---

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

             Thursday, August 2, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 152

                             Headlines

BAJA MINING: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Parties in Merger-related Suit Settle Dispute
BLUE CROSS: Faces Federal Antitrust Class Action
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action
CAREER EDUCATION: "Ross" Suit Still Pending in Illinois Court

CAREER EDUCATION: Appeal in "Lilley" Suit Remains Pending
CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit Remains Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in SLKS Suit Pending Approval
GOLDMAN SACHS: Fannie Mae Suit Remains Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Mortgage-related Suits

GOLDMAN SACHS: IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit Continues to Defend MF Global Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Employee-related Suits
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Authors' Class Action
GREEN DOT: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in Calif.

JAMAICA PUBLIC: Awaits Decision on Power Monopoly Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Canceled Policies
MASCO CORP: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $75 Million
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Settles Class Action for $4.5 Million
MERACORD LLC: Paynter Law Firm Files Class Action

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued Over Illegal Athletic Scholarship Caps
PAR PHARMA: Being Sold to TPG Capital for Too Little, Suit Says
PFIZER INC: September 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Accused of Assessing Unreasonable Charges
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Turner" Suit on Aug. 22
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Decision in "Tatum" Class Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set for April 2013
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
ROYAL CANADIAN: Female Mounties Join Harassment Class Action

SATYAM COMPUTER: Settles Accounting Fraud Class Action for $12MM
SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Still Faces Suits Over Lead Pigment Paints
SMART BALANCE: Sued for False Advertising on Butter Products
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Awaits Final Okay of Consolidated Suit Deal
TARGET CORP: Judge Allows Deceptive Ads Class Action to Proceed

TIMMINCO LIMITED: Leave to Commence Action Ruling Expected Today
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Coverage Dispute Bid in Settlement Tossed
UNITIL CORP: Suit vs. Fitchburg Still Pending in Massachusetts
USG CORP: Homeowners Have Until September 28 to Join Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 1st Cir. Vacates $30MM Award to Class Counsel

WELLPOINT INC: Appeal in "ADA" Suit Remains Pending in 11th Cir.
WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend Out-of-Network MDL in Calif.
WELLPOINT INC: Oct. 25 Hearing in AICI Demutualization Suit Set

                          *********

BAJA MINING: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------
Baja Mining Corp. on July 27 disclosed that class action
proceedings have been commenced against Baja and certain of its
present and former directors and employees under the Class
Proceedings Act (Ontario).  The proceedings have been commenced by
Joseph Sue-Tang, who seeks an order certifying the proceeding as a
class proceeding and his appointment as a representative
plaintiff.  Mr. Sue-Tang seeks among other relief a declaration
that the defendants made misrepresentations contrary to the
Securities Act (Ontario) during a class period extending from
November 1, 2010 to April 23, 2012, general and special damages in
the amount of $250 million, punitive damages in the amount of $10
million, interest and costs.

Baja is reviewing the claim and will defend itself against the
action.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Parties in Merger-related Suit Settle Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a shareholder class action lawsuit challenging
Berkshire Hills Bancorp's merger agreement with The Connecticut
Bank and Trust Company has settled the claims asserted in the
complaint, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Following the public announcement of the execution of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 25, 2011 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among the Company, Berkshire Bank and The
Connecticut Bank and Trust Company ("CBT"), on January 18, 2012,
Jean-Pierre Van Rooy, Marie-Claire Van Rooy and Eric Van Rooy
filed a shareholder class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford (the
"Court"), against CBT, the Directors of CBT, the Company and the
Bank (the "CBT shareholder litigation"). The CBT shareholder
litigation was purportedly brought on behalf of all of CBT's
public stockholders and alleged that the directors of CBT breached
their fiduciary duties to CBT's stockholders by failing to take
steps necessary to obtain a fair and adequate price for CBT's
common stock and that CBT, the Company and the Bank knowingly
aided and abetted CBT's directors' breach of fiduciary duty.

CBT, its Directors, the Company and the Bank denied and vigorously
defended all of the allegations asserted in the CBT shareholder
litigation. Following court hearings on March 26 and 29, 2012, the
Court struck all claims against CBT, the Company and the Bank and
denied the plaintiffs request for preliminary injunction.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs decided to also withdraw their
remaining claims against the Directors of CBT, and the Court has
been advised that the case is settled, pending filing of a final
Stipulation of Withdrawal signed by all parties. No liability has
been found against any of the defendants in the case and the CBT
shareholder litigation has not had any material adverse effect on
the financial condition or operations of the Company or the Bank.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Federal Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Evan Belanger, writing for Birmingham Business Journal, reports
that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is facing another
class-action lawsuit alleging the insurer and its national trade
association violated federal antitrust laws.

Filed on July 23 on behalf of retired Tuscaloosa chiropractor
Jerry L. Conway, the suit is the first in Alabama from a health
care provider.

Since Hoover resident Fred R. Richards and his Bessemer-based
construction company, Richards and Sons Construction Inc., filed
suit against BCBS of Alabama and its Chicago-based trade
association in April, at least five other customers have filed
similar suits in four separate cases in the Northern Alabama
District Court.

Those have since been consolidated into a single case with
Nicholas A. Layman and Birmingham-based One Stop Environmental
LLC, Chrish Bajalieh and Birmingham-based Financial Education
Foundation of America Inc., American Electric Motor Service Inc.,
GC Advertising LLC and CB Roofing LLC listed as plaintiffs.

All of the suits allege the trade association's license agreements
with its 38 providers, which bar them from selling Blue Cross
insurance in each others' territories, violate federal antitrust
laws resulting in diminished competition and higher insurance
premiums.

The Conway suit, which remained separate as of July 27, alleges
the same agreements also harm providers.  Conway is represented by
the newly formed Whatley Kallas Litigation and Healthcare Group
also known as WhatleyKallas LLC, which specializes in representing
doctors and hospitals.

"Our economy thrives on competition.  Where there is true
competition, everyone benefits including doctors and other health
care providers," said Joe Whatley Jr., a senior partner at the
firm, in a statement.

The suit, which names a total of 45 Blue Cross plans nationwide
and the trade association as defendants, seeks a permanent
injunction to bar the practice and damages equal to three times
the amount suffered by Conway and "similarly situated" plaintiffs.

It relies heavily on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama's
virtual monopoly in the state.  Most recently, reports showed the
insurer controlled 90 percent of its market.

"These limitations would not be possible if the market for health
insurance was truly competitive and if the BCBS Defendants and the
other Blues were not conspiring to divide markets and eliminate
competition," WhatleyKallas attorneys argued in court documents.

Mr. Whatley said he expects the suit to be consolidated with the
other Alabama suits next week.  The Alabama suits are the latest
in several filings against the Blue Cross association and its
affiliates since the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust
lawsuit against BCBS of Michigan in 2010.  Similar suits are
pending in North Carolina and Tennessee.

Asked on July 27, Koko Mackin, a spokesoman for BCBS of Alabama,
repeated a statement that the suits "lack merit."

"We serve 2.2 million Alabamians and over 900,000 members located
outside Alabama.  Alabama has the 5th lowest family premiums in
the country among all employers," she said.  "Our profit margins
for the last 5 years have averaged less than 1 cents on the
dollar, reflecting our goal of delivering value to our customers."

While Blue Cross is yet to answer charges in the Alabama cases,
the national trade association argued in a North Carolina suit
that courts have repeatedly held that limiting competition inside
a brand through exclusive-service-area agreements is not an
illegal restraint of trade.  It also noted BCBS licensees are free
to sell insurance without the Blue mark anywhere in the country.

"Lacking any right to tell (Blue Cross) how to license its own
intellectual property, plaintiffs have turned to the antitrust
laws . . . to force (Blue Cross) to license the marks in the way
the plaintiffs would prefer," the trade association argued.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on July 27 disclosed that it
has filed a class action on behalf of investors against
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action is based on false statements and omissions concerning
the accreditation status of Bridgepoint's academic programs and
seeks damages for investors who purchased Bridgepoint shares
between May 3, 2011 and July 12, 2012.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Bridgepoint shares during
the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you have
until September 11, 2012 to seek appointment by the Court.  To
discuss the case or learn more about becoming a lead plaintiff,
please contact J. Elazar Fruchter at jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
or call us toll free at 866-582-8140.  A copy of the complaint
filed by Wohl & Fruchter can be obtained at:
http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/bpi

As alleged in the complaint filed by Wohl & Fruchter, Bridgepoint
made false statements and omissions concerning the status of its
accreditation application to the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges (WASC) starting in May 2011 and continuing until July
2012.  While WASC notified Bridgepoint as early as May 2011 that
it had specific concerns regarding its eligibility for
accreditation, Bridgepoint failed to disclose those concerns when
it reported on the status of its application to WASC in a May 3,
2011 conference call.  Loss of accreditation would make
Bridgepoint ineligible for federal student financial aid, its
principal source of revenue.  The concerns raised by WASC were
therefore crucial facts for investors.

During the period that Bridgepoint withheld information about the
concerns raised by WASC, senior Bridgepoint officers sold more
than $29 million of stock.

