---

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

             Monday, September 3, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 174

                             Headlines

7-ELEVEN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Potato Chip Class Action
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces Privacy Class Action in California
BLUE RIBBON: Cab Drivers File Class Action in Illinois Over Tips
BNSF RAILWAY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suits
BODY CENTRAL: Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action in Florida

CABOT INVESTMENT: Faces Class Action Over Real Estate "Scam"
CITIGROUP INC: Settles Toxic Subprime Debt Suit for $590 Million
COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls 50,400 Shower Light Trim and Glass Lens
CRANE CO: New Jersey Homeowners Class Suit Remains Pending
CRANE CO: Continues to Defend Suit Over Merrimac Acquisition

EASTMAN KODAK: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Continues to Face MERS-Related Suits
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Trial in Firefighters Suit to Begin on Dec. 6
FIRST MIDWEST: Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fees Suit Still Pending
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Indirect Lending Class Suit Pending in Ohio

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Improper Interest Calculation Suit Still Pending
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Suit Over Overdraft Fees Pending in Lake County
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Pays $2.4MM in Settlement of Harassment Case
FSI INT'L: Being Sold to Tokyo Electron for Too Little
GRANT THORNTON: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Claims in Securities Suit

HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Overdraft Fees Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
HERTZ CORP: All Briefing in "Sobel" Class Suit Completed in May
HERTZ CORP: Draft of Consumer Suit Settlement Being Finalized
HERTZ CORP: Hearing on "Shames-Gramkow" Suit Deal on Oct. 29
HERTZ CORP: New Jersey Judge Refers "Davis" Suit to Mediation

HSBC MORTGAGE: Gets Favorable Ruling in Refinancing Class Action
IMMUCOR INC: Judge Allows Blood Reagents Class Action to Proceed
KAPLAN INC: ESL Teachers File Overtime Class Action
KOL BERAMA: Kolech Files NIS104MM Discrimination Class Action
NETFLIX: Customers Object to Class Action Settlement

NEW YORK: NYPD's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Denied
PHILIP MORRIS USA: Court Overturns "Lights" Class Action Ruling
SPLENDID PRODUCTS: Recalls Daniella Mangoes Due to Health Risk
SUMMER INFANT: Recalls 2,065,000 Baby Bathers Due to Fall Hazard
SYNGENTA: Clermont County Takes Part in Class Action Settlement

TITANIUM DIOXIDE ANTITRUST: Maryland Court Certifies Class Suit
TOYOTA: Paint Shop Workers' Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
TRANS UNION: Faces Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action
VIVINT INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Calls
WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Judge Reverses Class Action Certification

WESTERN HEALTH: Faces Second Patient Data Breach Class Action


                          *********


7-ELEVEN INC: Seeks Dismissal of Potato Chip Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
CSP Daily News, citing legal news agency Law360, reported that 7-
Eleven Inc. on Aug. 27 asked a judge to throw out a proposed
class-action lawsuit alleging that the convenience store chain
falsely advertises its potato chips as containing no trans fats or
cholesterol.

The retailer said that the claims on the packaging are true, that
it never deceived Scott Bishop and that he never suffered an
economic injury, the report said.

Mr. Bishop, the plaintiff, is seeking restitution for consumers
who purchased the chips and relied on the allegedly false
information, but the company said because its packaging
information is true, the lawsuit fails to state an actual claim on
which it can proceed.

"A false advertising case -- such as this lawsuit purports to be -
-must be based on an affirmative misrepresentation, or at least a
failure to disclose facts that one has a duty to disclose," 7-
Eleven said, according to the report.  This case "is based on
neither."

The chain added that the case is "unusually meritless."

7-Eleven said a reasonable consumer would not be misled into
thinking that its potato chips are a health food by a package that
contained an accurate nutrition facts label and the true
statements "0 Grams Trans Fat/No Cholesterol."

(Federal regulations allow food labels to say there are zero grams
of trans fat in a product as long as there is less than half a
gram per serving, said the Associated Press.).

The case is Scott Bishop v. 7-Eleven Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Based in Dallas, 7-Eleven operates, franchises or licenses
approximately 9,400 7-Eleven stores in North America.  Globally,
there are some 47,300 7-Eleven stores in 16 countries.  During
2011, 7-Eleven stores worldwide generated total sales close to
$76.6 billion.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces Privacy Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, reports that a California
resident on Aug. 24 launched a proposed class action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court against Allied Interstate Inc.,
accusing the debt collection agency of violating his privacy by
illegally recording phone conversations with him.

Alan Hernandez brought his case under California's "two-party
consent" wiretapping law, which makes it a crime to record a phone
call without the consent of all parties to the conversation.
Allied had a "policy and practice" of recording phone
conversations with California consumers, Mr. Hernandez alleges.


BLUE RIBBON: Cab Drivers File Class Action in Illinois Over Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that eight cab
companies took more than $1 million from cabdrivers by skimming 5
percent off every tip paid with a credit card, eight cabbies claim
in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Innocent Adiemeli sued the "taxi affiliations"
known as Blue Ribbon, City Service, Flash, Choice, Globe, Koam,
Sun and Dispatch, in Cook County Chancery Court.

Cabbies in Chicago have had to accept payment by credit card since
2002, according to the complaint.  The cab companies may charge a
5 percent processing fee, but the cabbies say the 5 percent fee
applies only to the fare, not to tips also charged to the card.

For drivers who work for a cab company, the fare, plus tip, is
credited to the cab company, which then distributes the money to
the drivers.

"The taxicabs operating within the affiliations of Blue Ribbon,
City Service, Flash, Choice, Globe, Koam, Sun and Dispatch all
have the required equipment for processing credit and debit cards
installed in all the taxicabs operating within the respective
affiliation.

"The receipts presented show the amount of the charge that was
paid for the fare and also show separately the amount given not as
part of the fare but as a gratuity or tip to the driver," the
class claims.

"Defendants, however, refuse to separate out the gratuity, when
calculating the amount to charge the driver for a processing fee."

The cabbies claim that their companies "are overcharging beyond
the limits set by the governing regulations because the Chicago
Regulatory Provisions limit the amount that can be charged as a
service charge to the driver to 5 percent of the fare.  Plaintiffs
contend that taking 5 percent of their gratuities and tips is
wrongful and in violation of the Chicago Regulatory Provisions."

The cabbies estimate the damage at more than $1 million.  They
want the money, and damages for conversion and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Adiemeli, et al. v. Blue Ribbon Assn
Inc., et al., Case No. 2012CH29864 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/27/Cabbies.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayton P. Voegtle, Esq.
          14047 W. Petronella Dr., Suite 202A
          Libertyville, IL 60048
          Telephone: (847) 918-9840


BNSF RAILWAY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself from consolidated
antitrust lawsuits pending in the District of Columbia, according
to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

BNSF Railway Company and other Class I railroads have been subject
since May 2007, to some 30 similar class action complaints
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws.  The complaints seek injunctive
relief and unspecified treble damages.  These cases were
consolidated in the federal district court of the District of
Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (In
re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1869).  Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed
against BNSF Railway Company and three other Class I railroads in
April 2008.  On June 21, 2012, the court certified the class
sought by the plaintiffs.  As a result, with some exceptions, rail
customers who paid a fuel surcharge on non-Surface Transportation
Board regulated traffic between July 2003 and December 2008, are
part of a class that, subject to appeal, can be tried jointly in a
single case.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
continues to defend against the allegations vigorously.  The
Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.


BODY CENTRAL: Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 28 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Body
Central Corporation common stock during the period between
November 10, 2011 and June 18, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 28, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/body/

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

The complaint charges Body Central and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Body Central is a multi-channel, specialty retailer offering
women's apparel and accessories at specialty stores under the Body
Central and Body Shop banners, as well as through a direct
business.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financials and future business prospects.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
adverse facts concerning what defendants described as a
"merchandise miss," as well as the poor operating and financial
performance of the Company's stores.  As a result of defendants'
false statements, which included statements regarding the
Company's 2012 financial outlook, Body Central common stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching
a high of $30.69 per share on April 27, 2012.

On May 3, 2012, Body Central issued a press release announcing its
first quarter 2012 financial results.  Among other things, the
Company unexpectedly issued a weak forecast for second quarter and
full year earnings, pointing to an expected decrease in comparable
store sales.  For the second quarter, the Company forecast
earnings between $0.26 and $0.28 cents, well below market
expectations of $0.36.  The Company forecasted full year earnings
of $1.34 to $1.38, below the average analyst forecast of $1.52. On
this news, Body Central common stock abruptly lost almost half of
its value, falling $14.04 per share to close at $14.88 per share
on May 4, 2012, a one-day decline of more than 48%.

Then, on June 18, 2012, Body Central issued a press release
"revising sales and earning guidance for its second quarter and
full year 2012." On this news, Body Central common stock again
lost almost half of its value, falling $7.77 per share from a
closing price of $15.99 on June 15, 2012 to close at $8.22 per
share on June 18, 2012, the next trading day -- a one-day decline
of more than 48% -- on volume of more than 14 million shares
traded.

The complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company's
merchandise miss was not an isolated, quickly fixable event, but
would take at least several quarters to remedy and would have a
material, negative impact on the Company's financial results; (ii)
that the Company's stores were experiencing increasingly poor
performance and financial results; (iii) that defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
operations and its business and financial results and outlook; and
(iv) that, based on the above, defendants lacked a reasonable
basis for their positive statements about the Company or its
revenue outlook.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Body Central common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


CABOT INVESTMENT: Faces Class Action Over Real Estate "Scam"
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that investors
claim in a class action that they lost $15 million in a real
estate securities "scam" involving property at the Ashtabula Mall
in Ohio.

