---

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

            Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 180

                             Headlines

AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Judge Tosses Red-Light Camera Class Action
ANZ: High Court Backs Customers' Bid for Bank Fee Compensation
ARIBA INC: Merger-Related Suit in California Dismissed in July
BABY DOLLS: Topless Dancers Sue Over Unfair Distribution of Tips
BECTON DICKINSON: Rehearing Sought on Ruling in Antitrust Suit

BLIND XPRESS: Recalls 454,000 Custom-made Blinds
CELERA CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Class Action
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Royalty Deductions
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued for Rounding Up Customers' Bills

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Merger-Related Suit Deal OK
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: "Ginardi" Class Suit Resolved in June
ECO HEALTH INC: Recalls 274 Units of Prebiotic Formula Powder
ENTERGY CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Power Outages

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Hearing on "Searcy" Suit Deal on Sept. 25
FIFTH THIRD: 6th Circuit Revives ERISA Class Action
FX ALLIANCE: Faces Thomcorp Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
GLG LIFE: To Dispute Proposed Class Actions in Canada
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Consumer Claims Settlement Order Now Final

HECKMANN CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware
IN-N-OUT BURGER: Faces Class Action Over Hiring Bias
INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend TCPA Suit in Illinois
INTERLINE BRANDS: Faces Isabelle Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
LEGRAND WIREMOLD: Recalls 14,200 Power & Lighting Power Strips

MBIA INC: Settles Investors' Class Action for $3.75 Million
MF GLOBAL: Judge Asks for Changes to Trustee Lawsuit Agreement
MURRUMBIDGEE IRRIGATION: Gov't. Intervention Sought in Flood Suit
NY HOUSING: Judge Approves NYCHA Elevator Class Action Deal
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Final Okay of Securities Suit Deal

QC HOLDINGS: Appeal in North Carolina Class Suit Remains Pending
QC HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend "Lee" Class Suit in Canada
QUIKTRIP: Fuel Class Action Trial Expected to Last 10 Days
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Discovery in Alabama Class Suit Ongoing
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Funds-Related Class Suits Still Pending

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fees Suit in Georgia Still Pending
ROYAL BANK: US Preference Shareholders' Class Action Dismissed
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation Pending
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Hearing in "Sager" Suit on Sept. 14
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Karayan Litigation Remains Pending

THE SOUTHERN CO: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina Suit Remains Pending
UNITED ONLINE: "Michaels" Suit Settlement Order Appealed
UNITED ONLINE: Defends RICO-Violations Suit in Connecticut
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Two Subsidiaries Settle Class Action for $26MM
WR GRACE: ZAI and Asbestos-Related Class Suits Remain Pending

ZYNGA INC: Faces Another Securities Class Suit in California


                          *********

AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Judge Tosses Red-Light Camera Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS St. Louis reports that a lawsuit challenging the use of red-
light cameras in Arnold has been tossed out by a Missouri circuit
court judge.

The ruling by 23rd Judicial Circuit Court Judge Mark T. Stoll
upholds a request by the city of Arnold and American Traffic
Solutions to dismiss the 70-page class-action lawsuit filed
earlier this year.

Among claims made in the lawsuit argued that the city's red-light
camera ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with state law.

Judge Stoll issued an order preventing the plaintiffs from
bringing their case before the court again and ordered them to pay
defendants' costs.

"This court reviewed the extensive research, including recent
appellate and trial court decisions examining the issues raised n
the amended petition and the motions," Judge Stole wrote in his
order.  "The court finds the arguments set out in the defendants'
motion are the most persuasive and, accordingly, the motion should
be granted."

This is the fourth class-action lawsuit challenging cities' red-
light safety camera ordinances filed by the same St. Louis law
firm to be tossed out this year.


ANZ: High Court Backs Customers' Bid for Bank Fee Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that Australia's High Court on Sept. 6
backed a challenge by the customers of Australia & New Zealand
Banking Group Ltd. seeking compensation over the bank's fees, in a
ruling that could have significant impact on a separate class
action suit against eight banks over such charges.

The High Court overturned a ruling by the Federal Court last year
to label ANZ's overdraft and late payment fees as penalties or
punishments -- and therefore making their legality questionable in
court.

The decision will allow 38,000 ANZ Bank customers, who were
seeking compensation for the fees, to pursue their case further in
Federal Court.

It will also strengthen the hand of 170,000 banks customers who
are taking part in Australia's biggest class action over such
fees, seeking AUD223 million ($238 million) in compensation from
eight banks over such charges.

Banks charged Australian businesses more than half a billion
Australian dollars in exception fees between fiscal 2008 and
fiscal 2010, according to law firm Maurice Blackburn, which is
leading the class action.

"This is an important point of law today, which has expanded the
doctrine of penalties, so that the courts will now focus on the
reality of these sorts of fees," said Principal Andrew Watson, who
is heading up the case.  "The onus is now firmly on ANZ, and the
other banks, to show how fees of typically AUD30-AUD35 can be
justified when a customer is a dollar over or a day late settling
an account."

ANZ said in a statement it would "vigorously defend" itself.  The
bank's Australia chief executive, Philip Chronican, said during a
phone call with journalists that the bank would demonstrate that
the fees directly reflected the costs incurred by dealing with
customers' debts.

"We would incur several hundred million a year in bad debts from
consumer accounts," Mr. Chronican said.  "These are not trivial
costs.  There are real costs in running a bank where customers can
overdraw."

He rejected claims that ANZ had admitted such fees were
unjustified when it abolished 27 of its fees on services such as
personal accounts, reduced overdrawn and for late payments in
2009.

Carolyn Bond, co-chief executive of lobby group Consumer Action,
said the court's decision could have broad implications for fees
charged by utility companies or telecommunications providers, that
might similarly be characterized as unlawful penalties.


ARIBA INC: Merger-Related Suit in California Dismissed in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit pending in
California was dismissed in July 2012, according to Ariba, Inc.'s
August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 22, 2012, the Company, SAP America, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Parent") and Angel Expansion Corporation, a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Purchaser"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement").

Between May 23, 2012, and June 15, 2012, six plaintiffs filed
purported class action lawsuits against the Company, its
directors, Angel Expansion Corp., SAP America, Inc., and unnamed
"John Doe" defendants in connection with the proposed Merger.
Four of those purported class actions were brought in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned
Francl v. Ariba, Inc., et al. (May 23, 2012), Wright v. Ariba,
Inc., et al. (May 25, 2012), Miller v. Ariba, Inc., et al., (June
1, 2012), and Gillock v. Ariba, Inc., et al. (June 15, 2012)
(collectively, the "California Actions").  The other two purported
class actions were brought in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, captioned Silverberg v. Ariba, Inc., et al. (May 24,
2012) and Corbett v. Calderoni, et al. (May 31, 2012).  Each of
the lawsuits alleges that the defendants breached and/or aided and
abetted the breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company
shareholders by seeking to sell the Company through an allegedly
unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair terms.  The
lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief that would
enjoin the Merger, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
plaintiffs in Francl and in Wright further seek rescission of the
Merger Agreement (to the extent it has already been implemented).
On June 6, 2012, plaintiffs in Silverberg filed motions for a
preliminary injunction and for expedited proceedings.  On June 8,
2012, plaintiffs in Silverberg and Corbett filed a letter with the
Delaware Chancery Court seeking to stay those actions in favor of
the three actions then presently pending before the California
Superior Court.

On June 11, 2012, plaintiffs in Francl, Wright, and Miller, all
pending before the Superior Court of the State of California,
filed a stipulation of consolidation with the Court, which was
endorsed by the Court on June 13, 2012.  On June 14, 2012, those
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint,
In re Ariba, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, alleging substantially
the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as in
their individual purported class action lawsuits ("Consolidated
Action").  On July 24, 2012, the parties in the California Actions
filed a Stipulation with the California Superior Court, seeking
consolidation of the Gillock action with the Consolidated Action
and dismissal of the Consolidated Action without prejudice with
the parties to bear their own costs.  On July 26, 2012, the
California Superior Court entered the order and the Consolidated
Action was dismissed.  As of June 30, 2012, no amount is accrued
as a loss is not considered probable or estimable.


BABY DOLLS: Topless Dancers Sue Over Unfair Distribution of Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that Dallas-area
strip clubs cheat topless dancers by paying them zero wages,
forcing them to live off tips, a dancer claims in a federal class
action.

Named plaintiff Esther Sue Eliazio sued Baby Dolls Topless
Saloons, DB Entertainment, BDS Restaurant, and Baby Dolls of
Dallas.  She also sued Steven Craft, listing him under the address
as the corporate defendants, with the exception of Baby Dolls of
Dallas.

Ms. Eliazio says she worked as a dancer for more than 40 hours per
week, but the defendants stiffed her for overtime.

"In fact, defendants refused to compensate the plaintiff for all
the hours she worked," the complaint states.  "Plaintiff's only
compensation was in the form of tips from club patrons."

Ms. Eliazio says the defendants advertise themselves as "a family
of gentlemen's clubs."

She adds: "The dancers, like the plaintiff, are compensated
exclusively through tips from defendants' customers.  That is,
defendants do not pay dancers whatsoever for any hours worked in
their establishments."

In fact, Ms. Eliazio says, dancers have to pay to work: they are
charged a "house fee" for each shift and must share their tips
with non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips,
including disc jockeys and managers.

"Finally, defendants encouraged their customers to tip dancers
using house certificates rather than cash," the complaint states.
"When the dancers turn in the certificates to the clubs for cash,
defendants do not return full value to them.  Instead, defendants
retain a portion of the tips.  This results in the defendants
taking a portion of the tips that should be paid to the dancer."

