settlement pool that was created by the settlement of the class
action.  This settlement payment is reflected in other accrued
liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet because the Company
is acting as an administrative agent in making those funds
available to the identified purchasing agent and purchasers of the
products covered by the class action settlement.

                       About Owens & Minor

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, Owens & Minor Inc.
(NYSE: OMI) -- http://www.owens-minor.com/-- is a distributor of
national name-brand medical and surgical supplies and is a
healthcare supply chain management company.  With distribution
centers throughout the United States, the company serves
hospitals, integrated healthcare systems, alternate care
locations, group purchasing organizations and the federal
government.


POTTSTOWN, PA: Seeks to Dismiss Property Inspection Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Brandt, writing for The Mercury, reports that the borough's
initial response to a lawsuit that accuses the Codes Department of
requiring inspections it no longer has the authority to require is
not to insist it operated properly.

Rather, legal papers provided by Borough Solicitor Charles D.
Garner Jr. instead object that the suit's legal papers have
technical errors which should convince a judge to dismiss claims
that it is a class action suit.

Among the objections filed by the borough's Chester Springs law
firm of Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew, is the fact that the
plaintiff, developer and landowner Frank McLaughlin, never took
his complaints to the borough's codes "board of appeals."

"This court would only be vested with jurisdiction over a dispute
concerning application of the Uniform Construction Code if an
appeal were filed from an adjudication rendered by a board of
appeals," wrote the borough's lawyer in the matter, John J.
Mahoney.

"The complaint does not even indicate whether Mr. McLaughlin has
been subjected to prosecution by borough officials and code
enforcement officers, or made to pay fines and court costs as the
plaintiff alleges 'may have been issued' to 'residents and
contractors of the borough.'"

The original suit noted that the borough adopted the Uniform
Construction Code in April 2004, but it failed to adopt another
ordinance, under the newly adopted UCC, authorizing its code
enforcement department to require inspections and cite those who
skip them.

Nevertheless, Pottstown's codes department continued to require
inspections, and to collect fees for those inspections and to cite
those who had not had them, even though they were no longer
authorized to do so, the suit charges.

The borough's motion to dismiss does not dispute or deny this
allegation, but rather argues that Mr. McLaughlin's suit should be
dismissed because it as not properly filed or documented.

Mr. McLaughlin's lawyer, Adam Sager estimated the borough was
collecting between $750,000 to $1 million in fees and fines to
which it had no legal right.

The borough's response also says the class-action aspect suit
should be dismissed because it does not include the names of any
other residents or contractors "who were allegedly required to
apply for permits by the borough in contravention of the UCC;" or
even the dates those permits were "placed in dispute;" or even
"whether any other individual was threatened to be prosecuted, or
was actually prosecuted, for failing to secure a permit."

Mr. Sager said he may amend his client's complaint to address the
borough's objections.

In an e-mail to The Mercury, Mr. Sager added, "the borough still
has elected not to address the potential problems with the permit
requirements even though a lawsuit has been filed with a motion
seeking class certification."


PRINCETON REVIEW: Sept. 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky on August 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of The Princeton
Review, Inc. who purchased shares between March 12, 2009, and
March 11, 2011.

The Complaint alleges that certain Princeton Review officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting
and/or failing to disclose that: (a) the Company's revenues and
earnings were negatively impacted by operational problems and
increased competition; (b) the Company shifted its focus and
resources away from core higher education readiness to unproven
projects to the detriment of the business; (c) contrary to the
Company's public statements, the Company was not executing well on
its turn-around plan; d) the Company encountered significant
problems in the higher education readiness business due to a
product mix shift and increased competition; and (e) defendants'
positive statements about the Company were materially false and
misleading.

On March 9, 2011, the Company reported a loss of $50.4 million for
2010, compared to a loss of $13.9 million in 2009, and announced
the resignation of President and CEO Michael Perik.  Following
these announcements, shares of Princeton Review stock declined
more than 37 percent on March 10, 2011.

If you are a member of the class and suffered a loss in Princeton
Review stock, you have until September 27, 2011, to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information about
your rights, contact:

          Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (877) 363-5972
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com

Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities
litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud and represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder
litigation.


