---

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

            Wednesday, September 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 181

                             Headlines

AES CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Greenhouse Gas Suit Pending
AES CORP: Brazilian Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Against Unit
ALLEGHANY CORP: Has Yet to File Merger-Related Suit Settlement
AMERICAN CAPITAL: "Klugmann" Securities Suit Resolved in June
APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses iPhone 4 Glass Casing Class Action

BRISTOW GROUP: Third Circuit Upholds Dismissal of "Superior" Suit
BURGER KING: Awaits Court Approval of "Vallabhapurapu" Suit Deal
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Continues to Defend Egg Antitrust Litigation
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Two Natural Gas Markets Suits Remain Pending
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal From "Northstar" Suit Dismissal Pending

CITIBANK: Settles SCRA Class Action Suit for $2.32 Million
CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Michigan Suit
COLLECTO INC: Judge Reinstates Student Loan Class Action
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Awaits Approval of "Wolfgeher" Suit Deal
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: December 9 Claims Filing Deadline Set

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Higer Lichter & Givner Files Class Action
DAWN FOOD: Recalls 251 Buckets of Sam's Club Cinnamon Streusel
DUOYUAN GLOBAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Securities Class Action
DUPONT: Judge Certifies Nationwide Class in Antitrust Suit
FORD MOTOR: Kershaw Cutter Wins $45.5-Mil. Court Judgment

GEORGIA GULF: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed in June
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Court Revives Securities Class Action
HCA HOLDINGS: Amended Securities Complaint Pending in Tennessee
HOME HEALTH: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
ITRON INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Wash. Still Pending

KIRBY CORP: To Respond to Rescue Mission's Securities Suit
LAW SCHOOL: Justice Dep't. Supports Disabilities Class Action
LEVEL 3: Awaits Approval of Settlements of Rights-of-Way Suits
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suits Over Merger with Linde AG
LINKEDIN CORP: Judge Consolidates Privacy Class Actions

LOJACK CORP: Sept. 14 Judgment Bid Hearing in "Rutti" Suit Set
MCAFEE: Faces Class Action Over Registry-Cleaning Software
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Appeal From Summary Judgment Ruling Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "King County" Class Suit

MORGAN STANLEY: Court Refuses to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit
NEW YORK: Judge Wants Medicaid Coverage Cuts Halted
NSP-WISCONSIN: Appeal From Dismissal of 2nd "Comer" Suit Pending
PHI INC: 3rd Circuit Affirms "Superior Offshore" Suit Dismissal
PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: FSC Remains a Co-Conspirator in Class Suits

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Washers
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Appeal From "Comer" Suit Dismissal Pending
STRATASYS INC: Settles Merger-related Class Action Suits
SUNRISE SENIOR: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
TELLABS INC: "Makor" Class Action Suit Dismissed in June 2012

VERTEX PHARMA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
ZAGG INC: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in Utah


                          *********

AES CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Greenhouse Gas Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against The
AES Corporation involving the effect of greenhouse gas emissions
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.

In May 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Mississippi
federal court against the Company and numerous unrelated
companies.  The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly
increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina.  The
plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and declaratory judgment.  The plaintiffs
seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business,
clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify
their alleged damages.  These and other plaintiffs previously
brought a substantially similar lawsuit in the federal court but
failed to obtain relief.  In October 2011, the Company and other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  In March 2011,
the federal court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs have appealed.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and will defend itself vigorously in this
lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances that it will be
successful in its efforts.


AES CORP: Brazilian Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Against Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Rio Grande do Sul Court of Appeals upheld a decision
granting injunction against a subsidiary of The AES Corporation,
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 March 2008, the State Prosecution office filed a Class Action
against AES Florestal, Ltd., AES Sul and Companhia Estadual de
Energia Eletrica ("CEEE"), requiring an injunction for the removal
of the alleged sources of contamination and the payment of an
indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($3 million).  The
injunction was rejected and the case is in the evidentiary stage
awaiting the production of the court's expert opinion.  However,
in October 2011, the State Prosecution Office presented a new
request to the court of Triunfo for an injunction against
Florestal, Sul and CEEE for the removal of the alleged sources of
contamination and remediation, and the court granted the
injunction against CEEE but did not grant injunctive relief
against Florestal or Sul.  CEEE appealed such decision, and the
State of Rio Grande do Sul Court of Appeals upheld the decision.


ALLEGHANY CORP: Has Yet to File Merger-Related Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement pursuant to the memorandum of understanding that
Alleghany Corporation reached to resolve merger-related lawsuits
has yet to be filed, 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 November 20, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, or the "Merger Agreement," with its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Shoreline Merger Sub, LLC (subsequently converted into
a corporation), or "Merger Sub," and Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.,
or "Old Transatlantic."  On March 6, 2012, or the "Acquisition
Date," Old Transatlantic was merged with (the "merger") and into
Merger Sub, which was renamed "Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.," and
became the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary.

In connection with the merger, Alleghany, Merger Sub and Old
Transatlantic, among others, were named as defendants in three
putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed by Transatlantic
stockholders.  Such lawsuits challenged the merger and alleged
that Alleghany, Merger Sub and Old Transatlantic aided and abetted
an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Old Transatlantic's board
of directors in connection with the merger, among other
allegations.

On January 30, 2012, Alleghany and the other defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding
the settlement of these putative stockholder class actions against
Alleghany, Merger Sub, Old Transatlantic, Transatlantic's
directors, and Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, among
others.  Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, certain
supplemental disclosures were made related to the merger.  The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to Old Transatlantic's
stockholders.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the
settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of the Delaware
General Corporation Law), among other claims.  In addition, in
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by Old Transatlantic or its successor, which
the defendants may oppose.  Old Transatlantic or its successor
will pay, or cause to be paid, any attorneys' fees and expenses
awarded by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such a stipulation.  In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.

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

Based in New York, Alleghany Corporation, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the property and casualty, and surety
insurance business in the United States.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: "Klugmann" Securities Suit Resolved in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Klugmann v. American Capital,
Ltd., et al., was dismissed in June 2012, following court approval
of the parties' settlement of the dispute, 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 Company and certain of its executive officers were defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland styled as Klugmann v. American
Capital, Ltd., et al.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 31, 2007,
and November 7, 2008, and alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and in the case of the individual defendants,
the control person provisions of the Exchange Act.  The factual
assertions in the complaint consisted primarily of the allegation
that the defendants made incorrect statements related to the
Company's dividend guidance for 2008.  The complaint sought
unspecified damages, costs and expenses.

On June 7, 2012, the court approved a settlement submitted by the
parties.  The terms of the settlement included payment by the
Company's insurers in exchange for a full release of the claims
and provided that there is no admission as to the validity of the
claims.  The court signed the final judgment dismissing the case
on June 11, 2012.  The time for any appeal has expired and the
Company is not aware of any appeal having been filed.


APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses iPhone 4 Glass Casing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge dismissed a class action accusing Apple of
overstating the durability of the iPhone 4's glass casing, saying
"it is a well-known fact of life that glass can break under
impact."

Lead plaintiff Betsalel Williamson said he bought an iPhone 4 for
about $320 in 2010 based on Apple marketing that led him to
believe the phone was "ultradurable."

When Apple presented the iPhone 4 at a conference in June 2010,
late CEO Steve Jobs said the company used glass panels on the
front and back of the phone "for optical quality and scratch
resistance," according to the federal class action.

At the same conference, another Apple executive allegedly referred
to the glass casing as "comparable in strength to sapphire
crystal" and 30 times harder than plastic.

"Apple made a point of demonstrating this strength by bending the
glass used for the iPhone 4 to show that it can withstand bending
of up to 30 degrees without breaking or cracking," according to
the lawsuit.

Mr. Williamson said Apple touted the aluminosilicate glass as "the
same type of glass used in the windshields of helicopters and
high-speed trains," and "20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than
plastic . . .  ultradurable and more scratch resistant than ever."

But he said the glass back of his phone cracked when it fell from
the arm of a chair just two days after purchase.  He said Apple
charged him $29 for a replacement panel.

He sued on behalf of buyers who claimed they would not have bought
the phone had they known it was "susceptible to cracking due to
normal and reasonable use . . . and was more susceptible to
breaking than earlier generation iPhones."

But U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed the lawsuit,
finding that most of the marketing claims were mere "puffery," and
that a reasonable consumer would not be misled into believing that
the glass casing was "indestructible or drop-proof."

"[I]t is a well-known fact of life that glass can break under
impact, even glass that has been reinforced," he wrote in his 15-
page ruling.  "The shattered window of a storefront, the cracked
windshield of a car, and the chipped smartphone screen are routine
encounters of modern existence.  It seems a suspension of logic to
say that the marketing campaign described in the [complaint],
which notably has nothing to do with phone-dropping, somehow
erases these images from the collective experience such that the
reasonable consumer could expect that glass could not break if
dropped."

He also dismissed a claim for breach of warranty, saying normal
usage does not include dropping the phone.

"Plaintiff contends that the iPhone 4 is not fit for its ordinary
purpose because the glass housing is not ultradurable," Judge
Davila wrote.  "That allegation, however, has nothing to do with
the iPhone 4's intended use as a smartphone, which the court
safely presumes includes functions like making and receiving phone
calls, sending and receiving text messages, or allowing for the
use of mobile applications."

Judge Davila said it was "certainly a stretch to conclude that one
'ordinary purpose' of the iPhone 4, or any smartphone for that
matter, is to drop it on the ground."

He dismissed all claims, but gave Mr. Williamson room to amend all
but the unjust enrichment claim.

A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in
Williamson v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00377 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/07/Apple%20ruling.pdf


BRISTOW GROUP: Third Circuit Upholds Dismissal of "Superior" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld in
July 2012 the dismissal of the class action lawsuit initiated by
Superior Offshore International, Inc., Bristow Group 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.

On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The purported class
action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Among other things,
the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services
between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005.  The plaintiff was
seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2010, the court granted the Company's and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds.  The
plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking
leave to amend its original complaint, which was partially granted
to permit limited discovery.  The Company and the other defendants
again filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were granted.
The plaintiff appealed the judgment in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

On July 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit ruled in the Company's favor on all points and upheld the
dismissal of the case.

The Company says it is unable to predict whether the plaintiff
will further appeal this case. If so, the Company will continue to
defend against this lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is currently
unable to determine whether it could have a material effect on its
business, financial condition or results of operations.


BURGER KING: Awaits Court Approval of "Vallabhapurapu" Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its $19
million settlement of a class action lawsuit styled Vallabhapurapu
v. Burger King Corporation, 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.

Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW" or the "Company") is a Delaware
corporation formed on April 2, 2012, and is the indirect parent of
Burger King Capital Holdings, LLC ("BKCH").  BKCH is a Delaware
limited liability company and the sole equity holder of Burger
King Holdings, Inc. ("BKH") and Burger King Capital Finance, Inc.
("BKCF").  BKH is a Delaware corporation formed on July 23, 2002,
and the parent of Burger King Corporation ("BKC"), a Florida
corporation that franchises and operates fast food hamburger
restaurants, principally under the Burger King brand (the
"Brand").  BKCH and BKCF have no assets or operations other than
BKCH's ownership of 100% of the capital stock of BKCF and BKH.
BKW and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to herein as
the "Company."

On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger
King restaurants in California leased by the Company and operated
by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal
and state law.  In September 2009, the court issued a decision on
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In its decision,
the court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited
by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for
each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials.  In March 2010,
the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10
restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to
the settlement.

In February 2011, a class action lawsuit styled Vallabhapurapu v.
Burger King Corporation, No. C11-00667 (U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California) was filed with respect to the
other 86 restaurants.

In January 2012, the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit and
entered into a settlement agreement on June 1, 2012, which
provides that $19.0 million will be paid for the benefit of the
class members, with $5.0 million funded by the Company's
franchisees, $3.9 million by BKC, and the balance by BKC's
insurance carrier.  The settlement agreement has been submitted to
the court for approval.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Continues to Defend Egg Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. continues to defend antitrust lawsuits
involving the country's shell egg industry, according to the
Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 2,
2012.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in twenty-five antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In sixteen of these cases, the
named plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of others who claim to be similarly situated.  In fourteen of
those putative class actions, the named plaintiffs allege that
they are retailers or distributors that purchased shell eggs and
egg products directly from one or more of the defendants. In the
other two putative class actions, the named plaintiffs are
individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs
and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants --
that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties.  In the remaining nine
cases, the plaintiffs sued for their own alleged damages and are
not seeking to certify a class.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania court has organized
the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers
and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for
the named plaintiffs in each group.

Six of the nine non-class lawsuits were filed in the same court
that is presiding over the putative class actions.  Another of
these non-class cases was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, but it has been
transferred to the Eastern District and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with the other cases. Another non-class lawsuit was
filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, where it
remains pending.  The remaining non-class lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, but the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred that case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
where it has been consolidated with the other cases pending in
that court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  The plaintiffs
in two of the non-class lawsuits originally filed in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits
without prejudice, and there are thus now seven non-class lawsuits
pending.

             Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in the direct purchaser case filed a
consolidated complaint on January 30, 2009.  On April 30, 2009,
the Company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers'
consolidated complaint.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs did not
respond to those motions.  Instead, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with one defendant.
The final hearing on approval of that settlement has been held,
but the court has not yet ruled. If it is approved, the settlement
would not require the settling party to pay any money.  Instead,
the settling defendant, while denying all liability, would provide
cooperation in the form of documents and witness interviews to the
plaintiffs' attorneys.  After announcing this potential settlement
with one defendant, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on December 11, 2009.  On February 5, 2010, the
Company joined with other defendants in moving to dismiss the
direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages outside the four-
year statute of limitations period and claims arising from a
supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector.  On February 26,
2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the
direct purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint.  The court denied
the motion to dismiss the claims related to the egg products
sector.  The court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims for damages outside the four-year statute of limitations
but did so without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to seek
leave to further amend their complaint if they, in good faith,
believe they can address the deficiencies noted by the court.  On
June 4, 2010, the direct purchaser plaintiffs announced a
potential settlement with a second defendant. The final hearing on
approval of this settlement has also been held, but the court has
not ruled.  If this settlement is approved, then the defendant
would pay a total of $25 million and would provide other
consideration in the form of documents, witness interviews, and
declarations.  This settling defendant denied all liability in its
potential agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs and
stated publicly that it settled merely to avoid the cost and
uncertainty of continued litigation.  On January 30, 2012, the
direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint.  The Court has not yet ruled on the
motion for leave.

            Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser case filed a
consolidated complaint on February 27, 2009.  On April 30, 2009,
the Company filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
consolidated complaint.  The indirect purchaser plaintiffs did not
respond to those motions.  Instead, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2010.  On
May 7, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to
dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages
outside the four-year statute of limitations period, claims
arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector,
claims arising under certain state antitrust and consumer fraud
statutes, and common-law claims for unjust enrichment.  The court
granted the motion to dismiss claims arising outside the
limitations period applicable to each cause of action.  The court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss claims
arising under certain state antitrust and consumer fraud statutes
and common-law claims for unjust enrichment.  The court denied
without prejudice the motion to dismiss a claim for a supposedly
separate conspiracy in the egg products sector.  On June 4, 2010,
the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint.  On May 25,
2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file another amended complaint.  The court has not yet ruled on
that motion.  On June 7, 2012, the court ordered the indirect
purchasers to submit a brief addressing whether they have standing
to assert an injunctive relief claim under federal law.

                         Non-Class Cases

The cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class were
filed between November 16, 2010, and December 12, 2011.  The
plaintiffs in the non-class cases pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania filed amended complaints on February 10, 2012.  On
March 26, 2012, the Company joined other defendants in filing a
motion to dismiss all claims barred by the statute of limitations.
On May 1, 2012, the non-class plaintiffs responded to that motion.
On May 22, 2012, the Company joined other defendants in filing a
reply brief in support of that motion.  The court has not yet
ruled on that motion.  The Company filed its answer and
affirmative defenses to the six non-class cases pending in
Pennsylvania on April 26, 2012.

On January 27, 2012, the Company filed its answer and affirmative
defenses to the non-class complaint in the case pending in Kansas
state court, and the Company joined other defendants in the Kansas
case in moving to dismiss all claims for damages arising outside
the three-year statute of limitations period and all claims for
damages arising from purchases of eggs and egg products outside
the state of Kansas.  The court took under advisement the
limitations motion, pending a ruling in another case that will
determine whether the limitations period in the Kansas case will
be three or five years.  The court reserved judgment on the motion
to dismiss claims for damages arising from purchases of eggs and
egg products outside the state of Kansas until discovery reveals
which sales occurred within Kansas.  In reserving judgment, the
court stated that only sales within Kansas would be relevant to
any calculation of alleged damages.

                    Allegations in Each Case

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by (a) manipulating egg exports and (b) implementing
industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of
hens and eggs.

Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek
treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all other putative class members in the United States.  Both
groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions
originally alleged a class period starting on January 1, 2000, and
running "through the present."  The court has now granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' and the
indirect purchasers' claims outside the statute of limitations
period, and thus the putative class claims now only relate to a
September 2004 to present class period.  The direct purchaser
putative class action case alleges two separate sub-classes -- one
for direct purchasers of shell eggs and one for direct purchasers
of egg products.  The direct purchaser putative class action case
seeks relief under the Sherman Act.  The indirect purchaser
putative class action case seeks relief under the Sherman Act and
the statutes and common-law of various states and the District of
Columbia.

Seven of the nine non-class cases remain pending.  In five of the
remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.  In one of the remaining
non-class cases, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief
under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the
Valentine Act).  In the other remaining non-class case, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act.

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling.
The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the
consolidated cases.  The Kansas state court has entered a schedule
for discovery and dispositive motions.  The Kansas state court
case is set for trial starting February 3, 2014.

The Company says it intends to continue to defend these cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Two Natural Gas Markets Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits in connection with the operation of the natural gas
markets in 2000-2002 remain pending in Nevada, according to
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC's August 6, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. A former affiliate of the Company's parent CenterPoint
Energy, Inc. (CenterPoint Energy), Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI),
was a participant in gas trading in the California and Western
markets.  These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class
actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of
relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages
(in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees.  CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009.  CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been
released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.

CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., is a defendant in a case now
pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to
inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.  In July 2011,
the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims
against the other defendants in the case, each of whom had
demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdictional
sales for resale during the relevant period, based on federal
preemption.  The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but in
March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court.

CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a proper
defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue
dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Houston does not expect
the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal From "Northstar" Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit known as
the Northstar lawsuit remains pending, according to The Charles
Schwab Corporation's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM) (Northstar
lawsuit).  The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants.  Allegations include that
the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives
by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before
the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
claims with prejudice.  Plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth
Circuit, where the case is currently pending.


CITIBANK: Settles SCRA Class Action Suit for $2.32 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Mador, writing for Minnesota Public Radio, reports that a
class action suit brought by a member of Minnesota National Guard
against student loan servicers has been settled for $2.32 million.

The Minneapolis law firm Crowder Teske announced the settlement in
an e-mail on Sept. 5.  The lawsuit alleges Citibank and the
Student Loan Corporation failed to honor a law intended to protect
military service members on active duty.

The settlement affects more than 6,300 military service members
across the country.  According to court documents, the suit
charges the lenders violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Under the act, active duty troops are entitled to a 6 percent
interest rate cap on their loans.  The suit was brought by Maj.
Lyndsey Olson, who deployed to Iraq with the Minnesota Army
National Guard for a year beginning in 2008.  She alleges the
banks violated the interest rate cap during her military service.

Under the terms of the settlement, members of the military will
receive cash payments of up to around $650 dollars per loan.  Many
of them have more than one loan.

The court did not rule on the merits of Ms. Olson's allegations
against Citibank and the Student Loan Corporation.

The act was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003.
President Barack Obama in 2010 signed into law a provision
allowing servicemembers to bring claims for violation of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.  This settlement could be among
the first to be brought over loan charges.


CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Michigan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending
in Michigan, 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 the first quarter of 2012, putative class action litigation was
filed against the Company and its subsidiary, Citizens Bank
(Bank), in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan and in Genesee County Circuit Court in the
State of Michigan, relating to the Bank's practices in posting
debit card transactions to customers' deposit accounts.  The class
of plaintiffs, which purports to constitute substantially all of
the Bank's customers during the class period, alleges that the
Bank improperly reordered debit card transactions from the highest
amount to lowest amount before processing these transactions in
order to generate unwarranted overdraft fees.  Plaintiffs contend
that the Bank should have processed such transactions in the
chronological order they were authorized or from lowest to
highest, and seek restitution for the fees they claim were wrongly
charged as well as a declaratory judgment and attorney fees.  The
state court action was stayed, and the same lead plaintiff then
filed a lawsuit in federal court. During the second quarter of
2012, the two federal cases were consolidated into one case
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under the caption Jane Simpson, et al.v.
Citizens Bank, U.S. District Court Case No. 2:12-cv-10267, while
the state court action was dismissed.  Citizens has filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated federal action, which motion is
currently pending.

The Company says this litigation is still in its early stages and
there can be no assurance that the outcome will not be adverse to
Citizens.  However, based on the information currently known,
Citizens does not believe the resolution of this litigation will
have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash
flows or financial condition.


COLLECTO INC: Judge Reinstates Student Loan Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
New York Law Journal reports that Collecto Inc., a collection
agency that works for the federal government, deceived debtors by
telling them student loans were "ineligible for bankruptcy
discharge," a unanimous U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled on Aug. 30, reinstating a proposed class action that
had been dismissed by a New York judge.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Awaits Approval of "Wolfgeher" Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of the class action lawsuit titled Wolfgeher v.
Commerce Bank, 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 26, 2012, the Company's subsidiary bank, Commerce Bank
(the Bank) signed the formal Settlement Agreement and Release
related to the class action lawsuit captioned Wolfgeher v.
Commerce Bank, which was settled in December 2011, and which
alleged unfair assessment and collection of overdraft fees based
upon a high-to-low posting order utilized on debit card
transactions.  The Bank, while admitting no wrongdoing, agreed to
the settlement in order to resolve the litigation and avoid
further expense.  In accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and Release (which remains subject to final court
approval), the Bank agrees to post debit card transactions in
chronological order, beginning no later than April 2013.  As a
result of this change in the posting order of debit card
transactions, the Company currently estimates that overdraft
income will be reduced on an annual basis by $6 million to $8
million.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: December 9 Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution Agent of the Mozilo Fair Fund, Rust Consulting on
Sept. 6 issued a statement regarding the Countrywide Financial
Corporation Class Action Settlement.

On July 12, 2012, the Honorable John F. Walter, U.S. District
Court Judge for the Central District of California, approved a
Plan of Distribution for a Fair Fund in the Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Angelo Mozilo, David Sambol and Eric
Sieracki, Case No. CV 09-3994 JFW (MANx).  The Securities and
Exchange Commission has recovered $48.15 million in cash as part
of the settlement of the Action by the SEC that Mozilo, Sambol and
Sieracki allegedly violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
l933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of l934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based upon alleged manipulation of the
price of publicly traded common stock of Countrywide Financial
Corporation.  The Fair Fund will be distributed to Eligible
Claimants who submit valid Proof of Claim Forms or who have
already submitted Proof of Claim Forms in the In re Countrywide
Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, No. CV 07-05295 MRP
(MANx).

Who is Eligible?

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Countrywide common stock
(CUSIP No. 222372104) during the Relevant Period (March 1, 2005
through April 24, 2008), you may be eligible to participate in the
Mozilo Fair Fund and receive a payment.

How Much Will I Receive?

A Plan of Allocation has been prepared that provides for the
Distribution Agent to determine each Eligible Claimant's Approved
Claim based on each Eligible Claimant's purchases of Countrywide
common stock during the Relevant Period.  The Net Fair Fund will
be allocated to each Eligible Claimant pro rata based upon the
ratio of the Approved Claim of each Eligible Claimant to the
aggregate Approved Claims of all Eligible Claimants.

For more specific information regarding the Plan of Allocation and
how to determine each Eligible Claimant's Distribution Amount,
please review the Plan of Allocation which is available for
download at http://www.MoziloFairFund.com

How Do I Receive Payment?

To qualify for a distribution payment, if you did not submit a
valid Proof of Claim in the Countrywide Class Action, you must
file a signed Proof of Claim Form with the Distribution Agent on
or before the Claims Filing Deadline, December 9, 2012.  The Proof
of Claim Form is available for download at
http://www.MoziloFairFund.com

Be sure to complete all information requested on the Proof of
Claim Form that applies to you including your signature, and
include sufficient documentation reflecting your purchases,
acquisitions, sales and holdings of Countrywide common stock
shares as requested.  If you do not provide all required
information and sign the Proof of Claim Form, your claim may be
rejected.

If you submitted a valid Proof of Claim in the Countrywide Class
Action, the trading information you already supplied will be used
to determine your Fair Fund claim.  Please DO NOT submit another
Proof of Claim Form.

Claim Filing Deadline

Your completed Proof of Claim Form must be postmarked no later
than the Claims Filing Deadline of December 9, 2012 and mailed to
the following address: SEC v. Mozilo Fair Fund, c/o Rust
Consulting, Inc., Distribution Agent, P.O. Box 8045, Faribault, MN
55021-9445.

Do I Give Up Any Legal Rights by Submitting a Proof of Claim?

By participating in the distribution of the Fair Fund, you will
not be releasing any rights or claims you may have against any
party, including, without limitation, Countrywide Financial
Corporation and/or their past and present directors, officers,
advisors and agents.

Inquiries

For more information you can contact the Distribution Agent by
calling the toll-free number, 1-877-225-9893; e-mailing your
inquiry to info@MoziloFairFund.com or visiting the Web site at
http://www.MoziloFairFund.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Higer Lichter & Givner Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for South Florida Business Journal,
reports that Miami-based law firm Higer Lichter & Givner is one of
three firms that filed a proposed class action overtime lawsuit on
Sept. 5 against all restaurant chains owned by Darden Restaurants,
including The Capital Grille, Longhorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden
and Red Lobster.

Darden is considered the world's largest full-service restaurant
group, with almost 170,000 employees.

The suit, on behalf of two plaintiffs, alleges servers were paid
less than the minimum wage and were not compensated for time they
were required to work off the clock.

The suit was filed in South Florida on behalf of Amanda Mathis, a
Florida resident and former server at several Longhorn Steakhouse
locations, and James Hamilton, a Virginia resident and former
Olive Garden server in Georgia.

It alleges that Darden violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
paying many of its servers below the applicable minimum wage,
which can be as low as $2.13 an hour for tipped work and $7.25 an
hour for non-tipped work.  It also alleges that servers were
required to work off the clock at the beginning and end of their
shifts.

Darden spokesman Rich Jeffers said in an e-mailed statement that
the company complies with labor laws and takes claims of
impropriety seriously, but had never heard of the complaints from
the plaintiffs specifically.

"We have a robust dispute resolution program designed to quickly
and effectively address any employee concerns.  We have no record
of either of these two individuals utilizing that process," Mr.
Jeffers said.  "As for the allegations contained in the complaint,
we believe they are baseless and fly in the face of our values and
how we operate our business."

Attorney David Lichter said he believes the suit is the first to
name all Darden's restaurants.

The proposed class would be current or former servers employed at
any time from August 2009 to the present.

The other plaintiff firms are New York-based Trief & Olk and New
Jersey-based Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf.


DAWN FOOD: Recalls 251 Buckets of Sam's Club Cinnamon Streusel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Food Products, Inc. is recalling 251, 25-pound buckets of
Sam's Club Chunky Cinnamon Streusel because it may contain
undeclared milk and soy allergens.  People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to specific type of allergens may run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

Sam's Club Chunky Cinnamon Streusel was distributed from July 23,
2012, to September 7, 2012, in Sam's Club distribution centers in
California, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.  The
product is sold in 25-pound round, white plastic pails identified
with the following lot codes on the lower left corner of the
label:

     2-203-19-81     2-203-19-82     2-203-19-83
     2-223-19-01     2-223-19-02     2-223-19-03
     2-223-19-04     2-236-19-83     2-236-19-84
     2-236-19-87

The product expiration dates are: 1-17-2013; 2-06-2013 and 2-19-
2013.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available for
free at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm318687.htm

No illnesses or consumer complaints have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after Dawn Foods determined that the
product contains milk and soy and was distributed in packaging
that did not reveal the presence of these allergens.

Consumers who have purchased Sam's Club Chunky Cinnamon Streusel
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the Dawn Foods consumer
hotline at 1-800-292-1362, Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.


DUOYUAN GLOBAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that a federal judge has refused to
dismiss securities class action claims against Duoyuan Global
Water, a U.S.-listed Chinese maker of water treatment equipment,
and the company's deep-pocketed underwriters, citing a big gap
between the financial disclosures that DGW made to the Chinese
government and what it reported to the SEC.


DUPONT: Judge Certifies Nationwide Class in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that a federal judge has certified a
nationwide class of individuals and businesses that purchased
titanium dioxide directly from a group of leading chemical
companies between 2002 and the present.  The plaintiffs allege the
pigment companies, including DuPont, secretly agreed to uniformly
raise prices of the dry chemical powder used to whiten everything
from paint to toothpaste.


FORD MOTOR: Kershaw Cutter Wins $45.5-Mil. Court Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Robertson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports
that a small personal-injury and class-action law firm in
Sacramento won a $45.5 million court judgment in district court in
New Jersey on behalf of 11 Ford heavy truck dealerships who lost
inventory -- and money -- after Ford sold its heavy truck business
in early 1997.

Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff was lead counsel among four firms
involved in Bayshore Ford Truck Sales Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
which began as a proposed class action in 1999 on behalf of about
160 dealers nationwide.

The lawsuit stemmed from a decision by Ford to sell its heavy
truck business to Freightliner/Sterling in early 1997 for $300
million.  Plaintiffs in the case were Ford heavy truck dealers
with sales and service agreements.

After the sale, Ford stopped supplying heavy trucks to the
dealers, court documents allege.  All Ford heavy truck dealers had
to become a Sterling dealer if they wanted additional inventory,
said Bill Kershaw, a partner in the firm and lead on the case.
Most dealers went along with the change, but "nobody had ever
heard of Sterling before," so sales plummeted.

"Dealers lost an enormous amount of money and many sales of
trucks," Mr. Kershaw said.

In 2005, the court agreed with plaintiffs that Ford was liable for
breach of contract.  The case was certified as a class action in
2006.  However, changes in the law prompted the court to decertify
the class so far as damages in 2010, prompting individual dealer
cases.  In the meantime, about half the dealers signed release
forms, making them ineligible to pursue individual cases.

The first, the bellwether case got a jury verdict of more than
$29.6 million in contract damages in June 2012.  On Aug. 29, the
same court added almost $15.9 million in prejudgment interest,
raising the total to $45.5 million.

"Having litigated this case for more than thirteen years,
listening to Ford tell us that it really did our clients a
financial favor by selling its heavy truck division out from under
them, it's refreshing to have a jury categorically reject Ford's
position by awarding our dealers virtually every penny in damages
they asked for," Mr. Kershaw said.  "The jury carefully listened
to all of Ford's arguments about why our clients were better off
-- and why they weren't injured -- and (the jury) overwhelmingly
chose to believe our clients' description of how economically
devastating Ford's breach of contract was to them."

Ford is expected to appeal the judgment to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals, so the judgment, if it holds, may not be paid for
another 14 to 16 months.


GEORGIA GULF: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated shareholder lawsuit against Georgia Gulf
Corporation was dismissed without prejudice in June 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 18, 2012, a putative shareholder class action styled
Mark James v. Georgia Gulf Corporation, et al., was filed against
the company and the individual members of its board of directors
(collectively, the "Board") in the Superior Court of DeKalb
County, Georgia.  The complaint generally alleged that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by,
among other things, refusing to enter into meaningful negotiations
with Westlake Chemical Corporation ("Westlake") in connection with
Westlake's unsolicited proposal (the "Proposal"), refusing
Westlake's request to perform certain due diligence, and adopting
a shareholder rights plan (the "Rights Plan") as a defense to the
Proposal.

On January 31, 2012, a second putative shareholder class action
styled Wilbert B. Morales, Jr. v. Paul D. Carrico, et al. (the
"Morales Complaint"), was filed against the Board in the Superior
Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.  The complaint generally alleged
that the Board breached its fiduciary duties to the company's
shareholders by, among other things, refusing to enter into
meaningful negotiations with Westlake in connection with the
Proposal, failing to consider all available information and
alternate transactions, and adopting the Rights Plan as a defense
to the Proposal.  On February 15, 2012, the Superior Court of
DeKalb County, Georgia, entered an order consolidating the two
actions into one action styled In Re Georgia Gulf Corporation
Shareholder Litigation (the "Consolidated Action").  On April 2,
2012, plaintiffs filed a notice designating the Morales Complaint
as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Action.  The
defendants in the Consolidated Action filed a motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Action in May 2012.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs
in the Consolidated Action agreed to dismiss the Consolidated
Action without prejudice and on June 15, 2012, the consolidated
action was dismissed without prejudice.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Court Revives Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a class-
action suit against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. over mortgage-backed
securities was revived by a federal appeals court in New York.

Investors in 17 securities offerings, led by the NECA-IBEW Health
and Welfare Fund, sued Goldman Sachs over securities backed by
pools of residential mortgages originated by National City
Mortgage Co., Countrywide Home Loans, Washington Mutual Bank and
others, according to an opinion by the court on Sept. 6.

U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum dismissed the suit in
2010, ruling that NECA, which purchased certificates from only two
of the offerings, lacked standing to represent investors in the
other 15.  A three-judge panel of the appeals court reversed that
ruling on Sept. 6.  The court also reversed Judge Cedarbaum's
ruling that NECA failed to claim a sufficient loss from the
investments.

"We hold that plaintiff has class standing to assert the claims of
purchasers of certificates backed by mortgages originated by the
same lenders that originated the mortgages backing plaintiff's
certificates, because such claims implicate 'the same set of
concerns' as plaintiff's claims," U.S. Circuit Judge Barrington
Parker said in the opinion.

Michael DuVally, a spokesman for New York-based Goldman Sachs,
declined to comment immediately on the Sept. 6 ruling.

The case is NECA-IBEW Health and Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs &
Co., 11-2762, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
(Manhattan).


HCA HOLDINGS: Amended Securities Complaint Pending in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated securities class action lawsuit against
HCA Holdings, Inc., is pending in Tennessee, 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 October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief.  The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering.  The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering.  It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors.  The action alleged various
deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the Registration
Statement.  Subsequently, two additional class action complaints,
Kishtah v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011, and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated.

On May 3, 3012, the court appointed New England Teamsters &
Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the
consolidated action.  On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering.  It further asserts a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors and Hercules Holdings II, LLC, a
majority shareholder of the Company.  The consolidated complaint
alleges deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus relating to: (1) the
accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and 2010
reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective
internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

Founded in 1968, HCA Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
provides health care services in the United States.  The Company
owns, manages, or operates hospitals, freestanding surgery
centers, diagnostic and imaging centers, radiation and oncology
therapy centers, rehabilitation and physical therapy centers, and
various other facilities.


HOME HEALTH: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Home Health Care Services
stiffs employees for overtime, a class action claims in New York
County Supreme Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Popa, et al. v. Home Health Care
Services, Inc., et al., Index No. 156130/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/07/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul E. Bleifer, Esq.
          PAUL BLEIFER & ASSOCIATES
          60 E. 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (718) 292-2850


ITRON INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Wash. Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Itron, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit
in Washington 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 23, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
Federal Court for the Eastern District of Washington alleging a
violation of federal securities laws relating to a restatement of
the Company's financial results for the quarters ended March 31,
June 30, and September 30, 2010.  These revisions were made
primarily to defer revenue that had been incorrectly recognized on
one contract due to a misinterpretation of an extended warranty
obligation.  The effect was to reduce revenue and earnings in each
of the first three quarters of the year.  For the first nine
months of 2010, total revenue was reduced by $6.1 million, and
diluted earnings per share was reduced by $0.11.  On August 22,
2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which the
defendants moved to dismiss.  The decision on the Motion to
Dismiss is pending.  The Company believes the facts and legal
claims alleged are without merit, and it intends to vigorously
defend its interests.


KIRBY CORP: To Respond to Rescue Mission's Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Corporation 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 it is preparing its response to
the amended complaint filed by Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc.,
et al.

On January 30, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey in a case styled Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc.,
et al. v. John J. Nicola, et al., the Company, its subsidiary, K-
Sea Transportation Partners L.P., and current and former officers
and directors of K-Sea were named defendants in a putative class
action complaint asserting that during the period of January 30,
2009, to January 27, 2010, K-Sea allegedly failed to disclose
certain facts regarding K-Sea's operations and financial
condition, and asserting violations of Sections 10(b)(5) and 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  The Plaintiffs filed its
Amended Consolidated Complaint on behalf of the class on July 9,
2012.  The Company is preparing its response to the Complaint.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter based on the
information available to the Company at this time.  The Company
does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however,
there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this
matter.

Founded in 1921 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, Kirby
Corporation -- http://www.kirbycorp.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides marine transportation and diesel engine
services primarily in the United States.


LAW SCHOOL: Justice Dep't. Supports Disabilities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Palazzolo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
the Justice Department threw its muscle behind a class action
against the organization that administers the law school admission
test, alleging a widespread failure to accommodate exam takers
with disabilities.

The agency's Civil Rights Division on Sept. 5 asked U.S. District
Judge Edward M. Chen in San Francisco for permission to intervene
in the lawsuit, which was filed in March by the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing on behalf of 17 test
takers.  The organization has faced several similar lawsuits in
recent years.

The addition of the Justice Department, if approved by a federal
judge, increases the stakes for the Law School Admission Council,
which administered the law school exam to about 130,000 people in
2011-2012.

The lawsuit alleges that LSAC routinely denies accommodation
requests, even in cases where applicants have submitted proper
paperwork and demonstrated a history of testing accommodations.

In one case highlighted by the Justice Department, the LSAC
allegedly denied nearly all requested accommodations for a woman
with severe visual impairments, including a large-print test book
and 20 additional minutes for each section.  She had been
receiving testing accommodations since kindergarten, the
department said.  In another case, the LSAC allegedly denied a
dyslexic man's request for extra time to take the exam.

In court documents, the Justice Department also alleged that LSAC
improperly flags test scores obtained with testing accommodations
-- identifying prospective students with disabilities -- and turns
that information over to law schools in the admissions process.

A spokeswoman for LSAC said, "We won't be commenting at this
point."

The class action alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  The department's proposed complaint seeks
damages and a civil penalty against LSAC, without giving a dollar
amount.


LEVEL 3: Awaits Approval of Settlements of Rights-of-Way Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlements of lawsuits regarding rights-of-way, 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 Company is party to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network
in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land.  In
general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its networks
from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed its
networks along the rights-of-way so granted.  Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the its fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities, and others who granted the Company the right
to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal
authority to do so.  The complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as
well as punitive damages.  The Company has also received, and may
in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way
issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on
similar or different legal theories.  The Company has defeated
motions for class certification in a number of these actions but
expects that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in
the pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification of
statewide or multi-state classes.  The only lawsuit in which a
class was certified against the Company, absent an agreed upon
settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications,
Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho.  The Koyle
lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in
November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks.  The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks.  The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions.  The settlements affecting current and
former landowners in the states of Idaho, Illinois, and Alabama
have received final court approval and the parties are engaged in
the claims process for those states.  The settlement has been
presented to federal courts in several additional states for
approval.

Management believes that the Company has substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend
them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately
approved for all affected landowners.


LINCARE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suits Over Merger with Linde AG
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincare Holdings Inc. is facing shareholder class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed acquisition by Linde AG, 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 1, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Linde AG, a stock corporation
organized under the laws of Germany ("Parent"), and Linde US Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of
Parent ("Purchaser").  On July 11, 2012, the Purchaser commenced a
tender offer (the "Offer") to acquire all of the shares of common
stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company issued and
outstanding (the "Shares") for $41.50 per Share (the "Offer
Price"), subject to any required withholding of taxes, net to the
seller in cash and without any interest thereon.

On July 11, 2012, a putative shareholder class action complaint,
captioned Fader v. Lincare Holdings, Inc., et. al., Case No. 12-
8401, was filed in the Circuit Court of the 6th Judicial Circuit
in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Circuit Civil Division (the
"Fader Complaint"), against the Company, the members of the Board,
Parent and Purchaser.  The Fader Complaint alleges that the
members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders by entering into the Merger Agreement, and
further alleges that Parent and Purchaser aided and abetted the
members of the Board in breaching their fiduciary duties.  The
Fader Complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  The Company,
Parent and Purchaser intend to vigorously defend against these
claims.

Also on July 11, 2012, a putative shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Himmel v. Lincare Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-8392, was filed in the Circuit Court of the 6th
Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Circuit
Civil Division (the "Himmel Complaint"), against the Company, the
members of the Board, Parent and Purchaser.  The Himmel Complaint,
like the Fader Complaint, alleges that the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by
entering into the Merger Agreement and that Parent, Purchaser and
the Company aided and abetted the members of the board in
breaching their fiduciary duties.  The Himmel Complaint seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement.  The Company, Parent and Purchaser intend to
vigorously defend against these claims.

On July 16, 2012, two additional putative shareholder class action
complaints, captioned Britt v. Lincare Holdings Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-8607 (the "Britt Complaint"), and Coyne v. Lincare Holdings
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-8608 (the "Coyne Complaint"), were filed
in the Circuit Court of the 6th Judicial Circuit in and for
Pinellas County, Florida, Circuit Civil Division. The Britt
Complaint and the Coyne Complaint, like the Himmel Complaint and
Fader Complaint, allege that the members of the Board breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by entering
into the Merger Agreement and that Parent, Purchaser and the
Company aided and abetted the members of the board in breaching
their fiduciary duties. The Britt Complaint and the Coyne
Complaint also allege that the Schedule 14D-9, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 11, 2012, was
materially incomplete and omitted certain information. The Britt
Complaint and the Coyne Complaint each seek, among other things,
to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
The Company, Parent and Purchaser intend to vigorously defend
against these claims.

Also on July 16, 2012, Plaintiffs Himmel and Britt filed a motion
in the Himmel action seeking an order (i) consolidating the
Himmel, Fader, Britt and Coyne actions, (ii) appointing a
leadership structure among plaintiffs' law firms, (iii) expediting
discovery, and (iv) setting a schedule for preliminary injunction
proceedings.  On July 18, 2012, the Company and the board filed
papers opposing Plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery and a
schedule for preliminary injunction proceedings.  On July 20,
2012, a fifth putative shareholder class action, captioned
Souksavath v. Lincare Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 12-8990 (the
"Souksavath Complaint"), was filed in the Circuit Court of the 6th
Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Circuit
Civil Division.  The Souksavath Complaint, like the Himmel
Complaint, the Fader Complaint, the Britt Complaint and the Coyne
Complaint, alleges that the members of the Board Breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by entering into
the Merger Agreement and that Parent and Purchaser aided and
abetted the members of the Board in breaching their fiduciary
duties.  The Souksavath Complaint, like the Britt Complaint and
the Coyne Complaint, also alleges that the Schedule 14D-9, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 11, 2012, was materially incomplete and omitted certain
information.  The Souksavath Complaint seeks, among other things,
to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
The Company, Parent and Purchaser intend to vigorously defend
against these claims.

On July 23, 2012, the court held a hearing on Plaintiffs Himmel
and Britt's Emergency Motion to Consolidate Related Actions,
Appoint a Leadership Structure, Order Expedited Discovery and
Schedule Preliminary Injunction Proceedings.  The court granted
plaintiffs' request to consolidate related actions and to appoint
a leadership structure among plaintiffs' counsel's law firms.  The
court denied plaintiffs' request for expedited discovery and to
set a schedule for preliminary injunction proceedings.  On July
27, 2012, Plaintiffs Himmel and Britt appealed the court's denial
of their request for expedited discovery and to set a schedule for
preliminary injunction proceedings by filing an Emergency Petition
for Alternative Writs of Certiorari or Mandamus Requiring the
Trial Court to Adjudicate Petitioners' Motion to Preliminarily
Enjoin a $4.6 Billion Corporate Takeover Prior to the August 7,
2012 Close of the Tender Offer in the Second District Court of
Appeal of the State of Florida.  The Company, Parent and Purchaser
intend to oppose the appeal.


LINKEDIN CORP: Judge Consolidates Privacy Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that four proposed class actions against
LinkedIn Corp. related to a June security breach were consolidated
on Aug. 29 by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila.  The plaintiffs'
suits each claimed damages of $5 million after Russian hackers
stole nearly 6.5 million user passwords on LinkedIn and posted
them online.


LOJACK CORP: Sept. 14 Judgment Bid Hearing in "Rutti" Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on LoJack Corporation's motion for summary judgment in
the class action lawsuit commenced by Mike Rutti in California
state court is scheduled for September 14, 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, 2006, Mike Rutti vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, or the District Court, by a former employee
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the FLSA,
the California Labor Code, and the California Business &
Professions Code, and seeking class action status, or the Federal
Court Case.  In September 2007, the Company's motion for summary
judgment was granted and the District Court dismissed all of the
plaintiff's federal law claims.  The plaintiff appealed the grant
of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, or the Ninth Circuit, and, in August 2009, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary
judgment on all claims except as to the claim for compensation for
the required postliminary data transmission, or the Data
Transmission Claim, for which the dismissal was reversed.  The
plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing and, on March 2, 2010,
the Ninth Circuit amended its decision to affirm the District
Court's grant of summary judgment on all claims except as to (a)
the Data Transmission Claim and (b) the claim for compensation for
commuting under state law, or the Commuting Claim.  The plaintiff
later sought to pursue the Commuting Claim in the State Court
Case.  The plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the
Data Transmission Claim under the FLSA and, on January 14, 2011,
the District Court granted the plaintiff's motion.  On October 7,
2011, the parties filed a joint stipulation with the District
Court stating that they had reached a settlement of the Data
Transmission Claim.  On November 7, 2011, the parties filed a
joint motion for approval of the settlement as required by the
FLSA.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Federal Court
Case would be dismissed, the plaintiffs would release the Company
of the claims asserted in the Federal Court Case and all other
wage-and-hour claims (except, in the case of two plaintiffs, the
claims asserted in the State Court Case) and the Company would pay
to the plaintiffs an aggregate amount of approximately $115,000
and pay to their attorneys an amount for attorneys' fees and costs
to be determined by the District Court upon motion but not to
exceed $1,100,000.  During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Company recorded an accrual in the amount of $1,250,000 with
respect to the terms of the Federal Court Case settlement, of
which $1,100,000 remained accrued at June 30, 2012.  Nothing in
the settlement would constitute an admission of any wrongdoing,
liability or violation of law by the Company.  Rather, the Company
has agreed to the settlement to resolve the Federal Court Case,
thereby eliminating the uncertainties and expense of further
protracted litigation.  On November 28, 2011, the District Court
approved the settlement with the plaintiff and dismissed the
Federal Court Case with prejudice.  Plaintiffs then submitted an
application for attorneys' fees and costs, to which the Company
filed several objections.  On August 1, 2012, the District Court
awarded plaintiffs' counsel $900,518 in attorneys' fees and costs
for the Federal Court Case.

Due to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims by the District
Court in September 2007, in November 2007, the plaintiff and a
second plaintiff filed in the Superior Court of California for Los
Angeles County, or the Superior Court, Mike Rutti, Gerson Anaya
vs. LoJack Corporation, Inc. to assert wage-and-hour claims under
California law on behalf of current and former Company
technicians, or the State Court Case.  In September 2009, the
Superior Court granted class certification with respect to nine
claims and denied class certification with respect to five claims.
The Company sought appellate review of this decision.  On March
26, 2010, the California Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate
District granted the Company's request in part, denying
certification with respect to certain claims but affirming
certification with respect to certain other claims.

On July 29, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification
of the remaining claims except for a vehicle maintenance expense
reimbursement claim.  Thus, in the State Court Case, there
currently are 16 certified claims, including the Commuting Claim;
a Data Transmission Claim arising under state law; claims for
various amounts of unpaid time; claims for reimbursement of work
tools expenses and the cost of washing a Company vehicle; claims
for unfair competition under California Business and Professions
Code section 17200; and claims for waiting-time penalties and
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act.  On June 29, 2012, the Company filed for summary
judgment against more than 40 class members, as well as for
summary adjudication of several class claims.  A hearing on the
motion is scheduled for September 14, 2012.  Trial is currently
set for February 5, 2013.

The Company believes that it has substantial legal and factual
defenses to these claims and intends to defend its interests
vigorously.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company says it had recorded an
accrual in the amount of $970,000, with respect to certain of the
claims in the State Court Case based on its best estimates, where
a potential loss is considered probable.  As of June 30, 2012, the
entire $970,000 remained accrued.  The Company has estimated its
range of possible loss with respect to the State Court Case to be
between $970,000 and $30,000,000.


MCAFEE: Faces Class Action Over Registry-Cleaning Software
----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that antivirus company
McAfee has been hit with a potential class-action lawsuit for
allegedly duping Web users into purchasing "Registry Power
Cleaner" software.

New Jersey resident Jennifer Bilodeau alleges in court papers that
McAfee markets the registry-cleaning software via online ads that
offer free diagnostic scans of users' computers.  The scans
allegedly always find that the computers are at "high risk" for
problems, Ms. Bilodeau says.

"The unfortunate truth is that, rather than actually performing
any meaningful assessment of a computer's condition, Registry
Power Cleaner was designed to invariably -- and ominously --
report that harmful errors and problems are afflicting a user's
PC," she alleges in her complaint, filed in federal court in San
Jose, Calif.

She says in her legal papers that a computer forensics expert
tested the software and concluded that it always reports numerous
errors, even when scanning a brand new computer system.  "It
follows then, that even Registry Power Booster users with new PCs
would be informed that hundreds of errors exist on and are harming
their system's status, placing it at 'high risk,'" she alleges.

Ms. Bilodeau alleges that the Registry Power Cleaner software is
manufactured by the company Capital Intellect, but that McAfee has
a deal with Capital to endorse, market and sell the program.
Ms. Bilodeau also named Capital Intellect as a defendant in the
case.

She says the companies are violating California's consumer
protection laws.

The lawsuit is part of a recent wave of scareware cases brought as
potential class-actions by attorney Jay Edelson.  One software
vendor that was sued, Ascentive, agreed in March to a $9.6 million
settlement.  In that case, Ascentive said it would allow people
who purchased its software to put in claims for refunds of either
$10 or $18, depending on how many products they purchased.

Ascentive also promised to revise its disclosures to consumers, as
well as its refund policies. The company didn't admit wrongdoing
as part of the settlement agreement.

A separate lawsuit by a consumer against Symantec was recently
dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, who ruled
that the allegations were too vague because the consumer didn't
include Symantec's verbatim ads in his complaint.  The consumer in
that case filed new papers two weeks ago.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Appeal From Summary Judgment Ruling Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Merge
Healthcare Incorporated 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.

In January 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts
in connection with AMICAS Inc.'s (AMICAS) proposed acquisition by
Thoma Bravo, LLC.  A second similar action was filed in the same
Court in February 2010 and consolidated with the first action.  In
March 2010, because AMICAS had terminated the Thoma Bravo Merger
and agreed to be acquired by the Company, the Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims as moot.  Subsequently, counsel for the
plaintiffs filed an application for approximately $5,000,000 of
attorneys' fees for its work on this case, which fee petition
AMICAS opposed.  The Company retained litigation counsel to defend
against the fee petition.  On December 4, 2010, the court awarded
plaintiffs approximately $3,200,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.
AMICAS has appealed this judgment.  The Company previously
tendered the defense in this matter to its appropriate insurers,
which provided coverage against the claims asserted against
AMICAS.  After receipt of the court's attorneys' fee award
decision, the insurer denied policy coverage for approximately
$2,500,000 of the fee award.  The Company does not believe that
the insurer's denial has merit and has retained counsel to contest
it.  On June 6, 2011, the insurer filed an action against AMICAS
and Merge in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois seeking a declaration that it is not responsible for the
$2,500,000 portion of the judgment rendered on December 4, 2010,
by the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.  Merge
filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the insurer must
pay the full amount of the Superior Court's fee award, plus
additional damages.

On April 30, 2012, the Northern District of Illinois federal court
ruled in favor of the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The
court ordered the insurer to pay the Massachusetts court judgment
plus interest.  The insurer has appealed that court's ruling.

The Company continues to vigorously assert all of its rights under
its applicable insurance policies, which the Company believes
cover the claims and expenses incurred by AMICAS or the Company in
connection with the fee award.  The Company believes that the
likelihood of a loss in excess of the amount of its recorded
liability is remote.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Merge Healthcare Incorporated
-- http://www.merge.com/-- provides healthcare information
technology solutions in the United States and internationally.
Its software solutions automate healthcare data and diagnostic
workflow to create an electronic record of the patient experience.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit initiated by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al., 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 August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were
named as defendants in a purported class action related to
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne
Finance (the "Cheyne SIV").  The case is styled Abu Dhabi
Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("SDNY").  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the
SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not
accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime RMBS
held by the SIV.  On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of
the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for
common law fraud.  On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  On July 20, 2010, the court
granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting
common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were
added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010.  On
December 27, 2011, the court permitted plaintiffs to reinstate
their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and breach
of fiduciary duty against the Company.

The Company moved to dismiss these claims on January 10, 2012.  On
January 5, 2012, the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their
complaint and assert a negligence claim against the Company.  The
amended complaint was filed on January 9, 2012, and the Company
moved to dismiss the negligence claim on January 17, 2012.  On
January 23, 2012, the Company moved for summary judgment with
respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims.
Plaintiffs have not alleged the amount of their alleged
investments, and are seeking, among other relief, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.  There are 15 plaintiffs in
this action asserting claims related to approximately $983 million
of securities issued by the SIV.

On May 4, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss claims
against the Company for negligent misrepresentation.  On July 2,
2012, plaintiffs filed supplemental disclosures with the Court
alleging that they are seeking approximately $811 million in
compensatory damages.  Plaintiffs are also seeking punitive
damages.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "King County" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed by
King County, Washington, et al., 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 June 10, 2010, the Company was named as a new defendant in a
pre-existing purported class action related to securities issued
by a structured investment vehicle called Rhinebridge plc
("Rhinebridge SIV").  The case is styled King County, Washington,
et al. v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, et al. and is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York ("SDNY").  The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud
and aiding and abetting common law fraud and alleges, among other
things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the
SIV were false and misleading, including because the ratings did
not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime
residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") held by the SIV.
On July 15, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint.
That motion was denied on October 29, 2010.  On December 27, 2011,
the court permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint and assert
causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
breach of fiduciary duty against the Company.  The amended
complaint was filed on January 10, 2012, and the Company moved to
dismiss the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of
fiduciary duty claims on
January 31, 2012.  The case is pending before the same judge
presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV.

On May 4, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss claims
against the Company for negligent misrepresentation.


MORGAN STANLEY: Court Refuses to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied in July 2012 Morgan Stanley and other defendants'
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the lawsuit
styled In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate
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 May 7, 2009, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit brought under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), alleging, among other things, that the registration
statements and offering documents related to the offerings of
approximately $17 billion of mortgage pass through certificates in
2006 and 2007 contained false and misleading information
concerning the pools of residential loans that backed these
securitizations.  The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class
certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages,
costs, interest and fees.  This case, which was consolidated with
an earlier lawsuit and is currently styled In re Morgan Stanley
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Litigation, is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("SDNY").  On August 17, 2010, the court dismissed the claims
brought by the lead plaintiff, but gave a different plaintiff
leave to file a second amended complaint.  On September 10, 2010,
that plaintiff, together with several new plaintiffs, filed a
second amended complaint which purported to assert claims against
the Company and others on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased approximately $4.7 billion of mortgage pass through
certificates issued in 2006 by seven trusts collectively
containing residential mortgage loans.  The second amended
complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act, and alleged, among other things, that the
registration statements and offering documents related to the
offerings contained false and misleading information concerning
the pools of residential loans that backed these securitizations.
The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs,
interest and fees.  On September 15, 2011, the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and
granted the plaintiffs' request to file another amended complaint.
On September 29, 2011, the defendants moved for reconsideration of
a portion of the court's decision partially denying the motion to
dismiss.  On September 30, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint purporting to bring claims on behalf of a class
of investors who purchased approximately $2.7 billion of mortgage
pass through certificates issued in 2006 by five trusts.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October
17, 2011.

On July 16, 2012, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint.


NEW YORK: Judge Wants Medicaid Coverage Cuts Halted
---------------------------------------------------
Jamie Schuh, writing for Bayside Patch, reports that a federal
judge in Manhattan ruled on Sept. 4 that the plaintiffs of a
class-action lawsuit had a case against New York City and the
state for violating federal law in cutting back on Medicaid for
hundreds of residents last year, according to the New York Times.

Judge Shira Scheindlin issued a preliminary injunction ordering
the city to stop reducing or terminating Medicaid coverage for
patients in need of round-the-clock care, with exceptions to be
made if a doctor found a change in a patient's condition or if the
city declared a mistake.

Judge Scheindlin wrote that there was clear evidence that Medicaid
care had been reduced or ended entirely in many cases without due
notice to patients, the Times wrote.

"While we respectfully disagree with some of the court's finding,
we will, of course, comply with the court's order," read a
statement by the city's Human Resources Administration, which
administers the Medicaid personal-care program.

According to the Times, the State Health Department said it was
reviewing the decision.

In April, seniors were dismayed to hear of "The Ryan Plan,"
introduced by House Budget Committee Chairman (and now Republican
vice presidential candidate) Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, which would
cut Medicare and Medicaid entirely for those under 55, and replace
it with a $15,000 yearly voucher.  Any medical costs over that
amount were to be paid by the individual.

Total Medicare costs in NY State average $22,845 per person,
according to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services.

According to the Times, Judge Scheindlin suggested that the
cutting of Medicaid services in New York had also been a way to
cut costs, though she said that "administrators -- even when faced
with major budget crises -- may not deprive citizens of the care
to which they are legally entitled."


NSP-WISCONSIN: Appeal From Dismissal of 2nd "Comer" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit captioned
Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., remains pending, according to
Northern States Power 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 May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed
a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and
coal companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The
complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
Among the defendants named in the complaint are NSP-Wisconsin and
its parent, Xcel Energy Inc.  The amount of damages claimed by
plaintiffs is unknown.  The defendants, including Xcel Energy
Inc., believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  In March 2012, the U.S. District Court
granted this motion for dismissal.  In April 2012, plaintiffs
appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  While Xcel Energy Inc. believes the likelihood of loss
is remote, given the nature of this case and any surrounding
uncertainty, it could potentially have a material impact on NSP-
Wisconsin's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or
financial position.  No accrual has been recorded for this matter.


PHI INC: 3rd Circuit Affirms "Superior Offshore" Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, on July 27, 2012,
affirmed a district court's summary judgment ruling dismissing the
class action lawsuit commenced by Superior Offshore International
Inc. against PHI, Inc., et al., according to PHI's August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Superior Offshore International Inc. v. Bristow Group Inc., ERA
Helicopters, LLC, Seacor Holdings Inc., ERA Group Inc., ERA
Aviation, Inc., and PHI, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00438 on
the docket of the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, is a purported class action filed on June 12, 2009, on
behalf of a class defined to include all direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico from the
defendants at any time from January 1, 2001, through December 31,
2005.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants acted jointly to
fix, maintain, or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter
services during the time frame in violation of the federal
antitrust laws.  The plaintiff sought unspecified treble damages,
injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On June 23, 2011,
the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment,
entered final judgment in favor of the defendants, and dismissed
all of the plaintiff's claims.  On July 22, 2011, the plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, and on July 27, 2012, that court affirmed the district
court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing the case.


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: FSC Remains a Co-Conspirator in Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, First Southwest Company ("FSC"), an indirect
subsidiary of PlainsCapital Corporation, received subpoenas from
the SEC and the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in
connection with an investigation of possible antitrust and
securities law violations, including bid-rigging, in the
procurement of guaranteed investment contracts and other
investment products for the reinvestment of bond proceeds by
municipalities.  The investigation is industry-wide and includes
approximately 30 or more firms, including some of the largest U.S.
investment firms.

As a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-wide
practices, FSC was initially named as a co-defendant in cases
filed in several different federal courts by various state and
local governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities and a
similar set of lawsuits filed by various California local
governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities.  All
claims asserted against FSC in these purported class actions were
subsequently dismissed.  However, the plaintiffs in these
purported class actions have filed amended complaints against
other entities, and FSC is identified in these complaints not as a
defendant, but as an alleged co-conspirator with the named
defendants.

Additionally, as a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into
industry-wide practices, FSC has been named as a defendant in 20
individual lawsuits.  These lawsuits have been brought by several
California public entities and two New York non-profit
corporations that do not seek to certify a class.  The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred these cases to
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
The California plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act.  The New York
plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
the New York Donnelly Act.  The allegations against FSC are very
limited in scope.  FSC has filed answers in each of the twenty
lawsuits denying the allegations and asserting several affirmative
defenses.  FSC intends to defend itself vigorously in these
individual actions.  The relief sought is 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.

Dallas-based PlainsCapital Corporation --
http://plainscapital.com/-- is founded by Chairman and CEO Alan
B. White, whose family of companies includes PlainsCapital Bank,
PrimeLending and FirstSouthwest.  It offers a diverse range of
financial services.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Washers
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a class action suit filed in
federal court in New Jersey alleges that clothes washers made by
Samsung Electronics America leave clothes unclean and smelling of
mildew, and can't handle large items despite the claim of "super
capacity."  According to the suit, Samsung was on notice of the
defects, but continued to produce more washers with the same
problems.


SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Appeal From "Comer" Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit titled
Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., remains pending, according to
Southwestern Public Service 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 May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in this purported class action lawsuit filed
a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and
coal companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The
complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their
claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.
Among the defendants named in the complaint are the Company and
its parent, Xcel Energy Inc.  The amount of damages claimed by
plaintiffs is unknown.  The defendants, including Xcel Energy
Inc., believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  In March 2012, the U.S. District Court
granted this motion for dismissal.  In April 2012, plaintiffs
appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  While Xcel Energy Inc. believes the likelihood of loss
is remote, given the nature of this case and any surrounding
uncertainty, it could potentially have a material impact on SPS'
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.  No
accrual has been recorded for this matter.


STRATASYS INC: Settles Merger-related Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Stratasys, Inc. on Sept. 6 disclosed that it has signed a
memorandum of understanding to settle the previously disclosed
class action lawsuit captioned Hennig v. Crump, et al., C.A. No.
7670-VCL pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the class
action lawsuit in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District,
Hennepin County, Minnesota entitled Legette v. Crump, et al., File
No. 27-cv-12-14321.  A third action, Askersrud v. Stratasys Inc.,
et al., also pending before District Court, Fourth Judicial
District, Hennepin County, Minnesota under File No. 27-cv-12-
15581, will be voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, Stratasys has agreed
to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed
merger.  The additional disclosures supplement the disclosure
contained in the proxy statement filed by Stratasys with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2012, and should
be read in conjunction with the disclosures contained in the Proxy
Statement, which in turn should be read in its entirety.  The
memorandum of understanding also provides, among other things,
that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of
settlement which provides for the release of certain claims held
by such class.  The stipulation of the settlement will be subject
to customary conditions, including court approval.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement that receives court approval.  The
settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting of
Stratasys stockholders, which is scheduled for Friday, September
14, 2012, beginning at 3:00 p.m., Central Time, at Hotel Sofitel,
Chambord Meeting Room, 5601 West 78th Street, Bloomington,
Minnesota 55439.


SUNRISE SENIOR: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sunrise Senior living is
selling itself too cheaply to Health Care REIT, for $14.50 a share
or $845 million, shareholders say in a class action in Chancery
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Perricone Family Trust v. Sunrise
Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 7837 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/07/SeniorHomes.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
          TAYLOR & MCNEW LLP
          2710 Centerville Road, Suite 210
          Greenville, DE 19808
          Telephone: (302) 655-9200
          E-mail: mcnew@taylormcnew.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


TELLABS INC: "Makor" Class Action Suit Dismissed in June 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v.
Tellabs, Inc., was dismissed in June 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 29,
2012.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and
Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs).
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the United
States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  All
nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
December 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of the Company's current or former officers and/or
directors.  The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during
the class period (December 11, 2000 - June 19, 2001) the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements, including, among other
things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and
misleading, misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and
reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in the
Company's financial statements.  Further, certain of the
individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal
securities laws by trading the Company's securities while
allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about
the Company pertaining to these matters.  The consolidated amended
complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to
replead.  On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on
August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all
claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action
complaint.  On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order
granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On
March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit,
appealing the dismissal.  The appeal was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on January 21, 2005.  On January 25, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing
in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for
further proceedings.  On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with
the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for
rehearing en banc.  On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered
plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which
was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006.  On July 10, 2006, the
Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor
modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district
court.

On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims.  On
October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United States
Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to
appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision.  On January 5, 2007, the
defendants' petition was granted.  The United States Supreme Court
heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007.  On June 21, 2007, the
United States Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings.  On November 1,
2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded
case.  On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of
the district court, and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings.  On February 24, 2009, the district court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On August 13,
2010, the Court granted in large part Tellabs' motion for summary
judgment.  Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit
and on July 27, 2011, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement and dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice.

The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on June 15, 2012.  All
settlement amounts were paid by Tellabs' insurers.


VERTEX PHARMA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott LLP filed a securities class action complaint against
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Vertex common stock
between May 7, 2012 and June 28, 2012, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Vertex issued false and misleading
public statements concerning a pharmaceutical study of its
products VX-809 and Kalydeco.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that at the start of the Class Period on May 7, 2012, Vertex
announced positive "interim data" from its Phase 2 study of VX-809
and Kalydeco.  This caused a significant increase in the Company's
stock price -- from $37.41 to $58.12 per share.  As Defendants
continued heralding the positive and "unexpected" interim Phase 2
study results, the Company's stock traded as high as $64.85 on
May 25, 2012.  Certain of the individual Defendants took advantage
of this stock price increase to sell approximately $30 million of
Vertex stock.

On May 29, 2012, the Company announced that the exceptional
results of the Phase 2 study of the two medications were grossly
overstated.  On this news, the Company's stock price fell from a
close of $64.85 on May 25, 2012 to a close of $57.80 on May 29,
2012.  Then, approximately one month later, on June 28, 2012, the
Company again revised the test results downward.  In response to
this news, the Company's stock price plummeted from a close of
$61.11 on June 27, 2012, to a close of $51.18 on June 28, 2012.

You can view a copy of the complaint filed by Scott+Scott at:

     http://is.gd/rBTByz

If you purchased Vertex common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than November 5, 2012 to serve as lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the investor class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Michael Burnett, Esq. at
Scott+Scott -- mburnett@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860)
537-5537, or visit the Scott+Scott Web site,
http://www.scott-scott.com/for more information.  There is no
cost or fee to you.

Scott+Scott is a class action law firm in the United States, with
offices in New York, Connecticut, Ohio and California.  The firm
has been directly responsible for the recovery of hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of its clients through the
prosecution of major securities, antitrust and employee retirement
plan class action lawsuits.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, businesses, and other entities
worldwide.


ZAGG INC: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit (1:12-cv-11279) against Zagg Incorporated and
certain of its officers.  The class action (2:12-cv-00852), filed
in United States District Court, District of Utah, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zagg securities between February 28, 2012 and
August 17, 2012, both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sec. 10(b) and
Sec. 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 10b-5 and
14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Zagg securities during the
Class Period, you have until November 5, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or (888) 476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Zagg designs, manufactures and distributes branded protective
coverings, audio accessories and power solutions for consumer
electronic and hand-held devices.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Zagg made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.  Specifically, the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Robert G. Pedersen, the Company's founder and
Chief Executive Officer had placed more than 50% of his Zagg
ownership as collateral on margin, jeopardizing his future with
the Company; (ii) as a result of Pedersen's reckless actions, the
Company began a secret succession plan to replace him; and (iii)
as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Unbeknownst to the Company's shareholders, a "margin call
situation" involving Mr. Pedersen began in December 2011, whereby
Pedersen borrowed substantial amounts of monies using his Zagg
shares as collateral.  Although Mr. Pedersen ultimately resigned
his post as the Company's CEO due to the "margin call situation,"
investors were not informed that Pedersen had pledged Company
stock until after his resignation over eight months later.

On December 21, 2011, Mr. Pedersen sold nearly $2.6 million worth
of Zagg stock.  However, at the time, shareholders were only
informed that Mr. Pedersen sold the stock to "meet an immediate
financial obligation."  In truth, the December 21, 2011 stock sale
was made to meet a margin call.  Moreover, further undisclosed to
investors, Mr. Pedersen had more than a million additional shares
posted as collateral, which were subject to margin calls.
Realizing that Pedersen had recklessly put his position as CEO at
risk at the expense of investors, the Company also at this time
began a succession plan to remove Mr. Pedersen as CEO, and to
appoint Randall Hales as his successor.  This succession plan was
also purposefully hid from investors.

Moreover, on April 27, 2012, the Company filed a definitive proxy
statement on a Schedule 14A.  The Proxy contained the unanimous
recommendation of the Company board of directors that Zagg
shareholders vote in favor of, inter alia, the reelection of all
five of the Company directors, including Mr. Pedersen.  However,
despite the Board's knowledge of Mr. Pedersen's stock pledges, the
Board authorized the filing of the Proxy without including any
reference to Mr. Pedersen's use of Company stock as collateral.
The omission of this information rendered the Proxy materially
false and misleading.

On August 17, 2012, the Company disclosed that Mr. Pedersen had
"stepped down as CEO and Chairman" effective immediately.  It was
later disclosed that Pedersen had resigned after selling 515,000
shares of Zagg common stock on August 14, 2012, at prices ranging
between $8.10 and $8.43, to meet margin calls.

In a conference call held on August 28, 2012, the Company revealed
that Pedersen had sold an additional 1.2 million shares of Zagg
stock to meet margin requirements.  The Company also stated that
Hales had been hired as President and CEO in December 2011, due to
the "margin call situation," and that Hale had been responsible
for "much of the day to day responsibilities" of the Company prior
to Pedersen's resignation.

Immediately following the Company's August 17, 2012 announcement,
Zagg stock declined $1.12 per share or over 13%, to close at $7.30
per share on August 20, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  It has offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.


                           *********

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  * * *