Ms. Eliazio says Baby Dolls misclassifies dancers as independent
contractors, to duck minimum wage and overtime wage laws, but that
dancers are hired, fired, supervised and must work as anyone in an
employer-employee relationship.

Baby Dolls operates two clubs, one in Dallas and one in Fort
Worth.

A third club in Arlington was closed after the city adopted
tougher ordinances targeting sexually oriented businesses.
Ms. Eliazio seeks actual and punitive damages for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Eliazo v. Baby Dolls Topless Saloons,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-03605 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/06/Topless.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


BECTON DICKINSON: Rehearing Sought on Ruling in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company disclosed in its August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that "Hospital Plaintiffs"
are seeking a rehearing with respect to a court decision providing
that they are not entitled to pursue damages in the consolidated
antitrust class action lawsuit against the Company.

The Company is named as a defendant in the following purported
class action lawsuits brought on behalf of distributors and other
entities that purchase the Company's products (the "Distributor
Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust
laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company's
products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Louisiana Wholesale Drug     U.S. Dist. Court   March 25, 2005
Company, Inc., et al. vs.          Newark, NJ
Becton Dickinson and Co.

SAJ Distributors, Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Sept. 6, 2005
et al. vs. Becton            Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Dik Drug Company, et al.     U.S. Dist. Court   Sept. 12, 2005
vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.        Newark, NJ

American Sales Company,      U.S. Dist. Court     Oct. 3, 2005
Inc. et al. vs. Becton,      Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Park Surgical Co. Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Oct. 26, 2005
et al. vs. Becton,           Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson and Company            Pennsylvania

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

The Company is also named as a defendant in the following
purported class action lawsuits brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's products, such as hospitals (the "Hospital
Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated federal and state
antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the
Company's products to the plaintiffs and other purported class
members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc.,       U.S. Dist. Court     June 3, 2005
et al. v. Becton           Greenville, Tenn.
Dickinson & Company

Drug Mart Tallman Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Jan. 17, 2006
et al. v. Becton           Newark, New Jersey
Dickinson and Company

Medstar v. Becton            U.S. Dist. Court     May 18, 2006
Dickinson                  Newark, New Jersey

The Hebrew Home for          U.S. Dist. Court   March 28, 2007
the Aged at Riverdale          Southern Dist.
vs. Becton Dickinson              of New York
and Company

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions.  The settlement
agreement provides for, among other things, the payment by the
Company of $45 million in exchange for a release by all potential
class members of the direct purchaser claims under federal
antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the
complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as
it relates to direct purchaser claims.  The release would not
cover potential class members that affirmatively opt out of the
settlement or indirect purchaser claims.  On September 30, 2010,
the District Court denied a motion to approve the settlement
agreement, ruling that the Hospital Plaintiffs, and not the
Distributor Plaintiffs, are the direct purchasers with standing to
sue under federal antitrust laws.

On June 5, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's standing decision and ruled that the
Distributor Plaintiffs, not the Hospital Plaintiffs, are direct
purchasers entitled to pursue damages.  The Hospital Plaintiffs
are seeking a rehearing.  Assuming the ruling of the Third Circuit
stands, the settlement agreement will remain in effect, subject to
certain termination provisions, and must be approved as to
fairness by the District Court.

The Company says it currently cannot estimate the range of
reasonably possible losses with respect to these class action
matters beyond the $45 million already accrued and changes to the
amount already recognized may be required in the future as
additional information becomes available.


BLIND XPRESS: Recalls 454,000 Custom-made Blinds
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with Blind Xpress of Livonia, Michigan, is announcing the recall
of about 139,000 custom-made vertical and 315,000 horizontal
blinds.  In 2009, a 2-year-old girl from Commerce Township,
Michigan, reportedly strangled in the loop of a vertical blind
cord that was not attached to the wall or floor.

Blind Xpress custom vertical blinds have an adjustment cord that
forms a loop that is not attached to the wall or floor.  In some
instances, this loop has a weighted device at the bottom.  The
custom horizontal blinds do not have inner cord stop devices to
prevent the accessible inner cords from being pulled out.  A child
can become entangled in a cord loop and get strangled.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12273.html

This recall involves all Blind Xpress custom-made vertical blinds
that do not have a cord-tensioning device that attaches to the
wall or floor, as well as all horizontal blinds that do not have
inner cord stop devices.

The blinds were sold at various blind specialty stores in
Michigan, Ohio and Indiana from January 1995 through December 2011
for between $16 and $380.  These blinds were manufactured in the
United States.

CPSC urges consumers to immediately stop using the window
coverings and contact the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC) to
receive a free repair kit.  For more information, contact the WCSC
toll-free at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org/


CELERA CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Sept. 4 denied Celera Corp.'s bid to dismiss a
putative shareholder class action over the medical diagnostics
company's alleged financial misstatements, ruling the plaintiffs
had provided enough evidence to allow their loss causation and
intentional misstatement claims to go ahead.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila said the plaintiffs'
allegations, backed by confidential Celera witnesses, hadn't
directly shown Celera and its officers knew its financial
statements were false. But he added that the witnesses' background
information supported a "strong inference."


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel disclosed that a purported class action filed
against the Company and two other cellular operators, in August
2011, without stating the amount claimed, in connection with
charges alleged to be in violation of their licenses, was
dismissed with prejudice.

The purported class action related to alleged charges that were
based on units which are different than the units allegedly
required by the defendants' licenses, for calls initiated or
received by the subscribers while abroad.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Royalty Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that Chesapeake
Energy subsidiaries improperly deduct post-production costs from
natural gas royalty checks, leaseholders say in a class action.

Charles Warren, of Dallas, and Robert Warren, of Plano, sued
Chesapeake Exploration and Chesapeake Operating, both of Oklahoma
City, in Federal Court.

The Warrens say Chesapeake Exploration was assigned more than 300
oil, gas and mineral leases in Tarrant and Johnson counties, and
contracted with Chesapeake Operating to drill and operate the gas
wells in the Barnett Shale formation, beginning in 2008.

They say the leases they signed expressly prohibit deduction of
expenses from royalties, including costs of treating, marketing
and transporting the gas to market.

"But instead of paying royalty without deduction of post-
production costs, as required by the lease, the Chesapeake
Entities improperly subtracted post production costs from the
royalty due to the plaintiffs," the complaint states.  "The
Chesapeake Entities employed a scheme whereby they ignored the
contract language and made extensive deductions of post-production
costs that were the Chesapeake Entities' obligations."

The plaintiffs say that at no time did Chesapeake's royalty
statements show that post-production cost deductions were made.

They seek actual damages, an accounting and an injunction for
breach of contract.

A copy of the Complaint in Warren, et al. v. Chesapeake
Exploration, LLC, et al., Case No. 12-cv-03581 (N.D. Tex.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/06/Chesapeake.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert M. O'Boyle, Esq.
          Clinton A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
          Perry Brooks Building
          720 Brazos Street, Suite 700
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 499-3600
          E-mail: bob.oboyle@strasburger.com
                 clint.rosenthal@strasburger.com

               - and -

          Scott M. Clearman, Esq.
          CLEARMAN|PREBEG LLP
          The Esperson Buildings
          815 Walker, Suite 1040
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 223-7070
          E-mail: sclearman@clearmanprebeg.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued for Rounding Up Customers' Bills
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Chipotle Mexican Grill has unfairly rounded up customers' bills to
the nearest nickel since Aug. 30, 2008.

A copy of the Complaint in Overton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01430 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/06/Chipotle.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          Mark A. Butler, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ, & PARADIS
          570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500
          E-mail: paparadis@hhplawny.com
                  gtufaro@hhplawny.com
                  mbutler@hhplawny.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC on Sept. 5 disclosed
that it has filed a class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. common stock during the period
between February 1, 2012 and July 19, 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, Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-
5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.  Please visit
http://yatesclassactionlaw.comfor more information.

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.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 16, 2012.

The complaint charges Chipotle and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  As a result of defendants'
alleged false statements, Chipotle stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Chipotle common stock during the Class Period.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Merger-Related Suit Deal OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. is awaiting court
approval of its settlement to resolve merger-related class action
lawsuits, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On February 5, 2012, the Company entered into a definitive
agreement to acquire all the outstanding shares of SureWest
Communications ("SureWest") for $23 per share in a cash and stock
transaction.  SureWest provides a wide range of
telecommunications, digital video, Internet, data and other
facilities-based communications services in Northern California,
primarily in the greater Sacramento region, and in the greater
Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri areas.  Final closing on the
SureWest transaction occurred July 2, 2012.

Six putative class action lawsuits were filed by alleged SureWest
shareholders challenging the Company's merger with SureWest in
which the Company, WH Acquisition Corp. and WH Acquisition II
Corp, SureWest and members of the SureWest board of directors have
been named as defendants.  Five shareholder actions were filed in
the Superior Court of California, Placer County, and one
shareholder action was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California.  The actions are called
Needles v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed February 17,
2012, Errecart v. Oldham, et al., filed February 24, 2012,
Springer v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed March 9, 2012,
Aievoli v. Oldham, et al., filed March 15, 2012, and Waterbury v.
SureWest Communications, et al., filed March 26, 2012, and the
federal action is called Broering v. Oldham, et al., filed
April 18, 2012.  The actions generally allege, among other things,
that each member of the SureWest board of directors breached
fiduciary duties to SureWest and its shareholders by authorizing
the sale of SureWest to the Company for consideration that
allegedly was unfair to the SureWest shareholders and agreed to
terms that allegedly unduly restrict other bidders from making a
competing offer.  The complaints also allege that the Company and
SureWest aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties
allegedly committed by the members of the SureWest board of
directors.  The Broering complaint also alleges, among other
things, that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the
SEC on March 28, 2012, did not make sufficient disclosures
regarding the merger, that SureWest's board should have appointed
an independent committee to negotiate the transaction and that
SureWest should have gone back to another bidder to create a
competitive bid process.

The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including an order to prevent
the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon
terms and/or an award of unspecified money damages.  On March 14,
2012, the Placer County Superior Court entered an order
consolidating the Needles, Errecart and Springer actions into a
single action under the caption In re SureWest Communications
Shareholder Litigation.  Under the terms of this order, all cases
subsequently filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Placer, that relate to the same subject
matter and involve similar questions of law or fact were to be
consolidated with these cases as well.  This included the Aievoli
and Waterbury cases.  On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff in
Waterbury filed a request for voluntary dismissal of her complaint
without prejudice.  On May 18, 2012, pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, the federal court entered an order staying the
Broering action for 90 days.

On June 1, 2012, the parties entered into a proposed settlement of
all of the shareholder actions without any admission of liability
by the Company or the other defendants.  Pursuant to the proposed
settlement, SureWest agreed to make, and subsequently made,
certain additional disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC in advance of the special meeting of SureWest
shareholders held on June 12, 2012.  The proposed settlement also
provided that plaintiffs' counsel collectively are to receive
attorneys' fees of $525,000, of which the Company is to pay
$36,250, with the balance to be paid by SureWest and its insurer.
The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the Placer
County Superior Court.  Upon approval by the court, the
consolidated state court actions and the federal action will be
dismissed with prejudice.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: "Ginardi" Class Suit Resolved in June
----------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP disclosed in its August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that the class action lawsuit
titled Ginardi v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al., was settled
and dismissed in June 2012.

In May 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, Ginardi v. Frontier
Gas Services, LLC, et al., No 4:11-cv-0420 BRW, was filed in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas
against Frontier Gas Services, LLC, Chesapeake Energy Corporation,
BHP Billiton Petroleum ("BHP"), Kinder Morgan Treating, LP, and
Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC (which was served in August 2011).
The lawsuit alleged that the defendants' operations pollute the
atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful gases,
chemicals, and compounds and the facilities create excessive noise
levels constituting trespass, nuisance and annoyance (the "Ginardi
case").

On June 27, 2012, the Company settled the Ginardi case and the
case was dismissed.  The Company says the settlement did not have
a material impact on its results of operations or financial
condition.

In addition, in connection with the Ginardi settlement, the
parties in the lawsuit styled George Bartlett, et al, v. Frontier
Gas Services, LLC, et al including Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline,
LLC, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, and Kinder Morgan Treating LP,
which was filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of Arkansas (No 4 11-cv-0910 BSM) (the "Bartlett case")
agreed that the Bartlett case would not proceed as a class action.
The Bartlett case is otherwise ongoing.

While the Company cannot reasonably quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, for the payment of any damages or other
remedial actions, the Bartlett case has not had, nor is expected
to have, a material impact on the Company's results of operation
or financial condition.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this lawsuit and to mitigate any claims by pursuing any
and all indemnification obligations to which the Company may be
entitled with respect to the properties as well as any coverage
from the Company's insurance.

Crestwood Midstream Partners LP -- http://www.crestwoodlp.com--
engages in gathering, compressing, treating, processing, and
transporting natural gas primarily on the Barnett Shale formation
of the Fort Worth Basin in north Texas.  The Company conducts its
operations through its Cowtown System, Lake Arlington Dry System,
and Alliance Midstream Assets, as well as the Fayetteville Shale
and the Granite Wash plays.  The Company was formerly known as
Quicksilver Gas Services LP and changed its name to Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP in October 2010.  It was founded in 2004 and
is based in Houston, Texas. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP is a
subsidiary of Crestwood Gas Services Holdings LLC.


ECO HEALTH INC: Recalls 274 Units of Prebiotic Formula Powder
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eco Health, Inc. of Chatsworth, California, is recalling its
florAlign PREBIOTIC FORMULA (POWDER) in the following quantities:

   * 60 units of the 90 gram PREBIOTIC FORMULA (powder),
   * 40 units of the 180 gram PREBIOTIC FORMULA (powder) and
   * 174 units of the 270 gram PREBIOTIC FORMULA (powder)

This PREBIOTIC FORMULA was marketed under the name florAlign
PREBIOTIC FORMULA.  (Please note that this recall does not effect
the ECO HEALTH, INC PROBIOTIC FORMULA which is a capsule marketed
also under the FlorAlign Label).

The PREBIOTIC FORMULA ONLY is being recalled because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.  Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The florAlign PREBIOTIC FORMULA was distributed within the United
States (throughout the nation) via direct to consumer marketing
(mail order, internet and direct delivery).

The PREBIOTIC FORMULA was distributed in three sizes (90 gram, 180
gram, and 270 grams).  UPC code #'s FA02-90GM, FA02-180GM, and
FA02-180GM respectively.  It is a berry flavored powder in a white
plastic screw off container and contains a scooper.  It is
distributed by Eco-Health, Inc. and contains the following address
on the label: 25876 The Old Road #158, Newhall, CA 91321.  The
dates of distribution are between June 2011 - August 2012 in the
quantities mentioned above.

There are specific instructions on the label to report any adverse
effects to the above address.  Pictures of the labels of the
recalled products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm318492.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This possible problem was first brought to the attention of ECO-
HEALTH, INC via the FDA because the contract manufacturer notified
the FDA of a similar problem with the Ingredion label.  The
product was manufactured by Northridge Labs which is owned by
Irwin Naturals.  The company has ceased the production and
distribution of the product as the company continues their
investigation as to what caused the problem.

Customers can call our customer service department with any
questions and are urged to return the product for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-661-208-3446
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time Monday thru
Friday.


ENTERGY CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Power Outages
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that more than 100,000 people lost
power because Entergy failed to prepare for and respond to
Hurricane Isaac, a class action claims in Orleans Parish Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Payton, et al. v. Entergy Corporation,
et al., Case No. 2012-8368 (La. Dist. Ct., Parish of Orleans), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/06/Entergy.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          A.M. "Tony" Clayton, Esq.
          3741 Highway 1 South
          Port Allen, LA 70767
          Telephone: (225) 344-7000
          E-mail: tclaytonlaw@aol.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Hearing on "Searcy" Suit Deal on Sept. 25
------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on final court approval of Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by
Gladys Searcy against a subsidiary is scheduled for September 25,
2012, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

The lawsuit captioned Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds Corporation is a
nationwide putative class action that was filed against the
Company's subsidiary eFunds Corporation and its affiliate Deposit
Payment Protection Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois during the first quarter of
2008.  The complaint seeks damages for an alleged willful
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") in connection
with the operation of the Shared Check Authorization Network.
Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did not receive
appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the FCRA
because the disclosures did not include: (i) all information in
the consumer's file at the time of the request; (ii) the source of
the information in the consumer's file; and/or (iii) the names of
any persons who requested information related to the consumer's
check writing history during the prior year.  Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which was granted with respect to
two subclasses during the first quarter of 2010.  The motion was
denied with respect to all other subclasses.  The Company filed a
motion for reconsideration.  The motion was granted and the two
subclasses were decertified.  The plaintiff also filed motions to
amend her complaint to add two additional plaintiffs to the
lawsuit.  The court granted the motions.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment as to the original plaintiff and a motion for
sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel based on
plaintiff's alleged false statements that were filed in support of
the motion for class certification.  In the third quarter of 2010,
the court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted in
part and denied in part the motion for sanctions.  The Company
filed a motion requesting the court to allow it to file an
interlocutory appeal on the order denying the motion for summary
judgment.  The court granted the motion; however, in the first
quarter of 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
Company's petition for interlocutory appeal.  Discovery regarding
the new plaintiffs and other matters has been completed.

In the first quarter of 2012, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion
for class certification.  The parties attended mediation and, in
the second quarter of 2012, reached an agreement on the material
terms of a settlement.  The parties entered into a settlement
agreement and received preliminary approval from the Court in the
second quarter of 2012.  A hearing on final court approval is
scheduled for September 25, 2012.

The Company says the estimated liability recorded based on the
terms of the settlement agreement did not have a material effect
on the consolidated results of the Company.

Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, Fidelity National
Information Services, Inc. is a global provider of banking and
payments technologies.  FIS serves more than 14,000 institutions
in over 100 countries.


FIFTH THIRD: 6th Circuit Revives ERISA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reports that the Sixth Circuit
on Sept. 5 revived a proposed class action by Fifth Third Bancorp
employees claiming the company's retirement plan lost tens of
millions of dollars by investing in its own stock in 2007 despite
its risks as a subprime lender, in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

A three-judge panel reversed an Ohio federal court's decision that
granted Cincinnati, Ohio-based Fifth Third's motion to dismiss.


FX ALLIANCE: Faces Thomcorp Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
FX Alliance Inc. is facing a stockholder class action lawsuit in
Delaware arising from its proposed merger with Thomcorp Holdings
Inc., according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On July 8, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Thomcorp Holdings Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), CB Transaction Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub"), and, solely with respect to Section 9.13 of the Merger
Agreement, Thomson Reuters Corporation, a corporation under the
laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada.  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, upon the terms and subject to the conditions thereof,
Merger Sub commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") on July 18,
2012, to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of
common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, of the Company
("Company Common Stock") at a purchase price of $22.00 per share,
net to the holder in cash, without interest (the "Offer Price")
and, subject to any required withholding of taxes.  The
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are expected to
be completed by the end of the third quarter.

On July 27, 2012, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware,
captioned Rubin v. FX Alliance, Inc., Case No. 7730.  The
complaint names as defendants the Company, Philip J. Weisberg,
Kathleen Casey, Caroline [sic] Christie, James L. Fox, Gerald D.
Putnam, Jr., John C. Rosenberg, Peter Tomozawa, Robert Trudeau,
Thomson Reuters Corporation, Thomcorp Holdings Inc., and CB
Transaction Corp.  The complaint alleges generally that all
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
properly value the Company, failing to take steps to maximize the
value of the Company to its public shareholders, employing efforts
to unfairly coerce the Company's public shareholders to approve
the deal, and in favoring their own interests over those of the
Company's public shareholders.  The complaint further alleges that
the Company and Thomson Reuters Corporation have aided and abetted
defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties.  The complaint
seeks an injunction prohibiting consummation of the proposed
transaction, rescission of the transaction (in the event the
transaction has already been consummated), imposition of a
constructive trust, compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and
costs and disbursements, including expenses, attorneys' and
experts' fees.  The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations
lack merit and will vigorously contest them.


GLG LIFE: To Dispute Proposed Class Actions in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
GLG Life Tech Corporation on Sept. 5 disclosed that the Company
has been served with proposed class action law suits filed in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia and in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

The Company has reviewed the reported allegations and believes
they are without merit and stands behind its continuous public
disclosure record.  GLG believes that there is no basis for any
class action to proceed.  If, however, these actions proceed, GLG
will defend itself vigorously.

GLG Life Tech Corporation -- http://www.glglifetech.com-- is a
global supplier of stevia extracts, an all-natural, zero-calorie
sweetener used in food and beverages.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Consumer Claims Settlement Order Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. disclosed in its August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that the final approval of
its settlement to resolve consumer claims in the Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation in Texas has become final.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the "JPML") entered an order centralizing class action cases for
pre-trial proceedings before the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
MDL No. 2046, 4:09-md-2046.  On August 24, 2009, the court
appointed interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial
institution and consumer plaintiffs.  On September 23, 2009, the
financial institution plaintiffs filed a Master Complaint in the
MDL proceedings, which the Company moved to dismiss on October 23,
2009.  On December 1, 2011, the Court entered an order granting in
part the Company's motion to dismiss the financial institution
plaintiffs' master complaint against the Company, but allowing the
plaintiffs leave to amend to re-plead certain claims.  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint was due on August 3, 2012.  A status conference
was scheduled for August 7, 2012.

On December 18, 2009, the Company and interim counsel for the
consumer plaintiffs filed with the Court a proposed settlement
agreement, subject to court approval, of the consumer class action
claims.  On May 3, 2010, the Court entered an order preliminarily
certifying the settlement class, authorizing notice to the class
to proceed, and scheduling a fairness hearing for December 10,
2010, which was later adjourned to December 13, 2010.  On March
20, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum and opinion granting final
approval to the settlement and on
April 12, 2012, the Court entered a judgment, which has since
become final.


HECKMANN CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heckmann Corporation continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Delaware, according to
the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010, against the Company and various directors and
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware captioned In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class
Action (C.A. No. 10-378-LPS-MPT) (the "Class Action").  The Class
Action alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection
with the acquisition of China Water.  The Company responded by
filing a motion to transfer the Class Action to California and a
motion to dismiss the case.  On October 6, 2010, the Magistrate
Judge issued a report and recommendation to the District Court
Judge to deny the motion to transfer.  On
October 8, 2010, the court-appointed lead plaintiff, Matthew
Haberkorn, filed an Amended Class Action Complaint that adds China
Water as a defendant.  On October 25, 2010, the Company filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on
the motion to transfer.  The court adopted the report and
recommendation on the motion to transfer on March 31, 2011.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint and a reply to lead plaintiff's opposition to the motion
to dismiss.  On June 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a
report and recommendation to the District Court Judge to deny the
motion to dismiss.  The Company filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss and
Plaintiffs filed a response.  On October 25, 2011, the court heard
oral argument on the Company's objections to the report and
recommendation on the motion to dismiss.  The court has not yet
ruled on the objections.

On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed motion to modify the
automatic discovery stay in place pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The Company filed an opposition
on February 13, 2012.  On February 15, 2012, the Magistrate Judge
entered an order modifying the discovery stay and requiring the
Company to produce documents to plaintiff that have been produced
in a derivative action.  On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed
motion to modify the automatic discovery stay in place pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The Company filed
an opposition on February 13, 2012.  On February 15, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge entered an order modifying the discovery stay and
requiring the Company to produce documents to Plaintiff that have
been produced in the derivative action pending in the Superior
Court of California, County of Riverside captioned Hess v.
Heckmann, et al.  On May 25, 2012, the court entered a memorandum
order overruling the Company's objections, adopting the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation, and denying the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On June 25, 2012, the court entered a
scheduling order setting forth a schedule for, among other things,
discovery and dispositive motions.  On July 9, 2012, the Company
filed its Answer to the Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Company says the outcome of the Class Action could have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.


IN-N-OUT BURGER: Faces Class Action Over Hiring Bias
----------------------------------------------------
MercuryNews.com, reports that a Berkeley law firm has filed a
class action lawsuit alleging that Irvine-based restaurant chain
In-N-Out Burger maintains hiring practices that discriminate on
the basis of race, color and age.

The suit, which was filed in Alameda County Superior Court on
Sept. 4, was filed on behalf of two black men from Oakland over
the age of 40 who recently applied for jobs at In-N-Out Burger
restaurants in Oakland and San Francisco but weren't hired.

The suit says both men were qualified for the jobs they applied
for and alleges that they weren't hired because of their race and
their age.

The suit alleges that In-N-Out Burger "recruits, hires and
maintains a work force that is predominantly under the age of 40
and/or non-African-American."

The restaurant chain has 210 restaurants in California and
thousands of employees but the suit charges that "very few" are
over 40 and/or black.

Steve Tidrick, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the suit
alleges that In-N-Out Burger has "a pervasive policy of
discrimination on the basis of race, color and age" in its hiring
practices and seeks to end those practices through injunctive
relief.

Mr. Tidrick said the suit also seeks back pay as well as
compensatory damages and punitive damages on behalf of people who
have been unlawfully denied employment with In-N-Out Burger.

Arnie Wensinger, In-N-Out Burger's vice president and general
counsel, said, "In-N-Out Burger does not discriminate on the basis
of ethnicity, race or age in our hiring policies or practices."

Mr. Wensinger said, "We hire from our local communities and our
restaurants reflect the demographics of that community.  The
company will aggressively defend itself against these baseless and
irresponsible allegations."


INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend TCPA Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands, Inc. has been named as a defendant in an action
filed before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Lake County,
Illinois, which was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
complaint alleges that the Company sent thousands of unsolicited
fax advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("TCPA").  At the time of filing the
complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to
certify a class of plaintiffs comprised of businesses who
allegedly received unsolicited fax advertisements from the
Company.  Other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad
range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own
unique set of facts and circumstances.  Accordingly, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising
from this matter.  The Company is vigorously contesting class
action certification and liability, and will continue to evaluate
its defenses based upon its internal review and investigation of
prior events, new information, and future circumstances.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Interline Brands, Inc., and its subsidiaries, is a national
distributor and direct marketer of broad-line maintenance, repair
and operations (MRO) products.  The Company sells plumbing,
electrical, hardware, security, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC), janitorial and sanitation (JanSan) supplies
and other MRO products.  The Company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Faces Isabelle Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit arising
from its proposed merger with a subsidiary of Isabelle Holding
Company Inc., according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2012.

On May 29, 2012, the Company announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (as it may be amended, the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among Isabelle Holding Company Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent", which corporation may be converted
into a Delaware limited liability company prior to the closing of
the Merger (as defined herein)), Isabelle Acquisition Sub Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), and the Company, providing for the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the
Company surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent.  Parent is an affiliate of GS Capital Partners VI L.P.
and, at the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, certain interests of Parent will be owned by one or
more investment funds managed by P2 Capital Partners, LLC and
certain members of Company management.

On June 13, 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint,
Diane P. Cohen v. Interline Brands, Inc., et al., was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, each member of the
Company's Board of Directors, GS Capital Partners VI L.P., P2
Capital Partners, LLC, Parent and Merger Sub.  The complaint
generally alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the stockholders by agreeing to sell the
Company at a price that is unfair and inadequate and by agreeing
to certain preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger
Agreement.  The complaint further alleges that the Company, GS
Capital Partners VI L.P., P2 Capital Partners, LLC, Parent and
Merger Sub aided and abetted in the directors' breach of their
fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
rescission of the Merger Agreement and an award for the costs of
the action.  The Company intends to deny these allegations and to
vigorously defend itself and its directors.

On June 29, 2012, Ms. Cohen filed an amended complaint in the
Court of Chancery.  In addition to the claims asserted in the
original complaint, plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint
that certain aspects of the Preliminary Proxy Statement filed on
June 20, 2012, are misleading and incomplete.

The Company and its directors firmly believe that plaintiff's
allegations are without merit.  The Company and its directors have
been, and intend to continue, defending themselves vigorously
against all of the claims asserted in this action.

Interline Brands, Inc., and its subsidiaries, is a national
distributor and direct marketer of broad-line maintenance, repair
and operations (MRO) products.  The Company sells plumbing,
electrical, hardware, security, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC), janitorial and sanitation (JanSan) supplies
and other MRO products.  The Company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


LEGRAND WIREMOLD: Recalls 14,200 Power & Lighting Power Strips
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Legrand Wiremold, West Hartford, Connecticut, announced a
voluntary recall of about 14,200 units of Legrand Under Cabinet
Power and Lighting four outlet power strips.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The electrical wires are reversed on the receptacles on the power
strips, posing a risk of electrical shock.

One incident was reported.  No injuries were reported.

This recall involves four-outlet under-cabinet power and lighting
strips model number PX1001.  The power strips come in a red
package with "Wiremold-Series Part PX1001" printed on the front.
The manufactured dates of the recalled products are presented as
product date codes January 2011 through June 2012, and are found
imprinted on a circle on the bottom with an arrow pointing to the
number of the month and the year "11" or "12" in the center.  The
model number PX1001, and UPC number 0 86698 00125 3, are imprinted
on the bottom of the packaging.  Power strips that have a star
symbol printed in black ink on the packaging and on the back cover
of the power strip are not included in this recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12274.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace
Hardware, Do it Best, Home Depot USA, Sutherland, True Value
Hardware and online at Amazon.com between February 2011 and August
2012 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the power
strips and return them to Legrand Wiremold for a replacement or
refund.  For additional information, contact Legrand Wiremold at
(800) 617-1768 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.legrand.us/


MBIA INC: Settles Investors' Class Action for $3.75 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that MBIA
Inc. (MBI) settled a class-action lawsuit over investors' claims
that it materially misstated financial results by engaging in
improper accounting practices, both sides informed a federal
court.

The accord, for $3.75 million, will be distributed to investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired MBIA common stock from Aug. 5,
2003, through March 30, 2005, the parties said in court papers.

A federal appeals court in February 2011 reinstated the case after
U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in Manhattan dismissed it four
years earlier, saying the plaintiffs waited too long to file their
case.  Judge Stanton said the statute of limitations had expired
because the investors had notice of alleged wrongdoing in 2002.
The appeals court said the trial judge improperly calculated the
statute of limitations.

The investors sued MBIA in 2005, alleging in Manhattan federal
court that flawed accounting enabled Armonk, New York-based MBIA
to overstate reported income from 1998 to 2003.

Lawyers for both sides filed a proposed settlement with Judge
Stanton late on Sept. 4.  The plaintiffs are led by the Southwest
Carpenters Pension Trust and the City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System.

"In an effort to resolve the action through good-faith settlement
negotiations, the parties attended a mediation," they said in
court papers.  "Following extensive discussions and negotiations
led by the mediator, the parties reached an oral agreement on the
principal terms of the settlement."

MBIA, the bond insurer fighting lawsuits challenging its 2009
split, said it denied and continues to deny any allegations of
wrongdoing

Sam Rudman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, didn't immediately reply
to a voice-mail message seeking comment about the accord.  Steve
Klugman, a lawyer for MBIA, declined to comment.  Kevin Brown, an
MBIA spokesman, declined to comment on the settlement in an
e-mail.

The case is In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, 05-cv- 3514,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


MF GLOBAL: Judge Asks for Changes to Trustee Lawsuit Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Kary, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the judge
overseeing MF Global Inc.'s bankruptcy asked for changes in the
agreements a trustee for customers has made about class-action
lawsuits against Jon Corzine and other former company executives.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn said the agreement should give
his court more authority to approve the way customers and
creditors share any winnings or settlement proceeds.  The trustee,
James Giddens, had proposed sharing information with customers and
overseeing the distribution of any winnings.  Louis Freeh, the
trustee in control of the failed brokerage's parent MF Global
Holdings Ltd., had objected, saying he should oversee the
lawsuits.

The agreement "reflects an appropriate exercise of business
judgment," avoids duplicative lawsuits by trustees and customers
and saves money for the estate, Judge Glenn said on Sept. 5.

The wording of the agreement should call for any settlement to get
approval from both the bankruptcy court and the district court
where customers sued MF Global's directors, Judge Glenn said.  He
said the initial version of the agreement could have circumvented
an issue on which he has yet to rule, whether customers have a
priority over general creditors to be repaid.  Mr. Corzine, MF
Global's former chairman and chief executive officer, is a former
governor of New Jersey.

Mr. Giddens is overseeing the wind-down of the brokerage unit
under the Securities Investor Protection Act and seeking to repay
customers. Under Mr. Freeh, the holding company is winding down to
repay creditors including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)

"We think this will bring tremendous efficiencies and will jump
start the discovery and the prosecution of claims against Corzine
and others," said Kent Jarrell, a spokesman for Mr. Giddens,
noting that the trustee was pleased with the ruling.

Each trustee has said the other trustee is conflicted.  Both also
have made probes into how MF Global failed and have been at odds
over whether certain sums belong to creditors or customers.

Aside from Mr. Corzine, Mr. Giddens has said he sees possible
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against former
Chief Financial Officer Henri Steenkamp and former assistant
treasurer Edith O'Brien, among others.  Mr. Giddens has said any
money recovered should go to customers, who face a gap estimated
at $1.6 billion.

Representatives for customers have already started class-action,
or group, lawsuits making similar claims against former MF Global
directors and officers.  The suits were consolidated in Manhattan
federal court in April.  Mr. Giddens has said he plans to
cooperate in the cases, sharing documents in exchange for any
recoveries.

Because Mr. Giddens's agreement calls for general estate creditors
to be paid only after customers are paid in full, the customers
"are clearly not properly incentivized to litigate fully," Mr.
Freeh said in an objection.

MF Global Holdings, run by former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)
Co-Chairman Corzine until his Nov. 4 resignation, filed the
eighth-largest U.S. bankruptcy in October after a $6.3 billion
trade on its own behalf on bonds of some of Europe's most indebted
nations led to margin calls.

Mr. Corzine and other officers, a group of lenders and a group of
creditors also objected to Mr. Giddens's agreement with customers.
In court papers, Mr. Corzine and 23 other individuals said that as
potential defendants, they opposed Mr. Giddens's plan to give the
plaintiffs whatever materials he wants.

The agreement also would limit their right to get information and
make them pay for some of it, the individuals said.  Creditors
called Mr. Giddens' attempt to manage the class-action recoveries
"another back-handed attempt" to "allocate general estate assets
to customers."

The lender group, whose members say they own more than $1.4
billion in customer claims, said there were no provisions that
assure the claims will be "fully prosecuted or fairly settled for
the benefit" of all creditors.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC, MF Global's former auditor, also
objected to the agreement insofar as it would have transferred any
claims against the accounting firm, saying the claims "are not
assignable."  Judge Glenn said he will rule later in court papers
on how the agreement will apply to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Mr. Giddens replied to the objections by saying that he's a more
appropriate overseer of the lawsuits.  Mr. Freeh has "some
inherent conflicts in opposing this motion because individuals
currently employed" by him are defendants in the litigation, Mr.
Giddens said.

Mr. Freeh has predicted that MF Global's customers will eventually
recoup all of their money, while Mr. Giddens has said
distributions should be "in the 90 percent range."

The brokerage case is Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. MF
Global Inc., 11-02790, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan).  The parent's bankruptcy case is MF Global
Holdings Ltd. (MFGLQ), 11-bk-15059, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


MURRUMBIDGEE IRRIGATION: Gov't. Intervention Sought in Flood Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the man heading a possible class action
against Murrumbidgee Irrigation says the New South Wales
government should intervene to have the dispute resolved.

Griffith City Council candidate, Paul Rosetto says because several
shires were hit in the flood, the Murrumbidgee Catchment
Management Authority should also be investigating.

The State Emergency Service says Murrumbidgee Irrigation's refusal
to hand over hydrological data leaves it in an invidious position
trying to prepare new flood plans for the area.

Murrumbidgee Irrigation has refused to comment publicly, citing
the threat of legal action.

Mr. Rosetto says MI has been given legal immunity by the state
over the flooding at Yenda, but the state could intervene.

"I've been urging Adrian Piccoli to jump in and help us," he said.

"The way it's heading, the NSW Government, having made the laws
that protect Murrumbidgee Irrigation and also Griffith City Shire
Council under immunity, legal immunity, the state government can
actually jump in and solve this problem rather quickly if they had
the motivation," said Mr. Rosetto.

Another Griffith City Council candidate, John Dal Broi, has called
for the former state owned Murrumbidgee Irrigation to end its
silence about the flooding at Yenda.

Mr. Dal Broi says he appreciates MI's legal concerns, but dialogue
is needed.

"Generally it is water from heaven, but in this case, the bank was
breached and it was MI's water," said Mr. Dal Broi.

"MI should be not admitting guilt but saying 'this event
happened'," he said.

"And they should give us some examples of how they intend to, if
another event happens, what they can do to alleviate the problem."

"You know it was a government instrumentality.  It was Water
Resources before MI and that was a state government authority,"
said Mr. Dal Broi.


NY HOUSING: Judge Approves NYCHA Elevator Class Action Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greg B. Smith, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
thousands of city Housing Authority tenants got good news on
Sept. 5 -- a court-approved settlement requiring NYCHA to
immediately fix its longstanding elevator mess.

Brooklyn Magistrate Judge Robert Levy signed off on a settlement
of a class-action lawsuit brought by handicapped tenants.

Under terms of the deal, NYCHA agreed that within the next six
months, it will fix virtually all its busted elevators within 24
hours of learning a lift is out of service.

"It's about time," said Manhattan Borough President Scott
Stringer, a longtime critic of NYCHA.  "For far too long, NYCHA
tenants with disabilities have been held hostage to the Housing
Authority's inability to repair, modernize or replace poorly
functioning elevators."

The settlement follows years of complaints about long delays to
fix constantly busted elevators in NYCHA's 334 developments.

The elevator problem has afflicted all of the authority's 400,000
tenants, but made life particularly difficult for wheelchair-bound
and asthma-afflicted residents who found themselves stuck in
upper-floor apartments.

Housing Authority tenant Brenda Boatwright, 56, confined to a
motorized wheelchair with acute diabetes, knows about this
firsthand.

After she moved into a 10th-floor apartment in the Tilden Houses
in Brownsville in 2008, Tilden's out-of-service elevators often
prevented her from getting to her dialysis sessions.

"It was just ridiculous," she said.  "Sometimes they had to call
the Fire Department to carry me down the stairs."

In 2009, she got in touch with the New York Legal Assistance
Group.  NYCHA agreed to transfer several "mobility-impaired"
tenants to first-floor apartments.  Ms. Boatwright was one of the
lucky ones.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Final Okay of Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. is awaiting final court approval of its
$3.1 million settlement of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Following the Company's public announcement that it would restate
certain of its financial results due to a change in the Company's
accounting treatment for certain exploration and development
costs, three securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010, and April 7, 2010.  These
complaints asserted claims against the Company and certain
directors and officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").  One complaint also asserted claims for alleged violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.  All three
complaints alleged claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 6, 2008, or
May 7, 2008, and February 23, 2010, or February 24, 2010.  These
three lawsuits were consolidated by the Court in an order issued
on June 3, 2010, and the Court appointed three of the Company's
stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint ("CAC") on July 9, 2010, that asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 7, 2008, and February 24, 2010.  The CAC alleged that certain
of the Company's public statements were false and misleading for
failing to account properly for the Company's exploration and
development costs based on the Company's announcement on February
24, 2010, that it was going to restate certain of its financial
results to change its method of accounting for exploration and
development costs in certain respects.  The CAC also alleged that
certain of the Company's statements concerning the North Brawley
project were false and misleading.  The CAC sought compensatory
damages, expenses, and such further relief as the Court may deem
proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010.
On March 3, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs'
allegations that the Company's statements regarding the North
Brawley project were false or misleading, but did not dismiss
plaintiffs' allegations regarding the 2008 restatement.
Defendants answered the remaining allegations in the CAC regarding
the restatement on April 8, 2011, and the case entered the
discovery phase.  On July 22, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 25,
2009, and February 24, 2010, and defendants filed an opposition to
the motion for class certification on October 4, 2011.

Subsequently, the parties participated in mediation where they
reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class
action lawsuits.  The parties thereafter filed a stipulation of
settlement with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
on March 27, 2012, providing that the claims against the Company
and its directors and officers will be dismissed with prejudice
and plaintiffs will release the defendants from all claims in
exchange for a cash payment of $3.1 million to be funded by the
Company's insurers.  The stipulation of settlement received
preliminary approval by the Court on March 30, 2012.  It still
remains subject to final approval by the Court following notice to
members of the class.

The Company and the individual defendants have steadfastly
maintained that the claims raised in the securities class action
lawsuits were without merit, and have vigorously contested those
claims.  As part of the settlement, the Company and the individual
defendants continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing under the
securities laws or otherwise.


QC HOLDINGS: Appeal in North Carolina Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc.'s appeal from a court decision denying its
motion to enforce its class action waiver and arbitration
provisions in a putative class action lawsuit filed in North
Carolina remains pending, according to the Company's August 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On February 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr.
Don Early, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North
Carolina in a putative class action lawsuit filed by James B.
Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a
Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided
certain services in connection with the bank's origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the
Company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005.  The
lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North Carolina
laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North
Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act,
the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury
statute, in connection with payday loans made by the bank to the
two plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations in North
Carolina.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the payday
loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes,
and that if the Company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or
makers" of the payday loans, its services to the bank that made
the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.  Plaintiffs
are seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary
damages, and treble damages and attorney fees under specified
North Carolina statutes.  Plaintiffs have not sued the bank in
this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint that
plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks to
enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as
the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North
Carolina and federal law.

In July 2011, the parties completed a weeklong hearing on the
Company's motion to enforce its class action waiver provision and
its arbitration provision.  In January 2012, the trial court
denied the Company's motion to enforce its class action and
arbitration provisions.  The Company has appealed that ruling.

There were three similar purported class action lawsuits filed in
North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to the
Company.  The plaintiffs in those three cases were represented by
the same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
Company.  Settlements in each of the three companion cases were
reached by the end of 2010, however the settlements do not provide
reasonable guidance on settlements in the Company's case.


QC HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend "Lee" Class Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit filed by Matthew Lee in Canada, according
to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On September 30, 2011, the Company acquired all the outstanding
shares of Direct Credit Holdings Inc., a British Columbia company
engaged in short-term, consumer Internet lending in certain
Canadian provinces.  On October 18, 2011, Matthew Lee, an alleged
Alberta, Canada resident sued Direct Credit, all of its
subsidiaries and three former directors of those subsidiaries in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a purported class action.
The plaintiff alleges that Direct Credit and its subsidiaries
violated Canada's criminal usury laws by charging interest on its
loans at rates higher than 60%.  The plaintiff purports to
represent all Canadian borrowers of the subsidiary who resided
outside of British Columbia.

Plaintiff seeks (i) class certification for the class, (ii) a
declaration that loan fees collected in excess of the 60% limit in
the cited usury statute are held by the defendants in constructive
trust for the benefit of the class members, (iii) an accounting
and restitution to plaintiff and class members of all loan fees
received by the defendants, (iv) a declaration that the collection
of the loan fees in excess of 60% per annum constitutes an
unconscionable trade act or practice under the Canadian Business
Practices Consumer Protection Act, (v) an order to restore to the
class members the loan fees collected by defendants in excess of
60% per annum, and (vi) interest thereon.  Direct Credit has not
yet responded to the civil claim of the plaintiff, but intends to
defend itself, its subsidiaries and its former directors
vigorously.


QUIKTRIP: Fuel Class Action Trial Expected to Last 10 Days
----------------------------------------------------------
David Tanner, writing for Land Line, reports that the warmer the
fuel at the pump, the bigger the rip-off to consumers.

Plaintiffs are set to argue that point as their class-action
lawsuit against fuel retailers got underway on Sept. 5 in federal
court.  The issue is hot fuel -- retail fuel sold without the
retailer adjusting the sale to account for temperature.

The fourth floor of the Robert J. Dole Federal Courthouse in
Kansas City, KS, was packed in the morning for jury selection.  By
midday, U.S. District Court Judge Kathryn Vratil had sworn in the
10-member jury to hear evidence in the trial expected to last 10
days.

The consolidated case consists of a class represented by two
Kansas businessmen -- Zach Wilson and Matt Cook -- against
defendant companies QuikTrip, 7-Eleven and Kum & Go.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Robert Horn of Horn, Aylward &
Bandy LLC asked the jury to consider the importance of fuel
temperature at the point of sale, that the defendant companies
willingly sold fuel without accounting for temperature, and that
the defendants have done nothing to inform consumers about the
effects of temperature on the amount of fuel energy being sold.

"Motor fuel expands when heated.  Therefore, a given volume of
motor fuel at a warmer temperature has less mass and less energy
than the same motor fuel at a cooler temperature," a pre-trial
document states.

The plaintiffs are hoping to show proof of deceptive practices by
the retailers.

Tristan Duncan of the Kansas City firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
gave the opening remarks for the defense.  She said the sale of
motor fuel has been highly regulated for more than 100 years and
that various groups oversee the practice to make sure consumers
are not being ripped off.  She said retailers sell by the gallon,
and that a gallon is defined as 231 cubic inches regardless of
temperature.

Mr. Horn, for the plaintiffs, said long-haul truckers were among
the first to recognize that the temperature of the fuel they were
buying seemed to affect how far they could travel after a fill-up.
He said truckers began reporting fuel temperatures in excess of
100 degrees in some cases to weights and measures groups.

Numerous truck drivers and business owners are part of the class.
Class representative Matt Cook drives for Fed-Ex Ground.

Plaintiffs began filing lawsuits in various states in 2006,
following an expose in the Kansas City Star that said hot fuel
costs consumers billions of dollars.  A short time later, a
federal judicial panel consolidated multiple cases into one, and
that's the one before the court now.

The class is seeking monetary damages as well as a ruling that
would force retailers to reconfigure their pumps to account for
temperature of the fuel.  The existing technology is known as ATC,
or automatic temperature compensation.

The plaintiffs question why ATC is not being used in warmer
climes, given the fact that retailers in Canada use ATC to keep
from losing money at the pumps in cooler areas.

Another component to the case is the fact that wholesalers,
refiners and others in the supply chain account for temperature,
buying and selling based on a 60-degree standard.  No standard
exists at the retail pump at the present time, something the
plaintiffs are hoping to change.

Ten fuel retailers have offered to settle out of court in recent
months, and the judge has final say on the settlements.

Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Citgo and Sinclair have
offered to put up $21.6 million into a fund to phase in ATC on
their pumps.

Casey's, Sam's and Dansk offered to gradually convert to ATC on
their own dime.  Valero has offered to post information at the
pump relating to fuel temperature and convert to ATC "when certain
market conditions are met."


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Discovery in Alabama Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit against Regions
Financial Corporation in Alabama, according to the Company's
August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by
Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama against Regions and certain of its former
officers.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, including allegations that statements that were
materially false and misleading were included in filings made with
the SEC.  The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and
unspecified monetary damages.  On June 7, 2011, the trial court
denied Regions' motion to dismiss this lawsuit.

On June 14, 2012, the trial court granted class certification.
Regions is seeking appellate review of the class certification.
Discovery is ongoing.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Funds-Related Class Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in December 2007, Regions Financial Corporation and
certain of its affiliates have been named in class-action lawsuits
filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds
(the "Funds") and shareholders of Regions.  The Funds were
formerly managed by Regions Investment Management, Inc. ("Regions
Investment Management").  Regions Investment Management no longer
manages these Funds, which were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield
Asset Management in 2008.  Certain of the Funds have since been
terminated by Hyperion.  The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to
the activities of the Funds.  Plaintiffs have requested equitable
relief and unspecified monetary damages.  These cases are in
various stages and no classes have been certified.  Settlement
discussions are ongoing in certain cases.  Certain of the
shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have
entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,
in lieu of participating in the class actions.  These lawsuits and
proceedings are subject to the indemnification agreement with
Raymond James Financial, Inc.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fees Suit in Georgia Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2009, Regions Financial Corporation was named as a
defendant in a purported class-action lawsuit filed by customers
of Regions Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia challenging the manner in which non-sufficient
funds and overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to
posting order.  The case was transferred to multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and in May 2010 an order to compel arbitration was
denied.  Regions appealed the denial and on
April 29, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
denial and remanded the case to the district court for
reconsideration of Regions' motion to compel arbitration.  On
September 1, 2011, the trial court again denied Regions' motion to
compel arbitration.  Regions again appealed the denial to the
Eleventh Circuit, which on March 5, 2012, granted the motion and
ordered that the case be dismissed.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
rehearing by the full court of appeals, which was denied on April
30, 2012.  Another purported class action alleging these claims
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia in January 2012.  The case is still early in its
development and no class has been certified.  Plaintiffs in these
cases have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary
damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


ROYAL BANK: US Preference Shareholders' Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Aldrick and Jamie Dunkley, writing for The Telegraph,
report that Royal Bank of Scotland shareholders who are
threatening a GBP3.3 billion lawsuit against the lender and its
former directors have been dealt a blow after a US court dismissed
similar allegations that the bank misled investors.

US preference shareholders filed a class action against RBS, its
directors and advisory banks in 2009 on the grounds that the
defendants had been "materially false and misleading because they
did not disclose the extent of RBS's sub-prime exposure,
misrepresented the veracity of RBS internal controls and provided
an inaccurate assessment of RBS's acquisition of ABN Amro".

However, a ruling late on Sept. 4 by Judge Deborah Batts in a New
York district court found that there had been no "material" mis-
statements or omissions and dismissed the case "in its entirety".
The decision came just days after it emerged that UK shareholders
who took part in the bank's GBP12 billion rights issue in 2008
were trying to pull together the funds to launch a class action
lawsuit of their own.

Like the US claim, UK plaintiffs plan to go after directors,
including chief executive Fred Goodwin, chairman Sir Tim McKillop
and investment banking boss Johnny Cameron.

UK shareholders believe the rights issue prospectus gave a false
description of the bank and its balance sheet at the time.  The US
suit only referred to the rights issue in passing, noting that
"management continued to tell investors the businesses acquired in
ABN were good, synergized well with RBS and improved RBS's
opportunities going forward".

The US case appears to have been weakened by the fact that the
claim related to preference shares bought in 2006 and 2007 in the
belief that RBS had sufficiently robust controls in place to
prevent the disastrous events that followed.

The UK case relates to statements made just six months before the
bank was part-nationalized and after the sub-prime crisis had
begun.  RBS is 82pc state-controlled following a GBP45 billion
taxpayer bail-out.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
SoundBite Communications, Inc. continues to defend itself against
a consolidated class action lawsuit known as the A2P SMS Antitrust
Litigation, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On April 5, 2012, a class action litigation, which the Company
refers to as the Club Texting Litigation, was filed against
numerous defendants, including the Company.  On April 6, 2012, a
related class action litigation, which the Company refers to as
the TextPower Litigation, was filed against numerous defendants,
including the Company.  On May 10, 2012, a further related class
action litigation, which the Company refers to as the iSpeedBuy
litigation, was filed against numerous defendants, including the
Company.  On June 14, 2012, a consolidated class action complaint,
which the Company refers to as the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation,
was filed that amended and consolidated the Club Texting
Litigation, TextPower Litigation and iSpeedBuy Litigation.  In the
A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation, the Company is named as alleged
successor-in-interest to 2ergos Americas, which the Company
acquired in February 2012.  The A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation
alleges that the named mobile telecom companies and alleged
aggregators violated antitrust provisions set forth in the Sherman
Act through the use of various common short code requirements
related to the sending of text messages by businesses to
consumers.  Further, both the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation is
seeking confirmation of a class of entities and persons who leased
a common short code from Neustar, Inc. and sent or received text
messages through one or more aggregators.  All of the alleged
violations occurred prior to the Company's acquisition of 2ergo
Americas, and the Company has served an indemnification claim on
2ergo Group plc, the former parent company of 2ergo Americas, in
relation to the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation.  In connection with
the acquisition, $750,000 was deposited in an escrow account to
secure claims by the Company for breaches of representations and
warranties made with respect to 2ergo Americas.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in the A2P SMS Antitrust Litigation that allege violations
of the Sherman Act.  At this time it is not possible for the
Company to estimate the amount of damages, losses, fees and other
expenses that it will incur as the result of the A2P SMS Antitrust
Litigation, but such an amount could have a material adverse
effect on its business, financial condition and operating results.
Even if the Company succeeds in defending against the A2P SMS
Antitrust Litigation, it is likely to incur substantial costs and
management's attention will be diverted from its operations.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Hearing in "Sager" Suit on Sept. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on SoundBite Communications, Inc.'s motion to stay a class
action lawsuit known as the Sager Litigation is set for September
14, 2012, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On January 11, 2012, a class action litigation, which the Company
refers to as the Sager Litigation, was filed against Bank of
America and the Company as co-defendants.  The Sager Litigation
alleges that the Company and Bank of America sent text messages to
the plaintiff without the plaintiff's prior express consent, in
violation of the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act or TCPA.
Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of a class of individuals who
received unauthorized text message solicitations sent on behalf of
the Company.  On June 21, 2012, the Company moved to stay the
litigation pending, among other things, a determination by the
Federal Communications Commission in relation to the Company's
Petition for Declaratory Ruling on mobile termination messages.
The hearing on the motion to stay is set for September 14, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in the Sager Litigation that allege it violated provisions
of the TCPA in delivering text messages.  The Company is
continuing to investigate this matter.  At this time it is not
possible for the Company to estimate the amount of damages,
losses, fees and other expenses that it will incur as the result
of the Sager Litigation, but such an amount could have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition and operating
results.  Even if the Company succeeds in defending against the
Sager Litigation, it is likely to incur substantial costs and
management's attention will be diverted from its operations.

On June 18, 2012, the Company received a notice from Bank of
America requesting indemnification in connection with the Sager
Litigation.  The Company is investigating this matter to evaluate
the extent, if any, to which it is required to indemnify the
client for damages, losses and fees resulting from the lawsuit.
At this time it is not possible to estimate the amount, if any,
for which the Company may be responsible under its indemnification
obligations to Bank of America, but it is possible that such an
amount may be substantial.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Karayan Litigation Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Karayan Litigation against SoundBite Communications, Inc.'s
clients remains pending, according to the Company's August 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Over the past several months, class action litigation has been
initiated against a number of banks and retailers, including some
of the Company's clients, alleging that "mobile termination" text
messages violate the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act or
TCPA, which seeks to protect the privacy interests of residential
telephone subscribers.  When a business receives a text message
indicating that the sender wishes to "opt out" of further text
communications from the business, a mobile termination text
message may be transmitted automatically in order to confirm that
the business received the opt-out message and will not send any
additional text messages.

On October 21, 2011, the Company received a notice from GameStop
Corp. and GameStop Inc., which together the Company refers to as
GameStop, requesting indemnification in connection with a class
action litigation entitled Karayan v. GameStop Corp. and GameStop
Inc., which the Company refers to as the Karayan Litigation, which
had been initiated against GameStop based in part on mobile
termination text messages.  The Company is not a named defendant
or other party in the Karayan Litigation.

On January 6, 2012, the Company delivered a letter agreement to
GameStop, in which the Company agreed to indemnify GameStop in
relation to the Karayan Litigation.  After investigation, it was
determined to deliver the letter agreement dated January 6, 2012,
in order to, pursuant to the provisions of the Company's Master
Pricing Agreement with GameStop, (a) indemnify GameStop for
damages, losses and fees resulting from the aspects of the Karayan
Litigation relating to mobile termination text messages and (b)
confirm that the Company will take sole control over the defense,
and any settlement, of the Karayan Litigation.  In addition to
claims relating to mobile termination text messages, the Karayan
Litigation also asserts claims alleging that GameStop is liable to
certain of its customers because it failed to obtain prior express
consent to the delivery of text messages.  In the letter
agreement, the Company reserved its rights concerning any argument
that it may have as to its obligation to indemnify GameStop with
respect to the aspects of the Karayan Litigation relating to the
alleged lack of prior express consent.  The Company has filed a
motion to dismiss or in the alternative stay the litigation
pending a determination by the Federal Communications Commission
in relation to the Company's Petition for Declaratory Ruling on
mobile termination messages. In response to the motion, plaintiff
agreed to seek a stay of the litigation from the court until such
time as the Federal Communications Commission has ruled on the
Company's Petition for Declaratory Ruling.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in the Karayan Litigation that allege GameStop violated
provisions of the TCPA in delivering mobile termination text
messages.  The Company is continuing to investigate this matter.
At this time it is not possible to estimate the amount of damages,
losses, fees and other expenses that will be incurred as the
result of the Company's indemnification obligations to GameStop,
but such an amount could have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition and operating results.  Even if the
Company succeeds in defending against the Karayan Litigation, it
is likely to incur substantial costs and management's attention
will be diverted from its operations.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.


THE SOUTHERN CO: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit arising
from Hurricane Katrina remains pending, according to The Southern
Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In 2005, immediately following Hurricane Katrina, a lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi by Ned Comer on behalf of Mississippi residents
seeking recovery for property damage and personal injuries caused
by Hurricane Katrina.  In 2006, the plaintiffs amended the
complaint to include Southern Company and many other electric
utilities, oil companies, chemical companies, and coal producers.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants contributed to climate
change, which contributed to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina.
In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi dismissed the case.  On appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a three-judge panel reversed the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
holding that the case could proceed, but, on rehearing, the full
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
plaintiffs' appeal, resulting in reinstatement of the decision of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
in favor of the defendants.  In May 2011, the plaintiffs filed an
amended version of their class action complaint, arguing that the
earlier dismissal was on procedural grounds and under Mississippi
law the plaintiffs have a right to re-file.  The amended complaint
was also filed against numerous chemical, coal, oil, and utility
companies, including the Company's subsidiaries, Alabama Power
Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company and Southern
Power Company.

On March 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi dismissed the plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  On April 16, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the case to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Each Southern Company entity named in the lawsuit believes that
these claims are without merit.  While each Southern Company
entity named in the lawsuit believes the likelihood of loss is
remote based on existing case law, it is not possible to predict
with certainty whether any Southern Company entity named in the
lawsuit will incur any liability in connection with this matter.
The ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this
time.

Atlanta-based The Southern Company --
http://www.southerncompany.com/-- is an energy company serving
the Southeast.  A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern
Company businesses include electric utilities in four states and a
growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics
and wireless communications.


UNITED ONLINE: "Michaels" Suit Settlement Order Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------
Four appeals were filed from the order granting final approval of
United Online, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class action
lawsuit led by Anthony Michaels, according to the Company's August
6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as Memory
Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online, Inc.
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  In December
2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action complaint
against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and
United Online, Inc. in Superior Court of Washington, Kings County,
alleging causes of action for violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust
enrichment and violation of California Civil Code section 1694,
dealing with dating services contracts.  In both actions, the
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages.  In April
2009, the United States District Court of the Western District of
Washington consolidated the Michaels and the Vasquez actions and
designated the Michaels action as the lead case.  In March 2010,
the parties entered into a comprehensive class action settlement
agreement.  In February 2011, the court denied final approval of
such settlement agreement.  In March 2011, the parties entered
into a revised settlement agreement and, in July 2011, the court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the revised
settlement agreement.  The parties subsequently modified the
settlement agreement in August 2011.  In June 2012, the District
Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement
and certifying the class.

In July 2012, four separate notices of appeal of the District
Court order were filed with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  None of the appeals has yet been resolved.


UNITED ONLINE: Defends RICO-Violations Suit in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc. continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according to the
Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

On March 6, 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1-
800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion") and Apollo Global
Management, LLC ("Apollo").  The complaint alleges (1) violations
of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act against all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act against
the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting
violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud
statutes against the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3)
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act against
Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act against Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-
Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such
act against the Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of
California Business and Professions Code section 17602 against
Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and
(6) unjust enrichment against all defendants.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

On March 15, 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a
purported class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in
United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
(collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Peoplefinderspro,
Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc.,
Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
(collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of
America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA,
N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card
Companies").  The complaint alleges (1) violations of the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act against all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act against
the Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of
federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes against the
Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act against the Membership Companies and
the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act against the Credit Card Companies; (4) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act against the Membership
Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting
violations of such act against the Credit Card Companies; (5)
violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17602 against the Membership Companies and the Marketing
Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment against all defendants. The
plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement
of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs,
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit,
and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.  The plaintiffs have been ordered to
file a consolidated amended complaint by August 17, 2012.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Two Subsidiaries Settle Class Action for $26MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Sept. 5 disclosed that two
former WaMu (Washington Mutual Bank) subsidiaries have reached a
$26 million settlement agreement with plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit alleging Securities Act violations in connection with the
sale of mortgage-backed securities by those subsidiaries of WaMu,
according to plaintiffs' co-lead counsel Steven Toll of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

"While this settlement by no means compensates investors for the
full amount of their damages, we believe it is a good result given
the bankruptcy of WaMu and limited funds available," said Toll
who, along with Scott + Scott LLP, represents the Boilermakers
National Annuity Trust, Doral Bank Puerto Rico, and the
Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago.  In 2008, WaMu
became the nation's largest bank failure.

The case involved substantial claims related to mortgage-backed
certificates issued and underwritten by WaMu and its related
entities.  The value of the certificates, which were supported by
pools of residential mortgage loans, collapsed soon after
issuance.  The named plaintiffs, representing a court-certified
class of investors who had purchased the certificates on or before
Aug. 1, 2008, alleged that loans backing the securities were
"fundamentally impaired" and that they were misled as to the
quality of the loans' underwriting.

The case had been scheduled to go to trial on Sept. 17, 2012, in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, in
Seattle. Instead, the Court will shortly set a date for the final
settlement hearing.

Additional information about the case (Case NO. C09-37MJP) is
available online at
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=516


WR GRACE: ZAI and Asbestos-Related Class Suits Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits asserting asbestos-related personal and
property damage claims against W.R. Grace & Co. remain pending,
according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Grace is a defendant in property damage and personal injury
lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-containing products.
As of April 2, 2001 (the bankruptcy filing date), Grace was a
defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving claims
for property damage (one of which has since been dismissed), and
the remainder involving 129,191 claims for personal injury.  Due
to the bankruptcy filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are
stayed from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors.  Grace's obligations
with respect to present and future asbestos claims will be
determined through the Chapter 11 process.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.  Various factors can affect the merit and value of PD
Claims,  including legal defenses, product identification, the
amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and use
of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the
jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case
is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if
necessary.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the Filing Date, 16 remain
unresolved.  Eight cases relate to Zonolite(R) Attic Insulation
and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-containing
products (two of which also are alleged to involve ZAI).

Approximately 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court.  (The March 31, 2003 claims bar date did not apply to ZAI
claims.)  Grace objected to virtually all PD claims on a number of
legal and factual bases.  As of June 30, 2012, approximately 430
PD Claims subject to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date remain
outstanding.  The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement
agreements covering approximately 410 of such claims for an
aggregate allowed amount of $151.6 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001.  In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada.  These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all
such insulation.  The plaintiffs assert that this product is in
millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several
thousand dollars per home.  As a result of the Filing, all of
these cases have been stayed.

Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these
lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and
others, Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for
its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human
health.  The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's
position on the safety of ZAI.  In December 2006, the Bankruptcy
Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is
contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when
disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.  In the
event the Joint Plan of Reorganization does not become effective,
the ZAI claimants have reserved their right to appeal such opinion
and order if and when it becomes a final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved
a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
October 31, 2008.  Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed prior to the October 31, 2008 claims bar date, and as of
June 30, 2012, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.
Under the Canadian ZAI Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claims
filed before December 31, 2009, would be eligible to seek
compensation from the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.
Approximately 13,100 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed by December
31, 2009.

In November 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the
U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity
Committee reached an agreement designed to resolve all present and
future U.S. ZAI PD Claims.  The terms of the U.S. and Canadian ZAI
agreements in principle have been incorporated into the terms of
the Joint Plan and related documents.  Grace's recorded asbestos-
related liability does not include the agreements in principle to
settle the ZAI liability that is part of the Joint Plan.  The
recorded asbestos-related liability at June 30, 2012, which is
based on the Prior Plan, assumes the risk of loss from ZAI
litigation is not probable.  If the Joint Plan or another plan of
reorganization reflecting the agreements in principle does not
become effective and Grace's view as to risk of loss from ZAI
litigation is not sustained, Grace believes the cost to resolve
the U.S. ZAI litigation may be material.


ZYNGA INC: Faces Another Securities Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Karim Choukri, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Zynga, Inc., Mark Pincus, David M. Wehner, John
Schappert, Mark Vranesh, Reginald D. Davis, Cadir B. Lee, William
Gordon, Reid Hoffman, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Stanley J. Meresman,
Suni Paul, and Owen Van Natta, Case No. 3:12-cv-04629 (N.D.
Calif., September 5, 2012) alleges violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Zynga common
stock between December 15, 2011, and July 25, 2012.  The Plaintiff
alleges that during the Class Period, Zynga repeatedly projected
strong earnings and growth regarding its games and games
development.  In contrast, and unbeknownst to the general
investing public, Zynga was experiencing a sharp drop-off in users
of its most profitable web games, and delays in developing new
games to launch on its social media platforms, the Plaintiff
asserts.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Zynga.

Zynga, a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California, develops, markets and operates online social games,
such as FarmVille and Words with Friends, played over the Internet
and on social networking sites and mobile platforms.  Zynga's
free-to-play games generate revenue through the in-game sale of
virtual goods.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Thomas P. Glass, Esq.
          Joseph J. Braun, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY
          150 E. Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 629-9426
          E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
                  tpglass@strausstroy.com
                  jjbraun@strausstroy.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Harris, Esq.
          Brian T. Giles, Esq.
          STATMAN HARRIS & EYRICH LLP
          441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-2666
          Facsimile: (513) 621-4896
          E-mail: jharris@statmanharris.com
                  bgiles@statmanharris.com


                           *********

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  * * *