---

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

             Monday, July 25, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 145

                             Headlines

A POCONO COUNTRY PLACE: Property Owners' Suit Wins Certification
APPLE INC: More Than 23,000 Koreans Take Part in Class Action
AT&T: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Fraud Claim in Data Plan Suit
AUTONATION: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
CARROLL ELECTRIC: Coop Members File Class Action Against Board

CITY OF CHICAGO: Sued Over Appointment of Non-Teacher LSC Members
CONAGRA FOODS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Lead in Blood
CONVERT2MEDIA LLC: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing Practices
CYTOSPORT INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Milk Bars
HIGHBEAM RESEARCH: Sued Over "Negative Option Marketing" Scam

INTERNET INITIATIVE: Appeal From Settlement Order Still Pending
LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK: Slow Progress in E-Filing Class Action
LG: Optimus 2X Users File Class Action
MAC PROPERTY: Accused of Violating Landlord Tenant Ordinance
MOSAIC CO: Awaits Approval of Cargill Transaction Suit Settlement

NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Players Association May Recertify
NEWS CORP: Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams Files Class Action
REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Deceives Tire Customers, Suit Says
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Scam Victims Protest Suit's Slow Progress
TARGET CORP: Recalls 13,000 Circo Task Lamps Due to Fire Hazard

TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC: Class Action Over Faxed Ads Pending
THOMAS M. COOLEY: Files Suit Against Class Action Law Firm
WELLPOINT INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action
YAHOO: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
YUM BRANDS: Wage and Hour Suit vs. Taco Bell Still Pending

YUM BRANDS: Trial in RGM vs. Taco Bell Suit to Begin February 2012
YUM BRANDS: Unit Continues to Defend "Whittington" Suit
YUM BRANDS: "Hines" Suit vs. KFC Remains Stayed in California
YUM BRANDS: Phase 2 in "Cole" Arbitration Set for October
YUM BRANDS: "Rosales" Suit Remains Stayed in California

YUM BRANDS: Unit Awaits Dismissal Plea Ruling in "Smith" Suit
YUM BRANDS: Unit to File Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit

* Class Action Law Reform in Canada Burdensome
* Employment Discrimination Cases Hit Record Levels in U.S.




                             *********

A POCONO COUNTRY PLACE: Property Owners' Suit Wins Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Frank, writing for Pocono Record, reports that hundreds of
A Pocono Country Place property owners have won the right to
appeal their tax assessments as a single group.

The Monroe County Board of Assessment Appeals granted class
certification on July 20 to almost 800 unimproved lot owners in
the Coolbaugh Township community to ask for reductions in what
they see as unjust property assessments.

The class action status for undeveloped lot owners will allow them
to appeal their tax assessments for $25 each, a fraction of the
normal cost, which usually runs between $300 to $400.

Attorney Ira Weiner's application for class status for another
3,500 property owners with homes was denied by the board.

Board attorney Mark Love said the law doesn't allow an owner to
appeal the tax assessment on only the land portion of an improved
property.

Mr. Weiner was challenging the assessments of owners he believes
have been over-taxed in light of foreclosures and declining
property values.

Tobyhanna Realtor Jonathan Koszalka testified that A Pocono
Country Place home and property values have crashed.  Asked if the
community were a desirable place to buy a home, he said: "If you
want to buy a $23,000 house.  It's the lowest place to buy a house
in Monroe County.  A modest house in Tannersville you could buy 10
houses (in APCP) for that price."

The average lot at A Pocono Country Place is between 0.2 and 0.3
acres, and the current tax bill for an undeveloped lot there is
$937 for property and school taxes combined, according to
Mr. Koszalka.

Each of the lots in the certified class has been assessed at the
same $5,250 regardless of its sales price or size.

Mr. Weiner will ask participants in the class-action appeal to pay
only the $25 fee required by the assessment board.  He will charge
a contingency fee based on a successful appeal negotiated with the
class once members join.

The tax assessment office will send the 800 qualifying property
owners a class-action hearing notice.  Owners will have 10 days
from the notice to indicate if they are joining the class.

Mr. Koszalka believes APCP property owners are overcharged $20
million in taxes each year.  "It's a sin what's going on," he
said.

Mr. Weiner was the manager of Thrills in Jackson Township, a strip
club that was closed last year due to zoning restrictions after
the township challenged the establishment in court.

"You can thank Judge Vican for these appeals," Mr. Weiner said.
"If he didn't close my club, I wouldn't have the time to do this."


APPLE INC: More Than 23,000 Koreans Take Part in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cho Ji-hyun, writing for Korea Herald, reports that Korea's class
action suit against Apple Inc. is taking shape as a team of
lawyers from the Miraelaw law firm are gearing up to file
thousands of suits together next month.

So far, more than 23,000 people have taken part in the class
action spearheaded by the law firm's 36-year-old lawyer Kim
Hyeong-seok.

Mr. Kim was the first in the country to win a ruling against
Apple.  On June 15, Changwon District Court ordered the global
giant to pay him KRW1 million ($925) for collecting his location
log without consent.  Not making any remarks about the case, Apple
Korea sent the sum to Mr. Kim's account on June 27.

Apple is accused of gathering location data and storing it for up
to a year, even when the location software was switched off.

Apple Inc., however, has denied collecting customers' location-
based information, claiming that the data was not location data of
iPhone owners but a subset of the crowd-sourced wireless Internet
hotspots and cell tower database that is downloaded into the
iPhone.

"What Apple missed here was that there are about 3 million iPhone
owners in Korea who have a lot to say about how it deals with its
clients here but have been keeping their silence for a while,"
said an industry source who wished to remain anonymous.

The crowd -- angered by Apple's after-sales service policy and its
major delay in product delivery -- formed when Mr. Kim made public
last month that he would defend those who are up for the
collective suit against the maker of innovative gadgets such as
the iPhone, iPad and iPod.

To take part in the suit, people must first go through the
identification process on the Web site --
http://www.sueapple.co.kr-- and then each make financial payment
of KRW16,900, which includes the suit filing and lawyer costs.

When logging onto the Web site, it reads, "Finally.  The real
action against Apple.  Now available here."  Each participant is
projected to receive KRW1 million if it rules in favor of the
group.

"We will first accept the complaints of the first group of people
who want to participate in the class-action suit until July 31 and
submit it either to the Seoul Central District Court or the
Changwon District Court," according to Mr. Kim.

Bracing for the lawsuit, which the law firm expects to take up to
one year, it plans to recruit more members by placing two to three
more lawyers on the team, in addition to Kim and Lee Jae-choul of
law firm Miraelaw.

"The collective lawsuit is designed to sound an alarm at Apple
which is continuing to show arrogance over the privacy breach of
local customers and its violation of Korean privacy protection
law," Mr. Kim said in a press conference earlier on July 18.

Apart from the class action, Apple faces another battle as the
Korea Communications Commission plans to announce the details
surrounding its probe on Apple early next month.

A group of officials from the state media regulator visited the
headquarters of the U.S.-based Apple earlier this month after a
months-long debate over the issue.

KCC officials were reportedly unable to find evidence that Apple
saved the personal location information on purpose or that they
had actually used the collected data.  However, they saw that the
information was gathered without getting users' permission.

This means Apple is most likely to receive punishment in the form
of paying a penalty or given a warning for violating the law
following the KCC commissioners' ruling on the case.

"Apple should reconsider its 'mum' policy for it has proven that
it does not to go well with the Korean culture.  (Apple) should
rather speak out about where it stands on customer privacy
protection and customer service than maintaining its current
posture," said another industry source.


AT&T: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Fraud Claim in Data Plan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to dismiss all claims from a class action that says
AT&T's 3G data plan for the Apple iPad was "a classic 'bait and
switch' fraud scheme" that did not allow consumers to change their
service plan.  Apple and AT&T Mobility were sued for fraud, false
advertising and other claims after Apple launched the 3G-enabled
iPad on April 30, 2010, with AT&T as exclusive 3G data provider.

Lead plaintiff Adam Weisblatt said the companies "touted the
availability of an unlimited 3G data plan and the option to switch
in and out of the unlimited data plan, but subsequently withdrew
the unlimited data plan option one month after Apple began selling
the 3G-enabled iPad."

The class claims that if they had known Apple and AT&T would not
allow them to switch in and out of the unlimited plan, they would
not have bought the 3G-enabled iPads, which cost $130 more than
iPads without 3G.

The plaintiffs say they relied on statements Apple CEO Steve Jobs
made during a presentation about the iPad.

"We've got two awesome plans for iPad owners," Mr. Jobs said.
"The first one gives you up to 250 megabytes of data per month . .
. for just $14.99.  And if you feel you need more, we have an
unlimited plan just for $29.99.  So these are real breakthrough
prices," Mr. Jobs said, according to the judge's order.
AT&T sought dismissal for failure state a claim.

But U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte partly denied the motion to
dismiss, finding the plaintiffs were able to allege their fraud
claim "with particularity."

"The court finds that the specific information that [AT&T]
allegedly concealed -- that it would almost immediately be
canceling the unlimited plan and denying customers flexible access
to such a plan, and that this was its intention all along -- is
sufficiently set forth in the [complaint]," Judge Whyte wrote.

Judge Whyte dismissed state law claims brought by Mr. Weisblatt
and two other named plaintiffs because they do not live in
California and bought their iPads elsewhere.

Judge Whyte also found that the plaintiffs did not show they were
entitled to restitution for excess data plan charges, and none of
the plaintiffs actually claimed that they were charged extra for
the data plans.  And Judge Whyte dismissed unfair competition and
false advertising claims.

The plaintiffs asserted seven claims: (1) intentional
misrepresentation; (2) false promise/fraud; (3) negligent
misrepresentation; (4) violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; (5) violation of California's unfair competition
law; (6) violation of California's false advertising law; and (7)
unjust enrichment.

Judge Whyte dismissed claims 4, 5, and 6 without prejudice, and
dismissed claim 7 with prejudice.  He gave them 20 days to amend.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Master Consolidated Complaint
and Denying Defendant's Motion to Strike in In Re Apple and AT&T
iPad Unlimited, Case No. 10-cv-02553 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/20/iPad.pdf


AUTONATION: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
----------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, the California class action attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit
against AutoNation in San Jose, California alleging that the new
and used auto dealer has violated the rights of on-site Sales
Associates under the California Labor Code.  The class action
lawsuit against AutoNation for Labor Code violations was filed in
Santa Clara Superior Court, entitled Lilly v. AutoNation, Case No.
1-11-CV-203569.

The class action complaint filed against AutoNation by the
attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik alleges that the new
and used car dealer unlawfully deducts commissions from the Sales
Associates' wages in violation of the wage and hour laws.  The
complaint asserts that AutoNation would service or repair
previously purchased cars for free, yet proceed to deduct these
costs from the Sales Associates who originally sold said cars.
Such acts would qualify as unlawful deductions of earned sales
commissions and wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The AutoNation Sales Associate class action lawsuit further
alleges that the auto dealer intentionally misclassified the on-
site new and used car Sales Associates as exempt from overtime in
order to avoid wage & hour requirements in violation of California
employment laws.  Specifically, the complaint states, "more than
half the Plaintiff's and the other Sales Representatives'
compensation does not represent commissions on a workweek by
workweek basis as required by the California "inside salesperson"
or "commissioned salesperson" exemption, and they are therefore
not exempt from the requirement that they be paid overtime."

Under California overtime laws, employers are required to pay
employees overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of
eight hours in a single workday or forty hours in a workweek.  In
addition, it is unlawful for an employer to take back any portion
of an employee's wages previously paid to said employee according
to the California Labor Code, including sales commissions so long
as the commissions have been earned by the employees under the
operate agreement.

For more information, visit the AutoNation Sales Associate class
action Web site or call (866) 771-7099.

With its main employment law office located in San Diego County,
the California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik have a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving wages and hours,
overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and
other types of illegal workplace conduct.


CARROLL ELECTRIC: Coop Members File Class Action Against Board
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Lucariello, writing for Carroll County News, reports that
a class action complaint against the Board of Directors and
management of Carroll Electric Cooperative Corporation was filed
July 19 with the Arkansas Public Service Commission.

The complaint was filed by Dane Schumacher and Gordon Watkins, on
behalf of all Carroll Electric members.

The core components of the complaint request declaratory and
injunctive relief, seeking "increased transparency, more
democratic governance, repayment of capital credits, a halt to the
use of herbicides without the landowners' permission and more,"
said Mr. Watkins in an e-mail to the newspaper on July 20.

Although filing the complaint does not require the services of an
attorney, Messrs. Schumacher and Watkins have retained the
services of Bill Ikard, assisted by Jordan Haedicke, of Ikard
Wynne of Austin, TX, as lead counsel and Randall Bynum of Little
Rock as local counsel.

"Bill Ikard and his associates were successful in winning a
similar case against Pedernales Electric Coop in Austin, TX, the
largest coop in the US, resulting in increased transparency,
access to board meetings, payment of capital credits to members,
and criminal indictments against its CEO and others," wrote
Mr. Watkins.

He added that legal recourse was taken after long and serious
consideration and only after "more than three years of efforts to
work with the CE board and management proved futile."

He said members have been repeatedly denied access to board
meetings and minutes, have been denied the right to speak at
members' meetings, and bylaws have been repeatedly changed to
impede member participation and to make it virtually impossible to
gain a seat on the board of directors.

"The property rights of members have been disregarded, with CE's
attorney implying that CE can do whatever they please on easements
across landowners' property.  Members have been denied information
about or access to their investment in the coop (capital
credits)," he wrote.

The complaint lists a number of specifics against Carroll
Electric's practices, including its refusal of "free and
unfettered access to the cooperative's financial, operational and
managerial information" and its "unjust enrichment" of board
members.

Several questions are to be decided, among them, whether Carroll
Electric's defendants "have converted property rightfully
belonging to members," violated its own bylaws and whether Carroll
Electric members are entitled to restitutional and punitive
damages.

Messrs. Schumacher, Watkins and other members of Carroll Electric
expressed frustration earlier this year when petition efforts to
get a member-nominated candidate, Marcie Brewster, on the ballot
for a board position were denied.

The nomination team, upon viewing disqualified signatures, said
Carroll Electric's denial of their validity was inconsistent with
its practices of handling accounts, that it had accepted bill
payments from people who were later denied access to the annual
membership meeting on technicalities.

Attempts to reach Nancy Plagge, Director of Corporate
Communications at Carroll Electric, were unsuccessful as of press
time.


CITY OF CHICAGO: Sued Over Appointment of Non-Teacher LSC Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Teachers Union, Designs for Change, Latino Organization of
the Southwest, Parents United for Responsible Education, Vernon A.
Winstead, Sr., Dwayne Truss, Alex Rhodan, Patricia Zuniga, Latrice
M. Ford, Tammy Flores, Phillis Washington, Valencia Rias-Winstead,
and Barbara Pritchett, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago
and Jean-Claude Brizard, in his official capacity, David Vitale,
in his official capacity, Jesse Ruiz, in his official capacity,
Henry Bienen, in his official capacity, Dr. Mahalia Hines, in her
official capacity, Penny Pritzker, in her official capacity, Rod
Sierra, in his official capacity, and Andrea Zopp, in her official
capacity, Case No. 2011-CH-25344 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
July 19, 2011), alleges that the Defendants violated the Illinois
School Reform Act and the Illinois School Code.

The Plaintiffs allege that despite the clear and mandatory
provisions of the School Code, the Board has held elections that
violate provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statues by appointing
non-teacher employee local school council ("LSC") members outside
of the prescribed timeframe, and by failing to follow the
procedures for nominations.

CTU is a labor organization representing all teachers,
paraprofessionals, and school related personnel in the Chicago
Public School system.  DFC is a non-profit educational research,
advocacy and reform organization.  LOS is a not-for-profit,
community-based organization whose mission is to address economic,
educational, social, and political issues affecting Latino
communities.  PURE is a not-for-profit membership organization and
a nationally-recognized public school parent advocacy group based
in Chicago.  The Individual Plaintiffs are residents of Illinois
and are elected community representatives.

The Board is a body politic and corporate, located in the County
of Cook, Illinois.  Mr. Brizard is the chief executive officer of
the Chicago Public Schools, and the rest of the Individual
Defendants are members of the Board.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elaine K.B. Siegel, Esq.
          ELAINE K.B. SIEGEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          11 East Adams Street, Suite 1401
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 583-9970

               - and -

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861-1800
          E-mail: robin@robinpotter.org


CONAGRA FOODS: Continues to Defend Suit Over Lead in Blood
----------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc., continues to defend itself from a lawsuit
that seeks class-wide relief in the form of medical monitoring for
elevated levels of lead in blood, according to the Company's
July 19, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended May 29, 2011.

In fiscal 1991, the Company acquired Beatrice Company.  As a
result of the acquisition and the significant pre-acquisition
contingencies of the Beatrice businesses and its former
subsidiaries, the Company consolidated post-acquisition financial
statements reflect liabilities associated with the estimated
resolution of these contingencies.  These include various
litigation and environmental proceedings related to businesses
divested by Beatrice prior to its acquisition by the Company.  The
litigation includes lawsuits against a number of lead paint and
pigment manufacturers, including ConAgra Grocery Products and the
Company as alleged successors to W. P. Fuller Co., a lead paint
and pigment manufacturer owned and operated by Beatrice until
1967.  Although decisions favorable to the Company have been
rendered in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, the
Company remains a defendant in active lawsuits in Illinois and
California.  The Illinois lawsuit seeks class-wide relief in the
form of medical monitoring for elevated levels of lead in blood.
In California, a number of cities and counties have joined in a
consolidated action seeking abatement of the alleged public
nuisance.

The Company has had successful outcomes in every case decided to
date and although exposure in the remaining cases is unlikely, it
is reasonably possible.  However, given the range of potential
remedies, the Company says it is not possible to estimate this
exposure.

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


CONVERT2MEDIA LLC: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Lynette Booth, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Convert2Media, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company, and Ralph Ruckman, in his individual capacity, Case No.
2011-CH-25295 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 19, 2011), is
brought based upon the Defendants' unlawful practice of
deceptively marketing to and billing the Plaintiff and similarly-
situated others for their work-at-home products.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' continued utilization of
unlawful and unconscionable marketing practices, and the
continuing practice of charging consumers' credit cards without
authorization constitutes a deceptive act or practice by the
Defendants in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The class action claims Convert2Media and its president Ralph
Ruckman use bogus endorsements to induce people to buy work-at-
home products, then bill their credit cards undisclosed monthly
fees, reports Courthouse News Service.

Ms. Booth is a resident of the state of Illinois.

Convert2Media is an online provider and advertiser of work-at-home
products that are marketed to consumers nationwide.

A copy of the Complaint in Booth v. Convert2Media, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 11CH25295 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/20/Redux.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com


CYTOSPORT INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Milk Bars
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Cytosport pushes its Muscle Milk and Muscle Milk Bars with false
nutritional claims; the class calls the stuff "equivalent to fat-
laden junk food."

A copy of the Complaint in Delacruz v. Ctytosport, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-03532 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/20/Muscle.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Laura Baughman, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 860-0476
          E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  lbaughman@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com


HIGHBEAM RESEARCH: Sued Over "Negative Option Marketing" Scam
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Highbeam Research, The Gale Group and Cengage Learning charge
unwitting consumers for "memberships" or "subscriptions" they
don't want and didn't sign up for, in a scam called "negative
option marketing."

A copy of the Complaint in Bagg, et al. v. Highbeam Research,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-30199 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/20/Internet.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
          CONNOR, MORNEAU & OLIN, LLP
          73 State Street
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 455-1730
          E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com


INTERNET INITIATIVE: Appeal From Settlement Order Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of a settlement in the
consolidated securities law violation suit against Internet
Initiative Japan Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's
July 19, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

In December 2001, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed against the Company, naming
the Company, certain of its officers and directors as defendants,
and underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.
Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other issuers
that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and such actions
have been included in a single coordinated proceeding in the
Southern District of New York.  An amended complaint was filed on
April 24, 2002, alleging, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering violated the
securities laws (i) by failing to disclose in the offering's
registration statement certain alleged compensation arrangements
entered into with the underwriters' clients, such as undisclosed
commissions or tie in agreements to purchase stock in the after
market, and (ii) by engaging in manipulative practices to
artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock in the after
market subsequent to the initial public offering.  On July 15,
2002, the Company joined in an 'omnibus' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint filed by the issuers and individuals named in
the various coordinated cases.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims against it
under Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act due to the
insufficiency of the allegations against the Company.  The motions
to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act were
denied for virtually all of the defendants in the consolidated
cases, including the Company.  In June 2003, the Company
conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter.  In June 2004, a stipulation of partial
settlement was submitted to the court for preliminary approval.
While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants.  The
District Court directed that the litigation proceed with a number
of "focus cases" rather than all of the 310 cases that had been
consolidated.  The Company's case is not one of these focus cases.

On October 13, 2004, the District Court certified the focus cases
as class actions in the ongoing litigation.  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 April 6, 2007, the
Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, and
on May 18, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing en banc.  In light of the Second Circuit
opinion, liaison counsel for all issuer defendants, including the
Company, informed the District Court that the settlement could not
be approved, because the defined settlement class, like the
litigation class, could not be certified.  On June 25, 2007, the
District Court entered an order terminating the proposed
settlement.  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 among
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 Court close the cases.  Notice of
appeal of the opinion granting final approval has been filed.

The Company says there can be no assurance that this proposed
settlement will be upheld on appeal.  Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation and because the settlement remains
subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the matter is
uncertain.


LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK: Slow Progress in E-Filing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah L. Balter at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action against LexisNexis Courtlink and Fulton County is
progressing slowly after this week's scheduling conference at the
DeKalb County Courthouse.

Steven J. Newton and other attorneys represent a group challenging
the legality of the mandatory e-filing system that LexisNexis runs
for the Fulton County court system, and demanding a refund of
unauthorized fees.

Mr. Newton's associate, Shuli L. Green, attended the scheduling
conference this week, along with William Whitner, attorney for
Reed Elsevier-owned LexisNexis Courtlink, and Fulton County
attorney Kaye, W. Burwell.

DeKalb Superior Court Judge Clarence Seeliger presided over the
hearing; called to set a schedule for discovery to determine
whether to certify the class defined by Mr. Newton for the case
first filed in Fulton County Superior Court.

Judge Seeliger is the latest in a series of judges assigned to the
case.  The lawsuit was removed from Fulton County after DeKalb
Superior Court Judge Robert Castellani ordered the recusal of the
entire Fulton County bench.

Judge Castellani assigned the case to Judge Courtney Johnson, who
recused herself without explanation, and Judge Seeliger was
Judge Castellani's next choice.

Since he did not have time to review the filing after Judge
Johnson's unexpected recusal, Judge Seeliger opened the hearing on
July 18 with a request for an explanation of the case before
deciding on Mr. Newton's call for a 120-day discovery period.

Mr. Newton, who represents The Best Jewelry Manufacturing Co. and
Kenneth Clowdus, administrator for the estate of Kenneth Larry
Clowdus, recapped his argument against the mandatory nature of the
Fulton County court e-filing system.

"When the court system administrated this, they were not under
authority to mandate the use of LexisNexis or [else lose] access
to the court," Mr. Newton said.  "You can at your desk pay, or
access a terminal at the courthouse.  It's not free to go to the
court."

"The administrative orders have stepped into the arena of the
General Assembly," he added.  "Setting up a system where you have
to pay a fee without the [approval of] the General Assembly is
ultra vires."

Mr. Newton said judges do not have the power to require e-filing
without the General Assembly's involvement, and that he has no
problem with an optional e-filing system.

In dealing with LexisNexis, Best Jewelry's attorney could not
access the court because of an account-payment issue, Mr. Newton
said.

LexisNexis representative Carol Murphy told attorney Jeffrey Banks
that "if you have an account that is in arrearage, you are
completely locked out of the court system," Mr. Newton continued,
citing a telephone transcript.

LexisNexis attorney William K. Whitner said he was frustrated with
Mr. Newton's repeated attempts to sue.

"I want to make it clear that the defendant Lexis filed the motion
to dismiss," Mr. Whitner said.  "We're now on the eighth
complaint.  We make a move, and then they change it."

He referred to his previous request for dismissal, which
Judge Castellani denied.

Mr. Whitner repeated the primary defense used during that
dismissal attempt, the voluntary-payment doctrine detailed in
Official Code of Georgia Annotated 13-1-13.  "The plaintiffs knew
they were making a payment for a service, and they should be
barred from seeking compensation," Mr. Whitner said, adding that
that argument still applies.

Mr. Whitner also cited the dismissal of the plaintiffs' former
fraud allegation against LexisNexis and Fulton County, which
Mr. Newton voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Mr. Newton rebutted Mr. Whitner's view of the fraud dismissal.

"We had several other arguments in addition to the fraud, and
their motion to dismiss was denied, and they did not appeal it,"
Mr. Newton said. "That doesn't bar our seeking discovery."

The attorneys struggled to summarize a case that has undergone so
many changes.  Plaintiffs' attorney Shuli Green said "it [didn't]
seem appropriate to discuss [the fraud dismissal] while attempting
to get a schedule for discovery."

Judge Seeliger interrupted the attorneys to ask about class
seeking to be certified.  Mr. Newton replied: "Our class is all
past, current and future litigants who have been or will be
subject to the unlawful e-filing scheme and charged unlawful fees
in connection therewith."

NexisLexis charges $7 to $12 per filing, Mr. Newton said.

Mr. Whitner said that 120 days would not be enough for discovery.

Both Mr. Whitner and Ms. Burwell were served with interrogatories
during the hearing, and Mr. Newton acknowledged that the defense
attorneys would need time to form their anticipated objections.

Mr. Whitner gave the attorneys a 15-minute recess to discuss the
next step they wished to take.

The attorneys agreed to ask for a 45-day period during which the
defense will form objections or answer.  Judge Seeliger agreed and
set the date for the next hearing in September.

Ms. Burwell said she anticipates filing a motion on behalf of
Fulton County to dismiss refund claims for the use of the
LexisNexis e-file service.  She said her pursuit of that dismissal
should not hinder the discovery process.

The next hearing is set for 9:30 a.m., on Sept. 21 at the DeKalb
County Courthouse.

This is Mr. Newton's fourth claim against Fulton County and Lexis-
Nexis Courtlink.

The Fulton County Superior Court case was originally filed in
May 2009, then voluntarily dismissed and refiled on Jan. 6.

Mr. Newton filed a similar lawsuit against Lexis-Nexis Courtlink
and Fulton County in federal court.  He filed the original federal
claim in December 2007 but withdrew it in March 2008, then refiled
it in June 2008.

Cathlene "Tina" Robinson and Mark N. Harper, Fulton County
Superior and State Court clerks, were defendants in the federal
case.  That case was dismissed in March.


LG: Optimus 2X Users File Class Action
--------------------------------------
GSMArena.com reports that LG is being sued in California over the
T-Mobile's version of Optimus 2X - the G2x.  It's being accused of
knowing or that LG should have known about the screen bleeding,
the random freezes and unexpected shut downs and other defects,
and doing nothing about it.

The Optimus 2X users are complaining about the power and screen
issues since day one, but LG is still mum on the matter.  And
that's exactly the problem -- LG knows all about the problems and
ignores them.

The complaint is individual but on the behalf of other unsatisfied
LG P999 G2X users that bought the T-Mobiles USA version of the
Optimus 2X for $250.

So, LG is going to court unless it resolves this prior to the
trial.


MAC PROPERTY: Accused of Violating Landlord Tenant Ordinance
------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Miller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MAC Property Management, L.L.C., 5300-5305 S Hyde Park
LLC, and 5120 S Hyde Park LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-25239 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., July 19, 2011), alleges that the Defendants
violated the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance by not
attaching a complete, current summary copy of the RLTO to the
Plaintiff's leases, when the leases were initially offered or
executed.

The Plaintiff also alleges that she did not receive any
consideration in exchange for the purported "move-in fee," which
she paid to the Defendants.

Ms. Miller is a resident of Illinois and, at all times relevant to
this action, a tenant at residential properties owned and managed
by the Defendants.

MAC Property is an Illinois foreign limited liability company,
which was and is the manager of the properties located in South
Hyde Park Boulevard, in Chicago, Illinois.  The Hyde Park
Defendants own the Hyde Park properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Berton N. Ring, Esq.
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 781-0290
          E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com


MOSAIC CO: Awaits Approval of Cargill Transaction Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company is awaiting court approval of its stipulation
settling lawsuits arising from the "Cargill Transaction",
according to the Company's July 19, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended May
31, 2011.

The "Cargill Transaction" were a series of transactions intended
to result in the split-off and orderly distribution of Cargill
Incorporated's approximately 64% equity interest in the Company
through a series of public offerings.

Mosaic, MOS Holdings Inc., GNS Merger Sub LLC, the members of the
Mosaic board of directors and Cargill are named as defendants in
purported class action lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of
Chancery by several Mosaic stockholders: the City of Lakeland
Employees Pension Plan, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System, the Teamsters Local 500 Severance Fund and the
Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association on February 28, 2011,
March 8, 2011, March 8, 2011 and March 15, 2011, respectively.  On
March 9, 2011, the City of Lakeland Employees Pension Plan was
dismissed, and the Operating Engineers Construction Industry and
Miscellaneous Pension Fund was added, as a plaintiff.  The
Stockholder Actions challenge the Cargill Transaction.

On May 25, 2011, the Company consummated the first of the series
of Cargill Transaction.  These transactions included a Merger
between a subsidiary of GNS and MOS Holdings that had the effect
of recapitalizing the Company's prior Common Stock and making GNS
the parent company of MOS Holdings.  Prior to the Merger, GNS was
a wholly owned subsidiary of the company then known as The Mosaic
Company.  In the Merger, all of the outstanding stock of MOS
Holdings was converted, on a one-for-one basis, into GNS stock.
In connection with the Merger, the company formerly known as The
Mosaic Company was renamed MOS Holdings Inc. and GNS was renamed
The Mosaic Company.  Following the Merger, the Company's common
stock continues to trade under the ticker symbol MOS.

Collectively, the Stockholder Actions generally allege that the
Mosaic directors breached their fiduciary duties to Mosaic and its
stockholders by authorizing the Cargill Transaction, that the
Mosaic directors improperly delegated their authority to Cargill
in violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law and in breach
of their fiduciary duties, that the preliminary proxy statement
filed with the SEC in connection with the Cargill Transaction
omitted material information and was materially misleading,
particularly concerning financial advice provided by financial
advisers to the special committee formed by Mosaic's board of
directors to consider the transaction and the ramifications of the
Cargill Transaction to Mosaic's minority stockholders.  The
Stockholder Actions seek, among other things: to enjoin the
defendants from consummating the Cargill Transaction on the
agreed-upon terms; to require the individual defendants to make
full and complete disclosure; to rescind the Cargill Transaction;
to invalidate provisions of the tax agreement that is part of the
Cargill Transaction; rescissory and compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts; and recovery of the costs of the lawsuit.  On
May 10, 2011, Mosaic, MOS Holdings, Merger Sub, the members of the
Company's board of directors and Cargill executed a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement with the plaintiffs in the Stockholder
Actions.  The Stipulation is subject to certain conditions
including approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery.  If the
Settlement is consummated, the Stockholder Actions will be
dismissed with prejudice and the defendants and other released
persons will receive a release of all claims.  The Stipulation was
submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery for approval on
May 10, 2011.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the Delaware Court
of Chancery will approve the settlement.  If the Delaware Court of
Chancery does not approve the settlement, the proposed settlement,
as contemplated by the Stipulation, may be terminated.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Players Association May Recertify
--------------------------------------------------------
Ray Fittipaldo, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
when National Football League players decided to decertify as a
union before they were locked out in March, they did so because it
was necessary to pursue a class-action antitrust lawsuit that
several players, including New England quarterback Tom Brady,
filed against NFL owners.

That decision to disband transformed the former players union into
a trade association, which allowed NFL Players Association
executive director DeMaurice Smith to continue negotiating with
owners.

With agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement between
the two sides close, there is the issue of the players reforming
as a union.  This is almost certain to happen because both parties
believe it is beneficial for them.

Most employers discourage unions from forming, but NFL owners want
a players union because its existence protects the league's long-
standing exemption from federal antitrust law.  Owners need
collective bargaining approval of a union to continue long-
standing practices, such as the drafting of players from the
college ranks.

For players, it has been easier to negotiate with the owners
collectively rather than individually, when it comes to winning
better benefits and compensation.

However, there is precedent for the league operating without a
players union.  The previous time the players decertified, they
did not reform as a union until four years later.

The NFLPA decertified in 1989 in order to win unrestricted free
agency through litigation.  The players union did not reform again
until 1993.

But waiting to recertify this time around does not appear to be an
issue for players.  It's likely to be among the conditions of a
new collective bargaining agreement.

According to local labor attorneys who are not involved in the NFL
negotiations, the process for the players association to recertify
is simple and won't take long.  The easiest way for it to happen
is for the players to ask the owners for voluntary recognition.

Mike Healey, of Downtown law firm Healey and Hornack, and Joseph
Pass, of Jubelirer, Pass and Intrieri, agree this is the likely
course of action because the owners do not want to stand in the
way of the players reforming as a union.

If for some reason the owners don't accept this course, the
players can recertify by petitioning the National Labor Relations
Board.  Thirty percent of players would have to sign authorization
cards, officially petition the NLRB, and finally, hold a secret
ballot.  In that secret ballot, a majority of players would have
to agree to reform the union.

This was the way the players decertified the union last fall.
Even though the NFLPA did not officially decertify until March,
the voting process took place during the season when the
signatures of players could be easily obtained by NFLPA team
representatives.

A source within the NFLPA confirmed on July 15 that reforming as a
union is a simple process.  The most likely scenario, the source
said, is that players' signatures could be obtained at training
camp once the owners lift the lockout and allow the players to
return to work.


NEWS CORP: Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP disclosed that on July 19, 2011
it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 11-
4947) on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of News
Corporation who purchased during the period from March 3, 2011,
through July 11, 2011.  Please call or e-mail Nancy Kaboolian at
1-800-889-3701 or nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com for more
information.

The defendants include: News Corp., Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch
and Rebekah Brooks.  The Complaint alleges that defendants knew or
were reckless in not knowing that, with the knowledge and consent
of their editors, employees at News of the World, a United Kingdom
newspaper run by News International, News Corp's 100% wholly owned
British newspaper division, have been hacking into the cell phone
messages of more than 4,000 people for years.

As has been revealed, News Corp's reporters spared no one from
their desire to get a story including the voicemail of a 13-year-
old murder victim.  The revelation of this illegal activity set
off a furious public backlash worldwide.  Other victims of these
intercepts include members of the Royal Family, actors,
politicians and ordinary citizens who had been victims of high
profile crimes and terrorist attacks.  In addition, allegations
have come out that reporters also tried to pay a New York City
police officer to hack into the phone messages of the American
families and victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The Complaint further alleges that the efforts to conceal and
misrepresent this illegal activity intensified with News Corp's
desire to purchase the remaining 61% of British Sky Broadcasting
Group plc ("BSkyB") a British satellite broadcasting company.  On
July 11, 2011, in a last minute attempt to salvage regulatory
approval of the deal, defendants withdrew its assurances that News
Corp would spin off Sky News into a separate company resulting in
an automatic referral to the British Competition Commission and
avoiding any investigation into whether News Corp would meet the
"fit and proper" test to own all of BSkyB.  On this news, News
Corp.'s shares fell $1.27.  Ultimately, as a result of the growing
phone hacking scandal, News Corp was forced to withdraw its
proposal for BSkyB.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing material misrepresentations to
the market during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating
the price of News Corp securities.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired News Corp securities during the
Class Period.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired News Corp
securities during the Class Period, and either lost money on the
transaction or still hold the securities, you may wish to join in
the action to serve as lead plaintiff.  If you purchased News Corp
securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than
September 18, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiffs."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP has been retained to represent
the Class.  The attorneys at Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP have
extensive experience in securities class action cases, and have
played lead roles in major cases resulting in the recovery of over
one billion dollars for investors.  If you would like to discuss
this action or if you have any questions concerning this Notice or
your rights as a potential class member or lead plaintiff, you may
contact:

          Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          Toll Free: (800) 889-3701
          E-mail: jspanier@abbeyspanier.com
          E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Deceives Tire Customers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Williamson and Ron Ballard, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. The Reinalt-Thomas
Corporation, a Michigan corporation; Discount Tire Co., Inc.,
an Arizona corporation; and Does 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No.
5:11-cv-03548 (N.D. Calif., July 19, 2011), accuses the Defendants
of perpetrating deceptive, unlawful and unfair business practices
in selling tires to consumers.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants illegally
and deceptively bill consumers for undisclosed "disposal fees,"
among other add-on charges, that customers neither bargain for nor
expect to pay at the time of purchasing tires from Defendants.

Mr. Williamson is a resident of Fontana, California, while Mr.
Ballard is a resident of Scottsdale, Arizona.

Reinalt, a Michigan corporation with a principal place of business
in Scottsdale, Arizona, is the largest independent tire retailer
in America, and does business throughout the country using the
trade names and fictitious business names "Discount Tire," and
"America's Tire," in addition to having several subsidiary
companies under which it does business, including Discount Tire.
The Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of
defendants Does 1 to 10 and, therefore, sue these Defendants by
fictitious names.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          THE REIS LAW FIRM, A.P.C.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (714) 352-5200
          Facsimile: (714) 352-5201

               - and -

          Anthony Capobianco, Esq.
          CAPOBIANCO LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77935 Calle Tampico, Suite 101
          La Quinta, CA 92253
          Telephone: (760) 771-8345
          Facsimile: (760) 771-8128


ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Scam Victims Protest Suit's Slow Progress
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison MacGregor, writing for The Gazette, reports that more than
100 of Earl Jones's scam victims and their supporters rallied in
front of a Royal Bank of Canada branch in Beaconsfield on July 16
to protest the slow progress of a C$40-million class-action suit
against the financial institution.

A group of 150 of Jones' investors, many of whom are elderly, are
suing the bank for its alleged "negligence, lack of prudence and
vigilance" and "wistful blindness in facilitating the irregular
and unlawful operation of the Earl Jones in Trust Account."

"We very much want Royal Bank management executives to understand
that we will not be negotiated away," said investor advocate
Kevin Curran in an interview.

In January 2010, Mr. Jones, a former financial adviser, pleaded
guilty to running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of an
estimated C$50 million that he used to pay for his lavish
lifestyle.  He was sentenced to 11 years in jail.

His fraudulent actions included depositing clients' forged cheques
into his personal account at the RBC branch in Beaconsfield.

Mr. Curran, whose mother lost money in the scam, said he was
outraged by the bank's offer to settle with victims for C$12.5
million.

That offer would have translated into about 25 cents on the dollar
or around 15 cents after legal fees for those with a verifiable
financial capital loss claim, Mr. Curran explained.

"Until they give us what is rightfully due to these victims we are
not going to go away," he said.  "Nobody wants this thing to
continue.

"We're not going to make a deal behind closed doors -- and we are
not going to wait for these people to die," he added.

The class action was filed in February 2010, and authorized
July 14, 2010.

The RBC was supposed to present its defense in December 2010 but
delays and objections have stalled the progress of the suit.
Mr. Curran said protesters don't want to go around the court
system.

"What we are suspicious about is a bank that tells us that they
are going to go forward and do the right thing -- and then they
try to negotiate a settlement blaming the victims," he said.

Mr. Curran said victims should get a settlement that represents
exactly what they have lost.

"Why should they settle for anything else?" he asked.  "It's not a
sale at Walmart."  In an interview, RBC spokesperson Raymond
Chouinard said the bank wants to reach an out-of-court settlement
as soon as possible with the class action group.

"We are trying to go further in assessing the damages in the
losses they've encountered," he said.  "We are concerned that
there are lot of people suffering a lot because of this situation.

"Our objective is to have a settlement they will be satisfied
with.  We are confident and optimistic about this."


TARGET CORP: Recalls 13,000 Circo Task Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a
voluntary recall of approximately 13,000 Circo Children's Task
Lamps.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

Lamps may overheat, causing the adhesive inside the lamp socket to
melt and migrate into the bulb area of the socket.  The cooled
glue can adhere to the light bulb base and make the bulb difficult
to remove which can result in a broken light bulb, posing a risk
of laceration to consumers.  Melted flammable glue that migrates
onto the electrical components of the lamp poses a risk of fire.

Target has received six reports of glue on the lamp socket melting
and migrating into the bulb area of the socket.  No injuries have
been reported.

Four styles of the children's task lamp are included in this
recall with the names Striped, Sports, Dot or Flower Dot and have
a label with the UPC number on the bottom.  The lamps in this
recall include:

  Style Name      Style Description                  UPC Number
  ----------      -----------------                  ----------
  Striped         Navy-colored head, with sky      490970221923
                  blue and white stripes and
                  blue lamp base

  Sports          White head, with baseball        490970222685
                  stitch pattern and blue lamp
                  base

  Dot             White head, with lines of        490970224047
                  multicolored dots and lavender
                  lamp base

  Flower Dot      Pink head, with pattern of       490970221947
                  white flowers and leaves and
                  pink lamp base

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11279.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide and Target.com from
January 2011, to April 2011, for about $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lamps and return them
to any Target store to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Target Guest Relations at (800) 440-0680
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/


TAYLORVILLE CHIROPRACTIC: Class Action Over Faxed Ads Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that there has been no action in two years in a 2009 class action
filed by a Wood River electric company that has led a number of
class actions over faxed advertisements.

The last action in a 2009 suit filed by Locklear Electric against
the Taylorville Chiropractic Clinic occurred in June 2009.

Locklear filed the suit alleging the defendant violated federal
laws concerning faxed advertisements.  The plaintiff claims
unwanted, illegal faxes cost it and other class members money in
the form of paper, ink and other office supplies.

The suit is one of a number of faxed advertisement class actions
Locklear has led.

Locklear won a default judgment in another 2008 suit filed against
American Business Lending and Christopher Parks over the ads.

Although Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian had been
set to enter damages in the American Business Lending case, no
judgment has been entered as yet, according to the case's docket
sheet.

Attorney Robert Sprague and others represent Locklear in the
Taylorville case where Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth
presides.

Attorney Lanny Darr represents the company in the 2008 case.

No attorneys are listed for the defendants in either case.

The Taylorville suit case is Madison case number 09-L-606.

The American Business lending suit is Madison case number 08-L-
1131.


THOMAS M. COOLEY: Files Suit Against Class Action Law Firm
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Thomas M. Cooley School of Law is not sitting idly by as a New
York law firm seeks potential plaintiffs for a class action
against the school.

Lawyers for the law school filed a complaint on July 14 against
Kurzon Strauss, claiming the firm defamed it in online posts
advertising a potential class action.  That action stemmed from
what Kurzon Strauss has called as the school's "blatant"
manipulation of graduate employment and salary data.

Thomas Cooley filed a separate suit against four anonymous
bloggers who have posted unflattering comments about it online.

"With ethics and professionalism at the core of our law school's
values, we cannot -- and will not -- sit back and let anyone
circulate defamatory statements about Cooley or the choices our
students and alumni made to seek their law degree here,"
Brent Danielson, chairman of Cooley's board of directors, said in
a prepared statement.

Kurzon Strauss attorney David Anziska said his firm has not
crossed any legal lines.

"This is the most ridiculous, absurd lawsuit filed in recent
history," he said one day after the suit was filed in Michigan
state court.  "We fully intend to countersue and hold accountable
both Thomas Cooley and their lawyers at [Miller, Canfield, Paddock
and Stone] for abusing the legal system with their blatantly
idiotic lawsuit."

Mr. Anziska said that Thomas Cooley is trying to intimidate
potential plaintiffs.

"Everyone has the right to state an opinion about Cooley, online
or elsewhere," said Associate Dean for Legal Affairs and General
Counsel James Thelen.  "But our lawsuits contend that these
defendants have crossed the line both legally and ethically,
smearing our reputation with blatantly false and often vulgar
statements that they attempt to spread as broadly as possible."

In its complaint against Kurzon Strauss, Cooley argued that the
firm falsely reported in a post on the law school-focused Web site
JD Underground that its graduates have a loan default rate of 41%.
The school's last officially calculated default rate actually was
2.2%, the administration said.  Additionally, school officials
said they have followed all the employment and salary reporting
requirements set by the American Bar Association and the National
Association for Law Placement.

The suit against Kurzon Strauss includes one count each of
defamation, tortuous interference with business relations, breach
of contract and portraying the school in a false light.  The
school is seeking more than $25,000 in damages.

In the second suit, Thomas Cooley took aim at four anonymous
Internet posters, one of whom created a blog called Thomas M.
Cooley Law School Scam under the name Rockstar05.

"[Rockstar05] made the false and defamatory statements concerning
Cooley for the purpose of convincing Cooley students to leave
Cooley and to convince prospective Cooley students not to
apply/enroll at Cooley," the complaint said.

The suit also named two anonymous people who posted comments on
the Thomas M. Cooley Law School Scam blog, as well as a fourth
anonymous commenter who posted criticism of the school on the
Huffington Post Web site.

The day after the law school filed its suits, a poster under the
Rockstar05 handle said on JD Underground Web site that the blog
post was merely a personal reflection of his or her experience at
Cooley.

"Is a $25,000 lawsuit necessary to vindicate my 'damage' to Cooley
by expressing my opinions regarding it?" the poster wrote.

Thomas Cooley is not the only law school facing legal action.
Thomas Jefferson School of Law was sued in May by an unemployed
2008 graduate who alleged the school committed fraud by
misrepresenting employment statistics for recent graduates.  The
California firm representing her, Miller Barondess, has a Web site
soliciting potential class members.


WELLPOINT INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Joseph Goedert, writing for HDM Breaking News, reports that
according to HealthCareInfoSecurity.com, health insurer WellPoint
Inc. would provide 600,000 individuals "potentially" affected by a
data breach two years of paid credit monitoring and identity theft
protection services, and another five years protection to any
individuals found to be a victim of identity theft or loss because
of the breach, according to a preliminary class action settlement.

The settlement, under which out-of-pocket reimbursements for
losses would be capped at $1,500, is in addition to a recent
settlement of a lawsuit that Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller
filed on behalf of 32,051 individuals in his state.

WellPoint agreed to the larger class action settlement, for which
the Orange County, Calif., Superior Court has granted preliminary
approval, even though the company has since determined the breach
affected only Indiana individuals.  In the Indiana settlement,
which included a $100,000 fine and other provisions, WellPoint
admitted to its failure to properly notify Zoeller as required
under state law.


YAHOO: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, an investor-rights class-action law firm, reminded
investors of the August 8, 2011, deadline to move to be Lead
Plaintiff in the class action involving Yahoo's failure to
disclose the transfer of Alipay when it learned the news by at
least March 31, 2011.

Investors who traded in Yahoo's securities between the dates of
April 19, 2011, and March 13, 2011, are encouraged to contact the
Hagens Berman legal team via e-mail at Yahoo@hbsslaw.com

Partner Reed R. Kathrein is leading the firm's investigation from
its San Francisco office and can be reached by phone at 510-725-
3000.  Additional information is also available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/yahoo

The firm is continuing to investigate Yahoo after the company
failed, by April 19, 2011, to inform investors that Alibaba, a
company in which Yahoo had purchased a 43% share in 2005, had
shifted its e-commerce system, Alipay, to another private company
without Yahoo's authorization.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleges that Yahoo failed to
inform investors of the transfer, thereby inflating the stock
price of Yahoo stock in violation of the securities laws.  Yahoo
reportedly admitted that it was informed by March 31, 2011, of the
transfer of Alipay.  Yet, the company did not mention the transfer
in its April 19, 2011, quarterly earnings announcement and did not
inform its investors of the change until on or about May 13, 2011.

Yahoo stock traded for as much as $18.64 during the class period,
and has since traded as low as $14.42.

Hagens Berman is investigating exactly what Yahoo's management
knew on March 31, 2011, and why it failed to disclose the transfer
when it made positive statements about its business.  Persons with
knowledge of the surrounding facts are encouraged to contact
Hagens Berman partner Reed R. Kathrein.

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm with offices
in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles, Minneapolis,
New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.  Founded in
1993, the firm represents plaintiffs in class actions and multi-
state, large-scale litigation that seek to protect the rights of
investors, consumers, workers and whistleblowers.


YUM BRANDS: Wage and Hour Suit vs. Taco Bell Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A court decision on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
a consolidated wage and hour lawsuit against a unit of Yum!
Brands, Inc., as well as the unit's a motion to stay proceedings,
are pending, according to the Company's July 19, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 11, 2011.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of Section 17200 of the
California Business & Professions Code.  Plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act and statutory "waiting
time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair
Business Practices Act.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a California
state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010, the court approved the
parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
December 30, 2010.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to
amend their class action complaint and to include an additional
named plaintiff.  The court denied the motion to amend but granted
the motion to add an additional plaintiff.  The class
certification hearing took place on June 6, 2011.  At that
hearing, the court indicated it would deny certification as to the
vacation claims.  The court's ruling on class certification with
respect to the remaining claims is pending.  Taco Bell also filed,
at the invitation of the court, a motion to stay the proceedings
until the California Supreme Court rules on two cases concerning
meal and rest breaks.  That motion is also pending.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Trial in RGM vs. Taco Bell Suit to Begin February 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled to begin on February 6, 2012, in the
consolidated class action lawsuit against a unit of Yum! Brands,
Inc. pending in San Diego, California, according to the Company's
July 19, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 11, 2011.

On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in
Orange County Superior Court.  On August 7, 2006, another putative
class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.
was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.  Both lawsuits were
filed by a Taco Bell Restaurant General Manager ("RGM") purporting
to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California since August 2002.  The lawsuits
allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving
unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified
amounts in damages and penalties.  The cases were consolidated in
San Diego County as of September 7, 2006.

On January 29, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of
RGMs and Market Training Managers but denied class certification
on the meal period claims.  The court has ruled that this case
will be tried to the bench rather than a jury.  That trial is
scheduled to begin on February 6, 2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  The Company has provided for
a reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit.  However, in
view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no
assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of
those currently provided for in the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements.


YUM BRANDS: Unit Continues to Defend "Whittington" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A Yum! Brands, Inc. subsidiary continues to defend itself from a
putative class action lawsuit commenced by Jacquelyn Whittington
against in Colorado, according to the Company's July 19, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 11, 2011.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours in a day.  The Company has been dismissed
from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its answer on
September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery,
which is currently on-going.  Taco Bell moved to compel
arbitration of certain employees in the Colorado class.  The court
denied the motion as premature because no class has yet been
certified.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: "Hines" Suit vs. KFC Remains Stayed in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit commenced by Domonique Hines
against a subsidiary of Yum! Brands, Inc. remains stayed,
according to the Company's July 19, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 11, 2011.

On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique
Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state
court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging
various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal
break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff is a former non-managerial
KFC restaurant employee.  KFC filed an answer on October 28, 2009,
in which it denied plaintiff's claims and allegations.  KFC
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on October 29, 2009.  Plaintiff
filed a motion for class certification on May 20, 2010, and KFC
filed a brief in opposition.  On October 22, 2010, the District
Court granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the meal
and rest break claims, but denied the motion to certify a class
regarding alleged off-the-clock work.  On November 1, 2010, KFC
filed a motion requesting a stay of the case pending a decision
from the California Supreme Court regarding the applicable
standard for employer provision of meal and rest breaks.
Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on November 19, 2010.
On January 14, 2011, the District Court granted KFC's motion and
stayed the entire action pending a decision from the California
Supreme Court.  No trial date has been set.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot be
predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any potential
loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

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


YUM BRANDS: Phase 2 in "Cole" Arbitration Set for October
---------------------------------------------------------
Phase two of the arbitration in the proceeding against Yum!
Brands, Inc.'s Long John Silver restaurant in Tennessee has been
set for early October 2011, according to the Company's July 19,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 11, 2011.

On November 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former Long John Silver's
("LJS") restaurant manager, filed a collective action against LJS
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and
assistant restaurant managers.  Mr. Johnson alleged that LJS
violated the FLSA by perpetrating a policy and practice of seeking
monetary restitution from LJS employees, including Restaurant
General Managers ("RGMs") and Assistant Restaurant General
Managers ("ARGMs"), when monetary or property losses occurred due
to knowing and willful violations of LJS policies that resulted in
losses of company funds or property, and that LJS had thus
improperly classified its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime
pay under the FLSA.  Mr. Johnson sought overtime pay, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees for himself and his proposed class.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of
Mr. Johnson's lawsuit.  The district court granted LJS's motion on
June 7, 2004, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On December 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Mr. Johnson's
claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and Nick
Kaufman, represented by Mr. Johnson's counsel, initiated
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association.  The Cole
Claimants sought a collective arbitration on behalf of the same
putative class as alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the
same underlying claims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued a
Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute Resolution
Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on a collective
or class basis.  LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate the Clause
Construction Award in federal district court in South Carolina.
On September 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be certified in the
Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather than as an "opt-in"
collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On January 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to
vacate the Class Determination Award and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision on January 28, 2008.  A petition for a writ of certiorari
filed in the United States Supreme Court seeking a review of the
Fourth Circuit's decision was denied on October 7, 2008.

An arbitration hearing on liability with respect to the alleged
restitution policy and practice for the period beginning in late
1998 through early 2002 concluded in June 2010.  On October 11,
2010, the arbitrator issued a partial interim award for the first
phase of the three-phase arbitration finding that, for the period
from late 1998 to early 2002, LJS had a policy and practice of
making impermissible deductions from the salaries of its RGMs and
ARGMs.  Phase two of the arbitration has been scheduled for early
October 2011.  Phase three, which would address damages, has not
been scheduled.

Based on the rulings issued to date in this matter, the Cole
Arbitration is proceeding as an "opt-out" class action, rather
than as an "opt-in" collective action.  LJS denies liability and
is vigorously defending the claims in the Cole Arbitration.  The
Company has provided for a reasonable estimate of the cost of the
Cole Arbitration, taking into account a number of factors,
including its current projection of eligible claims, the estimated
amount of each eligible claim, the estimated claim recovery rate,
the estimated legal fees incurred by Claimants and a reasonable
settlement value of Claimants' claims.  However, in light of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the fact-specific nature of
Claimants' claims, and the novelty of proceeding in an FLSA
lawsuit on an "opt-out" basis, there can be no assurance that the
Cole Arbitration will not result in losses in excess of those
currently provided for in the Company's Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements.


YUM BRANDS: "Rosales" Suit Remains Stayed in California
-------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action commenced by Marisela Rosales against
Yum! Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary remains stayed, according to the
Company's July 19, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 11, 2011.

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.  Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or
transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The state court granted Taco
Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010, and the
matter remains stayed in Orange County Superior Court.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Unit Awaits Dismissal Plea Ruling in "Smith" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss an amended complaint in the lawsuit filed by Mark Smith,
according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s July 19, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 11, 2011.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleges that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado state law.  On
January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but, in
addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserts state-law class
action claims under the laws of 16 different states.  Pizza Hut
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs
sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.  On August 9,
2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.  Pizza Hut
has filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
The court has yet to rule on Pizza Hut's motion.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of these cases
cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of any
potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM BRANDS: Unit to File Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell intends to file a motion to decertify the class in the
lawsuit filed by Moeller, et al., in light of a recent ruling
issued by the United States Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s July 19, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 11, 2011.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the
"Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the
"CDPA").  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the
District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its
implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco
Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.  Plaintiffs, on
behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per
offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class.  Plaintiffs contend
that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a
definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant
to be the subject of a trial.  The exemplar trial for that
restaurant began on June 6, 2011.  The trial was bifurcated and
the first stage addressed whether violations existed at the
restaurant.  Twelve alleged violations of the ADA and state law
were tried.  The trial ended on June 16, 2011, and the court
indicated that it would find Taco Bell liable but did not indicate
on which alleged violations it would find for plaintiffs or the
basis for liability.  The court has not issued a ruling.  The
court set an exemplar trial for damages on the single restaurant
for December 12, 2011.  Taco Bell will have the opportunity to
renew its motion for summary judgment on those issues and the
opportunity to move to decertify the class.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its
ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.  The Supreme Court held
that the class in that case was improperly certified.  The same
legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case and
Taco Bell intends to file a motion to decertify the class.  During
the exemplar trial, the court observed that the restaurant had
been in full compliance with all laws since March 2010, and Taco
Bell intends to argue that, in light of the decision in the Dukes
case, no damages class can be certified and that injunctive relief
is not appropriate, regardless of class status.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws.  The costs associated with addressing
these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results
of operations.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary
damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.


* Class Action Law Reform in Canada Burdensome
----------------------------------------------
Allison Martell, writing for Reuters, reports that a Canadian law
designed to make it easier to bring class action suits against
companies that mislead investors has all sides frustrated as it
faces its first real-world tests.

Changes to the Ontario Securities Act that came into effect in
late 2005 eliminated an arduous requirement that shareholders
prove they relied on faulty disclosures when they invested on the
secondary market.

But the reform added the requirement that a judge must rule that
each class action has a reasonable chance of success before it
moves on to trial.  This is known as a leave requirement and is
unique in Canadian law.

"Corporate Canada demanded a leave requirement in order to protect
itself from frivolous litigation," said Dimitri Lascaris of
Siskinds LLP.  "What they got was something that not only imposes
significant burden on plaintiffs, but also imposes a significant
burden on them.  It's costly to both sides."

Mr. Lascaris is lead counsel for the plaintiffs in both of the
first two cases approved for trial since the reform was enacted.
Time is running out for the second case as the company under fire,
Arctic Glacier Income Fund, said that it may default on its credit
agreements.

Defense lawyers worry that judges set too low a bar in approving
the first suits considered.  But the case of Arctic Glacier shows
the time spent arguing for leave to go to trial may be a
significant problem for shareholders seeking compensation from
struggling firms.

GLACIAL PACE

Arctic Glacier has struggled since 2008, when it said its U.S.
operating subsidiary, Arctic Glacier International Inc., was being
investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In 2009, the ice supplier pleaded guilty to conspiring with
competitors to divide up the market in part of Michigan, and
agreed to pay a $9 million fine.  It has since agreed to
multimillion-dollar settlements with purchasers in both the United
States and Canada.

Siskinds filed the class action suit against Arctic Glacier in
September 2008, alleging that the company had misrepresented
itself as a "good corporate citizen".

A judge gave the class action leave to continue to trial this
March, but the defense will ask in September for permission to
appeal that decision.  It will almost certainly be years before
the case comes to trial.

The first case, against Imax Corp., has moved at a similarly
sluggish pace since Siskinds filed in September 2006.  The class
action, alleging that the company overstated its 2005 revenues,
was granted leave in December 2009, but Imax's request for an
appeal was not turned down until February 2011.  The case may be
another two years coming to trial.

More than 20 similar class actions have been filed under the new
law, according to a January report from NERA Economic Consulting.
Nine have been settled, but the majority were still awaiting leave
to go to trial, NERA said.

DETERRING FRIVOLOUS SUITS

The leave requirement was meant to keep shareholder class actions,
previously rare in Canada, from rising to U.S. heights.

But Mr. Lascaris said plaintiffs already risk having to pay
opponents' legal costs, something that is almost unheard of in the
U.S. context, and the leave requirement simply slows a process
that is already time-consuming.

Cristie Ford, a law professor and securities regulation expert at
the University of British Columbia, disagreed.

"I think the leave requirement is a great thing, and I think the
cap on damages is a great thing too," she said, noting that U.S.
companies often settle frivolous class actions to avoid legal
costs.

Eric Hoaken, part of the defense team for the Arctic Glacier case,
said only a fraction of defendants' costs are covered, but cases
decided so far show the leave requirement isn't working as a
deterrent either.

"If what the framers of the legislation had in mind was that the
leave test was going to be a meaningful obstacle that would screen
out cases, there's no indication in the two cases that have
decided leave so far that that's going to happen," he said.

The two cases with leave to continue to trial are Silver v. Imax
Corp (2011 ONSC 1035) and Dobbie v. Arctic Glacier Income Fund
(2011 ONSC 25).


* Employment Discrimination Cases Hit Record Levels in U.S.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lane, writing for ThomasNet News, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court recently threw out a massive class-action sex-
discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart.  The decision came a few
months after job-bias claims were reported to have hit a record
high in 2010.

The number of job-bias claims has risen steadily over the past few
years, with an unprecedented 99,922 claims filed in fiscal year
2010, according to recent data from the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  While some observers
attribute the higher numbers to the recession and other economic
pressures faced by workers, others note that workers are becoming
more aware of their rights and more confident in standing up for
them.

Last year's rise, representing a 7.1% gain over 2009 claims,
comprises job-bias claims regarding race, sex, age, disability and
national origin discrimination, as well as claims filed under
"retaliation" and the Equal Pay Act.  Retaliation, wherein an
employer punishes an employee who seeks assistance internally or
with the EEOC about possible discrimination, led as the main cause
for suits, with 36,258 cases filed.

Retaliation was followed by racial (35,890 cases), sex (29,029
cases) and disability (25,165 cases) discrimination.  The EEOC
also reported 23,264 age-discrimination claims filed and 3,790
allegations based on religion.  Because some cases are filed
citing multiple instances of various types of discrimination, the
number of total cases filed is less than the sum of the different
case types listed.

With nearly 100,000 private-sector workplace discrimination
charges in 2010, observers disagree on the cause of the rise in
complaints.

Michael Burkhardt, a lawyer who works for employers, does not
think discrimination is running rampant.  "I think it's an
overstatement to assume there has been in increase in
discrimination in the workplace," Mr. Burkhardt told The Wall
Street Journal, noting that a portion of discrimination cases
found to have reasonable cause has remained at about 5% for
several years.

Joe Trauger, vice president of HR policy for the National
Association of Manufacturers (NAM), links the high number of
claims to economic problems, telling the Journal, "Anytime we go
into a recession or the economy gets a little shaky, the numbers
seem to spike a bit."

The EEOC itself has also undergone changes that might have
contributed to the higher number of claims.  The agency has a
bigger budget and more staff, and has overhauled its Web site,
helping workers better understand their rights.

"People are better informed of their rights these days,"
employment attorney Audrey Mross said in a Dallas Business Journal
report.  "Information is more readily available, and the EEOC
Web site and its counterparts are extremely user-friendly."

Additionally, the 2008 alterations to the Americans with
Disabilities Act have helped discrimination victims bring suits
against employers alleged to have exercised bias against them.
"The EEOC has identified disability as being a protected category
that they want to put new emphasis on," Ms. Mross explained.

The most high-profile employee discrimination case of the year was
recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Called "one of the
most important class action cases in generations," Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. v. Dukes was the largest class action suit in U.S. history,
claiming that the retail giant's policies and practices had led to
countless discriminatory decisions over pay and promotions, and
seeking billions of dollars on behalf of more than 1.5 million
female workers.

Late last month, the Court sided with Wal-Mart, ruling in a 5-4
decision that the case could not continue as a class action suit
based on the plaintiffs' varied circumstances and Wal-Mart's lack
of uniform policy.

Justice Antonin Scalia observed that Wal-Mart had a policy against
having uniform employment practices, delegating many hiring and
promotion policies to local managers, the New York Times explains.
Due to this variance, the case for a class action suit was
dismissed.

On the other hand, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, "The
practice of delegating to supervisors large discretion to make
personnel decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long
been known to have the potential to produce disparate effects,"
and this lack of uniformity added to the bias experienced by the
plaintiffs.

Unhappy with the ruling, some of the plaintiffs are trying to
pursue other routes to hold Wal-Mart accountable to what they
consider discrimination.  "We may try to formulate one or more
smaller classes consistent with the ruling, where we have
substantial evidence of a policy of discrimination," plaintiff
attorney Joe Sellers told MarketWatch.

While the ruling disappoints employee rights activists, its
technical implications primarily affect the way class action
lawsuits may be filed in the future.

Lawyer Gerald Maatman, Jr., told MarketWatch that in class action
lawsuits in the future, "a representative class can get on the
stand and tell their story, and it's the same story for everyone,"
or the class action will be barred.


                            *********

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, Joy A. Agravante, 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  * * *