Named plaintiffs Cabot Ashtabula 22 LLC, Randall Lynch and the
Lynch Family Trust sued six people and 10 businesses, in Superior
Court.

The lead defendant is Carlton P. Cabot; also sued are Cabot
Investment Properties, two other Cabot entities, Ashtabula Mall
Co., and the Nixon Peabody law firm.

The plaintiffs sued on behalf of investors who bought tenant in
common interests in the Ashtabula Mall between Aug. 24, 2007 and
Feb. 28, 2008.

The class claims it was "fraudulently induced to invest over
$15,100,000 of their hard earned money in a syndicated tenant in
common real estate transaction investing in a regional mall
commonly known as 'Ashtabula Mall.' . . . The transaction was
nothing more than a real estate scam put together by the
defendants to line their own pockets.

"The defendants arranged the acquisition of the property at a
price of $44,387,755 and then claimed an illegal real estate
commission of $1,300,000 disguised as an acquisition fee, illegal
real estate loan commissions of $794,500 and other hidden and
undisclosed fees of $362,245 for a grand total of $2,456,745, as
illegal and unearned fees all paid to affiliates of the
promoters."

Cabot Investment Properties is a Massachusetts-based company
organized by Carlton Cabot, of Massachusetts, and co-defendant
Timothy Kroll, of New York, according to the complaint.
The class claims, among other things, that the defendants failed
to disclose that the complicated deal was "a less desirable option
for the class seeking Internal Revenue Code Section 1031 capital
gains tax deferral than simply paying the maximum 15 percent
capital gains tax they sought to defer."

The complaint continues: "Because the securities were not as
represented, as well as defendants' mismanagement, the property is
now in the process of foreclosure and the investment a total
loss."

They seek the $15.1 million they say they lost on the real
property securities, rescission and punitive damages for 16 causes
of action, including fraud, intentional misrepresentation and
unfair business practices.

A copy of the Complaint in Cabot Ashtabula 22, LLC, et al. v.
Cabot, et al., Case No. 30-2012-00593608 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/29/Ashtabula.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq.
          Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward, Esq.
          Eric V. Anderton, Esq.
          CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
          2331 West Lincoln Avenue
          Anaheim, CA 92801
          Telephone: (714) 520-5544
          E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                  ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com
                  eanderton@catanzarite.com


CITIGROUP INC: Settles Toxic Subprime Debt Suit for $590 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Kapner, Serena Ng and Dan Fitzpatrick, writing for The
Wall Street Journal, report that in one of the largest settlements
of suits tied to the financial crisis, Citigroup Inc. agreed to
pay $590 million over claims that it deceived investors by hiding
the extent of its dealings in toxic subprime debt.

The pact, with investors who purchased Citigroup stock in parts of
2007 and 2008, represents the latest effort by Citigroup Chief
Executive Vikram Pandit to put the pain from the financial crisis
behind it.

Citigroup accepted $45 billion in U.S. aid in 2008 and 2009 that
it has since repaid.  But shares of the New York company remain
more than 90% below their level when Mr. Pandit took the reins in
late 2007 after the resignation of Charles Prince amid mortgage-
securities losses.

Citigroup denied the allegation, saying it is settling "solely to
eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further
protracted litigation."  It said existing legal reserves will
cover the cost of the settlement.

Citigroup was one of several financial institutions -- including
American International Group Inc. -- sued by shareholders
who saw their investments plunge in value in the financial crisis.

Citigroup's market value has dropped by $173 billion since early
2007.

The Citigroup case was particularly high profile, because of the
size of the company's bailout, the seriousness of the accusations
and the prominence of the company's board.

The complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan alleged that an
underwriting spree at the height of the housing boom left
Citigroup in 2007 with far more unmarketable securities known as
collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, on its balance sheet
than it had disclosed to investors.

During the class period, the complaint estimates, Citigroup
underwrote in excess of $70 billion of such securities.  While
investors assumed Citigroup had sold most of those securities, the
complaint alleged that the bank had retained some $57 billion on
its books.

In November 2007, as the financial markets began to seize up,
Citigroup disclosed it would have to take an $8 billion to $11
billion write-down on $46 billion of CDOs, the complaint alleges.
Barely two months later, the size of the write-down had ballooned
to $18 billion and Citigroup disclosed it owned a further $11
billion of CDOs.  Write-downs ultimately totaled $31 billion,
according to the complaint.

The settlement covers investors who bought Citigroup common stock
between Feb. 26, 2007, and April 18, 2008 -- the beginning of a
ruinous stretch for shareholders in the global banking company.

Citigroup shares began that period at $527 each, adjusted for a 1-
for-10 reverse stock split in May 2011, and ended it at $251,
wiping out $110 billion of market value over the period.  The
company had roughly 5 billion shares outstanding during the class
period. Based on the judge's order, it appears that the expected
recovery is 19 cents a share, including 3 cents of attorney's fees
and expenses.

The bank's stock has since tumbled further, due in part to shares
issued to repay U.S. aid during the crisis.  Citigroup shares rose
57 cents on Aug. 29 to $29.91 in New York Stock Exchange composite
trading.

The allegations are similar to those brought by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, which in 2010 charged Citigroup with
misleading investors about the company's exposure to subprime
mortgage-related assets.

Citigroup paid a $75 million penalty, and a former chief financial
officer and former head of investor relations paid $100,000 and
$80,000 respectively over their roles in Citigroup understating
its exposure to subprime mortgages by more than $37 billion.

The Aug. 29 agreement is the largest legal settlement tied to
financial-crisis dealings in CDOs, and the third-largest
settlement of a class-action lawsuit tied to the financial crisis,
according to Jeff Nielsen, a managing director of Navigant
Consulting, a Washington-based banking-related consulting firm.

Wachovia Corp., now part of Wells Fargo, agreed last year to pay
$627 million to put an end to allegations that it misled investors
about the quality of its mortgage loan portfolio. Countrywide
Financial, now part of Bank of America Corp., agreed in 2010 to
pay $624 million over accusations that it misled investors about
risky mortgage practices.  Both companies denied wrongdoing.

AIG has been sued by various shareholders who alleged the insurer
made false and misleading statements about its financial health
and exposure to subprime mortgages and CDOs before its near-
collapse and government bailout in 2008.

In the recent second quarter, AIG recorded a $719 million increase
in its estimated legal liabilities, mainly for the shareholder
lawsuits, which are still pending.

The Citigroup settlement requires approval by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  A hearing is
scheduled for Jan. 15.


COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls 50,400 Shower Light Trim and Glass Lens
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cooper Lighting LLC, of Peachtree City, Georgia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 50,400 shower light trims.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The shower light's trim and glass lens can fall from the ceiling
fixture, posing an impact and laceration hazard to consumers.

Cooper Lighting has received 407 reports of trim pieces falling
and breaking, including laceration injuries to a consumer's head
and foot when struck by the light's trim and lens as they fell
from the ceiling fixture.

This recall involves All-Pro shower light trim models ERT701, RE-
ERT 701, ERT702 and ERT703 with a glass lens and date codes 347 11
through 119 12.  The model number and date code are marked on
underside of the portion of the trim facing the ceiling.  The trim
is used with light fixtures listed below.

   Shower
   light trim                  Used with light
   model nos.:   Date codes:   fixture model numbers:
   -----------   -----------   ----------------------
   ERT701           347 11     ET700, ET700R, ET2700, EI700U,
   RE-ERT701       through     EI700UAT
   ERT702           119 12     Can also fit in H7T, H7RT, H7UIC,
   ERT703                      H7UIC, H27T, H27TCP, H27RT, H7TCP,
                               H270ICAT, H271ICAT, H274E, H276E,
                               H280E, H280EL, H280EEM, H283,
                               H283EL, H280EICAT, H280ELICAT,
                               H285E, H285EL, H285EEM, H285EEML,
                               H287E, H287EL, H285EICAT,
                               H285ELICAT, H7ICT, H7ICAT, H27ICAT

   Example for the Date Codes: the 347th day of 2011
   (or December 13, 2011) through the 119th day of the 2012
   (or April 28, 2012)

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12261.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Depot and other home improvement stores nationwide and by
professional installers from January 2012 through July 2012 for
about $13 for the trim and glass lens.

Consumers should contact Cooper Lighting immediately to receive
free replacement trim for the shower light.  For additional
information, contact Cooper Lighting at (800) 954-7228 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's recall page at http://www.cooperlighting.com/


CRANE CO: New Jersey Homeowners Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to recently enacted regulations in New Jersey, Crane Co.
performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of approximately
40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former manufacturing
facility in Roseland, New Jersey, to determine if any contaminants
(volatile organic compound vapors from groundwater) from the
facility were present in those homes.  The Company installed vapor
mitigation equipment in three homes where contaminants were found.
On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one
of those homes, filed separate lawsuits against the Company
seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for their
lost property value and nuisance.  In addition, a homeowner in the
testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of
contaminants, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company on
behalf of himself and 142 other homeowners in the surrounding
area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their
homes due to their proximity to the facility.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company says it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the amount of a loss and therefore, no loss amount has
been accrued for the claims because among other things, the extent
of the environmental impact, consideration of other factors
affecting value have not yet advanced to the stage where a
reasonable estimate can be made.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


CRANE CO: Continues to Defend Suit Over Merrimac Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Merrimac Industries, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of the
State of New Jersey.  The action, brought by a purported
stockholder of Merrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac's
directors, and Crane Co. as defendants, and alleges, among other
things, breaches of fiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors,
aided and abetted by Crane Co., that resulted in the payment to
Merrimac stockholders of an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per
share in the acquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac's
directors.  The complaint seeks certification as a class of all
Merrimac stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates,
and unspecified damages.  Simultaneously with the filing of the
complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin the
transaction from proceeding.  After a hearing on January 14, 2010,
the court denied the plaintiff's motion.  All defendants
thereafter filed motions seeking dismissal of the complaint on
various grounds.  After a hearing on March 19, 2010, the court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and ordered the case to
proceed to pretrial discovery.  All defendants have filed their
answers and deny any liability.  The Court certified the class,
and the parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the underlying
claims raised in the complaint.  The Company has given notice of
this lawsuit to Merrimac's and the Company's insurance carriers
and will seek coverage for any resulting loss.  As of June 30,
2012, no loss amount has been accrued in connection with this
lawsuit because a loss is not considered probable, nor can an
amount be reasonably estimated.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


EASTMAN KODAK: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company is seeking dismissal of a securities class
action lawsuit, one of a number of lawsuits commenced following
its Chapter 11 filing, according to the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Subsequent to the Company's Chapter 11 filing, between
January 27, 2012, and March 22, 2012, a number of lawsuits were
filed in federal court in the Western District of New York, as
putative class action lawsuits, against the current and certain
former members of the Board of Directors, the Company's Savings
and Investment Plan (SIP) Committee and certain former and current
executives of the Company.  The lawsuits are filed under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The allegations
concern the decline in the Company's stock price and its alleged
resulting impact on SIP and on the Company's Employee Stock
Ownership Plan.  Also following the Chapter 11 filing, on February
10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern
District of New York against the Chief Executive Officer, the
President and Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer, as a putative class action lawsuit under the federal
securities laws, claiming that certain Company statements
concerning the Company's business and financial results were
misleading.  On July 2, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss this case as against all defendants.  The Company believes
that lawsuits of this nature are not uncommon for companies in
Chapter 11.

On behalf of all defendants in these cases, the Company believes
that the lawsuits are without merit and will vigorously defend
them on behalf of all defendants in these cases.  Although the
nature of litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company does
not expect these cases, individually or in the aggregate, to have
a material impact upon the Company.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Continues to Face MERS-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corp. continues to face class action lawsuits
filed against lenders and servicers that have held mortgages
through Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS),
according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and
servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the
following class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege
improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure
to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes:
(1) Christian County Clerk, et al. v. MERS and EverHome Mortgage
Company filed in May 2011 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kentucky; (2) State of Ohio, ex. reI. David P.
Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v.
MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et
al. filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga
County, Ohio and later removed to federal court; (3) State of
Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond, Plymouth County Attorney
v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services,
Inc., et aI. , filed in March 2012 in the Iowa District Court for
Plymouth County and later removed to federal court; (4) Boyd
County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County Attorney of Boyd County,
Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in April 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky;
(5) Jackson County, Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc., et al., filed in April
2012 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri and later
removed to federal court; (6) County of Union Illinois, et al. v.
MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc.,
et al. filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court for the First
Judicial Circuit, Union County, Illinois and later removed to
federal court; (7) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al.,
filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; and (8) Macon County,
Illinois v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc., et al. filed in July 2012 in the Circuit Court of
the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon County, Illinois.

In these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case
generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants
to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive
damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to contest all such claims vigorously.


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Trial in Firefighters Suit to Begin on Dec. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated trial in a lawsuit brought by firefighters is set
to begin on December 6, 2012, according to Federal Signal
Corporation's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

The Company has been sued by firefighters seeking damages claiming
that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their hearing
and that the sirens are therefore defective.  There were 33 cases
filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of
2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago.  Beginning in 2009, six additional
cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania
firefighter plaintiffs.  The trial of the first 27 of these
plaintiffs' claims occurred in 2008, when a Cook County jury
returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company.  An
additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009.  Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the
number of plaintiffs from 40 to 9.  The trial for these nine
plaintiffs concluded with a verdict returned against the Company
and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million.
The Company is appealing this verdict. A third consolidated trial
involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during
November 2011.  The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of
the Company at the conclusion of this trial.

Following this last trial, the trial court on March 12, 2012,
entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire
Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of
whether the Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably
dangerous.  The Company petitioned the Illinois appellate court
for interlocutory appeal of this ruling.  On May 17, 2012, the
Illinois appellate court accepted the Company's petition.  On June
8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the
Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class
action trial in this matter.  Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the
appellate court reversed the trial court's certification order.
Thereafter, the trial court scheduled another consolidated trial,
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which is set to begin on
December 6, 2012.


FIRST MIDWEST: Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Fees Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by First Midwest
Bancorp, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending, according to the
Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In August 2011, the Company's principal subsidiary, First Midwest
Bank (the "Bank"), was named in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf of
certain of the Bank's customers who incurred overdraft fees.  The
complaint has been amended several times with the most recent
amendment filed in March 2012.  The Bank filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit in May 2012, which is pending.  The lawsuit is based
on the Bank's practices pursuant to debit card transactions, and
alleges, among other things, that these practices resulted in
customers being unfairly assessed overdraft fees.  The lawsuit
seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other relief, including
restitution.

The Company believes that the complaint contains significant
inaccuracies and factual misstatements and that the Bank has
meritorious defenses.  As a result, the Bank intends to vigorously
defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuit.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Indirect Lending Class Suit Pending in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit
relating to its subsidiary's role as indirect lender in the
purchase of motor vehicles in Ohio, according to the Company's
August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In April 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against
the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N.
A. (the "Bank").  The complaint was brought as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased a motor vehicle in
Ohio from an Ohio motor vehicle dealer, which purchase and sale
was financed by the Bank.  The lawsuit alleges a violation of the
Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, breach of
common law of agency, a violation of the Ohio Retail Installment
Sales Act and a violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act.
The complaint seeks disgorgement of fees, treble damages, interest
and attorney fees.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Improper Interest Calculation Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of FirstMerit
Corporation relating to improper interest calculation remains
pending, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

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

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

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Suit Over Overdraft Fees Pending in Lake County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Plea against FirstMerit Corporation and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N. A. (the "Bank").  The complaints
were brought as putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents
who maintained a checking account at the Bank and who incurred one
or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of
debit transactions.  The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit
County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on
July 11, 2011.  The remaining lawsuit in Lake County seeks actual
damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages,
interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Pays $2.4MM in Settlement of Harassment Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Seattle area Fry's employees, Mr. Ka Lam and Ms. America
Rios, settled their sexual harassment and retaliation case against
retailer Fry's Electronics which has over 14,000 employees
throughout the U.S. and according to Forbes had estimated revenues
of $2 billion in 2011.

This appears to be one of the largest EEOC cases reported in the
United States -- and the largest reported per individual employee
-- in the Pacific Northwest, according to the U.S. Equall
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filings.

Lead counsel Scott C. G. Blankenship and associate attorney Rick
Goldsworthy of The Blankenship Law Firm represented the individual
employees, negotiated the settlement, and prosecuted the case with
EEOC's Senior Trial Attorney Molly Powell, Supervisory Attorney
John Stanley, and EEOC Regional Attorney William Tamayo.

Settlement occurred shortly after The Blankenship Law Firm
completed trial in arbitration before The Honorable Terry Lukens
(Ret.) but prior to his ruling. Federal District Judge, The
Honorable Robert S. Lasnik had previously sanctioned Fry's and
ordered it to pay a total of $100,000, after he concluded Fry's
had "deliberately engaged in deceptive [litigation] practices"
that were "unfair, unwarranted, unprincipled, and unacceptable."

The Blankenship Law Firm and the EEOC requested sanctions after
they learned that computer hard drives and other evidence directly
related to their claims had been destroyed. Later they also
learned that Fry' failed to disclose prior instances of sexual
harassment at the Renton, Washington Fry's store, including
evidence that the alleged harasser and the Store Manager allowed
to investigate it had been accused of sexually harassing other
female employees.

Ms. Rios, a 20-year-old sales associate was repeatedly sexually
harassed by the Assistant Store Manager and had endured months of
sexually charged text messages from him despite her requests for
him to stop. Ms. Rios reported the harassment to her immediate
supervisor, Ka Lam. At the time, Mr. Lam was one of the highest
performing employees at the Fry's Renton store. He had helped open
the Renton, Washington store and had received multiple raises and
promotions.

After conducting his own investigation confirming the harassment,
Mr. Lam put at risk his highly successful career, which included
being nationally ranked in sales and being selected multiple times
to open new Fry's stores. He reported the sexual harassment of Ms.
Rios to directors, and officers at Fry's headquarters in San Jose,
and again to local management in Renton. Despite its size and
significant financial resources, Fry's has no human resources
department.

Mr. Lam felt that he had no alternative but to stand up and report
the harassment even if the whistleblowing could impact his job. "I
feared retaliation from the local managers, but everything in me
said that I could not live with myself if I did not speak up.
Whatever the consequences, it had to stop. I had to report it."

Despite Mr. Lam's complaints reaching the highest echelons within
Fry's, the company assigned the Store Manager, a close personal
friend of the alleged harasser, to investigate. The Store Manager
ultimately conducted an intentionally biased and inadequate sexual
harassment investigation. Fry's also failed to follow its own
procedures and did not even take written statements from either
Mr. Lam or Ms. Rios. Although many of the allegations involved
sexually offensive text messages sent by the Assistant Store
Manager, no effort was made to preserve them despite a supposed
investigation.

"When employees like Mr. Lam and Ms. Rios selflessly stand against
discrimination and harassment in the workplace, they deserve the
protection provided by the law," said Seattle attorney Scott
Blankenship.  "The laws of the United States and of Washington
strictly prohibit retaliation, and protect employees who
courageously oppose it. Unfortunately, Fry's not only failed to
protect Mr. Lam and Ms. Rios, Fry's targeted them with swift
retaliation."

Within two weeks of Mr. Lam's complaints, Fry's falsely accused
him of baseless misconduct without proof, and summarily fired him.
"I felt very sad, alone and frightened when Ka lost his job for
standing up for me and complaining to corporate headquarters. I
knew then that there was no one I could trust," said Ms. Rios.
Fry's fired Ms. Rios (also a top performer with a history of
promotions) within weeks of responding to a legal claim filed by
Mr. Lam with the EEOC. Additionally, Fry's allowed the Assistant
Store Manager accused of harassment to sign the termination
paperwork for Ms. Rios.

In the end, justice was served. "This result shows that no entity
is untouchable. No matter how rich and powerful, you are not
beyond the reach of our justice system," said Seattle attorney
Scott Blankenship.  "Ultimately Fry's agreed to not only
compensate the victims through the settlement, but also to
undertake additional training of employees and managers to help
prevent this situation from happening in the future."

Sexual harassment and discrimination and retaliation for opposing
such conduct, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). Prosecution
through private counsel like The Blankenship Law Firm subjected
Fry's Electronics to a potential award that would have included
punitive damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the
broader protections of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

The Blankenship Law Firm, P.S., is an AV-rated law firm located in
downtown Seattle with lawyers licensed in Washington, Oregon, and
Alaska.  The firm practices in state and federal trial and
appellate courts with an emphasis in employment law and complex
civil litigation, including representing employees in all phases
of negotiation and litigation.

More information is available online at
http://www.blankenshiplawfirm.com


FSI INT'L: Being Sold to Tokyo Electron for Too Little
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that FSI International is selling
itself too cheaply to Tokyo Electron, for $6.20 per share or
$252.5 million, shareholders claim in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Calleros v. FSI International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-02120 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/29/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn M. Perry, Esq.
          PERRY & PERRY, LLP
          5401 Gamble Drive, Suite 270
          Minneapolis, MN 55416
          Telephone: (952) 546-3845
          E-mail: shawn.perry@pppllp.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


GRANT THORNTON: 2nd Cir. Reinstates Claims in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a
September 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York (Daniels, J.) granting the
summary judgment motion of Grant Thornton LLP and dismissing
claims arising from GT's audit of the financial statements of its
client, Winstar Communications, Inc.  Plaintiffs in a lawsuit
against Winstar and GT claimed that GT committed securities fraud
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, and
made false and misleading statements in an audit opinion letter in
violation of Section 18 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78r.  The
plaintiffs appealed the district court ruling.  A three-judge
panel of the Second Circuit concluded that genuine issues of
material fact exist as to each of these claims.  The Second
Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.

Winstar was a broadband communications company whose core business
was to provide wireless Internet connectivity to various
businesses.  GT served as Winstar's independent auditor from 1994
until Winstar filed for bankruptcy in April 2001, and GT regarded
Winstar as "one of [its] largest and most important clients."  In
1999, however, the relationship deteriorated.  Winstar warned GT
that it would likely terminate the relationship if GT's
performance on unrelated international tax planning and other
accounting matters proved unsatisfactory.  In March 1999, at least
one member of Winstar's board of directors openly urged during a
board meeting that the GT partner overseeing the audit of Winstar
be removed from the Winstar account.  GT eventually re-staffed the
Winstar account so that the 1999 audit was managed by a partner,
Gary Goldman, and a senior manager, Patricia Cummings, neither of
whom had previously reviewed or audited the financial records of a
telecommunications company.

GT's audit for 1999 included several "large account" transactions
that Winstar consummated in an attempt to conceal a decrease in
revenue associated with Winstar's core business.  Most of the
large account transactions involved Lucent Technologies, Inc.,
Winstar's strategic partner, and all of them were consummated at
the end of Winstar's fiscal quarters in 1999.  Together, the
transactions accounted for $114.5 million in revenue, or roughly
26% of Winstar's reported 1999 operating revenues and 32% of its
"core" revenues that year.  At the time, GT considered these
transactions to be "red flags," warranting the accounting firm's
"heightened scrutiny."  However, GT ultimately approved Winstar's
recognition of revenue in connection with each of these
transactions.

The cases before the Second Circuit are, SANFORD GOULD,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, YAN
SUN, BULLDOG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, KEVIN SHERMAN, MAX C.
MICHAELS, ROBIN KWALBRUN, ELEANORE REZNICK, FRANK ZAPPARIELLO,
THEODORE S. GUTOWICZ, DAVID RICH, RICHARD SULENTIC, ANDRES RIOS,
Plaintiffs, and BIM INTERMOBILIARE SGR, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of BANCA INTERMOBILIARE DI INVESTIMENTI E GESTIONI SPA, ROBERT
AHEARN, DRYE CUSTOM PALLETS, JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW
YORK, ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INTERNATIONAL
REINSURANCE COMPANY, S.A., LIFE USA, AGF AMERIQUE, AGF
HOSPITALIERS, AGF ASSET MANAGEMENT, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY, THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY as trustee of the FIREMAN'S
FUND INSURANCE COMPANY MASTER RETIREMENT TRUST and as trustee of
the FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY MASTER RETIREMENT SAVINGS
TRUST, ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF NORTH AMERICA, ALLIANZ ASSET MANAGEMENT NORTH AMERICAN EQUITY,
US ALLIANZ DIVERSIFIED ANNUITY, US ALLIANZ GROWTH ANNUITY, US
ALLIANZ VARIABLE INSURANCE PRODUCTS TRUST, AZOA GROWTH FUND, AZOA
DIVERSIFIED ASSETS FUND, ALLIANZ OF AMERICA, INC., ALLIANZ
CORNHILL INSURANCE PLC, CORNHILL PENSION NORTH AMERICAN EQUITY
FUND, CORNHILL LIFE INSURANCE, MERCHANT INVESTORS ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, and CORNHILL LIFE NORTH AMERICAN EQUITY FUND,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC., WILLIAM J. ROUHANA, JR., RICHARD J.
UHL, NATHAN KANTOR, ROBERT K. McGUIRE, Defendants, and GRANT
THORNTON LLP, Defendant-Appellee, Docket Nos. 10-4028-cv(h), 10-
4280-cv(CON) (2nd Cir.).

A copy of the Second Circuit's Aug. 29, 2012 decision is available
at http://is.gd/uy5Q7yfrom Leagle.com.

Based in New York, Winstar Communications, Inc., provided
broadband services to business customers.  The company and its
debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on April 18,
2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 01-01430 through 01-01462).  As
part of their chapter 11 restructuring strategy, the Debtors sold
their domestic telecom assets to IDT Winstar Acquisition, Inc.
IDT later sold the Winstar Assets to GVC Networks, LLC, resulting
in the creation of GVCwinstar, a wholly owned subsidiary of GVC
Networks.

On Jan. 24, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the Debtors'
cases to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding.  Christine C. Shubert
serves as the Debtors' Chapter 7 trustee.  The Chapter 7
trustee is represented by Fox Rothschild LLP and Kaye Scholer LLP.
When the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, they listed $4,975,437,068
in total assets and $4,994,467,530 in total debts.

In early 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed a ruling that required an Alcatel-Lucent SA unit to
return to the Chapter 7 trustee a $188.2 million loan payment it
accepted in 2000.  As a business partner to the telecommunications
company, Lucent Technologies Inc. was an "insider" under U.S.
bankruptcy law and owes Winstar's trustee the money, the appeals
court said.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Overdraft Fees Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
First Circuit Court of the state of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of American Savings Holdings, Inc., had improperly
charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions.  ASHI is a
subsidiary of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.  The lawsuit is
still in its preliminary stage, thus, the probable outcome and
range of reasonably possible loss are not determinable at this
time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is the direct parent company of
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.; American Savings Holdings, Inc.;
HEI Properties, Inc.; Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust
II; Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust III and The Old
Oahu Tug Service, Inc.


HERTZ CORP: All Briefing in "Sobel" Class Suit Completed in May
---------------------------------------------------------------
All briefing was completed in May 2012 on the two outstanding
issues in the class action lawsuit filed by Janet Sobel, et al.,
according to The Hertz Corporation's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada.  The plaintiffs agreed to not pursue claims against
Enterprise initially and the case only proceeded against Hertz.
The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf
of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada
and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by
Hertz as part of their rental charges.  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any
charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz
from quoting or charging those airport fees that are alleged not
to be allowed by Nevada law.  The complaint also seeks attorneys'
fees and costs.  Relevant documents were produced, depositions
were taken and pre-trial motions were filed.  After the court
rendered a mixed ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment and after the Lydia Lee case was refiled against
Enterprise, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a
proposed settlement.  Although the court tentatively approved the
settlement in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011.
Since that time, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification -- which the Company opposed -- and discovery has
commenced again.  A separate action is proceeding against
Enterprise, National and Alamo.

In May 2012, all briefing was completed on the two outstanding
issues -- unjust enrichment and damages.  The briefing included
expert reports as submitted by both sides.

Hertz Corporation is a worldwide airport general use car rental
brand, operating from approximately 8,500 locations in
approximately 150 countries as of December 31, 2011.  The Company
has been in the car rental business since 1918 and in the
equipment rental business since 1965.


HERTZ CORP: Draft of Consumer Suit Settlement Being Finalized
-------------------------------------------------------------
A draft settlement, which is subject to court approval, of the
class action lawsuit commenced by Fun Services of Kansas City,
Inc., is being finalized by the parties' counsel, The Hertz
Corporation disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in
the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  The case was
subsequently transferred to the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas.  The Fun Services matter purports to be a class action on
behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the United States
who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the action,
were sent facsimile messages of advertising materials relating to
the availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who
did not provide express permission for sending such faxes.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and costs.  In August 2009, the court issued an
order that stayed all activity in the litigation pending a
decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in Critchfield Physical
Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto Group, Inc., another Telephone Consumer
Protection Act case.  The Kansas Supreme Court issued its decision
in September 2011.  Thereafter, the District Court of Johnson
County lifted the stay in the Fun Services case and issued a
scheduling order that addresses class certification discovery.  In
February 2012, HERC filed a Notice of Removal with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas seeking to remove the
case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction.

In June 2012, a mediation was held.  As a result of the mediation,
the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
class action.  A draft settlement agreement that addresses
compensation to class members, class counsel fees and the claims
process, and which would be subject to court approval, is being
finalized by the parties' counsel.

The Company says it has accrued its best estimate of the ultimate
cost which is not material to its financial condition.

Hertz Corporation is a worldwide airport general use car rental
brand, operating from approximately 8,500 locations in
approximately 150 countries as of December 31, 2011.  The Company
has been in the car rental business since 1918 and in the
equipment rental business since 1965.


HERTZ CORP: Hearing on "Shames-Gramkow" Suit Deal on Oct. 29
------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing with respect to The Hertz Corporation's
settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by Michael Shames and
Gary Gramkow is scheduled for October 29, 2012, according to the
Company's August 3, 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 a proceeding that purports
to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow
against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing
Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Caroline
Beteta.

Originally filed in November 2007, the action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and plaintiffs claim to represent a class of
individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a
defendant at airports located in California after January 1, 2007.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a
2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with respect to this
assessment, while misrepresenting that this assessment is owed by
consumers, rather than the rental car defendants, to the
California Travel and Tourism Commission (CTTC).  Plaintiffs also
allege that defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee
known as the Airport Concession Fee, which fee had previously been
required to be included in the rental car defendants' individual
base rates, without reducing their base rates.  Based on these
allegations, the amended complaint seeks treble damages,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.  Plaintiffs dropped their claims against Caroline Beteta.
Plaintiffs' claims against the rental car defendants have been
dismissed, except for the federal antitrust claim.  In June 2010,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of the plaintiffs' antitrust case against the CTTC
as a state agency immune from antitrust complaint because the
California Legislature foresaw the alleged price-fixing conspiracy
that was the subject of the complaint.  The plaintiffs
subsequently filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit seeking a
rehearing and that petition was granted.  In November 2010, the
Ninth Circuit withdrew its June opinion and instead held that
state action immunity was improperly invoked.  The Ninth Circuit
reinstated the plaintiffs' antitrust claims and remanded the case
to the district court for further proceedings.  All proceedings in
the case were stayed while the parties engage in settlement
discussions.

In May 2012, the district court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement of this action; certifying a settlement
class; certifying a class representative and lead counsel; and
providing for class notice.  The court also scheduled a final
approval hearing for October 29, 2012.

The Company says it has accrued its best estimate of the ultimate
cost which is not material to its financial condition.

Hertz Corporation is a worldwide airport general use car rental
brand, operating from approximately 8,500 locations in
approximately 150 countries as of December 31, 2011.  The Company
has been in the car rental business since 1918 and in the
equipment rental business since 1965.


HERTZ CORP: New Jersey Judge Refers "Davis" Suit to Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation said in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, that the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey referred the class action lawsuit commenced
by Davis Landscape, Ltd., to mediation.

On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against
Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  In November 2006, the
complaint was amended to add another plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, and
more claims.  The Davis Landscape matter purports to be a
nationwide class action on behalf of all persons and business
entities who rented equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage
Waiver, or "LDW," or an Environmental Recovery Fee, or "ERF."  The
plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and injunction prohibiting
HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW and ERF charges
that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and claim that the
charges violate the Uniform Commercial Code. The plaintiffs also
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages with the return
of all LDW and ERF charges paid, attorneys' fees and costs as well
as other damages.  The court has granted class certification and
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment.

In June 2012, the judge denied the Company's motion for partial
summary judgment on the Loss Damage Waiver claim and, in July
2012, the judge granted the Company's motion for partial summary
judgment on the Environmental Recovery Fee claim.  The court also
entered an order referring the case to mediation by private
consent of the parties.

Hertz Corporation is a worldwide airport general use car rental
brand, operating from approximately 8,500 locations in
approximately 150 countries as of December 31, 2011.  The Company
has been in the car rental business since 1918 and in the
equipment rental business since 1965.


HSBC MORTGAGE: Gets Favorable Ruling in Refinancing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that HSBC Mortgage
Services Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. on
Aug. 27 escaped a putative class action accusing them of unfair
mortgage refinancing practices, after a New Jersey federal judge
ruled state law required the plaintiffs to have brought the claims
within their foreclosure case itself.

U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted HSBC and MERS' motion
to dismiss the suit, denying a motion to remand the case to state
court by plaintiffs Francis and Tanya Napoli.


IMMUCOR INC: Judge Allows Blood Reagents Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that health care
providers can proceed as a class in their claim that the biggest
names in the blood reagents business fixed prices, a federal judge
ruled.

Blood reagents help identify properties in human blood, letting
hospitals know if a potential donor's blood is compatible with
that of a potential recipient.

The plaintiffs in the case, including a group of hospitals, say
they paid supracompetitive prices for a variety known as
traditional blood reagents (TBR).

They say the TBR market was highly competitive in the 1980s and
1990s and included more than a dozen players.

Price competition was high and profitability was low, so much so
that one manufacturer, Immucor Inc., approached bankruptcy and
another, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Inc., mulled leaving the TBR
market, the purchasers say.

After Immucor acquired a string of competing producers by 1999, it
and Ortho had a TBR duopoly in the U.S. market, the purchasers
claim.

Immucor and Ortho allegedly believed that consolidating the market
would let them jack up prices, and TBR purchasers say that is
precisely what happened.  The cost of many of the duo's blood
reagent products rose by more than 2000 percent between 2000 and
2009, according to the complaint.

Immucor and Ortho allegedly began illegal pricing-related
communications in November 2000.  Purchasers say those
communications, which began at an annual meeting of the American
Association of Blood Banks in Washington, D.C., were the first
phase of an extensive conspiracy to increase prices.

Several entities began filing suit in 2009 after the Department of
Justice opened a criminal grand jury investigation into blood
reagents pricing.  In one January 2011 filing, Ortho said the DOJ
had given "informal notice of the closure of its criminal
investigation."

Thirty-three civil cases were consolidated in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania shortly thereafter.  Purchasers had originally
named Ortho's parent, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, as a
defendant alongside Ortho and Immucor, but the court dismissed
those claims.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois certified a class
consisting of entities that bought TBR products in the U.S.
directly from Immucor and Ortho from Jan. 1, 2000, to the present.

"After a rigorous analysis of the evidence offered by both
parties, the court concludes that plaintiffs have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that they will be able to
demonstrate antitrust impact using predominantly common proof,"
the 45-page opinion states.

A copy of the Memorandum in In re: Blood Reagents Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 09-2081 (E.D Pa), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/29/reagentsop.pdf


KAPLAN INC: ESL Teachers File Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaplan Inc. and Aspect
Education have stiffed English as second language teachers for
overtime since June 2005, according to a federal class action.


KOL BERAMA: Kolech Files NIS104MM Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Sharon, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports that Kolech
says it has filed a class action suit against haredi radio station
Kol Berama demanding NIS104 million in damages.

The religious women's rights group Kolech announced on Aug. 28
that it has filed a class action suit with the Jerusalem District
Court against haredi radio station Kol Berama, demanding NIS104
million in damages for discrimination against women.

The lawsuit claims that since the station took to the air in 2009
it has adopted a policy preventing women from working as
broadcasters or appearing as interviewees.

"Kol Berama refuses to allow women on the air on any topic,
whether it is regarding a news item, expressing an opinion on a
particular issue or raising a question," Kolech claimed.  "As
religious women, we see no connection whatsoever in refusing to
allow women on the air and Jewish law.

"The fact that in the name of Jewish law, women are excluded from
the public realm, contradicts the value of human dignity and the
perspective that women, like men, were created in the image of
God."

Kol Berama strongly criticized the lawsuit, saying that for the
last six months it has "allowed any female public figure who
wanted to be interviewed to do so, as well as providing for female
listeners to speak on air in some programs," in compliance with an
agreement reached with the Second Authority state media regulator.

Outside of these parameters, however, the station does not in
general employ female broadcasters or grant airtime to female
callers.

"We were excited to discover that the Reform organizations and
NGOs, which filed petitions with the High Court of Justice against
the establishment of the radio station before it was even set up
-- in order to withhold from an entire sector of society the right
to listen to media which accords with their beliefs and lifestyle
-- have reversed their opinion and appointed themselves as
spokespeople for women from this sector," the station said in
response to the suit.

The Reform Movement petitioned the High Court of Justice before
Kol Berama was established in 2009 in opposition to the request
for a broadcast license by the nascent radio station.  The
rejected petition argued that the number of available radio
wavelengths is limited and that the Sephardi haredi community was
already served by Radio Kol Hai.

To support its lawsuit, Kolech commissioned a survey of Kol
Berama's listeners, conducted by the Sarid Institute, which showed
that 40 percent of responders said they were offended by the fact
women were not allowed to speak on the station's airwaves and that
men spoke for them.

The figure of NIS104 million was reached by taking the approximate
number of female Kol Berama listeners who said in the survey that
they were offended by the station's policy, and multiplying it by
the arbitrary sum of either NIS 1,000 or 2,000 for each female
listener affected.  The study showed that 32% of interviewees said
that they were very offended or greatly offended by the station's
behavior.

Referring to the survey, Kol Berama said that it called on the
organizations in question to peruse "thousands of faxes sent by
the station's female listeners" supporting its current policy,
"which, contrary to anonymous surveys, include the full details of
those who voiced their support."

Orly Erez-Lahovsky, an attorney for the Israel Reform Movement who
filed the suit, said that the station's policy violated anti-
discrimination laws.

"From the outset, Kol Berama has excluded women from its
broadcasts," said Ms. Lahovsky.

"The lawsuit cries out the cry of silenced haredi women who are
entitled to have their voices heard on the airwaves of a radio
station which receives a state media license."

Kol Berama called on Kolech and the Reform Movement to respect
"the beliefs and outlook of the majority of the community, men and
women together."

Riki Shapira, an attorney for the Reform Movement involved in the
case, rejected the station's argument, saying that it is illegal
for any company serving the public to discriminate against any
recipient.

"What if they didn't want to have Ethiopians or Arabs on the air,
would that be okay?" Ms. Shapira asked, adding that whether a
majority of listeners agreed with the policy was irrelevant to the
enforcement of the law.

Ms. Shapira also expressed opposition to the accommodation reached
between Kol Berama and the Second Authority, and said that the
Justice Ministry was currently examining the agreement.

"Where are we living, in Israel or Iran? This is a liberal,
democratic state where the rule of law is enforced, including the
prohibition against discrimination."


NETFLIX: Customers Object to Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Gigaom, reports that Netflix is
ready to pay $9 million to resolve a class action over keeping
subscriber records too long.  But now dozens of people are telling
a judge not to approve the deal because they get none of the
money.

Dozens of Netflix users are filing objections to a class action
settlement that would see Netflix pay $9 million to be released
from claims that it illegally retained customers' video records.
The objectors, who are filing their protest with a California
court, complain that subscribers receive none of the money.

The settlement is meant to resolve dozens of lawsuits related to
Netflix's decision to retain subscribers' rental histories for
more than one year in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.  The VPPA is a 1988 law that Congress passed to regulate
video stores but, in recent years, it has become a headache for
companies like Netflix and Facebook.

The Netflix settlement, which affects tens of millions of
subscribers nationwide, was proposed in February and a federal
judge gave it a conditional green light in July.  Since then,
lawyers have been sending out millions of e-mails to notify
customers.  The judge also ordered them to place 60 million
notification ads on Facebook.

These objections come as judges are growing skeptical about
privacy settlements that fail to do anything for the consumers who
are affected.  This month, for instance, a California judge
refused to approve a $20 million settlement over Facebook's
"Sponsored Stories" on the grounds that half the money went to the
lawyers and none to users.  In the past, similar settlements
involving products like Google Buzz and Facebook Beacon have
typically sailed through the courts with only a handful of
objections.


NEW YORK: NYPD's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that New York
City police have more work to do if they want to keep patrolling
privately owned buildings at the request of landlords, a federal
judge ruled.

In March, black and Latino families from the Bronx led by Jaenon
Ligon filed a class action lawsuit challenging Operation Clean
Halls, an NYPD program that allegedly put residents "under siege"
in defiance of their constitutional rights.

Filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the complaint relates
tales of a 17-year-old detained after buying ketchup for his
mother; a woman's call to 911 after her boyfriend, a police
sergeant, was detained for bringing Chinese takeout into her
building; and a high school junior arrested for "trespassing" in
his own home.

The NYPD, which has likened the program as a doorman for the poor
man, asked U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin not to entertain
banning it.

But the judge said on Aug. 21 that the complaint's "grave
allegations" may require her to take action.

"Plaintiffs believe that they are at risk of repeatedly being
stopped in the absence of reasonable suspicion and being arrested
in the absence of probable cause; that is, they are at risk of
suffering a violation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free
from unreasonable search and seizure," the order states.

Judge Scheindlin also presides over Floyd v. City of New York,
another class action that seeks to end racial disparities in stop-
and-frisk policing.

City lawyers have claimed that an injunction against Clean Halls
could overlap with the outcome of that case, but the judge pointed
out that the 4-year-old Floyd case might be "indefinitely
postponed" because of a pending appeal.

Families fighting Clean Halls should not have to wait for
appellate resolution in Floyd to get their own relief, Judge
Scheindlin added.

"If their allegations are true, plaintiffs should not be forced to
endure years of continued indignity while this litigation is
effectively stayed pending the outcome in Floyd," she wrote. "And
if the allegations are not proven, then the NYPD will be
vindicated by a judicial system that permits the city -- and all
litigants -- a full and fair hearing.

"If defendants wish to minimize duplication, they may agree to
preliminary injunctive relief with the plaintiffs in Ligon.
Alternatively, they are free to withdraw their appeal of the class
certification decision and permit a trial in Floyd without delay.
But the city cannot have it both ways.  Having pursued an
interlocutory appeal of the Floyd class certification decision,
the city may not now prevent other litigants from even requesting
that the court use its equitable power to protect their
fundamental rights."

Such an injunction could be citywide or limited to the Bronx, she
added.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in Ligon, et al. v. City of New
York, et al., Case No. 12-cv-02274 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/23/Clean%20Halls.pdf

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Alexis Karteron, Esq.
          Christopher Dunn, Esq.
          Daniel Mullkoff, Esq.
          Taylor Pendergrass, Esq.
          NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street, 17th floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 607-3300

               - and -

          Foster Maer, Esq.
          Roberto Concepcion, Esq.
          LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
          99 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 739-7507
               - and -

          J. McGregor Smyth, Jr., Esq.
          Mariana Kovel, Esq.
          THE BRONX DEFENDERS
          860 Courtlandt Ave.
          Bronx, NY 10451
          Telephone: (718) 838-7885

The Defendants were represented by:

          Mark Zuckerman, Esq.
          Heidi Grossman, Esq.
          Joseph Marutollo, Esq.
          Richard Weingarten, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 442-8248

               - and -

          John Nathanson, Esq.
          Mayer Grashin, Esq.
          Paige Berges, Esq.
          Tiana Peterson, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP (NY)
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848-8611
          E-mail: john.nathanson@shearman.com    
                  mayer.grashin@shearman.com
                  paige.berges@shearman.com    
                  tiana.peterson@shearman.com    

               - and -

          Juan Cartagena, Esq.
          COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY
          105 E. 22nd St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 254-8900


PHILIP MORRIS USA: Court Overturns "Lights" Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Vonder Haar, writing for CSPnet.com, reports that the New
Hampshire Supreme Court ruled 3-0 against proceeding with the
class-action lawsuit Lawrence v. Philip Morris USA Inc.  The
decision overturns a 2010 order by Merrimack County Superior Court
Judge Larry Smukler which certified a class of smokers seeking
refunds for Marlboro Lights cigarettes they smoked, claiming that
the company misled them on the safety of "light" cigarettes.

"The court recognized correctly that there are too many individual
issues for this case to be treated as a class action,"
spokesperson Murray Garnick said in a press statement issued by
Philip Morris USA parent Altria Group Inc., Richmond, Va.

In the ruling, the New Hampshire's Supreme Court held that the
state could not assume that everyone who purchased Marlboro Lights
was uninformed that light cigarettes could be as dangerous as
regular brands, as "between 1976 and 1995 informed consumers that
light cigarettes were no less harmful than regular cigarettes."

Based on this information, the high court ruled that "the trial
court unsustainably exercised its discretion when it ruled that
issues related to individual class members' injuries could be
resolved by common evidence and that common issues would
predominate."

It added, "This court joins 15 courts which have rejected these
cases on a variety of legal and factual grounds."

With two other active state "lights" cases remaining, analysts at
New York City-based Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. said that they
believe Lawrence represents a significant win for PM USA,
releasing a report on the ruling entitled "Lights down low . . .
Interpreting two key trials."

"We see Lawrence as especially significant in its directness,
cutting right at the heart of the class certification issue, which
creates the real financial risk in these cases, but is one of
industry's core and increasingly successful arguments," senior
analyst Andrew Kieley said in the report.

Due to the reversal of the class-action certification order,
Lawrence has been remanded to the Merrimack County Superior Court,
where it will proceed as an individual lawsuit.


SPLENDID PRODUCTS: Recalls Daniella Mangoes Due to Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Produce distributor Splendid Products is voluntarily recalling
certain lots of Daniella brand mangoes because they may be
contaminated with Salmonella.  The recalled mangoes, a product of
Mexico, were sold as individual fruit and can be identified by the
Daniella brand sticker and one of the following PLU numbers: 3114,
4051, 4311, 4584 or 4959.  The recalled mangoes were sold at
various retail stores throughout the U.S. between July 12 and
August 29, 2012.  Mangoes have been linked to a number of recent
cases of salmonellosis in Canada, and may be linked to cases in
California and perhaps other states.  Although an investigation is
still ongoing, out of an abundance of caution Splendid Products is
recalling Daniella mangoes in the U.S.  The recall is being
conducted in consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the California Department of Public
Health.

The most common symptoms of salmonella are diarrhea, abdominal
cramps and fever, which develop within eight to 72 hours of eating
contaminated food.  The illness usually lasts four to seven days
and most people recover without treatment.  However, salmonellosis
can be severe or even life-threatening for infants, older people,
pregnant women and people with weakened immune systems.  Consumers
who believe they may have contracted a Salmonella infection should
contact a healthcare provider.

Those who have bought the recalled mangoes are advised not to eat
them and to discard them.  If there is no identifying sticker on
the mango, consider discarding or returning the product to the
place of purchase.  A copy of this press release with related
photos of the product is available on the Company Web site at this
address: http://www.splendidmangos.com/

The products involved in this voluntary recall are:

Mangoes sold as individual fruit with the sticker brand "Daniella"
at various retail stores throughout the U.S. between July 12 and
August 29, 2012.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm317465.htm

"We want to let everyone know our top priority is public safety,"
said Splendid Products general manager Larry Nienkerk.  "We have
notified all of our customers and we are working with all the
government agencies that are involved.  We didn't want to wait."

Consumers who are unsure if the product they purchased is included
in the recall or have additional questions, may call us at 866-
918-8758 (Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Eastern
time and Saturday September 1 from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time).


SUMMER INFANT: Recalls 2,065,000 Baby Bathers Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Summer Infant Inc., of Woonsocket, Rhode Island,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2 million units of Mother's
Touch/Deluxe Baby Bathers in the United States of America and an
additional 65,000 units in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

When the bather is lifted and/or carried with an infant in it, its
folding wire frame can suddenly disengage from the side hinge,
dropping the baby out of the bather, posing a fall hazard and a
risk of serious head injury to infants.

CPSC and Summer Infant have received seven reports of incidents in
the U.S., including five reports of infants suffering head
injuries from falls from the bathers.  Four children between two
weeks and two months old received skull fractures, including one
that required intensive care for bleeding on the brain.  The fifth
child received a bump to the head requiring emergency room
treatment.

This recall involves Summer Infant baby bathers with a small,
nearly square blue or pink plastic base measuring about 13 1/2
inches long by 12 1/2 inches wide and with the following model
numbers listed below.  Model numbers are located either on the
side of the baby bather near the warning label or on the front
near the wash instructions.  Some units have multiple model
numbers.  Model numbers with an additional letter at the end of
the model number are also included in this recall.

               Recalled Summer Infant Baby Bathers
               -----------------------------------
                          Model Numbers
               -----------------------------------
                08020, 08050, 08054, 08070, 08401,
                08409, 08404, 08405, 08650, 08655,
                08659, 08754, 08940, 08944
               -----------------------------------
                18004, 18040, 18049, 18050, 18120,
                18125, 18129, 18254, 18360, 18375,
                18379, 18390, 18394, 18440, 18445,
                18449, 18470, 18475, 18479
               -----------------------------------
                38510, 38515, 38750, 38755

The bathers have adjustable side hinges with five rivets each and
a white wire frame with a mesh fabric sling seat and two or three
positions for the seats.  Some also have a head support cushion.
The fabric seat comes in various colors including white, blue,
green, yellow and orange with fish, turtles, butterflies, frogs,
flowers and duck patterns.  Bathers manufactured since July 2007
include the warning "Never lift or carry the bather with infant in
it."  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12262.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass
merchandise stores nationwide and on the Web from September 2004
through November 2011 for between $15 and $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bathers and contact
Summer Infant for a free repair kit that includes a locking strap
and instructions.  Note: Even with the new locking strap
installed, the baby bather product should never be used to lift
and carry an infant.  For additional information, contact Summer
Infant at (800) 426-8627 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.summerinfant.com/batherrepairkit/. Do not return to
stores as the retailers will not have the repair kit.


SYNGENTA: Clermont County Takes Part in Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Seney, writing for The Community Press & Recorder, reports
that Clermont County officials are seeking damages in a class-
action suit settlement over a chemical that must be removed from
drinking water.

The commissioners Aug. 27 voted to authorize Director of Utilities
Lyle Bloom to submit proof of damages in the suit by the city of
Greenville, Ill., against the Swiss corporation Syngenta, makers
of the chemical atrazine.

In May, Syngenta agreed to settle the suit and create a $105-
million fund to settle claims by drinking water suppliers.

Mr. Bloom said atrazine is used in agriculture as a herbicide.

Clermont County has been removing the chemical from the drinking
water supply since 1999 with special filters, he said.

Mr. Bloom said it costs about $200,000 a year to remove atrazine
from the county's drinking water.

Administrator Steve Rabolt said officials will not know for
several weeks how much money the county could receive in the
settlement.

He said it would depend on how many other water suppliers join the
settlement.


TITANIUM DIOXIDE ANTITRUST: Maryland Court Certifies Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland District Judge Richard D. Bennett certified as a class
action the lawsuit alleging price-fixing conspiracy in the market
for titanium dioxide.  Plaintiffs Haley Paint Company and Isaac
Industries, Inc., and Intervening Plaintiff East Coast Colorants,
LLC d/b/a Breen Color Concentrates claim that Defendants E.I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co., Huntsman International LLC, Kronos
Worldwide Inc., and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc. engaged
in an unlawful conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, to fix, raise, or maintain the price of
titanium dioxide in the United States.  The Plaintiffs allege that
as a consequence of the unlawful conspiracy, the Defendants were
successful in charging artificially inflated prices for titanium
dioxide products -- thereby injuring all the Plaintiffs.

In addition to the named Defendants, the Plaintiffs have named
several co-conspirators, including, inter alia, Tronox Inc. and
The National Titanium Dioxide Company Ltd. (d/b/a "Cristal").
Tronox filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2009,
and is precluded from being named as a defendant.  The Plaintiffs
originally sought to include Cristal as a named defendant, but the
Maryland District Court dismissed Cristal for want of jurisdiction
on March 31, 2011.  The Plaintiffs have sought formal
reconsideration of that decision on two occasions.  On April 3,
2012, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' first motion for
reconsideration by Memorandum Order.  At the Aug. 13, 2012 Class
Certification hearing, the Court again denied the Plaintiffs'
request to add Cristal as a defendant.

The Plaintiffs originally defined the Class Period as beginning in
March 2002.  The Plaintiffs have since modified the Class Period
to begin on Feb. 1, 2003 because "[t]he evidence shows that while
the Cartel behavior began as early as 2002, it does not appear to
have become fully effective until February 2003.  As a result, and
to be conservative, Plaintiffs propose to delay the start of the
Class period until February 1, 2003, despite the evidence of
illegal antitrust activity before that date."

The Defendants are the leading suppliers of titanium dioxide in
the world, and control roughly 70% of the global production
capacity.

TiO2, a so-called "quality of life" product, is a dry chemical
powder that is the "world's most widely used pigment for providing
whiteness, brightness, and opacity . . . to many products,
particularly paints and other coatings."

The Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of a declining market for
TiO2, the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of the product.

The Plaintiffs alleged that on Jan. 24, 2002, a TiO2 industry
meeting took place in Finland.  Shortly thereafter, and in spite
of flat or declining demand for TiO2, the Defendants and their co-
conspirators announced price increases to be effective March 1,
2002.  Numerous other meetings and conferences were held over the
next several years, and those meetings neatly corresponded to TiO2
price increases during the Class Period.  The Plaintiffs allege
that it was at these conferences where the Defendants agreed and
conspired to fix the price and supply and capacity of TiO2.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants used consultants,
customers, and others as conduits to signal or confirm intended
pricing and other actions to each other.

The case is In Re: Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, Civil
Action No. RDB-10-0318 (D. Md.).  A copy of the Court's Aug. 28,
2012 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/fsdw1gfrom
Leagle.com.


TOYOTA: Paint Shop Workers' Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kocher, writing for Lexington Herald-Leader, reports that
paint shop workers have won a significant ruling in a case over
back-pay eligibility at Toyota's Georgetown plant.

In a decision entered into the record on Aug. 24, Scott Circuit
Court Judge Rob Johnson certified that the workers' case can
proceed as a class action, but he also put limitations on his
order.

The case, originally filed in 1999, centers on whether workers
should be paid for the time it takes to put on and remove
protective suits and walk to and from their jobs.

"This is an enormous step," said Elizabeth Hughes, a Lexington
lawyer who represents the workers.  "This makes workers able to
pursue justice as a group rather then trying to file individual
claims."

Toyota has 10 days to appeal the decision.  Asked whether the
company would appeal, Toyota spokesman Rick Hesterberg said "we're
evaluating next steps."

Mr. Hesterberg said the judge's decision does not address the
merits of the case or whether the workers should receive
additional pay.

"The issue for paying for donning or doffing has been very
ambiguous," Mr. Hesterberg said.

Judge Johnson wrote in the ruling that the workers had met several
prerequisites to be considered a class.  Judge Johnson ruled, for
example, that the workers met the "commonality" prerequisite in
that all alleged the same injury.

"In this case, the alleged same injury is that each of the
employees in the paint shops and the bumper paint shop were each
required to show up early for work to put on their protective
clothing, walk through specific walkways to get to their assigned
jobs and then return to an assigned location to take the
protective clothes off -- all without any compensation," Judge
Johnson wrote.

"According to the record, all of the dressing, walking, and
undressing had to be overtime because the employees had to be on
the line ready to work at the very beginning of their shift and
the line did not stop for the shift until the very end of the
shift.  Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that it was a company
policy not to pay the employees for their time in donning, walking
and doffing during the time period in the complaint.  Therefore,
commonality is met," Judge Johnson wrote.

Judge Johnson certified the class as all current and/or former
employees who worked in the paint and/or bumper paint departments
of the Georgetown plant who donned and doffed line-free coveralls
and other required items from Aug. 31, 1994, through Feb. 26,
2006, who were paid on an hourly basis and who allegedly were not
fully compensated for all hours worked, including hours or
portions of hours donning, doffing and walking.

The size of the class is about 1,500 people who are or were full-
time employees.  But Judge Johnson excluded hundreds of temporary
workers, although some of them may be class members if they
eventually became permanent employees, Ms. Hughes said.

Toyota offered a settlement in 2006 that was accepted by more than
1,100 employees.  The settlement provided each worker about $1,000
for a full year of work for up to five years.  But the settlement
was rejected by some workers who continued the case.

The settlements that were offered by Toyota applied only to work
between 2001 and 2006.  Those who took the settlement did not
release their claims for time before 2001.

In his order, Judge Johnson said those who accepted a settlement
cannot recover additional amounts for the period from 2001 to
2006.

"But if they were there before 2001, they're still a member of the
class for the payment from 1994 through 2001," Ms. Hughes said.


TRANS UNION: Faces Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania man
filed a putative class action against consumer reporting agency
Trans Union LLC in federal court on Aug. 28, contending that the
firm violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not providing
consumers a section from reports that discloses potential criminal
activities.

Ronald Miller alleges that TransUnion violated an FCRA mandate
requiring the disclosure of all the information it collects on a
consumer, specifically "OFAC alerts," which purportedly inform
creditors whether a consumer's name matches one that is on an
Office of Foreign Assets Control list.


VIVINT INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
Megan Stride, writing for Law360, reports that home automation
company Vivint Inc. is facing a putative class action in Illinois
court alleging it auto-dials peoples' cellphones without their
consent in violation of their privacy rights, according to the
complaint made available on Aug. 27.

In a class action complaint dated Aug. 9, Illinois resident
Christopher Johansen alleges that Utah-based Vivint, which
provides home security and other technology systems, has violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act with the calls and
prerecorded voice messages it has left on the cellphones of
people.


WALSH CONSTRUCTION: Judge Reverses Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Human Resources Journal reports that an appeals court recently
reversed the certification of two classes for a lawsuit against a
construction company, alleging racial discrimination and a
racially hostile work environment.  Appellate judges did not even
address the allegations, looking only at the validity of the class
definitions.

The business named in the suit was Walsh Construction Company.
Twelve former employees claimed that they suffered discrimination
with the way in which overtime was assigned and the working
conditions.  They alleged that Hispanic and white workers were
more likely to get overtime hours.  Likewise, some of the
superintendents and foremen at some of Walsh's project sites
reportedly used racially derogatory terms or didn't stop other
workers from doing so, and derogatory graffiti showed up at some
of the sites as well.  The plaintiffs requested that the suit be
certified as a class action to cover all of the company's 262
sites in or around Chicago since mid-2001.  The request was
granted.

Each of the two classes defined the group as all blacks employed
by Walsh during the period of June 1, 2001, through the present.
One problem with the class definitions is that none of the 12
plaintiffs have worked for Walsh past 2002.  The suit is still
timely -- judges blamed the delay on the EEOC (Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission), which took a long time issuing right-to-
sue letters -- but, according to the appeals court, the
definitions are still inaccurate.  Furthermore, the class
concerning overtime hours specifies workers not earning more due
to their race -- so that, even if Walsh was rendered judgment in
its favor, any former employees, of another "class," could sue for
the same reason.

These two problems could be fixed by adding more plaintiffs or
changing the wording of the class definition.  But Walsh's
argument on appeal was that the classes included workers for all
of its Chicago sites since 2001.  When contesting the matter in
district court, there were 262 sites, but today there are likely
even more.  Each site has a different superintendent with
different policies, and the superintendents typically oversee
multiple sites with varying foremen. The allegedly discriminatory
practices -- both the assigning of overtime and the derogatory
remarks and graffiti -- were dependent upon the foremen.

The plaintiffs admitted in court that most superintendents do not
discriminate against them.  They specified at least five
superintendents and foremen, but none of them worked for Walsh
anymore. In the same vein, some sites were noted as sources of
racial discrimination, but numerous other sites were free of any
hostility.  Citing a previous case involving Walmart, judges
stated that site-specific polices allowing for "local discretion"
could not rightly be used in a company-wide class.

Judges further noted that the 12 plaintiffs did not experience
working conditions at all sites, so that the hostile work
environment class did not satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) of Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, which requires commonality within the class.
They also said it was "not manageable" -- a trial per site and
possibly weekly since crews are constantly changing.

It's feasible for the plaintiffs to certify a class for a single
construction site or superintendent and, if not even people to
meet a class definition, to sue individually.  In any case, the
appeals court recommended promptness so that the six-year-old case
wouldn't continue to "gather moss."


WESTERN HEALTH: Faces Second Patient Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kean, writing for The Western Star, reports that a second
class-action lawsuit has been filed in relation to privacy
breaches at Western Health, but this time the former employee
accused of the violations has also been named as a defendant.

The class-action lawsuit naming both Western Health and Donna
Colbourne, the clerk who was terminated from her position because
she accessed the personal information of 1,043 patients, was filed
by lawyer Scott Burden in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Corner Brook on Aug. 24.

This is the second class-action lawsuit filed against Western
Health.  Bob Buckingham, a lawyer based in St. John's, filed a
class-action lawsuit earlier this month on behalf of others who
have had their information accessed and named Barbara Hynes of
Corner Brook as the representative plaintiff.

The legal action filed by Mr. Buckingham, however, did not name
Ms. Colbourne as a defendant.

"In the event that the hospital were to deny liability based on
the employee acting outside the scope of her duties, we had to
name her," Mr. Burden said on Aug. 28 of the reason why
Ms. Colbourne was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit he
filed.

Ms. Colbourne could not be reached for comment on Aug. 28.

The latest lawsuit named two representative plaintiffs, Valerie
Dyke and Catherine Allen-Vater, who both received letters from
Western Health informing them their privacy had been breached.
Mr. Burden said his firm has a list of about 200 people who have
received letters and are part of the class action.

The statement of claim filed by Mr. Burden gives a glimpse into
the effect the privacy breaches have had on the representative
plaintiffs.

Ms. Allen-Vater called the number provided on the registered
letter she received from Western Health, but was told the breaches
were too numerous to be discussed over the phone.  She was later
sent another letter from Western Health that included a printout
of 18 dates on which her file had been accessed inappropriately.
The letter indicated there had been multiple breaches on some of
the dates noted.

The court document stated that Ms. Allen-Vater "has been
traumatized by the experience" and that she "was fearful as to the
possible uses her information may have been used and the possible
consequences of the many breaches of her privacy."

The statement of claim described Dyke as being "in a state of
shock" and "infuriated" when she was first notified of the breach
of her personal records.  She also felt that Ms. Colbourne
"targeted her specifically" and said she "is very nervous and
upset over what the purpose of the access may have been."

The court document described the actions of Ms. Colbourne as
"malicious as she knowingly accessed" information she was not
authorized to access.  It alleged that Ms. Colbourne's actions
constitute a tort of violation of privacy as stated in the Privacy
Act and Section 35(2) of the Hospitals Act.

The statement of claim accused Western Health of being "negligent"
and said its conduct "fell below the reasonable standard of care
that is expected of an organization trusted with the private
information of patients."  It asserts that Western Health "was
wilfully blind" and should be held "vicariously liable" for
Ms. Colbourne's actions.

"(Western Health), by not having proper monitoring procedures in
place, displayed a systematic failure which resulted in an
inexcusable privacy breach of a large number of people," read the
statement of claim.

The plaintiffs also want to know the answers to questions not
provided by Western Health in its registered letter to the 1,043
affected patients.

"In the letter, (Western Health) provided no explanation as to how
the breach was able to occur, how (Colbourne) was able to access
so many patient records inappropriately over an extended period of
time and why the audit only consisted of an 11-month period,"
stated the claim.

The damages being sought through the lawsuit will be assessed
through the court action and there are no dollar amounts specified
in the documents.

No defense by either Western Health or Ms. Colbourne has yet been
filed in response to the statement of claim.

On Aug. 28, Western Health's communications manager Tara Pye, said
in an e-mail that "at this point, Western Health has not yet
received the second statement of claim.  We will speak to the
matter after we have received and had the opportunity to review
it.

"We take our responsibility as the custodians of an individual's
personal health information very seriously and we do have measures
in place to protect personal health information.  We will be happy
to follow up with people on an individual basis about any specific
concerns they may have."


                           *********

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  * * *