SERVIDYNE INC: Faces Two Merger-Related Class Suits in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 26, 2011, Servidyne, Inc., entered into an agreement to be
acquired by Scientific Conservation, Inc., for $3.50 per share in
an all-cash transaction. The Company's board of directors has
approved the merger and has unanimously recommended that the
Company's shareholders vote in favor of it at a special meeting of
the shareholders to be held to consider the merger. The merger has
also been approved by the board of directors of SCI. The
acquisition is subject to approval by Company shareholders holding
a majority of the outstanding voting power of the Company, as well
as other customary closing conditions, and is expected to be
completed in the Company's second fiscal quarter ending
October 31, 2011. Shareholders representing approximately 56% of
the voting power of the Company have agreed to vote in favor of
the merger, subject to termination of such agreements with respect
to approximately 27% of the voting power if Servidyne's board
should change its recommendation supporting the merger. If the
merger is approved and is consummated, the Company will no longer
be a publicly-traded company, and its shares will cease to be
traded on the NASDAQ Global Market.

Subsequently, the Company, SCI, SCI's wholly-owned acquisition
subsidiary, and the Company's Board of Directors were named as
defendants in two putative class action lawsuits, Manzoor Hussain
v. Servidyne Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 2011-CV-202977), filed
July 7, 2011, and Brian Jacobs v. Servidyne, Inc. et al. (Civil
Action No. 2011-CV-203489), filed July 22, 2011. Each lawsuit was
brought by an alleged shareholder of the Company challenging the
merger and filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.
The complaints allege, among other things, that (a) the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by: (1)
conducting an inadequate sales process that undervalued the
Company; (2) agreeing to unfairly preclusive deal protection
measures; and (3) approving merger terms that unfairly vest some
of the corporate insiders with benefits not shared equally by
other Company shareholders; and (b) in the complaint filed by
Brian Jacobs, that the Company's Board of Directors failed to
disclose material facts to shareholders in connection with the
proposed transaction in its preliminary proxy statement, filed
with the SEC on July 18, 2011. The complaints also allege that SCI
knowingly aided and abetted these fiduciary duty breaches. The
complaints seek to enjoin the merger and other remedies.
The Company believes the claims asserted in the lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.
However, these proceedings are in their early stages, and due to
the inherent uncertainty in litigation, there can be no guarantee
that the Company will ultimately be successful in these
proceedings, or in others to which it is currently a party.
Substantial losses from legal proceedings could have a material
adverse impact upon the Company's business, financial position or
results of operations; adverse developments in the proceedings
could impede or prevent the merger from being consummated,
according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2011.


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Ex-Loan Officer Files Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Django Gold, writing for Law360, reports that SunTrust Mortgage
Inc. was hit with a proposed class action on July 28 in Florida by
a former loan officer who says he and other SunTrust employees
were forced to work long hours without overtime pay.

Former mortgage loan officer, Michael Childs, claims that SunTrust
improperly classified its loan reps as exempt from overtime pay,
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida state labor
law.


U.S. BANK: 9th Cir. Revives Post-Repossession Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 1 revived a class
action against U.S. Bank over post-repossession notices, finding
that a California consumer protection law is not preempted by
federal law.

Jose Aguayo sued the bank on behalf of a proposed class in 2007,
after the bank repossessed and sold his Ford Expedition.  The sale
didn't bring enough to cover the initial loan, so the bank charged
Mr. Aguayo for the remainder.

Mr. Aguayo claimed in federal court in California that he did not
have to pay the deficiency because U.S. Bank's post-repossession
notice failed to meet the requirements of the Rees-Levering Act, a
state law meant to protect consumers from "excessive charges" and
that "requires full disclosure of all items of cost at all points
in the life of a vehicle purchase transaction," according to the
ruling.  The bank countered that the state law was preempted by
the National Bank Act (NBA) because it interfered with the
"federal authority to carry on the business of banking free from
state-law restrictions."

Senior U.S District Judge Thomas Whelan agreed with the bank and
dismissed the case, finding that, as a "credit-related" document,
the post-repossession notice fell under federal law.

A three-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges sitting in Pasadena
reversed on appeal.

The unanimous panel found that the lower court had overlooked the
importance of the banking law's savings clause, which bars
preemption of state laws relating to contracts and debt
collection.  The judges also found that the bank's notices were
not "credit-related documents."

"The savings clause explicitly lists state laws that are not
preempted, including state laws pertaining to 'contracts' and
'rights to collect debts,'" wrote U.S. District Judge Jack
Zouhary, sitting on the panel by designation from the Northern
District of Ohio.  "Because the district court erred in refusing
to apply the regulation's savings clause, and because the Rees-
Levering post-repossession notices are 'disclosures' that would
not be considered 'credit-related documents,' we reverse."

A copy of the Opinion in Aguayo v. U.S. Bank, No. 09-56679
(9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/BBevMv

The Plaintiff-Appellant was represented by:

          F. Paul Bland, Esq.
          Claire Prestel, Esq.
          Melanie Hirsch, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE P.C.
          1825 K Street NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 797-8600
          E-mail: pbland@publicjustice.net
                  cprestel@publicjustice.net
                  mhirsch@publicjustice.net

               - and -

          Leslie A. Brueckner, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE P.C.
          555 12th Street, Suite 1620
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 622-8150
          E-mail: lbrueckner@publicjustice.net

               - and -

          Andrew J. Ogilvie, Esq.
          Carol M. Brewer, Esq.
          ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER LLP
          600 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 651-1950

               - and -

          Michael E. Lindsey, Esq.
          LEMON LAW SAN DIEGO
          4455 Morena Blvd., Ste. 207
          San Diego, CA 92117
          Telephone: (858) 270-7000

U.S. Bank was represented by:

          James R. McGuire, Esq.
          Rita F. Lin, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: jmcguire@mofo.com
                  rlin@mofo.com

               - and -

          Sylvia Rivera, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          555 West Fifth Street Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024
          Telephone: (213) 892-5734
          E-mail: srivera@mofo.com


VISA INC: Final Hearing on "Marenco" Suit Settlement Set Nov. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final approval of a settlement resolving a
call center litigation against Visa, Inc., is set for November 28,
2011, according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On April 28, 2011, Francisco Marenco filed a request in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to amend his
class action complaint to name Visa Inc. as the defendant. The
court granted the request and Marenco filed the amended complaint
on May 6, 2011. The lawsuit alleges that Visa recorded telephone
calls to call center representatives without providing a
disclosure that the calls may be recorded, in alleged violation of
state law in California and several other states. On May 31, 2011,
the parties executed a settlement agreement in an amount that is
not material to Visa's consolidated financial statements. The
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 20,
2011, and set a final approval hearing for November 28, 2011,
after the class notice process is complete. This matter relates to
and resolves the contractual indemnity claim tendered to Visa by a
processing client in October 2010.


VISA INC: Sept. 12, 2012 Trial Date Likely for Interchange Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No objections have been filed against the proposed trial date of
September 12, 2012, for the Interchange Litigation involving Visa,
Inc., according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On February 7, 2011, Visa entered into an omnibus agreement that
confirmed and memorialized the signatories' intentions with
respect to the loss sharing agreement, the judgment sharing
agreement and other agreements relating to certain interchange
litigation. Under the omnibus agreement, the monetary portion of
any settlement of the interchange litigation covered by the
omnibus agreement would be divided into a MasterCard portion at
33.3333% and a Visa portion at 66.6667%. In addition, the monetary
portion of any judgment assigned to Visa-related claims in
accordance with the omnibus agreement would be treated as a Visa
portion. Visa would have no liability for the monetary portion of
any judgment assigned to MasterCard-related claims in accordance
with the omnibus agreement, and if a judgment is not assigned to
Visa-related claims or MasterCard-related claims in accordance
with the Omnibus agreement, then any monetary liability would be
divided into a MasterCard portion at 33.3333% and a Visa portion
at 66.6667%. The Visa portion of a settlement or judgment covered
by the omnibus agreement would be allocated in accordance with
specified provisions of the Company's retrospective responsibility
plan. The litigation provision on the consolidated statements of
operations is not impacted by the execution of the omnibus
agreement.

On February 11, 2011, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment on a number of issues. Visa, jointly with other
defendants, moved for summary judgment against the claims in the
Supplemental Complaint and the Second Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint. Visa and other defendants also moved for summary
judgment against the claims in the individual plaintiffs'
complaints. The class plaintiffs sought summary judgment on all of
their intra-network damages claims under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act in the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
including by arguing that Visa's post-IPO conduct constitutes a
continuing conspiracy. Finally, the individual plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment on their claims that (i) agreements
by banks to enforce certain Visa rules are per se unlawful under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and (ii) Visa's imposition of those
rules post-IPO constitutes a continuing conspiracy under Section 1
of the Sherman Act.

On February 17, 2011, the Court ordered that the parties identify
any objections to a trial date of September 12, 2012. The parties
did not object to that trial date.


VISA INC: Now Facing Two Merchant Class Actions in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Visa, Inc., is now facing two similar merchant class actions in
Canada, according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

On March 28, 2011, Mary Watson filed a class action lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, on behalf of merchants
and others in Canada that accept payment by Visa and MasterCard
(Watson). The suit, filed against Visa Canada, MasterCard, and ten
financial institutions, alleges conduct contrary to section 45 of
the Competition Act and also asserts claims of civil conspiracy,
interference with economic interests, and unjust enrichment, among
others. Plaintiff alleges that Visa and MasterCard each conspired
with their member financial institutions to set supra-competitive
default interchange rates and merchant discount fees, and that
Visa and MasterCard's respective "no-surcharge" and "honour all
cards" rules had the anticompetitive effect of increasing merchant
discount fees. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief. On May 16, 2011, a merchant class action that
effectively mirrors the Watson case was initiated in Ontario
(Bancroft-Snell). As in Watson, the Bancroft-Snell complaint
alleges conduct in contravention of Section 45 of the Competition
Act, civil conspiracy, interference with economic interests, and
unjust enrichment, among other claims, and seeks similar relief.


WASHINGTON, DC: Settles 2005 Mass Arrest Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Del Quentin Wilber, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
the D.C. government on August 1 settled a class-action lawsuit
brought by dozens of protesters arrested during demonstrations on
the night of George W. Bush's second presidential inauguration,
according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The suit was brought by the ACLU on behalf of about 70 people who
were arrested by D.C. police on Jan. 20, 2005, in Adams Morgan.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, then in charge of the department's
special operations division, ordered the arrests after some
demonstrators broke windows, threw rocks, damaged cars and spray-
painted buildings.

A federal judge in 2008 found that the arrests were unlawful
because police had not first given demonstrators a chance to
disperse and police could not tie individual demonstrators to
crimes.  That ruling was overturned on appeal, and the two sides
were gearing up for trial when a preliminary settlement was
reached in February.

In the agreement, which was finalized and approved by U.S.
District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on August 1, the District agreed
to pay the protesters $250,000, an amount that includes legal
fees.

According to the ACLU, the D.C. government acknowledged that
"while it believes the group as a whole engaged in unlawful
conduct, the District cannot link any individual Class Member to
any specific acts of property damage or any similar illegal acts."

"We are please that District of Columbia agreed to settle this
case," said Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital.

Ariel Waldman, senior counsel to the D.C. Attorney General, said
the city agreed to the settlement to avoid additional expense.

"We are pleased that the Court following a fairness hearing
approved the settlement in this matter, which includes plaintiffs'
express acknowledgment that Chief Lanier (in her position at that
time) and the rest of the MPD officers on the matter were
justified in making the arrests to stop the vandalism and
destruction of property that were occurring as part of the
rioting," he wrote in an e-mail.  "The District settled to avoid
the unnecessary burdens and expense associated with litigating a
matter that occurred back in early 2005 and should be put behind
all of us, as it now can be."


WIVENHOE DAM: Flood Victims Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a group of 120 flood-
hit Brisbane property owners are weighing a class action after a
report into January's floods opened a potential legal avenue.

Ken Madsen, of Flood Affected Businesses and Householders, says
he's yet to study the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry's
interim report.

But he hopes the finding that Wivenhoe Dam operators breached the
manual might help a class action.

The report, released on August 2, found engineers in charge of the
dam during the floods did not use the best available forecast
information when deciding how much water to release.

Mr. Madsen said he hoped this was something flood victims could
launch legal action on.

"The flood inquiry has allowed the data to be made available which
is something we've been struggling to get a straight answer on
ever since the floods," the industrial real estate agent from
flood-hit Rocklea said.

"We will review the data and seek legal advice."

As well as compensating flood victims, a successful class action
would hold bureaucrats accountable, and help insurance claims,
Mr. Madsen said.

"It seems that the only time bureaucrats take any notice of any
changes is when they've been forced to legally," he said.

"The class action will be one way of making them wake up to their
responsibilities and accountabilities.

"The class action will also highlight to insurance companies and
others that while we were affected and damaged, it wasn't our
fault and it wasn't necessarily where we were that was the
problem."

He said any successful action would also give flood victims some
closure.

"The buildings can be repaired and fixed relatively easily," he
said.

"But the loss of confidence and the psychological damage to
people, the sleepless nights . . .  that's immeasurable."

Maurice Blackburn lawyers is representing 78 individuals or
families at the flood commission as part of the Fernvale and
Surrounding Communities Action Group.

The firm's Queensland principal Rod Hodgson said he was still
examining the findings.

"We will then be in a position to consider a range of legal
options for our clients who have suffered property loss and
damage, and loss of business revenue and profits," he said.

Premier Anna Bligh on August 2 said she was uncertain whether the
technical breach opened the possibility of people suing the state,
saying it would have to be tested in the courts.


XCEL ENERGY: Continues to Defend 2nd CO2 Class Suit in Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc. continues to defend itself from a second
purported class action lawsuit alleging harmful effects of the
Company's CO2 emissions to the environment, according to the
Company's July 29, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 27, 2011, several plaintiffs filed a second lawsuit against
more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in U.S.
District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint alleges defendants'
CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and
increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their
property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on public and private
nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the defendants named in
the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., Southwestern Public Service
Company, Public Service Company of Colorado, Northern States Power
Company, and Northern States Power Company.  The amount of damages
claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  It is believed that this
lawsuit is without merit.  No accrual has been recorded for this
matter, the Company said.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Xcel Energy Inc. distributes
electricity to 3.4 million customers and natural gas to 1.9
million in eight states; Colorado and Minnesota account for the
majority of its customers.


ZEON CHEMICALS: Aug. 15 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Erica Peterson, writing for WFPL News, reports that the deadline
for residents of Louisville's Rubbertown neighborhood to file a
claim in a class action settlement against Zeon Chemicals is
nearing.  The lawsuit has been going on since 2007, and this is
the third proposed settlement.

The tentative agreement would give anyone living within a mile of
the plant a maximum payment of $750.  For those residents living
one to two miles away, the payment is capped at $100.  Additional
money would go to local elementary schools.

But members of community group Rubbertown Emergency ACTion are
encouraging people to opt out of the settlement and refuse any
money.  They say it takes away their rights to sue Zeon for past
or future damage caused by the company's emissions.

Eboni Cochran is the president of REACT.

"The fact that there is nothing in this settlement that causes for
a reduction in toxic chemicals is absolutely ridiculous," she
said.  "I think it's an easy way for Zeon to pay off the community
for a small amount of change while the community is still exposed
to an unhealthy environment."

But Zeon CEO Tom Gettelfinger says he thinks the settlement is
fair, and he hopes it will be approved during the hearing
scheduled for the end of August.

"We're hopeful that it will resolve the issue," he said.  "We
understand concerns of the neighbors with air quality.  We tried
to communicate our priority for protecting the health and safety
of our employees as well as the community."

Those included in the settlement have until August 15 to opt in or
out.  If they do nothing, they're not entitled to any money, but
are still barred from suing Zeon under the same provisions as
those who opt in.  A judge will determine whether the settlement
is fair or not during the August 31 "fairness hearing" at the
federal courthouse in Louisville.

For more information, or to get a form to file a claim or opt out
of the settlement, residents can call 1-800-536-0045.


                            *********

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  * * *