On July 9, 2012, Bridgepoint announced that WASC had denied its
application for accreditation.  On this news, Bridgepoint's stock
price declined $7.25 per share, to close at $14.25 per share, a
drop of nearly 34%.  In its letter denying accreditation, WASC
cited the prior notice it had given to Bridgepoint of its concerns
in May and June 2011.

On July 13, 2012, Bridgepoint disclosed that it had received a
letter from its current accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission
(HLC), requesting that it "provide certain information and
evidence of compliance with HLC accreditation standards" in light
of the denial of accreditation by WASC.  On this news,
Bridgepoint's stock declined an additional $3.20 per share or
nearly 25%, to close at $9.77 per share.

The class action filed by Wohl & Fruchter seeks damages for
investors who purchased Bridgepoint shares between May 3, 2011 and
July 12, 2012 on the grounds that Bridgepoint's share price was
artificially inflated as a result of the defendants' false
statements and omissions.

Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.com-- is a
securities litigation firm representing plaintiffs in class
actions arising from fraud and other fiduciary breaches by
corporate managers, as well as other complex litigation matters.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Ross" Suit Still Pending in Illinois Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Ross, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, et al., is pending in Illinois, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants
and claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making
material misstatements in and omitting material information from
the Company's public disclosures concerning its schools' job
placement rates and its compliance with accreditation policies.
The complaint further claimed that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their
positions as control persons of the Company. Plaintiff asks for
unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as
ancillary relief. On March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset
Management NV, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement Systems,
and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, as lead
plaintiffs in the action. On May 3, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims alleged
in the initial complaint, and naming the Company and various
individuals as defendants. Lead plaintiffs seek damages on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 19, 2009 and November 21, 2011. Defendants' motion to
dismiss was due June 3, 2012.


CAREER EDUCATION: Appeal in "Lilley" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from an order certifying a class of former students who
attended a medical assistance program at Sanford-Brown College in
a class action lawsuit captioned Lilley, et al. v. Career
Education Corporation, et al., is pending, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming as defendants
Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008 and
September 24, 2010. The five plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant
program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville,
Illinois. The class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in
that program since July 1, 2003. The amended class action
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois
Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, for alleged unfair
conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims
of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission.

In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the
plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements
contained false and misleading information regarding placement
statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions,
Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized
materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive
information. Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a
standardized admissions test to determine program placement when
the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide
allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and
misrepresented the transferability of credits. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant
students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 20, 2010. On October 27, 2010 the Court granted
defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission
claims. The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory
claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim.
By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class
consisting of all persons who attended SBC in Collinsville,
Illinois and enrolled in the Medical Assisting Program during the
period from July 1, 2003 through November 29, 2010. This class
consists of approximately 2,300 members. Defendants filed a
petition for leave to appeal the trial court's class certification
order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. On February 10,
2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted defendants'
petition for leave to appeal. Oral argument was heard on the
appeal on October 4, 2011. While that appeal is pending, all
proceedings in the Circuit Court are stayed.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to the Company at present, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action
because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate
measure of damages and the number of potential class members who
might be entitled to recover damages, if the Company is to be
found liable. Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any
liability associated with this action.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit captioned Surrett, et al. v.
Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation
remains pending, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and
Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County.
Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative
class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud
and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary
Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of misrepresentations to
them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students'
employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and
quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students
could expect to pay as compared to salaries they may earn after
graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of
plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on
September 12, 2008. Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a named
plaintiff and former named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims have
been dismissed. Jennifer Schuster became a plaintiff, and when
Ms. Koehnen's claims were dismissed, she became the sole named
plaintiff. The parties completed written discovery on class
issues. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order
granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud
claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of
the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach
of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of
students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1,
2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the
school for academic reasons.

Because Ms. Schuster was not a member of the certified class (she
enrolled before March 5, 2006), plaintiff's counsel substituted in
a new class representative for her in 2010 named Nathan Surrett
pursuant to a stipulation among the parties which provided, among
other things, that WCI retains the right to challenge whether the
new class representative is adequate (with plaintiff retaining the
burden of proof on that issue).

Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Mr. Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consists of approximately
2,330 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.
The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery. WCI's
motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims, for summary
judgment and to decertify the class were denied by the Court. No
trial date has been set.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen, and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to the Company at present, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action
because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate
measure of damages and the number of class members who might be
entitled to recover damages, if the Company was to be found
liable. Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability
associated with this action.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in SLKS Suit Pending Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a
settlement they entered into in a consolidated class action
lawsuit filed against Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC,
according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012.

Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC (SLKS) and certain
affiliates have received requests for information from various
governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations as part of
an industry-wide investigation relating to activities of floor
specialists in recent years. Goldman Sachs has cooperated with the
requests.

On March 30, 2004, certain specialist firms on the New York Stock
Exchange, including SLKS, without admitting or denying the
allegations, entered into a final global settlement with the SEC
and the NYSE covering certain activities during the years 1999
through 2003. The SLKS settlement involves, among other things,
(i) findings by the SEC and the NYSE that SLKS violated certain
federal securities laws and NYSE rules, and in some cases failed
to supervise certain individual specialists, in connection with
trades that allegedly disadvantaged customer orders, (ii) a cease
and desist order against SLKS, (iii) a censure of SLKS, (iv) SLKS'
agreement to pay an aggregate of $45.3 million in disgorgement and
a penalty to be used to compensate customers, (v) certain
undertakings with respect to SLKS' systems and procedures, and
(vi) SLKS' retention of an independent consultant to review and
evaluate certain of SLKS' compliance systems, policies and
procedures. Comparable findings were made and sanctions imposed in
the settlements with other specialist firms. The settlement did
not resolve the related private civil actions against SLKS and
other firms or regulatory investigations involving individuals or
conduct on other exchanges. On May 26, 2011, the SEC issued an
order directing the undistributed settlement funds to be
transferred to the U.S. Treasury; the funds will accordingly not
be allocated to any settlement fund for the civil actions.

SLKS, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. and Group Inc. are among
numerous defendants named in purported class actions brought
beginning in October 2003 on behalf of investors in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in
connection with NYSE floor specialist activities. The actions,
which have been consolidated, seek unspecified compensatory
damages, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and
sellers of unspecified securities between October 17, 1998 and
October 15, 2003. By a decision dated March 14, 2009, the district
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
defendants' petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit seeking review of the certification ruling was denied, and
the specialist defendants' petition for a rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc was denied on February 24, 2010. On December 5,
2011, the parties reached a settlement in principle, subject to
documentation and court approval. The firm has reserved the full
amount of its proposed contribution to the settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Fannie Mae Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Fannie Mae remains
pending, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s May 10, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. was added as a defendant in an amended
complaint filed on August 14, 2006 in a purported class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
generally arising from allegations concerning Fannie Mae's
accounting practices in connection with certain Fannie Mae-
sponsored REMIC transactions that were allegedly arranged by
GS&Co. The complaint does not specify a dollar amount of damages.
The other defendants include Fannie Mae, certain of its past and
present officers and directors, and accountants. By a decision
dated May 8, 2007, the district court granted GS&Co.'s motion to
dismiss the claim against it. The time for an appeal will not
begin to run until disposition of the claims against other
defendants. A motion to stay the action filed by the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which took control of the foregoing
action following Fannie Mae's conservatorship, was denied on
November 14, 2011.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Mortgage-related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from
several purported class action lawsuits relating to mortgage pass-
through certificates and asset-backed certificates, according to
the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.

Beginning April 26, 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the CDO market and the SEC investigation that led to
the action commenced by the SEC.  The purported class action
complaints, which name as defendants Group Inc. and certain
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, have been
consolidated, generally allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 25, 2011. On
October 6, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss.

Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS
Mortgage Securities Corp. (GSMSC) and three current or former
Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action
commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of
various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed
certificates issued by various securitization trusts established
by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint was granted with leave to replead certain
claims. On March 31, 2010, the plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint relating to two offerings, which the defendants moved to
dismiss. This motion to dismiss was denied as to the plaintiff's
Section 12(a)(2) claims and granted as to the plaintiff's Section
11 claims, and the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was
denied. The plaintiff filed a motion for entry of final judgment
or certification of an interlocutory appeal as to plaintiff's
Section 11 claims, which was denied. The plaintiff then filed a
motion for leave to amend to reinstate the damages claims based on
allegations that it had sold its securities, which was denied. On
May 5, 2011, the court granted plaintiff's motion for entry of a
final judgment dismissing all its claims. The plaintiff has
appealed the dismissal with respect to all of the offerings
included in its original complaint. On June 3, 2010, another
investor (who had unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the
action) filed a separate putative class action asserting
substantively similar allegations relating to an additional
offering pursuant to the 2007 registration statement. The
defendants moved to dismiss this separate action, and the district
court dismissed the action, with leave to replead. Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on October 20, 2011, and, on December 16,
2011, defendants moved to dismiss. These trusts issued, and GS&Co.
underwrote, approximately $785 million principal amount of
certificates to all purchasers in the offering at issue in this
amended complaint.

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSMC and GSMSC are among the defendants in a
separate putative class action commenced on February 6, 2009 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through
certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various
securitization trusts established by the firm and underwritten by
GS&Co. in 2006. The other original defendants include three
current or former Goldman Sachs employees and various rating
agencies. The second amended complaint generally alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus supplements for the
certificates violated the federal securities laws, and seeks
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages. Defendants
moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 12,
2011, the district court granted the motion to dismiss with
respect to offerings in which plaintiff had not purchased
securities as well as all claims against the rating agencies, but
denied the motion to dismiss with respect to a single offering in
which the plaintiff allegedly purchased securities. These trusts
issued, and GS&Co. underwrote, approximately $698 million
principal amount of certificates to all purchasers in the
offerings at issue in the complaint (excluding those offerings for
which the claims have been dismissed). On February 2, 2012, the
district court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification and on February 16, 2012, defendants filed a
petition to review that ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $821 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The
complaint, which was amended on February 4, 2011, asserts federal
securities law and common law claims, and seeks unspecified
compensatory, punitive and other damages. The defendants moved to
dismiss on April 5, 2011, and the motion was granted as to
plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied as to the
remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21,
2012.


GOLDMAN SACHS: IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative securities class action lawsuit relating to IndyMac's
pass-through certificates remains pending, according to The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is among numerous underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14,
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents in connection with various securitizations of mortgage-
related assets violated the disclosure requirements of the federal
securities laws. The defendants include IndyMac-related entities
formed in connection with the securitizations, the underwriters of
the offerings, certain ratings agencies which evaluated the credit
quality of the securities, and certain former officers and
directors of IndyMac affiliates. On November 2, 2009, the
underwriters moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion was
granted in part on February 17, 2010 to the extent of dismissing
claims based on offerings in which no plaintiff purchased, and the
court reserved judgment as to the other aspects of the motion. By
a decision dated June 21, 2010, the district court formally
dismissed all claims relating to offerings in which no named
plaintiff purchased certificates (including all offerings
underwritten by GS&Co.), and both granted and denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss in various other respects. On May
17, 2010, four additional investors filed a motion seeking to
intervene in order to assert claims based on additional offerings
(including two underwritten by GS&Co.). On July 6, 2010 and August
19, 2010, two additional investors filed motions to intervene in
order to assert claims based on additional offerings (none of
which were underwritten by GS&Co.). The defendants opposed the
motions on the ground that the putative intervenors' claims were
time-barred and, on June 21, 2011, the court denied the motions to
intervene with respect to, among others, the claims based on the
offerings underwritten by GS&Co. Certain of the putative
intervenors (including those seeking to assert claims based on two
offerings underwritten by GS&Co.) have appealed.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $751 million principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the May
2010 motion to intervene. On July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank was
placed under an FDIC receivership, and on July 31, 2008, IndyMac
Bancorp, Inc. filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles, California.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit Continues to Defend MF Global Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., continues to defend
itself from a class action lawsuit relating to MF Global Holdings
Ltd.'s convertible notes, according to the Company's May 10, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is among numerous underwriters named as
defendants in class action complaints filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York commencing November
18, 2011. These complaints generally allege that the offering
materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd. convertible
notes (aggregating approximately $575 million in principal amount)
in February 2011 and July 2011 failed to, among other things,
describe adequately the extent of MF Global's exposure to European
sovereign debt, in violation of the disclosure requirements of the
federal securities laws. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate principal
amount of approximately $214 million of the notes. On October 31,
2011, MF Global Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, New York.

GS&Co. has also received inquiries from various governmental and
regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations concerning
certain transactions with MF Global prior to its bankruptcy
filing. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such inquiries.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Employee-related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits filed by employees, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

On May 27, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by several
contingent technology workers who were employees of third-party
vendors. The plaintiffs sought overtime pay for alleged hours
worked in excess of 40 per work week. The complaint alleged that
the plaintiffs were de facto employees of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
that GS&Co. is responsible for the overtime pay under federal and
state overtime laws. The complaint sought class action status and
unspecified damages. On March 21, 2011, the parties agreed to the
terms of a settlement in principle and on February 10, 2012, the
court approved the terms of the settlement and the time to appeal
has run. The firm has paid the full amount of the settlement.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three
former female employees alleging that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect
of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance
evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all
female employees employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages. Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion
to stay the claims of one of the named plaintiffs and to compel
individual arbitration with that individual, based on an
arbitration provision contained in an employment agreement between
Group Inc. and the individual. On April 28, 2011, the magistrate
judge to whom the district judge assigned the motion denied the
motion. On July 7, 2011, the magistrate judge denied Group Inc.'s
and GS&Co.'s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's
decision, and on July 21, 2011 Group Inc. and GS&Co. appealed the
magistrate judge's decision to the district court, which affirmed
the decision on November 15, 2011. Group Inc. and GS&Co. have
appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. On June 13, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co. moved to strike
the class allegations of one of the three named plaintiffs based
on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On September
29, 2011, the magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion to
strike and Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed their objections to that
recommendation with the district judge presiding over the case on
October 11, 2011. By a decision dated January 10, 2012, the
district court denied the motion to strike. On July 22, 2011,
Group Inc. and GS&Co. moved to strike all of the plaintiffs' class
allegations, and for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs'
disparate impact claims. By a decision dated January 19, 2012, the
magistrate judge recommended that defendants' motion be denied as
premature. The defendants have filed their objections to that
recommendation with the district judge.


GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Authors' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
JD Journal reports that on July 27, Google Inc. took the offensive
against thousands of authors claiming that it copied their works
without permission.  The internet search giant filed a petition
with the U.S. district court in Manhattan claiming that the
authors have failed to show any economic harm caused to them by
the scanning and display of their works and the creation of a
searchable index to find them.  In March 2011, a federal judge had
rejected Google's sweeping $125 million settlement of the now
seven-year old case.

Google says it has scanned more than 20 million books, and posted
English-language snippets of more than 4 million, since forming
agreements with large libraries to digitize current and out-of-
print works for the Google Books Web site.

The Authors Guild and groups representing photographers and
graphic artists have complained that Google's actions amounted to
"massive copyright infringement."  However, Google says that the
database actually helps people to find the authors and buy their
books and that there is a "significant public benefit" from the
work done by Google in digitizing and publishing the works of
authors, though without their specific permission.

In its filing, Google said, "Google Books creates enormous
transformative benefits without reducing the value of the authors'
work . . . (and) therefore passes with ease the ultimate test of
fair use."

While rejecting the $125 million offer by Google, Judge Deny Chin
had said that the company had gone too far because it was asking
for a "de facto monopoly" to copy books en masse without
permission and served to "further entrench" its market power in
search dynamics.

Judge Chin granted class-action status to the authors in May, and
said other groups like those representing photographers and
digital artists may also sue.  The lawsuit includes individual
plaintiffs like the former New York Yankees baseball pitcher
Jim Bouton, who is the author of "Ball Four."


GREEN DOT: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBR reports that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg has filed a class action
lawsuit in the US District Court for the Central District of
California against Green Dot and some of its executive officers
for their alleged violations of the US securities laws.

The case alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Green Dot's business,
operations and prospects.

Additionally, the lawsuit also accuses the firm for its misleading
statements pertaining to the company's new internal risk policies
and procedures that were negatively impacting Green Dot's growth
in new account activations amidst others.

On July 26, 2012, Green Dot disclosed that its outlook for the
remainder of the year reflects "the impact of new internal risk
policies and controls to improve the security and quality of
[Green Dot's] portfolio," and that the "reforecast also assumes
that by later this year, many of [the Company's] retailers will
start to sell competitive GPR products in addition to [Green
Dot's] products."

Furthermore, the firm accepted that "because we lack the
historical data to accurately predict how the new competition]
will impact Green Dot's sales, we have taken what we believe to be
a conservative view of any potential impact."

Represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, the plaintiff is seeking
to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Green Dot provides widely distributed, low cost banking and
payment solutions to a broad base of domestic consumers.


JAMAICA PUBLIC: Awaits Decision on Power Monopoly Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Gayle, writing for Go-Jamaica, reports that Supreme Court
Judge Bryan Sykes was set to hand down his decision on July 30 in
the eagerly-watched suit against the Jamaica Public Service
Company (JPS) power distribution monopoly.

The JPS is facing a class action suit by the group Citizens United
for the Reduction of the cost of Electricity.

Last week, there was another development in the class-action suit
when the claimants made a second submission.

However, Justice Sykes did not call the JPS to respond to the
submission like he did weeks before when a similar claim was made
after the case was adjourned.

In the first submission, attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, who is
being instructed by attorney-at-law Marvalyn Taylor Wright
submitted to the judge, a 1913 English case which dealt with
monopoly.

The second case submitted last week was a 1599 United Kingdom
Privy Council case where the then Queen of England granted an
exclusive license to one Edward Darcy to import and sell playing
cards to be marketed in England.

The Privy Council held that the exclusive license granted by the
Queen was illegal and struck down the license.

The claimants in the case before the Supreme Court, Dennis
Meadows, Betty Ann Blaine and Cyrus Rousseau, are challenging the
exclusive 20-year license granted by the then minister of mining
and energy to the JPS in 2001.

They are asking the court to rule that the license is illegal,
because the Electric Lighting Act prohibits monopoly and promotes
competition.

The Attorney General, the JPS and the Office of Utilities
Regulation are the defendants.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Canceled Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lincoln National Life
Insurance canceled policies without notice, Windsor Securities
claims in a Los Angeles Superior Court class action.


MASCO CORP: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $75 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brae Canlen, writing for Home Channel News, reports that Masco
Corp., which was scheduled to go to trial on July 23 in a class-
action suit filed by insulation installers, has decided to settle
the case for $75 million, according to a July 26 filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The Taylor, Mich.,
firm, one of the nation's largest installers of insulation, issued
the following statement in its filing:

"While we continue to deny that the challenged conduct was
unlawful, and we do not admit to any wrongdoing, this business
decision eliminates the considerable expense and uncertainty of
continued litigation and is in the best interest of the company
and its shareholders."

The settlement, which releases Masco from all claims outlined in
the lawsuit, ends an eight-year legal saga that swept up four of
the major players in the insulation industry.  Columbus Drywall
vs. Masco Corp., filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, involved
377 residential insulation contractors who claimed that Masco
conspired with four manufacturers -- CertainTeed Corp., Guardian
Building Products, Johns Manville and Knauf -- to fix prices. (The
plaintiffs also claimed that Owens Corning was also allegedly part
of the conspiracy but did not name the company in the lawsuit
because it was in bankruptcy at the time.)

According to the lawsuit, Masco agreed to accept price increases
from the four large manufacturers as long as its smaller
competitors paid an even higher price for the same products.
Masco also enabled the manufacturers to exchange information about
pricing between 1999 and 2003, according to the plaintiffs.

Four of the defendants, CertainTeed Corp., Guardian Building
Products, Johns Manville and Knauf, settled the case in 2008.
Without admitting any wrongdoing, the four manufacturers agreed to
a $37.2 million pay-out.

Masco continued to fight the charges, and a trial was scheduled
for July 23 in Atlanta.  But court proceedings were suspended when
both parties entered in mediation talks.  The plaintiffs, most of
them local and regional firms, were seeking $250 million in
damages. In antitrust cases, awards are automatically tripled.

A call placed to Masco for further comment was not returned.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Settles Class Action for $4.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Matrixx Initiatives
Inc., maker of the cold remedy Zicam, has agreed to pay $4.5
million to settle an eight-year-old class action alleging the
company violated securities laws by concealing reports that the
medication may cause a permanent loss of the sense of smell,
according to documents filed in Arizona federal court on July 27.

Matrixx and lead plaintiff NECA-IBEW Pension Fund have reached an
accord that would bring an end to the long-running suit.


MERACORD LLC: Paynter Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
On July 24, 2012, The Paynter Law Firm filed a class-action
lawsuit in federal court against Meracord, LLC (formerly known as
"NoteWorld, LLC"), a major player in the debt settlement industry.
The suit also names as defendants Meracord CEO Linda Remsberg
personally; Lloyd Ward & Associates, a Texas law firm (and various
associated entities); and the law firm's principal attorney, Lloyd
E. Ward.

The debt settlement industry purports to help indebted consumers
"negotiate" with their creditors to lower their debts, but has
been criticized in recent years by many consumer advocates, as
well as the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the Government
Accountability Office ("GAO"), for widespread allegations of fraud
and abuse.

The lawsuit, filed by three consumers from Pennsylvania and
Illinois, alleges that Meracord violated the federal Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by conspiring, along
with scores -- if not hundreds -- of "front-end" debt settlement
companies to defraud indebted consumers by falsely representing
their services, the fees they would charge, and other important
facts.

The complaint also alleges that Meracord's actions violated
Washington State law by, among other things, charging illegal fees
and failing to disclose important information to consumers.

According to the complaint, the three plaintiffs each lost
thousands of dollars in unearned fees paid to Meracord and to
their front-end debt settlement companies, including Lloyd Ward &
Associates.  Nor were the plaintiffs alone -- the lawsuit seeks to
represent all consumers who have established Meracord accounts
related to any debt settlement program.  The complaint alleges
that Plaintiffs and class members received little or no actual
debt settlement services in return for these exorbitant fees.

This suit follows a similar suit filed by the firm against
Meracord last year: Rajagopalan v. NoteWorld, LLC.  In that case,
Meracord attempted to force the consumer to arbitrate his claims
rather than go to court.  After losing at the trial court on the
arbitration issue, Meracord appealed that decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the case is
currently pending.

The lead attorneys on the case for the firm are Stuart Paynter and
Celeste H.G. Boyd, and firm is co-counsel in the action with the
law firm of Hagens, Berman Sobol & Shapiro LLP.

                     About the Paynter Law Firm

The Paynter Law Firm -- http://www.smplegal.com-- represents
consumers in complex commercial litigation, including antitrust,
securities law and consumer protection litigation.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued Over Illegal Athletic Scholarship Caps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that in an
antitrust class action, a former Division I quarterback claims the
National Collegiate Athletic Association's "main purpose is to
suppress competition": that it illegally caps schools' athletic
scholarships, costing students millions of dollars a year, to
"serve the selfish interests of the NCAA and its member
institutions."

In his federal complaint, John Rock claims the NCAA's prohibition
of multiyear athletic scholarships in Division II schools, its
prohibition of athletic scholarships in Division III schools, and
its across-the-board caps on athletic scholarships are illegal
restraints on commerce.

He calls it "a blatant price-fixing agreement and restraint
between member institutions of the National Collegiate Athletic
Association."

Mr. Rock, a quarterback, says he received numerous scholarship
offers from Division I schools and went to Gardner-Webb University
in North Carolina in part because the coach promised his
scholarship would be renewed each year.

But when the school appointed a new head coach his junior year,
Mr. Rock says, the coach questioned his commitment because he
missed some practices to participate in a mandatory internship to
finish his degree in political science.

He says Gardner-Webb canceled his football scholarship in August
2011, forcing him to pay his tuition out of pocket to graduate
this year.

Summing up complaints against the NCAA that have been heard for
years, but which have increased since the Penn State scandal,
Mr. Rock says: "Although it describes itself as 'committed to the
best interests . . . of student-athletes,' the NCAA's true
interest is in maximizing revenue for itself and its members,
often at the expense of its student athletes.  While extolling the
virtues of 'amateurism' for student-athletes, the NCAA itself runs
a highly professionalized and commercialized licensing operation
that generates hundreds of millions in royalties, broadcast rights
and other licensing fees each year. The annual revenues for the
NCAA in fiscal year 2007-08 were $614 million.  . . . The direct
expenses for operating the actual games that generate the $614
million in revenues were only $59 million.

"The NCAA, its member institutions and their high-level officers
and employees use the monies earned from college athletes to
pamper themselves with plush headquarters and perks normally
associated with Fortune 500 companies.  According to published
reports, the NCAA's headquarters in Indian cost and estimate $50
million and the NCAA is currently planning an additional $35
million expansion.  Ironically, given that its main purpose is to
suppress competition, the NCAA cited the recent economic downturn
and increased 'competition among contractors' as the explanation
for the timing of the construction.

"NCAA top executives use money earned off the back of student-
athletes to pay themselves salaries of hundreds of thousands of
dollars.  For example, current NCAA president Mark Emmert has been
publicly reported to earn $1.6 million per year."

In February this year, the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors
changed its rules, to allow schools to offer multiyear
scholarships, a change that most Division I schools opposed.

"For years, NCAA member institutions unlawfully conspired to
maintain the price of students-athletes' labor at artificially low
levels by agreeing never to offer student-athletes athletics-based
scholarships of a duration in excess of one year," Mr. Rock says
in his complaint.  "Only recently after litigation in this court,
did the NCAA abandon these restrictions and permit NCAA member
institutions to award multiyear scholarships.  Contrary to the
dire warnings of the NCAA's counsel in prior litigation, the
abandonment of the rule has not affected the amateur nature of
intercollegiate athletic competition or created competitive
imbalances.  Instead, it is benefiting student-athletes by
resulting in the adoption of multiyear scholarships by NCAA member
institutions and the restoration of competition for student
athletes.

"Though it has abandoned the multiyear prohibition, the NCAA
continues to artificially restrict the total number and amount of
available athletics-based scholarships by imposing artificial caps
on the number and amount of athletics-based scholarships that its
member institutions can offer.

"The NCAA's multiyear prohibition and its caps on the total number
and amount of athletics-based scholarships are not, and never
were, necessary to protect the amateur status of NCAA student-
athletes; rather, they only serve the selfish interests of the
NCAA and its member institutions.  For years, the NCAA and its
member institutions maintained the multiyear prohibition because
they knew that in a competitive market, they would be forced to
compete for the athletic services of student athletes by offering
multiyear athletics-based scholarships.  The NCAA and its member
institutions continue to artificially restrict the amount and
number of scholarships because they know that in a competitive
market they would be forced to dramatically increase the overall
supply of athletics-based scholarships and the amounts of those
scholarships.

"By unlawfully agreeing not to offer multiyear athletics-based
scholarships, the NCAA and its member institutions ensured that
student-athletes who were injured or who simply did not meet the
school's expectations could be cut from a team and their
scholarships terminated.  In materials recently submitted to the
NCAA in connection with the NCAA's abandonment of the multiyear
rule, member institution Indiana State University encapsulated the
attitude of most NCAA institutions when it lobbied to retain the
multiyear prohibition on the ground that it allowed member
institutions to dump student athletes who no longer had 'athletic
usefulness.'"

The NCAA allows colleges and universities to treat its student-
athletes as disposable labor, and by limiting scholarships cost
the athletes "tens of millions" of dollars, while saving the
schools that money for themselves, Mr. Rock says.

Division I schools may offer 13 basketball-related full
scholarships and 11.7 baseball-related full scholarships,
according to the complaint.  Schools may divide their
scholarships, offering two 50 percent scholarships instead of one
full scholarship for example, but cannot provide more than 27
baseball, 85 football and 13 basketball scholarships in total.

Mr. Rock adds that "lifting limitations on the number of
athletics-based scholarships that can be offered to student-
athletes would have absolutely no effect on amateurism because
student-athletes would continue to receive no wages for their
playing."

He claims: "The NCAA's wholly artificial caps on the number and
distribution of athletics-based scholarships reduces the overall
supply of athletics-based scholarships available to student-
athletes thereby forcing them to accept far less compensation than
they would have received for their labor by millions of dollars.
Top-tier athletes routinely receive less than 100-percent
athletics-based scholarships and thousands of highly talented
student-athletes receive no athletics-based scholarships at all. .
. .  In short, the supply of available athletics-based
scholarships is kept artificially low by NCAA rules."

Mr. Rock seeks class certification, declaratory judgment that it
is illegal for the NCAA to prohibit multiyear scholarships for
Divisions II and III and to restrict the number of scholarships
schools can offer, and punitive damages for violations of the
Sherman Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Rock v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 12-cv-01019 (S.D. Ind.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/30/NCAA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 W. Lake St., Suite 400
          Oak, Park IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 628-4960
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486
          E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com

                - and -

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
          PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, LLC
          Hammond Block Building
          301 Massachusetts Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-8787
          E-mail: wriley@price-law.com
                  jwilliams@price-law.com


PAR PHARMA: Being Sold to TPG Capital for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Par Pharmaceuticals is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to TPG
Capital, for $1.9 billion or $50 a share, shareholders claim in
Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in KBC Asset Management N.V. v. Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 7725 (Del. Ch.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/30/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          PO Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com
                  bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          Ann K. Ritter, Esq.
          William S. Norton, Esq.
          Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq.
          Max N. Gruetzmacher, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
                  aritter@motleyrice.com
                  bnorton@motleyrice.com
                  jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com
                  mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com


PFIZER INC: September 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
            Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action
   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
                     No. 04-CV-9866
                   (LTS)(HBP) ECF CASE
             In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation

To: All persons and entities who purchased and/or otherwise
acquired Pfizer Inc. common stock between and including October
31, 2000 and October 19, 2005 (the Main Class).*

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the litigation
has been certified as a class action.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION.  A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action is
currently being mailed to known Class Members.  If you have not
yet received the full printed Notice, you may obtain copies of
this document by contacting the Notice Administrator at: Pfizer
Securities Litigation, Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 3410,
Portland, OR 97208-3410, (888) 236-0464,
http://www.PfizerSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel: Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esquire, GRANT & EISENHOFER
P.A., 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10017, (646)
722-8500 or Mary S. Thomas, Esquire, GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A., 123
Justison Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 622-7000.

If you are within the Class definition and are not otherwise
excluded, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member
of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you
do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your
documentation reflecting your transactions in Pfizer common stock.
You will automatically be included in the Class.  If you are a
Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will
be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all past,
present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money that might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you
must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later
than September 9, 2012 in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the full printed Notice.  Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within the Court's
discretion as to whether a second opportunity to request exclusion
from the Class will be allowed if there is a settlement or
judgment in the Action.  A final Pre-Trial Conference has been
scheduled for September 14, 2012.  At this time, the Court has not
set a date for the trial to begin.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator.

* Excluded from the Main Class are: (a) any persons or entities
who both purchased and sold all of their shares of Pfizer common
stock between and including October 31, 2000 and October 6, 2004;
(b) Pfizer and Individual Defendants Henry A. McKinnell, John L.
LaMattina, Karen L. Katen, Joseph M. Feczko and Gail Cawkwell; (c)
members of the immediate family of each of the Individual
Defendants; (d) subsidiaries or affiliates of Pfizer or any of the
Individual Defendants; (e) any person or entity who is, or was
during the Class Period, a partner, officer, director, employee or
controlling person of Pfizer or any of the Individual Defendants;
(f) any entity in which any of the Individual Defendants has a
controlling interest; (g) the legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns of any of the excluded persons or entities
specified in this paragraph; and (h) the insurance carriers or
their affiliates who insure the Defendants.  The Court also
certified a sub-class consisting of all members of the Main Class,
not otherwise excluded, who purchased Pfizer common stock
contemporaneously with sales of Pfizer common stock by Individual
Defendants Henry A. McKinnell, Karen L. Katen and John L.
LaMattina on any of the following dates: October 26, 2000,
November 6, 2000, October 19, 2001, October 23, 2001, February 21,
2002, February 25, 2002, February 27, 2003, November 18, 2003,
February 24, 2005, May 6, 2005, May 10, 2005 and/or August 16,
2005 (the "20A Subclass" and together with the Main Class, the
"Class").

Dated: July 5, 2012

By Order of The United States District Court Southern District of
New York


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Accused of Assessing Unreasonable Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circle Click Media LLC, a California limited liability company, on
behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Regus Management Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Regus Business Centre LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
Regus plc, a Jersey, Channel Islands, public limited company; and
Does 1 through 50, Case No. CGC-12-520600 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., May 8, 2012) arises out of Regus' alleged unfair
business practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that Regus fails to adequately disclose
numerous fees when advertising its space and deceives clients into
reasonably believing that the total price that they will pay to
Regus' office space is less than what Regus actually charges.  The
Plaintiff further alleges that after clients sign Regus' agreement
indicating the total monthly payment, Regus routinely assesses
additional improper and unreasonable charges to clients, which
business practices constitute a systematic and widespread failure
to adequately disclose charges to its office space clients.

Circle Click is a California limited liability company, organized,
existing, and operating under the laws of California, with a
principal place of business in San Francisco, California.

Regus Management Group and Regus Business Centre are companies
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and are doing
business in California.  Regus provides commercial office space
throughout California and holds itself out as the world's largest
provider of workplaces.  Regus plc is a foreign public limited
company incorporated and registered in Jersey, Channel Islands.
Regus plc is a parent, member, and owner of the Defendants.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacity of the Doe
Defendants.

The Defendants removed the lawsuit on July 30, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Defendants argue that the removal is
proper because a district court has original jurisdiction over a
class action that has at least 100 plaintiffs and involves an
amount in controversy over $5 million.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-04000 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Garofolo, Esq.
          Kelly A. Weekes, Esq.
          GAROFOLO LAW GROUP, P.C.
          22 Battery St., Suite #1000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 981-8500
          Facsimile: (415) 981-8870
          E-mail: jgarofolo@garofololaw.com
                  kweekes@garofololaw.com

               - and -

          Ali Aalaei, Esq.
          Bo Zeng, Esq.
          ARI LAW, P.C.
          22 Battery St., Suite #1000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 357-3600
          Facsimile:  (415) 357-3602
          E-mail: info@AriLaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          K. Lee Marshall, Esq.
          Meryl Macklin, Esq.
          Daniel Thomas Rockey, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          333 Market Street, 25th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 675-3400
          Facsimile: (415) 675-3434
          E-mail: klmarshall@bryancave.com
                  meryl.macklin@bryancave.com
                  daniel.rockey@bryancave.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
("B&W"), and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), seeking to
recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages
individually and an unspecified amount for the class in both
compensatory and punitive damages.  The class was brought on
behalf of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims
arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and
cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of
tobacco products and exposure to asbestos products caused her to
develop lung cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.  In
December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.  Pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference in "Turner" Suit on Aug. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for August 22, 2012, in the class
action lawsuit styled Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class in November 2001.  In June 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a
motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of the
Price v. Philip Morris Inc. case, which the judge denied in July
2003.  In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of
Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order
request.  In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price.  On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the
court's denial of its emergency stay/supremacy order request and
remanded the case to the Circuit Court.  A status conference is
scheduled for August 22, 2012.

RAI says in the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Awaits Decision in "Tatum" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") filed a
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR
Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension
Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA.  The actions about
which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by
RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group
Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby
separating NGH's tobacco business and food business.  As part of
the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities
had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate
tobacco and food businesses.  The plaintiff contends that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the
RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the
companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings
Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR
401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off.  The
plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999
Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR
401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion
for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds
after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such
discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty.  In his complaint, the
plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003.  In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.  In
April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part,
dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee
and the RJR Pension Investment Committee.  The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007.  The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008.  The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached.  In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class.  A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached.  The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial.  On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011.  A decision is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set for April 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit captioned Brown v. American Tobacco Co., is
scheduled for April 19, 2013, according to Reynolds American
Inc.'s July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case
filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993, through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.
The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiary, R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), seeking to recover restitution,
disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and
Section 17500 et seq.  However, the underlying substantive claims
have been reduced to include primarily allegations regarding the
use of the descriptor "lights" and statements made during the
class period about the health risks of cigarettes.  Certification
was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants
violated Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions
Code pertaining to unfair competition.  The court, however,
refused to certify the class under the California Legal Remedies
Act and on the plaintiffs' common law claims.  In March 2005, the
court granted the defendants' motion to decertify the class, and
in September 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
order decertifying the class.

In November 2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the
California Supreme Court was granted, and in May 2009, the court
reversed the decision of the trial court, and the California Court
of Appeal that decertified the class and remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings.  In March 2010, the trial
court found that the plaintiffs' "lights" claims were not
preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act
and denied the defendants' second motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiffs filed a tenth amended complaint in September 2010.
RJR Tobacco and B&W filed their answers to the complaint.
Subsequently, on February 24, 2011, the court found that the named
class representatives were not adequate, were not typical, and
lacked standing.  The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was
denied.  The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint by adding new class representatives and denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs filed an eleventh
amended complaint adding new class representatives in July 2011.

In May 2012, the court issued rulings that decertified the class
on false statements concerning additives, nicotine manipulation
and conspiracy to mislead concerning health risks of smoking.
However, the court declined to decertify the class on the "lights"
issue.  Trial is scheduled for April 19, 2013.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Remains Stayed in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") class action
against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds American
Inc.'s subsidiary, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco")
and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), on behalf of all residents of
Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been
exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were
manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury
as a result of that exposure.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.  In
October 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the outcome
of the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


ROYAL CANADIAN: Female Mounties Join Harassment Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that hundreds of current and former
female Mounties have come forward from across Canada to join a
class-action lawsuit alleging harassment within the ranks of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Lawyers expected dozens of women to contact them with allegations
after Janet Merlo, a 19-year veteran of the force, filed suit in
March but attorney Jason Murray said on July 30 that more than 200
people have called his firm in Vancouver.

"It's a significant number.  It says to us there's a significant
problem that people feel has happened within the RCMP with respect
to how women are treated," Mr. Murray said in an interview.

And more people are expected to join the class action.

"We're still hearing from women who either are currently members
of the RCMP or who have retired or left the force in other ways,"
Mr. Murray said.  "On a week-to-week basis we're hearing from
people coming forward who have complaints about how they feel they
were treated when they were with the RCMP."

The civil suit filed by Ms. Merlo alleges she suffered bullying
and verbal abuse throughout a career that began in March 1991 and
ended in March 2010, all but a few months of it at the detachment
in Nanaimo, B.C.

In her statement of claim, Ms. Merlo says male members of the
detachment repeatedly made statements to her then-boyfriend and
now husband, Wayne Merlo, that they'd had sex with her.

Ms. Merlo claims offensive items were left in her mail slot by
colleagues, including a dildo and a fictional manual titled
"Training Courses Now Available for Women," comprising a list of
30 derogatory courses.

The court document claims Ms. Merlo left the force in March 2010
suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The case will officially get underway with a first appearance
before B.C. Supreme Court on August 2, but a class-action suit
typically takes several years to wend its way through the justice
system.

Ms. Merlo's is just one of several lawsuits filed against the
national police force by women who say they suffered abuse and
harassment on the job.

Cpl. Catherine Galliford is suing the RCMP in a separate case
claiming she suffered post-traumatic stress because of harassment
that spanned two decades.  She claims she was sexually assaulted,
harassed and intimidated during a career in which she was the
public face of the Air India investigation and the task force that
arrested serial killer Robert Pickton.

The federal government, which represents the RCMP, denied all of
Ms. Galliford's allegations in a statement of defense in her case,
but the rash of allegations since she came forward last fall
prompted the force to announce earlier this year that it would
train 100 officers to investigate internal complaints of sexual
harassment.

Mr. Murray said the women who have contacted his firm concerning
Ms. Merlo's suit will not be named in the lawsuit at this time,
but their allegations may be heard in court as the cases
progresses.

"Everyone's experience is different, obviously, but (the
allegations) range from people who feel they've been passed over
for an assignment or promotion because of their gender to people
who have had words and taunting all the way up to incidents of
sexual assault and physical assault."

                             Hearing

On August 2, the first hearing will be held in the class action
lawsuit brought against the RCMP on behalf of women across Canada
who allege they were discriminated against, bullied and harassed
by the force.

The lawsuit was filed last March in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia by former RCMP Constable Janet Merlo.  Ms. Merlo is the
plaintiff acting on behalf of female RCMP members.  She alleges
that she and fellow female members, civilian members and public
service employees were subject to gender-based discrimination,
bullying and harassment and that the RCMP failed to exercise the
duty to women in the RCMP to ensure that they could work in an
environment free of gender-based discrimination, bullying and
harassment.

Ms. Merlo's lawyer, David Klein, pointed out that "this is the
first opportunity for the Court to hear an outline of the lawsuit
and for the plaintiff and the RCMP to address the schedule for
certifying the lawsuit as a class action."  He went on to explain
that, at the certification hearing, to be heard at a later date,
"the Court will evaluate whether it is appropriate to 'certify'
the case as a class action."

The hearing will take place:

Date:    Thursday, August 2, 2012
Time:    9:00 a.m.
Location:   Supreme Court of British Columbia
            Vancouver Law Courts
            800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC

Ms. Merlo is represented by Klein Lyons of Vancouver and Toronto,
and Watkins Law of Thunder Bay, Ontario.


SATYAM COMPUTER: Settles Accounting Fraud Class Action for $12MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dhanya Ann Thoppil, writing for Deal Journal India, reports that
India's Satyam Computer Services Ltd. said it has agreed to pay
667 million rupees (US$12 million) to the Aberdeen Group to settle
a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. over alleged losses from
an accounting fraud at the software company unveiled more than two
years ago.

Hyderabad-based Satyam has entered into a settlement with Aberdeen
Claims Administration Inc., the trustee of 20 holders of American
depositary receipts of the Indian outsourcing company, Satyam said
in a statement on July 28.  The settlement has yet to be approved
by the U.S. court, Satyam said.

Aberdeen -- along with other ADR holders -- in November 2009
brought the class-action suit against the company in the U.S.,
claiming total losses of more than $68 million.

The suit was filed after Satyam plunged into turmoil when its
founder and then-Chairman B. Ramalinga Raju admitted in January
2009 to overstating the company's profits and creating a
fictitious cash balance of more than $1 billion.

Soon after, an Indian government-appointed board took charge of
the company and sold a controlling stake through an auction in
April 2009 to Tech Mahindra Ltd.

Earlier this year, Aberdeen Asset Management PLC and some other
holders of its ADRs filed a separate lawsuit in a U.K. court
seeking damages related to an estimated loss of more than $150
million from their investments in the ADRs after the scandal.

Satyam didn't disclose the claim amount from this lawsuit.

Last year, Satyam paid $125 million to settle a separate class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. with some shareholders.

The settlements come as Satyam, once India's fourth largest
software exporter by sales, recovers from the fraud and is
steadily expanding its business by wooing back many of its clients
and employees who walked away after the scandal erupted.


SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Still Faces Suits Over Lead Pigment Paints
------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company continues to face lawsuits arising
from its past operations related to the manufacture and sale of
lead pigments and lead-based paints, according to the Company's
July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company's past operations included the manufacture and sale of
lead pigments and lead-based paints.  The Company, along with
other companies, is and has been a defendant in a number of legal
proceedings, including individual personal injury actions,
purported class actions, and actions brought by various counties,
cities, school districts and other government-related entities,
arising from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-
based paints.  The plaintiffs' claims have been based upon various
legal theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil
conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer
protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability,
public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories.  The
plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal
injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and
abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated
with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and
others.  The Company is also a defendant in legal proceedings
arising from the manufacture and sale of non-lead-based paints
that seek recovery based upon various legal theories, including
the failure to adequately warn of potential exposure to lead
during surface preparation when using non-lead-based paint on
surfaces previously painted with lead-based paint.

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

The Company believes that the litigation brought to date is
without merit or subject to meritorious defenses and is vigorously
defending such litigation.  The Company has not settled any lead
pigment or lead-based paint litigation.  The Company expects that
additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation may be
filed against the Company in the future asserting similar or
different legal theories and seeking similar or different types of
damages and relief.

Notwithstanding the Company's views on the merits, litigation is
inherently subject to many uncertainties, and the Company
ultimately may not prevail.  Adverse court rulings or
determinations of liability, among other factors, could affect the
lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation against the Company
and encourage an increase in the number and nature of future
claims and proceedings.  In addition, from time to time, various
legislation and administrative regulations have been enacted,
promulgated or proposed to impose obligations on present and
former manufacturers of lead pigments and lead-based paints
respecting asserted health concerns associated with such products
or to overturn the effect of court decisions in which the Company
and other manufacturers have been successful.

Due to the uncertainties involved, management is unable to predict
the outcome of the lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation,
the number or nature of possible future claims and proceedings, or
the effect that any legislation and/or administrative regulations
may have on the litigation or against the Company.  In addition,
management cannot reasonably determine the scope or amount of the
potential costs and liabilities related to such litigation, or
resulting from any such legislation and regulations.  The Company
has not accrued any amounts for such litigation.  With respect to
such litigation, including the public nuisance litigation, the
Company does not believe that it is probable that a loss has
occurred, and it is not possible to estimate the range of
potential losses as there is no prior history of a loss of this
nature and there is no substantive information upon which an
estimate could be based.  In addition, any potential liability
that may result from any changes to legislation and regulations
cannot reasonably be estimated.  In the event any significant
liability is determined to be attributable to the Company relating
to such litigation, the recording of the liability may result in a
material impact on net income for the annual or interim period
during which such liability is accrued.  Additionally, due to the
uncertainties associated with the amount of any such liability
and/or the nature of any other remedy which may be imposed in such
litigation, any potential liability determined to be attributable
to the Company arising out of such litigation may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, liquidity
or financial condition.  An estimate of the potential impact on
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
condition cannot be made due to the aforementioned uncertainties.


SMART BALANCE: Sued for False Advertising on Butter Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Smart Balance and GFA Brands
falsely advertise their Smart Balance Spreadable Butter products
as able to "block the absorption of . . . dietary cholesterol," a
class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Aguilar v. Smart Balance, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-01862 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/30/ButterCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com
                  lgomez-gray@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart Weltman, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 427-3600


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Awaits Final Okay of Consolidated Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that
purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs
and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.  One of these private civil actions was filed on
November 15, 2004, in South Carolina state court, York County
Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and some of
Sonic's South Carolina subsidiaries.  The plaintiffs in that
lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and
Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class.  The group of
plaintiffs' attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South
Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action
lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries on February 14, 2005, in state court in North
Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought
certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged
that certain products sold in the finance and insurance
departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal
manner.  The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert
Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappelletti and Kelly Cappelletti, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class.  The South Carolina state court
action and the North Carolina state court action were subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association (the "Arbitrator").
On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action
including all of the states in which Sonic operates dealerships
except Florida.  Claimants are seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers.  The
parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification.

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on
Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all
customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased
from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of
the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or
leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida.  The
Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision
on the merits of the action.  The merits of Claimants' assertions
and potential damages would still have to be proven through the
remainder of the arbitration.  The Arbitrator stayed the
Arbitration for thirty days to allow either party to petition a
court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award.
On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on
Class Certification in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln
County Superior Court.  On August 17, 2010, Sonic removed this
North Carolina state court action to federal court, and
simultaneously filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial
Final Award on Class Certification, with both filings made in the
United Stated District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.

On August 12, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina issued an Order granting
Sonic's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award on Class
Certification and denied Claimant's Motion to Dismiss the same.
Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals on September 12, 2011.  The federal
court's stay of the arbitration proceeding remains in force.  At a
mediation held January 16, 2012, Sonic reached an agreement with
the Claimants to settle this ongoing dispute in its entirety.
Sonic and the Claimants subsequently entered into a definitive
settlement agreement, the terms of which received preliminary
approval by a North Carolina state court in May 2012.  This
settlement remains subject to final court approval.  In the event
that final court approval is received, this settlement would not
have a material adverse effect on Sonic's future results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Sonic is involved, and expects to continue to be involved, in
numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the
conduct of its business, including regulatory investigations and
private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to
represent a potential class or for which a class has been
certified.  Although Sonic vigorously defends itself in all legal
and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future
proceedings arising out of the conduct of Sonic's business,
including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits,
contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and
actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted
with certainty.  An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these
matters could have a material adverse effect on Sonic's business,
financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or
prospects.  Included in other accrued liabilities at both June 30,
2012, and December 31, 2011, was approximately $7.3 million in
reserves that Sonic has provided for pending proceedings.  Except
as reflected in such reserves, Sonic is currently unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, or a range of
reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, for
pending proceedings.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


TARGET CORP: Judge Allows Deceptive Ads Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that a Minnesota
federal judge ruled on July 27 that Target Corp. must face a
proposed class action alleging it deceptively marketed its
TrimStep toning shoes and citing scientific studies that allegedly
showed other, similar shoes didn't offer their advertised health
benefits.

U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen denied Target's motion to
dismiss the suit, rejecting its arguments that its promotional
statements that the shoes tone the wearer's leg muscles and help
improve posture -- which plaintiff Erin Laughlin claimed led her
to buy the shoes -- are puffery.


TIMMINCO LIMITED: Leave to Commence Action Ruling Expected Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada will announce whether or not it will grant
leave in Sharma v. Timminco Limited on Aug. 2 at 9:45 a.m.

Some class action defense lawyers are calling the case the most
important decision yet on secondary market class actions.  The
judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal required plaintiffs in
these proceedings to seek the required leave to commence the
action from the court within three years of the date of the
impugned misrepresentation.

The case also has broad-reaching implications for other types of
class actions.


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Coverage Dispute Bid in Settlement Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bibeka Shrestha, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh
Circuit on July 27 rejected The Travelers Indemnity Co.'s attempt
to keep a coverage dispute over a $16 million settlement in a
credit card rights class action out of state court, ruling that
class members' claims couldn't be aggregated to provide federal
court jurisdiction over the case.

Travelers has asked a federal court to rule that it had no duty to
defend Rogan Shoes Inc. in a class action claiming it violated the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.


UNITIL CORP: Suit vs. Fitchburg Still Pending in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil
Corporation's wholly-owned distribution utility, Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company, on January 7, 2009, in Worcester Superior
Court in Worcester, Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v.
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company.  On April 1, 2009, an
Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester Superior Court and served
on Fitchburg.  The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount
of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and
alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and
suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in
connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm
in Fitchburg's service areas in December, 2008.  The Amended
Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for purported unfair and
deceptive trade practices related to the December 2008 ice storm.
On September 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the
Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and
denying it in part.  The Company anticipates that the court will
decide whether the lawsuit is appropriate for class action
treatment in late 2012.  The Company continues to believe the
lawsuit is without merit and will defend itself vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


USG CORP: Homeowners Have Until September 28 to Join Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eligible homeowners have until September 28, 2012, to indicate
whether they will accept the settlement of the lawsuits relating
to Knauf Tianjin wallboard or opt out and continue to pursue their
claims in litigation, USG Corporation disclosed in its
July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, is one of many
defendants in lawsuits relating to Chinese-made wallboard
installed in homes primarily in the southeastern United States
during 2006 and 2007.  The wallboard was made in China by a number
of manufacturers, including Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., or
Knauf Tianjin, and was sold or used by hundreds of distributors,
contractors, and homebuilders.  Knauf Tianjin is an affiliate or
indirect subsidiary of Knauf Gips KG, a multinational manufacturer
of building materials headquartered in Germany.  The plaintiffs in
these lawsuits, most of whom are homeowners, claim that the
Chinese-made wallboard is defective and emits elevated levels of
sulfur gases causing a bad smell and corrosion of copper or other
metal surfaces.  Plaintiffs also allege that the Chinese-made
wallboard causes health problems such as respiratory problems and
allergic reactions.  The plaintiffs seek damages for the costs of
removing and replacing the Chinese-made wallboard and other
allegedly damaged property as well as damages for bodily injury,
including medical monitoring in some cases.  Most of the lawsuits
against L&W Supply are part of the consolidated multi-district
litigation titled In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047, pending in New Orleans,
Louisiana.  The focus of the litigation to date has been on
plaintiffs' property damage claims and not their alleged bodily
injury claims.

L&W Supply's sales of Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined
to the Florida region in 2006, were relatively limited.  The
amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially sold by L&W Supply
Corporation could completely furnish approximately 250-300
average-size houses; however, the actual number of homes involved
is greater because many homes contain a mixture of different
brands of wallboard. The Company's records contain the addresses
of the homes and other construction sites to which L&W Supply
delivered wallboard, but do not specifically identify the
manufacturer of the wallboard delivered.  Therefore, when Chinese-
made wallboard is identified in a home, the Company can determine
from its records whether L&W Supply delivered wallboard to that
home.  Of the property damage claims asserted to date where the
Company's records indicate, the Company delivered wallboard to the
home, it has identified approximately 290 homes where it has
confirmed the presence of Knauf Tianjin wallboard or, based on the
date and location, the wallboard in the home could be Knauf
Tianjin wallboard.  The Company has resolved the claims relating
to approximately 170 of those homes and, recently reached a class
settlement agreement that may resolve the remainder of those
claims.

In early 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with Knauf
that effectively caps the Company's responsibility for property
damage claims relating to Knauf Tianjin wallboard at a fixed
amount per square foot for the property at issue.  Recently, the
Company also entered into a class settlement resolving claims of
all homeowners who filed lawsuits alleging damages from Knauf
Tianjin wallboard, including both property damage and bodily
injury claims.  Pursuant to the class settlement, the Company will
contribute the same fixed amount per square foot set forth in its
agreement with Knauf.  The Company's per-square-foot contribution
is limited to those homes to which it supplied Knauf Tianjin
wallboard, and only one payment is required per home.  The class
settlement has been preliminary approved by the judge presiding
over the multi-district litigation.  Eligible homeowners have been
sent notice of the settlement and have until September 28, 2012,
to indicate whether they will accept the settlement or opt out and
continue to pursue their claims in litigation.  For all claims
against the Company relating to Knauf Tianjin wallboard that are
not resolved by the class settlement, including claims of
homeowners who decline to participate in the class settlement, the
Company's original settlement with Knauf remains in effect and
caps its responsibility for Knauf Tianjin property damage claims.

Although the vast majority of Chinese drywall claims against the
Company relate to Knauf Tianjin board, the Company has received
some claims relating to other Chinese-made wallboard sold by L&W
Supply Corporation.  Most, but not all, of the other Chinese-made
wallboard the Company sold was manufactured by Knauf at other
plants in China.  The Company is not aware of any instances in
which the wallboard from the other Knauf Chinese plants has been
determined to cause odor or corrosion problems.  A small
percentage of claims made against L&W Supply Corporation relate to
Chinese-made wallboard that was not manufactured by Knauf, but
which is alleged to have odor and corrosion problems.  Those
claims are not encompassed within the Company's settlement with
Knauf.

As of June 30, 2012, the Company has an accrual of $13 million for
its estimated cost of resolving all the Chinese wallboard property
damage claims pending against L&W Supply and estimated to be
asserted in the future, and, based on the terms of the Company's
settlement with Knauf, the Company has recorded a related
receivable of $8 million.  The Company's accrual does not take
into account litigation costs, which are expensed as incurred, or
any set-off for potential insurance recoveries.  The Company's
estimated liability is based on the information available to it
regarding the number and type of pending claims, estimates of
likely future claims, and the costs of resolving those claims.
The Company's estimated liability could be higher if the other
Knauf Chinese wallboard that it sold is determined to be
problematic, the number of Chinese wallboard claims significantly
exceeds its estimates, or the cost of resolving bodily injury
claims is more than estimated.  Considering all factors known to
date, the Company does not believe that these claims and other
similar claims that might be asserted will have a material effect
on its results of operations, financial position or cash flows.
However, there can be no assurance that the lawsuits will not have
such an effect.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: 1st Cir. Vacates $30MM Award to Class Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Birbrair, writing for Law360, reports that the First Circuit
on July 27 vacated a $30 million award to class counsel in a
multidistrict litigation against Volkswagen AG and Audi AG over
oil sludge buildup in engines and related warranties, finding that
the fee should have been based on relevant state law instead of
federal law.

The appellate court reversed and remanded a lower court decision
granting the $30 million award for attorneys' fees in the class
action settlement.


WELLPOINT INC: Appeal in "ADA" Suit Remains Pending in 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc. is currently a defendant in a putative class
action relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement of dental
claims called American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health
Networks, Inc. and Blue Cross of California.  The lawsuit was
filed in March 2002 by the American Dental Association, and three
dentists who are suing on behalf of themselves and are seeking to
sue on behalf of a nationwide class of all non-participating
dental providers who were paid less than their actual charges for
dental services provided to members of some of the Company's
affiliates' and subsidiaries' dental plans.  The dentists sue as
purported assignees of their patients' rights to benefits under
the Company's dental plans.  The complaint alleges that the
Company breached its contractual obligations in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by
paying usual, customary and reasonable, or UCR, rates, rather than
the dentists' actual charges, allegedly relying on undisclosed,
non-existent or flawed UCR data.  The plaintiffs claim, among
other things, that the data failed to account for differences in
geography, provider specialty, outlier (high) charges, and
complexity of procedure.  The complaint further alleges that the
Company was aware that the data was inappropriate to set UCR rates
and that the Company routinely paid OON dentists less than their
actual charges representing that the Company's OON payments were
properly determined usual, customary and reasonable rates.  The
lawsuit was pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  On December 23, 2011, the District
Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which
is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit;
however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend Out-of-Network MDL in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc. continues to defend a multidistrict litigation
captioned In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates
Litigation in California, according to the Company's July 25,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is currently a defendant in eleven putative class
actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that
were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In
re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The lawsuits were filed in 2009.  The
plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a
putative class of members who received OON services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical
Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians,
chiropractors, clinical psychologists, podiatrists,
psychotherapists, the American Podiatric Association, California
Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological
Association on behalf of a putative class of all physicians and
all non-physician health care providers, and an OON surgical
center.  In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), federal
regulations, and state law by relying on databases provided by
Ingenix in determining OON reimbursement.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed to add allegations in
the lawsuit that OON reimbursement was calculated improperly by
methodologies other than the Ingenix databases.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  The
motion was granted in part and denied in part.  The court gave the
plaintiffs permission to replead many of those claims that were
dismissed.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated
complaint repleading some of the claims that had been dismissed
without prejudice and adding additional statements in an attempt
to bolster other claims.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
the third amended consolidated complaint, which is pending.  The
OON surgical center voluntarily dismissed their claims.  Fact
discovery is complete.

At the end of 2009, the Company filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the
Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the medical doctors
and doctors of osteopathy and certain medical associations based
on prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011, and that
court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are
barred by the release.  The plaintiffs then filed a petition for
declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims
are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action,
which was granted.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld.  The enjoined
physicians have not yet dismissed their claims.  The Florida Court
found the enjoined physicians in contempt, but has not yet issued
an order on sanctions.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.


WELLPOINT INC: Oct. 25 Hearing in AICI Demutualization Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final fairness hearing on the settlement of one of the three
class action lawsuits arising from the demutualization of Anthem
Insurance Companies, Inc., is scheduled for October 25, 2012,
according to WellPoint, Inc.'s July 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

The Company is currently defending several certified class actions
filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance
Companies, Inc., or AICI, and the initial public offering of
common stock, or IPO, for its holding company, Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a
WellPoint, Inc.).  The lawsuits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc.,
or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.  The lawsuits are captioned as
Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.; Mary E. Ormond, et al.
v. Anthem, Inc., et al.; and Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v.
Anthem, Inc., et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan,
provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.
Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs,
in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their
membership interests in the mutual company.  The lawsuits
generally allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs or
distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.  In Gold, cross
motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in
part on July 26, 2006, with regard to the issue of sovereign
immunity asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut, or
the State.  The court also denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005.  The State
appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme
Court.  The Company filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity
issue.  On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the
trial court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims under sovereign immunity and dismissed the Company's cross-
appeal.  The case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on December 15, 2011.

In the Ormond lawsuit, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted
in part and denied in part on March 31, 2008.  The Court dismissed
the claims for violation of federal and state securities laws, for
violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law, for unjust
enrichment, and for negligent misrepresentation with respect to
ESMs residing in Indiana.  On September 29, 2009, a class was
certified with respect to some but not all claims asserted in the
plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint.  The class consists of all
ESMs residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or Connecticut who
received cash compensation in connection with the demutualization.
The class does not include employers located in Ohio and
Connecticut that received cash distributions pursuant to the Plan.
On July 1, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion for summary judgment.  The
Court held that the Company was entitled to judgment on all of
plaintiffs' claims except those tort claims in connection with the
pricing and sizing of the Anthem, Inc. IPO.

The parties have reached an agreement to resolve the Ormond
lawsuit.  On June 15, 2012, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of a $90.0 million cash settlement,
including any amounts to be awarded for attorneys' fees and
expenses and other costs to administer the settlement.  As a
result, during the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company
recorded selling, general and administrative expense of $90.0
million, or $0.27 per diluted share, associated with this
settlement, which was non-deductible for tax purposes.  The Court
granted plaintiffs' motion and entered preliminary approval of the
settlement on June 18, 2012.  As a result, the trial that had been
set for June 18, 2012, was vacated.  The cash settlement was paid
on July 3, 2012, into an escrow account in which the settlement
funds will remain until the Court approves the settlement.  A
final fairness hearing on the settlement is scheduled for October
25, 2012.

On November 4, 2009, a class was certified in the Mell lawsuit.
That class consists of persons who were continuously enrolled in
the health benefit plan sponsored by the City of Cincinnati
between June 18, 2001, and November 2, 2001.  On March 3, 2010,
the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion for
summary judgment.  As a result, the Mell lawsuit has been
dismissed.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Court.  Argument on
the appeal was held on January 20, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the Mell and Gold
lawsuits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined.

                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *