/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110621.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 21, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 121


AUTOZONE INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Violations Suits
BAYER CORP: Federal Courts Err in Blocking Class Certification
BIG LOTS: Recalls 30T Futon Bunk Beds due to Entrapment Hazard
BURLINGTON COAT: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for June 27
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on "Morefield" Suit Dismissal Bid
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Sued Over Securities Law Violation in Virginia
DESJARDINS FIN'L: May Face Class Action Over Investment Products
ERIE INSURANCE: Explanation Sought on Class Action Certification
FELTEX: Shareholder Class Action Expected to Proceed

GOLDMAN SACHS: Slater & Gordon to File Investor Class Action
GT SOLAR: New Hampshire Court Approves Class Action Settlement
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime
MOUNT REAL: Fraud Victims Seek Class Action Go-Ahead
PHC INC: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With Acadia

SAMSUNG: Oct. 6 Fairness Hearing Set for SRAM Settlement
STANLEY CHESLEY: Faces Disbarment Over $20MM Fen-Phen Settlement
SUBAYE INC: Accused of Violating Securities Laws in New York
TARGET CORP: October Status Conference Set for Class Action
WILLIS-KNIGHTON: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed


AUTOZONE INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Violations Suits
Autozone, Inc., is involved in various other legal proceedings
incidental to the conduct of its business, including several
lawsuits containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried employees
who allege various wage and hour violations and unlawful
termination practices.  The Company does not currently believe
that, in the aggregate, these matters will result in liabilities
material to the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

No details nor further updates were reported in the Company's
June 15, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 7, 2011.

BAYER CORP: Federal Courts Err in Blocking Class Certification
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a
unanimous Supreme Court ruling on June 16 held that the federal
courts overstepped their authority in blocking a state court from
considering a motion to certify a class action over the link
betweeen Bayer's cholesterol-reducing drug Baycol and a
potentially fatal muscle disorder.

The District of Minnesota had made the bold move in blocking a
West Virginia state court from granting class certification to
Keith Smith and Shirley Sperlazza in their lawsuit against Bayer,
finding that the parties were trying to relitigate a previously
decided issue.

Though the federal court had not previously heard Mr. Smith and
Ms. Sperlazza's case, it had heard a similar case brought by
different individuals against Bayer.

George McCollins had brought state-law breach-of-warranty claims
against Bayer in the Circuit Court of Cabell County, W.Va., in
August 2001.

That same month that Mr. McCollins filed suit over allegedly
defective Baycol medication, Bayer withdrew that prescription drug
from the market amid reports that it had caused 31 deaths.

Mr. Smith and Ms. Sperlazza sued over Baycol the following month
in West Virginia's Brooke County Circuit Court.

Eventually, Mr. McCollins' case was transferred to West Virginia's
Southern District Court and then to the District of Minnesota for
multidistrict litigation proceedings since "tens of thousands" of
cases had been brought over Baycol.  Mr. Smith and Ms. Sperlazza's
case remained in Brooke County, however, because the lawsuit named
several West Virginia defendants in addition to Bayer, which
foreclosed complete diversity jurisdiction.

As the cases advanced with neither party knowing about the others'
suit, they presented motions for class certification in 2008.  The
federal judge tasked with Mr. McCollins' case made his decision
first, denying certification for West Virginia purchasers since
each plaintiff would lack commonality over several issued and
would have to prove Baycol use caused them "actual injury."

Mr. McCollins also lost on the merits and did not appeal.
Claiming that Mr. McCollins' case was identical to that of
Mr. Smith and Ms. Sperlazzza, Bayer asked the Minnesota federal
judge to enjoin the West Virginia state court from hearing the
pair's motion for class certification.

The District Court agreed, and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

On June 16, the Supreme Court said that the courts erred on two
grounds with respect to the Anti-Injunction Act's relitigation
exception in granting such an order.

"First, the issue presented in the state court was not identical
to the one decided in the federal tribunal," Justice Elena Kagan
wrote for the court.  "And second, the plaintiff in the state
court did not have the requisite connection to the federal suit to
be bound by the District Court's judgment."

Justice Clarence Thomas joined in all but the majority's second

Though both the federal and state actions had sought to certify
classes of Baycol purchasers in West Virginia, Justice Kagan said
a critical question still remained.

"The District Court ruled that the proposed class did not meet the
requirements of Federal Rule 23 (because individualized issues
would predominate over common ones)," Justice Kagan wrote
(parentheses in original.  "But the state court was poised to
consider whether the proposed class satisfied West Virginia Rule
23.  If those two legal standards differ . . . -- then the federal
court resolved an issue not before the state court."

Even though the statutes are identically worded, the federal court
erred in ending its consideration there.

"Federal and state courts, after all, can and do apply identically
worded procedural provisions in widely varying ways,"
Justice Kagan wrote.  "If a State's procedural provision tracks
the language of a Federal Rule, but a state court interprets that
provision in a manner federal courts have not, then the state
court is using a different standard and thus deciding a different

A copy of the Opinion of the Court in Smith, et al. v. Bayer
Corp., Case No. 09-cv-01205 (U.S.), is available at:


BIG LOTS: Recalls 30T Futon Bunk Beds due to Entrapment Hazard
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, is voluntarily recalling about 30,000
metal futon bunk beds.

Children behind the futon or in the ladder area of the bunk bed
can get entrapped when the futon and its metal frame are lowered
from the seated to the flat position.  This is what happened to a
three-year old Burlington, Iowa boy who died when he became
entrapped at the head and neck in the recalled bunk bed in March
of 2010.  The weight of the futon's metal frame prevented the
child from breathing and escaping.  CPR was administered, but the
child died at the hospital due to compression asphyxiation.

The bunk beds have an additional hazard.  The space between the
last rung on the bunk bed's ladder and the futon mattress is too
small, which can allow a child's body to pass through, but not the
head, posing a head and neck entrapment hazard.

The metal futon bunk beds have an upper bunk designed to hold a
twin mattress.  The bottom bunks have a convertible futon bed.

A picture of the recalled products is available at:


The recall involves metal futon bunk beds with model number
BFB1008 located on a label on the upper bunk support rail.  The
recalled metal futon bunk beds were sold exclusively by Big Lots
stores nationwide from January 2009 through April 2010 for about
$200.  They were sold unassembled, and were manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately stop using these bunk beds and
contact Big Lots for a free repair kit that contains new ladders
and other parts that consumers can install at home.  For
additional information, contact Big Lots toll-free at (866) 244-
5687 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, e-mail the firm at talk2us@biglots.com or visit the firm's
Web site http://www.biglots.com/

BURLINGTON COAT: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for June 27
The Court will convene a hearing on June 27, 2011, to consider
final approval of Burlington Coat Factory Investments Holdings,
Inc.'s agreement to settle the "Vang" Suit, according to the
Company's June 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit, entitled May Vang, and all others
similarly situated, v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Case No. 09-CV-08061-CAS, was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California on September 17, 2009, and was
amended and refiled on November 16, 2009, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California - Western Division.
The named plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of all
current, former, and future employees in the United States and the
State of California for the relevant statutory time period.  The
amended complaint asserts claims for failure to pay all earned
hourly wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure
to pay all earned hourly wages in violation of the California
Labor Code, providing compensatory time off in lieu of overtime
pay, forfeiture of vacation pay, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, secret payment of lower wages than that required by
statute or contract, failure to provide accurate, written wage
statements, and unfair competition.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class with respect to the FLSA claims,
certification of a class with respect to California law claims,
appointment of class counsel and class representative, civil
penalties, statutory penalties, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, actual damages, liquidated damages, restitution, pre-
judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees.

On March 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California - Western Division granted preliminary
approval to a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company
will pay class members an immaterial amount in settlement of
claims on a class basis.  The court rescheduled a hearing for
final approval on June 27, 2011.  This settlement is included in
the Company's $6.9 million legal reserve.

CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeals From Settlement Order Remain Pending
Appeals from a court opinion granting final approval of a
settlement in a consolidated class action lawsuit against Capstone
Turbine Corporation remain pending, according to the Company's
June 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

In December 2001, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its then
officers, and the underwriters of its initial public offering.
The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
June 28, 2000, to December 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed
on April 19, 2002.  The plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses
for the Company's June 28, 2000 initial public offering and
November 16, 2000 secondary offering were false and misleading in
violation of the applicable securities laws because the
prospectuses failed to disclose the underwriter defendants'
alleged agreement to allocate stock in these offerings to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  Similar complaints have
been filed against hundreds of other issuers that have had initial
public offerings since 1998; the complaints have been consolidated
into an action captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 21 MC 92.  On October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs
dismissed, without prejudice, the claims against the named
officers and directors in the action against the Company, pursuant
to the terms of Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreements
entered into with the plaintiffs.  Subsequent addenda to the
Tolling Agreements extended the tolling period through August 27,
2010.  The District Court directed that the litigation proceed
within a number of "focus cases" and on October 13, 2004, the
District Court certified the focus cases as class actions.  The
Company's case is not one of these focus cases.  The underwriter
defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District
Court's class certification decision.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended complaints against the six focus cases and on September
27, 2007, again moved for class certification.  On November 12,
2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases moved to
dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints.
On March 26, 2008, the District Court denied the motions to
dismiss except as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs
who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial
offering price and those who purchased outside the previously
certified class period.  The motion for class certification was
withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008.  On April 2,
2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement between the
plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was
submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval.  The
District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on
June 10, 2009.  The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on
September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court
entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and
directing that the Clerk of the District Court close these
actions.  On August 26, 2010, based on the expiration of the
tolling period stated in the Tolling Agreements, the plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Termination of Tolling Agreement and
Recommencement of Litigation against the named officers and
directors.  The plaintiffs stated to the District Court that they
do not intend to take any further action against the named
officers and directors at this time.  Appeals of the opinion
granting final approval have been filed.  Because of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation and because the settlement remains
subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the matter is
uncertain.  Management believes that the outcome of this
litigation will not have a material adverse impact on the
consolidated financial position and results of operations.

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Ruling on "Morefield" Suit Dismissal Bid
Computer Sciences Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Shirley
Morefield, according to the Company's June 15, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended April 1, 2011.

On May 29, 2009, a class action lawsuit entitled Shirley Morefield
vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case # A-09-591338-C,
was brought in state court in Clark County, Nevada, against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors
asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to
stock option backdating.  The alleged factual basis for the claims
is the same as that which was alleged in a prior derivative case,
In re CSC Shareholder Derivative Litigation, CV 06-5288, filed in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, which was dismissed on August
9, 2007, by such court.  This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by
the Ninth Circuit, which judgment is final. The defendants in the
Morefield case deny the allegations in the complaint.  On June 30,
2009, the Company removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 2:09-cv-1176-KJD-GWF.
On motion made by the plaintiffs, the District Court remanded the
case to state court on February 18, 2010.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and plaintiffs filed their
opposition on June 14, 2010.  A hearing took place on August 18,
2010.  A decision is pending.

The Company says it is not possible to make a reasonable estimate
of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from
this matter at this time.

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Sued Over Securities Law Violation in Virginia
Computer Sciences Corporation is facing two putative federal class
action lawsuits in Virginia alleging violations of federal
securities laws, according to the Company's June 15, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended April 1, 2011.

On June 3, 2011, a putative federal class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System,
entitled City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (Civil Docket for Case #:
1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD).  A similar putative federal class action
complaint, entitled Murphy v. Computer Sciences, et al. (Civil
Docket for Case #: 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD) was filed on June 13,
2011, in the same court.  Each complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the business and
operations of the Company.  Each complaint names as defendants
Computer Sciences Corporation, Michael W. Laphen, the Company's
chairman, president and chief executive officer, and Michael J.
Mancuso, the Company's vice president and chief financial officer.
The defendants deny the allegations made in the complaints and
intend to defend their position vigorously.

DESJARDINS FIN'L: May Face Class Action Over Investment Products
Jean-Paul Dupuis and Francis Tremblay are among the thousands of
investors who bought, from Desjardins Financial Security, Life
Insurance Company, investment products called Strategic Index Plus
and Tactical Index Plus.

Although publicized as very secure and low risk products,
Desjardins' investment strategies involved high leverage with the
result that during the fall of 2008 Desjardins Financial Security
was forced to liquidate that part of the funds dedicated to
producing returns on these investments.

As a result, the investors haven't received any returns since
2008.  Many are stuck with maturity dates ranging up to July 1,
2016, which means that some investors will have received no
returns for a period ranging up to eight years.

Messrs. Dupuis and Tremblay have now filed a class action against
Desjardins Financial Security seeking the reimbursement of the
funds invested plus interest and damages.

This class action concerns all persons who held, on December 31,
2008, investment products Strategic Index Plus or Tactical Index
Plus issued by Desjardins Financial Security.

All concerned persons may, if they wish, provide their relevant
information by completing the form that can be obtained by
consulting Messrs. Jean-Paul Dupuis and Francis Tremblay's
lawyers' Web site at http://www.paquettegadler.com

ERIE INSURANCE: Explanation Sought on Class Action Certification
Steve Korris, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
Jackson Circuit Judge David Nibert must explain why he certified a
class action of car crash victims against Erie Insurance, the
Supreme Court of Appeals says.

Finding Judge Nibert "did not conduct the thorough class action
analysis contemplated by our prior opinions," the Justices
directed him to prepare a new order in a June 14 ruling.

They wrote that it "should be detailed and specific in showing the
rule basis for the certification and the relevant facts supporting
the legal conclusions."

They wrote that conclusory summations aren't sufficient to confer
class status.

Plaintiffs Tamara and Richard Hardman claim Erie should have paid
the limit of the family policy on the death of daughter Emily in

Erie would apply a $20,000 limit in their coverage for under
insured motorists.

The Hardmans had rejected a form offering to change the under
insured coverage in 2003, but they told Judge Nibert the form
didn't constitute a reasonable offer.

Upon learning that others had rejected the form, they moved to
certify a class action.

Judge Nibert granted it last November, finding they could
represent all injured persons with under insured coverage who
didn't receive benefits at least equal to liability limits.

He set the class period to start in 1998.

Erie sought a writ of prohibition at the Supreme Court of Appeals,
and the Justices granted it.

They wrote that they previously recognized the availability of
extraordinary relief in similar matters.

They quoted a decision from 1982 that, "Writs of prohibition offer
a procedure preferable to an appeal for challenging an improvident
award of class standing."

FELTEX: Shareholder Class Action Expected to Proceed
Marta Steeman, writing for BusinessDay.co.nz, reports that the
class action by shareholders of failed carpet maker Feltex against
directors and promoters of a share offering will continue when
$200,000 is produced as security for costs.

Justice French in the High Court released her reserved judgment on
three inter-connected applications that included the plaintiff's
request to lift a stay of proceedings.

The judgment was delayed by the February quake in Christchurch,
and an interim judgment was issued on March 9 stating the key
rulings but without reasons.  The latest installment, dated
June 8, provided those reasons.

Included in the applications were the defendants' requests to
strike out certain aspects of the plaintiff's amended statement of
claims and their request for security of costs.  The plaintiff is
Eric Houghton on behalf of 1800 shareholders joining the legal

The defendants are the seven directors of Feltex when the company
was floated on the NZX in June 2004, and the promoters and sellers
of the shares.  Several thousand investors bought $250 million of
shares at $1.70 each.

The class action's main claims are a breach of the Fair Trading
Act and a breach of the Securities Act against all defendants.
The plaintiff is seeking that each qualifying shareholder be
refunded the purchase price of the shares, interest and costs.

Justice French ruled that the plaintiff's application to lift the
interim stay was granted subject to plaintiff or Joint Action
Funding Ltd making provisions for security of costs of $200,000.

Joint Action Funding is a company set up by merchant banker
Tony Gavigan, a driving force in the litigation.  The judgment
says his approach to an Australian litigation funder, IMF, was

Joint Action Funding said it had $250,000 for security of costs
but not funding for the whole case.  However, Mr. Gavigan said he
was in "promising negotiations" with solicitors in Melbourne,
funders in London and a New Zealand-based insurer.

Justice French said the defendants claimed Mr. Gavigan was
unreliable and painted him as "something of a maverick" but "I
decided the preferable course of action was to lift the stay and
allow the claim to continue pending the outcome of the
negotiations with prospective funders".

The judgment said the plaintiff's evidence lacked precision but
the overall impression was that it would be unjust to prevent the
claim from continuing because the court was satisfied there were
serious questions to be tried.

GOLDMAN SACHS: Slater & Gordon to File Investor Class Action
Leonie Lamont, writing for BusinessDay, reports that Slater &
Gordon has signaled it is three months away from filing a class
action against investment bank and broker Goldman Sachs JBWere
over a hybrid financial product sold to high-net-worth investors
in 2007.

Backed by Litigation Lending Services, Slater & Gordon placed
newspaper advertisements on June 16 asking former clients of the
bank to contact it if they had lost money in "buy below the market
(BBM)" multiple exercise options.

Van Moulis, of Slater & Gordon, confirmed to BusinessDay on
June 16 that since the company raised the prospect of a class
action a year ago, sufficient people had registered to allow it to

"The loss suffered by individuals is quite extraordinary, anything
up to close to $1 million," he said.  "This product wasn't
marketed by Goldman Sachs to retail investors.  They made an in-
house decision only to market it to high-net-worth, otherwise
quite sophisticated, business people."

The BBM product, marketed as a tool to hedge against downside risk
in equities, has already had a court airing.  Greg Bundy, the
former head of Merrill Lynch, took action against Goldman Sachs in
2008, seeking a court order that the BBM agreement was
unenforceable, after he incurred a loss of $900,000 and was unable
to terminate the agreement to cut his losses.

He claimed misleading and deceptive conduct, saying he had been
told by the broker he could "break the trade".  Goldman Sachs
demanded more than $5.7 million in compensation for terminating
the trades, and in a settlement in April this year, Mr. Bundy
agreed to pay $2.2 million.

The class action will allege Goldman Sachs breached provisions of
the ASIC Act relating to exercising due skill in rendering
financial services, and misleading and deceptive conduct.  It also
claims a breach of fiduciary duty arising from the broker-client

Goldman Sachs declined to comment.

GT SOLAR: New Hampshire Court Approves Class Action Settlement
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on June 16 disclosed that the
United States District Court of New Hampshire approved a proposed
class action settlement that could benefit certain purchasers of
common stock of GT Solar International, Inc.

Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-00312-JL



YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that this Class Action is pending and that
a settlement of it for Ten Million Five-Hundred Thousand Dollars
($10,500,000) has been proposed.  A hearing will be held before
the Honorable Joseph N. Laplante in the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, 55 Pleasant Street,
Concord, New Hampshire, 03301, at 10:00 a.m., on September 27,
2011 to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and any case contribution award to
Plaintiffs should be approved; and (3) the claims against all
Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.

FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing and
Proof of Claim and Release form you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting:

    GT Solar Securities Litigation
    c/o Strategic Claims Services
    P.O. Box 230
    600 North Jackson Street - Suite 3
    Media, PA 19063
    Telephone: (866) 274-4004
    Facsimile: (610) 565-7985
    or at http://www.strategicclaims.net

Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and Proof
of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:

    Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
    Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
    S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
    West Tower, Suite 500
    Washington, DC 20005
    Telephone: (202) 408-4600
    E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim
no later than November 9, 2011.  As more fully described in the
Notice, the deadline for submitting objections to the Settlement
and requests for exclusions from the Class is September 13, 2011;
they must be received by this date.

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services,
at the address listed above.  Please do not contact the Court.


CONTACT: Strategic Claims Services (610) 565-9202 Fax: (610) 565-
7985 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3 Media, PA 19063

HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime
Courthouse News Service reports that Home Depot misclassifies
assistant store managers as "executives" to stiff them for
overtime, 110 workers and former workers claim in Federal Court.

Another 75 people filed a similar complaint in Camden, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Ambrosino, et al. v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-99999 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          455 Capitol Mall, Suite 231
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 492-1100
          E-mail: mjt@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
          32 E. 57th, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

MOUNT REAL: Fraud Victims Seek Class Action Go-Ahead
Global Saskatoon reports that more than 200 fraud victims showed
up at the Montreal court house on June 16 hoping to get the go-
ahead for a class action lawsuit.

Georges Gravino and his family lost their life savings.

"My whole family's [lost] about C$1 million . . . It's sad," he

Roughly 1,600 victims lost a total of C$130 million.

Like many, Janet Watson trusted her investor.

"I lost the money that was in my RRSP, around C$68,000," said
Ms. Watson.  "I had invested with a trusted financial advisor.  He
was a family friend, and we lost it all."

Lino Matteo was the man behind Mount Real, the investment firm
responsible for the massive Ponzi scheme.

The scam first surfaced six years ago.

Mount Real operated out of a Ville-Emard duplex.

Lawyers argue that credible banking institutions and accounting
firms who oversaw the transactions should have clued in.

"If they had done their job the public wouldn't have been swindled
the way that they were," said Montreal lawyer Bruce Johnston.

Mr. Matteo is facing a long list of charges by the Authorite des
Marches Financiers.

But victims are outraged that there are still no criminal charges
in the case.

"I was interviewed by the RCMP three years ago and we never heard
what came out of it," Nicolas Gravino said.

But lawyers are convinced Mr. Matteo didn't act alone.

Over the next few days, representatives from the large accounting
firms targeted in this case will take the stand to likely claim
they had no knowledge of this Ponzi scheme.

But that's an argument the victims' lawyer doesn't buy.

"That may come out that some members were being paid to not see
what they should be seeing," said Mr. Johnston.

Victims are hoping for compensation.

"It's all the money you put aside for your pension, your later
days," said Antonia Gravino.

And while the 42-year-old still has time to rebuild her pension
-- it's her parents she's most worried about.

'I saved money all my life for my wife, we lost it all.  It's
degrading and nothing is being done about it," her father,
Georges, said.

If the judge accepts to hear the case -- it could still take years
in court.

Instead, many are hoping the defendants will agree to settle out
of court, like they did in the Norbourg case.

PHC INC: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With Acadia
PHC, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit in Massachusetts in
connection with its proposed merger with Acadia Healthcare
Company, Inc., according to the Company's June 14, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 2, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County
of Essex by MAZ Partners LP, an alleged stockholder of PHC, Inc.
(MAZ Partners v. Bruce A. Shear, et al., C.A. No. 11-1041).  The
Complaint names as defendants PHC, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation, each member of PHC's board of directors, Acadia
Healthcare Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Acadia
Merger Sub, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Acadia.  The Complaint is a purported class
action that alleges, among other things, that (i) the Individual
Defendants have breached fiduciary duties they owed to PHC's
stockholders in connection with the proposed transaction described
in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 23, 2011, by
and among PHC, Acadia and Merger Sub; (ii) that Acadia and Merger
Sub have aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duties; and (iii) that the Merger process was unfair and the
Merger consideration is inadequate.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an injunction against the consummation of the

PHC believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.

SAMSUNG: Oct. 6 Fairness Hearing Set for SRAM Settlement
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP on June 16 issued a statement
regarding the SRAM class action settlement pursuant to an order of
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Oakland Division:

If You Bought Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Between
November 1, 1996, to December 31, 2006, Class Action Lawsuits and
Settlements May Affect You

SRAM is used in many computers, smart phones, PDAs and other
electronic devices.

A federal court certified a nationwide settlement class of
individuals and companies that purchased SRAM indirectly from one
or more Defendants.  Defendants are corporations that indirectly
sold SRAM to customers in the United States.  The case is In Re
Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:07-
md-1819 CW in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

What is the Class Action About?

Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize prices of SRAM in violation of antitrust,
unfair competition and unjust enrichment laws, resulting in
overcharges to customers who indirectly purchased SRAM.
Defendants deny that they did anything wrong.  The court has not
decided who is right.  Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
and Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corp. have agreed to settle
with Plaintiffs; they continue to deny liability, but settled to
avoid litigation expense and risk.

Who's Included?

You are a member of the Settlement Class and could get benefits if
you indirectly purchased SRAM from one of the Defendants in the
United States during the period November 1, 1996 through
December 31, 2006.  SRAM is a memory part or module that is sold
by itself or as a part in electronic devices.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay a total of $15,900,000.
Copies of the Settlement Agreements are available at

In 2010, the Court approved settlements with other defendants that
total $25,422,000; those settlements are now final and binding on
the Settlement Class.

How Will the Money Be Distributed?

The total Settlement Fund from all settlements is $41,322,000.
The Settlement Class includes indirect purchasers of SRAM that
resold Defendants' SRAM, as well as indirect purchasers of
Defendants' SRAM that purchased it for their own use and not for
resale.  The Net Settlement Fund (the Settlement Fund minus court-
approved costs, attorneys' fees and incentive awards), will be
distributed as follows: (1) 36.7% of the Net Settlement Fund will
be distributed to qualified Resellers through a court-approved
claims process; and (2) 63.3% of the Net Settlement Fund will be
distributed via a court-approved cy pres plan to non-profit
charities for the benefit of End Users.  The cy pres portion of
the distribution plan is due to the high cost of processing claims
and making direct cash distributions to many thousands of
potential claimants relative to the average likely award to those
claimants.  Under the cy pres plan of distribution, payments will
not be made to individual class members; instead, that portion of
the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to court-approved non-
profit charities.  Go to http://www.indirectsramcase.comto see
the distribution plan details or the proposed list of non-profit
charities.  Unclaimed funds from the Reseller claims process, if
any, will be added to the cy pres distribution.  Class Counsel
will request attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of the
Settlement Fund, reimbursement of their costs and expenses, and
incentive payments for the court-appointed class representatives.
The attorneys' fees application shall be filed by August 1, 2011,
and will be posted on the case Web site.

Who Represents You?

The Court has appointed Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP as Class
Counsel.  You do not have to pay these lawyers to represent you.
You may hire your own attorney, if you wish; however, you will be
responsible for your own attorney's fees and expenses.

What Are Your Options?

If you do not want to be a part of the Settlement Class or legally
bound by the Samsung and Cypress settlements, you must exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class.  You may not exclude yourself
from the 2010 Settlements.  To exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you must do so in writing, postmarked no later
than August 25, 2011.

The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for October 6, 2011 and
will consider whether to approve the proposed settlements,
distribution plan and requests for attorneys' fees, costs and
incentive payments.  This date may change without further notice.
Any new hearing date or time will be posted on the website below.

You may object to or comment on any part of the proposed
settlement.  Your objection/comment must be filed with the Court
by August 25, 2011.  You may also request in writing to speak at
the Final Approval Hearing.

If you are a Reseller and want to make a claim, or for more
information, you may 1) write to SRAM Indirect Litigation, P.O.
Box 8090, San Rafael, CA 94912, 2) call the toll free phone number
1-866-252-7551, or 3) visit http://www.indirectsramcase.com

STANLEY CHESLEY: Faces Disbarment Over $20MM Fen-Phen Settlement
Jim Hannah and Dan Horn, writing for The Cincinnati Enquirer,
report that Stan Chesley is facing disbarment unless he can
convince the Kentucky Supreme Court later this summer that he did
not violate ethics rules and should be allowed to keep his law
license.  The state bar association's board of governors
recommended his disbarment last week.

The Honorable William L. Graham, Trial Commissioner of the Supreme
Court of Kentucky, issued a report on February 22, 2011, in
connection with the proceeding captioned Kentucky Bar Association
vs. Stanley M. Chesley, (Ky. Sup. Ct.), charging Mr. Chesley with
violating three provisions of Kentucky's Rules of Professional
Conduct with respect to his collection of in excess of $20 million
in fees in the lawsuit, Darla Guard, et al., or Jonetta Moore, et
al. vs. A.H. Robins Company, et al.

The Guard case was filed in Boone Circuit Court as Civil Action
Number 98-CI-759 in 1998.  The Guard case was certified as a class
action complaint on behalf of individual named plaintiffs and "all
those similarly situated" in Kentucky, who claimed injury from
certain diet drugs commonly referred to as the fen-phen drugs.
Counsel of record in the Guard case were William Gallion, Shirley
Cunningham and Melbourne Mills.

Messrs. Cunningham and Mills, primarily through advertising, had
signed up hundreds of potential clients for the tort claims
against the manufacturer of the fen-phen drugs, American Home
Products and Dr. Rex Duff, who prescribed the drugs in Kentucky.
Mr. Gallion was brought in as a litigator, who would prepare the
case and try it.  Mr. Helmers was his associate.  In 2001, the
lawyers entered into a $200 million settlement on behalf of 440
people.  The attorneys' fees in the Guard case totaled 49% of the
$200 million settlement funds.  Mr. Chesley got $20 million for
his work.

Judge Graham called the fees collected by the lawyers "grossly

"The greed evidenced by the plaintiffs' attorneys in this [Guard]
case is astounding, and Chesley, although his avarice may not be
as breathtaking as that of Cunningham, Gallion and Mills, is
culpable of unethical conduct under this rule," Judge Graham wrote
in the Trial Commissioner Report, citing Rule 3.130-1.5(a) of the
Supreme Court Rules, which provides that a lawyer's fee should be

According to the Trial Commissioner Report, Mr. Chesley was
involved in, and at many points primarily orchestrating, the
attempts of his co-counsel to conceal their fraud relating to
their fees from the Guard Settlement.  The Report adds that Mr.
Chesley took more than $7 million in fees beyond his contractual
agreement with his co-counsel, and these fees came not from the
portions allotted to his co-counsel, but from the Guard clients

Mr. Chesley's greed may not be as eye-popping as that of his co-
counsel, Messrs. Gallion and Cunningham, but it is no less
egregious, Judge Graham opined.  Judge Graham pointed out that Mr.
Chesley's callous subordination of the interests of his clients to
his own greed is both shocking and reprehensible, and his actions
justify a permanent disbarment from the Kentucky Bar Association.
Judge Graham also held that Mr. Chesley should disgorge the
$7,555,000 excess fees, which he received in the Guard case, which
sum should be provided as restitution to his clients.

A full-text copy of the Trial Commissioner Report is available for
free at http://bankrupt.com/misc/Chesley_Report_02222011.pdf

Messrs. Cunningham, Mills, Gallion and Helmers also have been
subject to disciplinary cases in connection with their handling of
the Guard settlement.  According to The Cincinnati Enquirer,
Messrs. Gallion and Cunningham Jr. were convicted of fraud and
sent to federal prison.  Mr. Helmers is facing a possible five-
year suspension of his law license.  Mr. Mills Jr. was acquitted
after his lawyer argued he was too drunk during the settlement to
participate in the fraud.

The Enquirer also reports that the Boone County judge who oversaw
the case, Joseph "Jay" Bamberger, resigned over his handling of
the case and now faces possible disbarment.

According to The Enquirer, within the next three months, Mr.
Chesley must make his last stand at the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The Enquirer says it won't be easy, noting that the Supreme Court
has imposed permanent disbarment every time it was recommended.

Mr. Chesley also faces disbarment in the state of Ohio, the other
state where he is licensed.  The Enquirer notes Ohio has a
reciprocal agreement that allows for the same discipline,
regardless of where the misconduct occurred.

The Enquirer says Mr. Chesley also could lose the right to
practice in federal court, where he does most of his litigation
and where his wife, Susan Dlott, is the chief judge of U.S.
District Court in Cincinnati.

The Enquirer relates Mr. Chesley, 75, is one of the nation's top
lawyers, and a courtroom legend, pioneering the use of class-
action lawsuits.  The report notes Mr. Chesley is currently a
lawyer of record in at least 17 cases in federal courts across
seven states, including lawsuits against Fortune 500 companies
such as General Electric and Coca-Cola.

SUBAYE INC: Accused of Violating Securities Laws in New York
Subaye, Inc., was notified on June 10, 2011, that it had been
served with a lawsuit seeking certification by the Court as a
"Class Action," according to the Company's June 15, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York, alleging certain violations of the
securities laws in connection with the Company's filings with the
SEC.  The Company denies any such violations or liability and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

TARGET CORP: October Status Conference Set for Class Action
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that an October status conference is set in a 2008 immune
supplement class action brought against Target Corporation.

St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson set the case
brought by lead plaintiff Brian Buehlhorn either June 13 or
March 13.

The order setting the Oct. 3 status conference contains
conflicting date information.

While the order's file stamp reads June 13, 2011, a handwritten
date above St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson's
signature indicates the judge signed the order March 16.  The
handwriting appears to be the same as Judge Gleeson's signature.

The action marks the first order in the case entered since
Brian Kreisler joined Mr. Buehlhorn's legal team earlier this

Mr. Buehlhorn proposes to lead a multi-state class of customers
who bought Target's version of the immune system supplement

Mr. Buehlhorn claims he and other class members in California,
Minnesota and other states were deceived about the effectiveness
of the Target supplement.

The suit is one of a number of immune supplement class actions
brought in St. Clair County in 2008.

All of the cases were filed by the team of Paul Weiss, Richard
Burke and Kevin Hoerner.

At least one of those cases, led by Iean Finley against CVS
Pharmacies Inc. remains pending in a St. Clair County courtroom.

The Oct. 3 status conference is set to start at 9 a.m.

Target is represented by:

         Robert J. Bassett, Esq.
         Bank of America Tower
         100 North Broadway, 21st Floor
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Telephone: (314) 345-5034
         E-mail: rbassett@wvslaw.com

The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-667.

WILLIS-KNIGHTON: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
Melody Brumble, writing for Shreveporttimes, reports that a Caddo
Parish judge has ruled a potential class action lawsuit against
Willis-Knighton Health System can proceed.

The lawsuit, filed in October on behalf of five former patients,
alleges the health system failed to check the credentials of
Shreveport neurosurgeon Dr. Ravish Patwardhan before granting
hospital privileges.  The lawsuit also alleges the health system
failed to investigate or act on nurses' concerns about the speed
with which Dr. Patwardhan performed surgery.  Dr. Patwardhan is
not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Dr. Patwardhan operates the independent Comprehensive Neurosurgery
Network but performed surgery at Willis-Knighton hospitals in
Shreveport with health system approval.

Willis-Knighton will ask the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal and, if
needed, the Louisiana Supreme Court to review the ruling, said
Pete Dazzio, one of the attorneys representing Willis-Knighton.

Dr. Patwardhan in September signed a consent agreement with the
Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners and gave up his right to
practice surgery pending an investigation by the board.  He
retains his state-issued general medical license.

Attorneys representing Willis-Knighton moved to have the lawsuit
thrown out, arguing that claims in the suit fall under Louisiana's
Medical Malpractice Act.  However, Judge Leon Emanuel III ruled
against their arguments June 10 after weighing written analyses
and oral arguments for nearly four months.

Judge Emanuel did not rule on whether the lawsuit could receive
class action status.  He hasn't set a date for a hearing on that

The next step in the lawsuit is discovery requests for records and
depositions with hospital officials, said John Hammons, a
Shreveport lawyer representing some of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Hammons also is among attorneys representing patients who have
filed individual malpractice complaints against Dr. Patwardhan.
Those are handled through a medical review panel convened by the
Louisiana Patients Compensation Fund and not the court system.
Those complaints are pending.

"This is a frivolous case and I will continue to fight for my
practice and my patients until the light of the truth exposes this
process and John Hammons for who he is really is," Dr. Patwardhan
said in a written statement.


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A.
Agravante, Ronald Sy, Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug,
Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *