/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120530.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 30, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 106 Headlines CHINA-BIOTICS INC: Gainey & McKenna, Egleston File Class Action CHINACAST EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action CVS CAREMARK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Georgia FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Initial Public Offering FACEBOOK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California FACEBOOK INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in New York FACEBOOK INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York FACEBOOK INC: Pomerantz Firms Files Securities Class Action FACEBOOK INC: Klafter Olsen & Lesser Files Class Action in N.Y. FACEBOOK INC: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in California FACEBOOK INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action in New York FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Settles Class Action Over Fetus Disposal JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Defective Mesh NETFLIX INC: Defends 3 Shareholder Class Suits in California NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharges MDL Still Pending in D.C. NORTHWEST PIPE: Discovery Halts in Consolidated Securities Suit NVR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Pay OI SA: Awaits Court's Initial Decision in Class Suit vs. TNL OI SA: Continues to Defend 66 Customer Service Centers Suits ORCHARD SUPPLY: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaits Ruling on ERISA Suit Dismissal Bid QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Limits NJLAD Application to N.J. Workers QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Defends Female Sales Representatives' Suit QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Still Awaits Order on NID Suit Dismissal Bid REPUBLIC SERVICES: $29.5-Mil. Livingston Suit Deal Now Final SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Still Awaits Okay of Consolidated Suit Deal SWISHER HYGIENE: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Class Action TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Headlight Assemblies TOYS "R" US: Appeals From Consumer Suit Settlement Order Pending TWININGS NORTH: Sued Over Mislabeled and Misbranded Tea Products UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Frequent Flyer Program VERMILLION INC: Board Member Defends Securities Suit in Texas XCEL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of 2nd "Comer" Suit ********* CHINA-BIOTICS INC: Gainey & McKenna, Egleston File Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm on May 25 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of China-Biotics, Inc. between February 9, 2011 and July 1, 2011, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 25, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. of Gainey & McKenna at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of the Egleston Law Firm at (212) 683-3400, or via e-mail at egleston@gme-law.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Company fabricated (i) a false sales contract; (ii) a false bank website; and (iii) a false bank advice in furtherance of its scheme to fraudulently create the appearance of having achieved a 50% growth in 2011 revenue. As a result of the dissemination of the materially false and misleading information and failure to disclose material facts, the market price of China-Biotics common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. CHINACAST EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 26 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the stock of ChinaCast Education Corporation between February 14, 2011 and April 2, 2012, inclusive. To join the ChinaCast class action, visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The action filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending in the District Court for Central District of California. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER. The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against ChinaCast and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company's true financial and business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges ChinaCast issued materially false and misleading financial statements during the Class Period because of undisclosed material weaknesses in the Company's internal controls and the alleged wrongful transfer of $120 million in cash by CEO Chan from bank accounts of ChinaCast's subsidiaries. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 25, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CVS CAREMARK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Mack v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al., Case No. 12-cv-01808 (N.D. Ga.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/25/CVS.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC 3525 Piedmont Road 7 Piedmont Center 3rd Floor Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 254-0842 E-mail: aw@andrewweinerlaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Initial Public Offering ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Spatz and Sanjay Israni v. Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham, Reed Hastings, Peter A. Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Allen & Company LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., BBC Capital Markets, LLC, and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv- 02662 (N.D. Calif., May 23, 2012) relates that the initial public offering of Facebook was slotted to raise over $16 billion and was predicted to be the most important market event in recent history generating tremendous enthusiasm. What transpired, however, has proven to be an additional blemish on Wall Street's already damaged reputation and provided more evidence that investment banks and their issuer clients are apt to favor hedge funds and other large clients over retail customers, the Plaintiffs allege. Indeed, they contend, it now appears that contrary to early reports, Facebook's poor debut was not the function of an efficient market settling on an appropriate valuation for the stock. They add that Facebook's steady decline from its offering price was a function of large, favored investors having been tipped off during the "road show" that analysts employed by the lead underwriters for the deal slashed internal revenue forecasts for the Company. The Plaintiffs are shareholders of Facebook. Facebook, a Delaware corporation, operates a social networking Web site that allows people to communicate and share information with friends and family. Facebook also develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital, Allen & Company, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, RBC Capital and Wells Fargo are the underwriters of the Company's IPO. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Patrick H. Moran, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com moran@whafh.com - and - Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Robert B. Weintraub, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: nespole@whafh.com weintraub@whafh.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (312) 984-0001 E-mail: levitt@whafh.com - and - Marc S. Henzel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL 431 Montgomery Ave., Suite B Merion Station, PA 19066 E-mail: Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, along with the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Facebook, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering. In its May 18, 2012 IPO, Facebook floated over 421 million shares of its common stock to the public at a price of $38 per share on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol "FB." Under the terms of the offering, Facebook sold 180,000,000 shares of Class A common stock and selling stockholders sold 241,233,615 shares of Class A common stock. In total, the IPO raised $16 billion for the Company and the selling stockholders. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Facebook common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO. This is a federal securities class action and is brought by Plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Defendants. The IPO was marketed through the public issuance of the Registration Statement and Prospectus prior to the IPO, as well as through numerous "road shows" that senior Facebook executives attended along with the IPO's underwriters. The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents contained material misstatements and material omissions concerning the investment risks of buying Facebook shares. The Prospectus, for example, discussed that the number of active users of Facebook was increasing at a greater rate than the number of ads delivered was increasing, but failed to materially disclose that Facebook's revenue and revenue growth rate would be lower than the estimates that were originally disclosed and forecasted. Prior to the Company's IPO, Underwriter Defendants in this action were privately lowering their estimates of the Company's revenues and revenues growth rate, while at the same time, the Company and Underwriter Defendants were public upwardly revising the projected IPO price to the effective price of $38 per share. Underwriter Defendants only disclosed their materially lowered estimates privately to select major clients and hedge funds who were potential investors in the IPO, but did not disclose their lowered estimates to the investing public at large. The Facebook IPO went public on May 18, 2012 at $38 per share, and only a few minutes later reached a high of $45 per share. On May 22, 2012, as reports of the materially lowered revenue estimates filtered out to the public through Reuters and other media outlets, the price of Facebook shares declined to close at only $31 per share. Had Plaintiffs and the members of the Class known the facts not disclosed in the Offering Documents, they would not have purchased their Facebook shares or would have purchased them only at substantially reduced prices. As the IPO proceeded, the Company raised billions of dollars which it would not have been able to raise if the Offering Documents had not contained material misstatements and material omissions. For their part, the Underwriter Defendants named in the Complaint made over $150 million in underwriting fees from sales of Facebook shares-fees that they would not have made if the Offering Documents had not contained material misstatements and material omissions. The litigation is styled Spatz v. Facebook, Inc., No. CV-12-2662. A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com If you purchased Facebook common stock pursuant or traceable to the IPO, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by July 23, 2012. 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 plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Wolf Haldenstein prosecutes securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Robert B. Weintraub, Esq. Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 800-575-0735 E-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com FACEBOOK INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- On May 23, 2012, Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Facebook, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering. Investors who bought Facebook may move the court to appoint them as lead plaintiff no later than July 23, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Investors in Facebook who wish to discuss this action or the lead plaintiff selection process may contact Todd S. Collins, Esquire, Douglas Risen, Esquire or Robin Switzenbaum, Esquire of Berger & Montague, P.C. toll free at 1- 888-891-2289 or by e-mail at tcollins@bm.net, drisen@bm.net or rswitzenbaum@bm.net A copy of the Class Action Complaint can be viewed on Berger & Montague's Web site at http://www.bergermontague.comor may be viewed online via the U.S. Pacer System. The case is Goldrich Cousins P.C. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L. Andreesen, Erskine B. Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham, Reed Hastings, Peter Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. Facebook operates a social networking company worldwide. On or about May 16, 2012, Facebook filed with the SEC an amended Registration Statement for the IPO. On May 18, 2012, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO became effective and 421 million shares of Facebook common stock were sold to the public at $38/share, thereby valuing the total size of the IPO at more than $16 billion. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Facebook was experiencing a severe reduction in earnings growth and that, while the IPO roadshow was in progress, the Company guided the underwriters to materially lower their earnings forecasts for 2012. During the roadshow conducted in connection with the IPO, each of the lead underwriters reduced its second quarter and full year 2012 earnings estimates for Facebook, which constituted material information that was not shared with all Facebook investors, but rather, was selectively disclosed by defendants to certain large institutional investors and omitted from the Registration Statement and/or Prospectus. As of May 23, Facebook common stock was trading at approximately $32/share, or $6/share below the price of the IPO. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered losses of more than $2 billion since the IPO. FACEBOOK INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on May 25 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Facebook, Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering. For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll- free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/fb The complaint charges Facebook and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On or about May 16, 2012, Facebook filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement for the IPO. On or about May 18, 2012, the Prospectus , which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and defendants sold 421 million shares of Facebook common stock to the public at $38 per share, for total proceeds of more than $16 billion. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were false and misleading in violation of the Securities Act. The complaint asserts that defendants failed to disclose that because Facebook was experiencing a pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to an increase of users of its Facebook app or Web site through mobile devices rather than traditional PCs, at the time of the IPO the Company had told the lead underwriters to reduce their 2012 performance estimates for Facebook. These revisions were material information which was not shared with all investors, but rather, was selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred investors and omitted from the Registration Statement and/or Prospectus. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 23, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. 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 plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/fbor contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. FACEBOOK INC: Pomerantz Firms Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal securities class action (12 Civ. 4184) in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Facebook Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering. This class action is brought under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l and 77o. If you are a shareholder who purchased Facebook securities pursuant and or/traceable to the Company's IPO, you have until July 23, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. On May 17, 2012, the Company announced the pricing of its IPO of 421,233,615 shares of its common stock at $38.00 per share. The total offering price was priced at over $16 billion, with underwriters' discounts and commissions totaling over $176 million, shares sold by the selling shareholders totaling over $9 billion, and shares sold by the Company totaling $6.8 billion. In connection with the Company's IPO, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was then experiencing a severe and pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to an increase of users of its Facebook app or website through mobile devices rather than a personal computer such that the Company told the Underwriter Defendants to materially lower their revenue forecasts for 2012; (2) during the IPO roadshow conducted in connection with the IPO, certain underwriters, including Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, and Goldman Sachs, reduced their second quarter and full year 2012 earnings forecasts for Facebook; and (3) the revised financial forecasts were selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred investors. On May 19, 2012, Reuters revealed in an article that Facebook "altered its guidance for research earnings last week, during the road show, a rare and disruptive move." On this news, Facebook shares declined $4.20 per share or nearly 11%, to close at $34.03 per share on May 21, 2012. On May 22, 2012, Reuters revealed that, in the middle of Facebook's IPO roadshow, several of the lead underwriters, including Morgan Stanley, reduced their revenue estimates for the Company's second quarter 2012 and full year 2012 and 2013. Significantly, these reduced estimates were only "relayed to big investors through phone calls and conference calls." On this news, Facebook shares declined an additional $3.03 per share or nearly 9%, to close at $31.00 per share on May 22, 2012. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. The firm has offices in New York and Chicago. FACEBOOK INC: Klafter Olsen & Lesser Files Class Action in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP has filed a securities class action complaint against Facebook, Inc., certain of its officers, and the lead underwriters of its May 18, 2012 Initial Public Offering in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 12-cv-4194) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Class A common stock of Facebook pursuant to the IPO, except for defendants and certain entities that were informed by Defendants of the material information concealed from Plaintiff and the class. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Facebook informed analysts at the lead underwriters, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and Goldman Sachs & Co. to materially lower their financial estimates for Facebook's second quarter of 2012 which information was only conveyed by the underwriter defendants to a select few of their customers and that the disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO were woefully inadequate to disclose this material information. Plaintiff further alleges that as this news began to come out on May 21 and 22, 2012, Facebook stock lost 18 percent of its value, causing investors approximately $2.5 billion in losses. If you purchased Facebook Class A shares on the IPO and have sustained losses, and wish to discuss this action or your rights, please contact Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP at http://www.klafterolsen.comor call us at the number indicated below for a more thorough explanation of the claims that have been asserted in this action. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 22, 2012. Any member of the class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP prosecutes investor class actions involving financial fraud and has offices in Washington D.C. and New York. Contact: Jeffrey Klafter, Esq. Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP Telephone: 914-934-9200 x 306 E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com FACEBOOK INC: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro on May 25 disclosed that it has filed a securities class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc., officers, directors and underwriters of the company's Initial Public Offering (IPO) on behalf of investors relating to allegations of whisper estimates withheld from all but a few select investors. The complaint, filed May 24, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, as Chang et al. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., case number 12-cv-2680, alleges that Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman, David M.Spillane, Marc L. Andreesen, Erskine Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E Graham, Reed Hastings, Peter Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Peirce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Barclays Capital Inc. violated Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint can be accessed here. Hagens Berman's investigation continues. "We anticipate the facts may warrant further claims also against several of these defendants, and additional selling shareholders for insider selling in violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. "While such claims are unusual, this is an extremely unusual situation to catch issuers and their bankers in what we have long suspected to be a hidden practice." The largest reported selling shareholders include Zuckerberg, Breyer, Accel Partners, DST Global Limited, Goldman Sachs, Tiger Global Management, Mail.ru Group Limited and Peter Thiel. The deadline to move the court for lead plaintiff is July 22, 2012. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Facebook common stock between May 18, 2012, and May 22, 2012, and who have suffered substantial financial losses are encouraged to contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein by calling (510) 725- 3000. Investors may also contact the firm via e-mail at FB@hbsslaw.com or by visiting http://www.hb-securities.com/Facebook Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Hagens Berman's lawsuit alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by omitting material information in their registration statement and prospectus, and by selectively disclosing this material information to their premier clients and preferred investors prior to the IPO. Facebook allegedly privately pre-announced that its second quarter would fall short of analysts' estimates. Facebook allegedly only told their underwriters analysts and directed them to change their estimates which were then verbally conveyed to preferred clients. As a result, many of the underwriters' large clients said they would only buy at $32 per share. Knowing from research that many retail investors were willing to pay $43 per share, the lawsuit alleges that Facebook increased its allocation to retail investors to reach its $100 million goal at an offering price of $38 per share. The predictable happened. The stock shot up above $43, according to the suit, but without the demand from the large institutional investors who knew the estimate revisions, within three days Facebook's stock plummeted to around $32.00 per share. The Senate Banking Committee and the House Committee on Financial Services are investigating the issues surrounding Facebook's IPO. On May 22, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Securities and Exchange Commission also announced they will review allegations of impropriety around Facebook's IPO. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is an investor-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities. The firm represents whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. FACEBOOK INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on May 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Facebook, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/facebook Members of the class may, not later than July 23, 2012, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. 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. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667- 7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the class action online, please visit: http://www.ktmc.com/cases/facebook The Complaint charges Facebook and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Facebook operates as a social networking company worldwide. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company and its underwriters failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. The Registration Statement and Prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts and were in violation of the Securities Act. On or about May 16, 2012, Facebook filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement, for the IPO. On or about May 18, 2012, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and 421 million shares of Facebook common stock were sold to the public at $38 per share, thereby valuing the total size of the IPO at more than $16 billion. The Complaint asserts that defendants failed to disclose at the time of the IPO that Facebook was then experiencing a severe and pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to an increase in users of its Facebook mobile applications or Web site through mobile devices rather than through personal computers. Additionally, defendants failed to disclose during the roadshow conducted in connection with the IPO, certain Underwriter Defendants reduced their second quarter and full year 2012 performance estimates for Facebook, which revisions were material information which was not shared with all Facebook investors, but rather, was selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred investors and omitted from the Offering Materials. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Settles Class Action Over Fetus Disposal ------------------------------------------------------------ Barbara Rodriguez, writing for The Associated Press, reports that an Ohio hospital reached a proposed lawsuit settlement of about $1 million with women who said they were emotionally distressed to learn a former employee had stuffed their miscarried or stillborn fetuses into jars for years -- citing her religious beliefs -- and kept them in hospital storage, instead of medically disposing of them. Firelands Community Hospital, now known as Firelands Regional Medical Center, reached the agreement after years of litigation with 180 women who filed a class-action lawsuit complaining about how the Sandusky hospital disposed of the fetuses. "We're very happy that we were able to bring this relief to the families," said John Murray, an attorney representing the women. "It's been a long haul." Court records show that Patricia Lukas, a histologist technician working in the hospital's morgue, placed 88 fetuses into the same three containers for different time periods between 1988 and 1996. Hospital policy at the time called for the tissue of miscarried or stillborn fetuses to be incinerated or placed in a tissue grinder. A 2006 judge's ruling dismissing claims against the hospital said Ms. Lukas' religious beliefs held "that fetal tissue should not be placed in the grinder." Ms. Lukas was fired in 1996 when the hospital discovered the practice. The hospital then disposed of the fetuses according to its policy. Ms. Lukas was dismissed from the lawsuit several months ago and had no comment, her attorney, Jeanne Mullin, said by e-mail on May 24. The class-action lawsuit was filed in 1997, shortly after the women and their families learned about the technician's practices from media reports. The lawsuit originally contended the hospital and the technician violated Ohio statutes and common law regarding the handling of bodies and fetuses. Ultimately, it focused on the hospital's alleged infliction of emotional stress on the women. "After a long mediation process, both sides reached this amicable settlement," said Firelands spokeswoman Leslie Mesenburg. "We are pleased that both sides can put this this case behind them and move forward." No criminal charges were filed, Ms. Mesenburg said. The hospital updated its policies for disposing of fetal tissue after Ms. Lukas' actions were uncovered, and again in 2008 after the state enacted a law providing for death certificates and burial permits for fetuses that die before 20 weeks. Mr. Murray said the terms of the settlement, which was reached May 14 and still needs a judge's approval to become final, includes the hospital issuing a public apology. They also will provide free counseling to any woman now treated at the hospital who has a miscarriage or stillborn. "They really need this," he said of his clients. "They really needed this closure." JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Defective Mesh ----------------------------------------------------------- Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that a class- action lawsuit has been filed in Vancouver seeking more than C$300 million in damages from the manufacturers of allegedly defective devices used to treat Canadian women suffering from incontinence. Named as the representative plaintiff in the case against Johnson and Johnson is Karen Dyler, 52, a Nanaimo mother of two. In 2004, Ms. Dyler had a Prolift mesh device surgically implanted in her to deal with incontinence. In a notice of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, she claims the mesh device deteriorated to the point where her bladder was blocked. She had two surgeries to remove pieces of the mesh in 2010 and is scheduled to have a third. "Since the surgeries in 2010, Karen has experienced what she describes as extreme incontinence," says the court document. "She has the urge to void quite often and has to make frequent trips to the bathroom because of her susceptibility to sudden and immediate incontinence." Included in the suit is a family class for family members who have incurred expenses. Diego Solimano, Ms. Dyler's lawyer, says two groups of women -- elderly women and woman who have given birth to children -- are most affected. He said it's estimated hundreds of thousands had the devices implanted. The defendants submitted false, misleading and incomplete information about the safety of the devices to Health Canada and the FDA, which resulted in reliance on such representations so that adequate testing wasn't performed prior to regulatory approval, says the notice of claim. In February 2010, Health Canada issued a warning to medical staff at Canadian hospitals regarding complications with the devices. No response has been filed to the suit. In an e-mail to The Province, Johnson and Johnson said the product is safe: "We are confident the evidence will show that [the company] acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of these products." NETFLIX INC: Defends 3 Shareholder Class Suits in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Netflix, Inc. is defending three purported shareholder class action lawsuits in California, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same court on January 27, 2012, and February 29, 2012, respectively, alleging substantially similar claims. Two of the three purported shareholder class action lawsuits have since been consolidated, and the Company anticipates consolidation of the third as well as the selection of a lead plaintiff. The purported class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices and its contracts with content providers, which led to artificially inflated stock prices. The purported class action lawsuits also allege violations of the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharges MDL Still Pending in D.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against Norfolk Southern Corporation and other Class 1 railroads in various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. NS believes the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the cases. NS does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. A lawsuit containing similar allegations against NS and four other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered into in August 2008. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nwpipe.com/-- is a transportation company. Its Norfolk Southern Railway subsidiary operates approximately 20,000 route miles in 22 states and the District of Columbia, serves every major container port in the eastern United States, and provides efficient connections to other rail carriers. Norfolk Southern operates the most extensive intermodal network in the East and is a major transporter of coal and industrial products. NORTHWEST PIPE: Discovery Halts in Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit have agreed that no further discovery will take place until after they exhausted the mediation process, which started on January 2012, according to Northwest Pipe Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. On November 20, 2009, a complaint against the Company, captioned Richard v. Northwest Pipe Co. et al., No. C09-5724 RBL ("Richard"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff is allegedly a purchaser of the Company's stock. In addition to the Company, Brian W. Dunham, the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Stephanie J. Welty, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, are named as defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false or misleading statements between April 23, 2008, and November 11, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock during the same period, and seeks damages for losses caused by the alleged wrongdoing. A similar complaint, captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Northwest Pipe Co. et al., No. C09-5791 RBL ("Plumbers"), was filed against the Company in the same court on December 22, 2009. In addition to the Company, Brian W. Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty and William R. Tagmyer, the Company's current Chairman of the Board, are named as defendants in the Plumbers complaint. In the Plumbers complaint, as in the Richard complaint, the plaintiff is allegedly a purchaser of the Company's stock and asserts that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false or misleading statements between April 23, 2008, and November 11, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock during that period, and seeks damages for losses caused by the alleged wrongdoing. The Richard action and the Plumbers action were consolidated on February 25, 2010. Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund was appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated action. Defendants and lead plaintiff subsequently agreed that defendants did not need to respond immediately to either of the two outstanding complaints, and that a consolidated amended complaint would be filed within 45 days of the Company having completed the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, and the 2009 Form 10-K with the SEC. A consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff on December 21, 2010, and the Company's motion to dismiss was filed on February 25, 2011, as were similar motions filed by the individual defendants. Briefing on those motions concluded on May 24, 2011. On August 26, 2011, the Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended complaint on October 24, 2011. The parties have conducted limited discovery and participated in an initial settlement mediation on January 30, 2012, with additional sessions anticipated in the future. By agreement of the parties, no further discovery will take place until after the mediation process is exhausted. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. This securities litigation is at an early stage and, at this time, it is not possible to predict its outcome. Therefore, the Company has not accrued any charges related to this litigation. Northwest Pipe Company -- http://www.nwpipe.com/-- is a North American manufacturer of large-diameter, high-pressure steel pipeline systems for use in water infrastructure applications, primarily related to drinking water systems. The Company also manufactures other welded steel pipe products for use in a wide range of applications, including energy, construction, agriculture, and industrial systems. The Company's pipeline systems are also used for hydroelectric power systems, wastewater systems and other applications, and the Company makes products for industrial plant piping systems and certain structural applications. NVR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- NVR, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits relating to overtime wages of sales and marketing representatives, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007, in the Superior Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004, by another former employee in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages. The lawsuits were filed as purported class actions. However, while a number of individuals have filed consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action, none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to represent have been certified as a class, and the Company has filed a motion to decertify the federal collective action claim and dismiss the individuals who filed consents from the case. The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in the New York action. The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in compliance with two letter rulings from the United States Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007. The three courts to most recently consider similar claims against other homebuilders have acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and marketing representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position was valid. Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Because the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of this case, or the amount of damages, if any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings. OI SA: Awaits Court's Initial Decision in Class Suit vs. TNL ------------------------------------------------------------ Oi S.A., formerly known as Brasil Telecom S.A., is awaiting an initial court decision in the class action lawsuit involving its predecessor, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Tele Norte Leste Participacoes S.A., or TNL, and Brasil Telecom engaged in a merger under Brazilian law in which TNL merged with and into Brasil Telecom, and the corporate name of Brasil Telecom was changed to Oi S.A., or Oi. The Company is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed by the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal) seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by TNL's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service (Servico de Atendimento ao Consumidor - SAC) regulations established by the Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica). TNL presented its defense and asked for a change of venue to federal court in Rio de Janeiro, where the Company is headquartered. Other defendants have been named and await service of process. The Company says the amount involved in this action is R$300 million. As of December 31, 2011, TNL deemed the risk of loss as possible with respect to these lawsuits and had not made any provisions with respect to this action since it was awaiting the court's initial decision. OI SA: Continues to Defend 66 Customer Service Centers Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Oi S.A., formerly known as Brasil Telecom S.A., continues to defend 66 class action lawsuits asking reopening of customer service centers, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company is a defendant in 66 civil class actions filed by the Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service centers. The lower courts rendered decisions unfavorable to the Company in 24 of these civil class actions, and the Company has appealed these decisions. As of December 31, 2011, the Company had recorded provisions in the amount of R$49 million for those claims in respect of which the Company deemed the risk of loss as probable. ORCHARD SUPPLY: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Orchard Supply Hardware Stores Corporation continues to defend three class action lawsuits alleging wage and hour law violations, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 28, 2012. Three putative class action lawsuits, brought on behalf of current and former employees, are pending against the Company. One of these lawsuits was brought in 2010 and two were brought in 2011. These lawsuits allege the Company failed to comply with various California labor laws, including misclassification of non-exempt employees as exempt employees, failure to pay regular, overtime, and final wages, failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Company denies the allegations in the claims of these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against them. However, the Company cannot predict with assurance the outcome of these lawsuits and accordingly adverse developments, settlements, or resolutions may occur and negatively impact income in the quarter of such development, settlement, or resolution. Based on the information currently available, the Company does not believe that any of these lawsuits would have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 25, 2012. On October 29, 2008, Ronald Acaldo filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler. The Complaint alleged that the Company and the individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On November 13, 2008, Chad Howes filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler. The allegations in the Howes Complaint are identical to those in the Acaldo Complaint, as are the class allegations and relief sought. The defendants were never served with the Howes Complaint. On May 14, 2009, the Court consolidated the Acaldo and Howes cases and renamed the style of the case, "In re: Pilgrim's Pride Corporation Securities Litigation." On May 21, 2009, the Court granted the Pennsylvania Public Fund Group's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff. Thereafter, on June 26, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated (and amended) Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint dismissed the Company and Clifford E. Butler as Defendants. In addition, the Consolidated Complaint added the following directors as Defendants: Charles L. Black, Key Coker, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller, James G. Vetter, Jr., Donald L. Wass, Linda Chavez, and Keith W. Hughes. The Consolidated Complaint alleges four causes of action: violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder solely against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Clint Rivers, and Richard A. Cogdill (the "Officer Defendants"). Those claims assert that, during the Class Period of May 5, 2008, through October 28, 2008, the defendants, through various financial statements, press releases and conference calls, made material misstatements of fact and/or omitted to disclose material facts by purportedly failing to completely impair the goodwill associated with the Gold Kist acquisition. The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all defendants, asserting that, statements made in a registration statement in connection with the May 14, 2008 secondary offering of the Company's common stock were materially false and misleading for their failure to completely impair the goodwill associated with the Gold Kist acquisition. Finally, the Consolidated Complaint asserts a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Officer Defendants only, claiming that the Officer Defendants were controlling persons of the Company and the other defendants in connection with the Section 11 violation. By the Consolidated Complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks certification of the Class, undisclosed damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On July 27, 2009, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for its failure to adequately plead, as to the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims, scienter and loss causation and, as to the Sections 11 and 15 claims, for its failure to adequately plead misrepresentations and omissions. Defendants requested that the Consolidated Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. On August 17, 2010, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order on the motion to dismiss, granting in part and denying in part, the defendants' motion. The Court dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs' claims alleging securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and for controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' claim for negligent misrepresentation under Section 11 of the Securities Act and for controlling person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint but elected not to do so. The defendants filed their Original Answer to the Complaint on November 15, 2010. On May 9, 2011, the Court issued an Order setting a class certification hearing for February 7, 2012, and ordering the parties to confer and file a Docket Control Order by May 26, 2011. Thereafter, as per the Court's Order, the parties negotiated a proposed Docket Control Order, which was signed by the Court on May 31, 2011. The parties have reached an agreement to settle this matter for $1.5 million, subject to Court approval. A Stipulation of Settlement was filed on November 14, 2011. On January 23, 2012, the Court issued an order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, in which the Court set a hearing date for the final approval of settlement for May 1, 2012. The Company says if the case does not settle as expected, the defendants intend to defend vigorously against the merits of the action and any attempts by the Lead Plaintiff to certify a class action. About Pilgrim's Pride Pilgrim's Pride Corporation -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is one of the largest chicken companies in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The Company's fresh chicken retail line is sold throughout the U.S., throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico. The Company exports commodity chicken products to 90 countries. The Company operates feed mills, hatcheries, processing plants and distribution centers in 15 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Mexico. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaits Ruling on ERISA Suit Dismissal Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- On December 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee N. DeBar, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's Compensation Committee and other unnamed defendants (the "Patterson action"). On January 2, 2009, a nearly identical lawsuit was filed by Denise M. Smalls in the same court against the same defendants (the "Smalls action"). The complaints in both actions, brought pursuant to section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 US C. Section 1132, alleged that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan (the "Stock Plan"), as administered through the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan (the "RSP"), and the To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings and Retirement Plan (the "To-Ricos Plan") (collectively, the "Plans") by failing to sell the common stock held by the Plans before it declined in value in late 2008, based on factual allegations similar to the allegation made in the Acaldo securities case. Patterson and Smalls further alleged that they purported to represent a class of all persons or entities who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans at any time between May 5, 2008, through the present and whose accounts held the Company's common stock or units in the Company's common stock. Both complaints sought actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plans suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution in value, attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants. On July 20, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the Smalls and Patterson actions. On August 12, 2009, the Court ordered that the consolidated case will proceed under the caption "In re Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No. 2:08-cv-472-TJW." Patterson and Smalls filed a consolidated amended complaint ("Amended Complaint") on March 2, 2010. The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Pilgrim's Pride Board of Directors, Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Charles L. Black, Linda Chavez, S. Key Coker, Keith W. Hughes, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller, James G. Vetter, Jr., Donald L. Wass, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, the Pilgrim's Pride Pension Committee, Robert A. Wright, Jane Brookshire, Renee N. DeBar, the Pilgrim's Pride Administrative Committee, Gerry Evenwel, Stacey Evans, Evelyn Boyden, and "John Does 1-10." The Amended Complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the RSP or the To-Ricos Plan at any time between January 29, 2008, through December 1, 2008 ("the alleged class period"), and whose accounts included investments in the Company's common stock. Like the original Patterson and Smalls complaints, the Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the RSP and To-Ricos Plan by permitting both Plans to continue investing in the Company's common stock during the alleged class period. The Amended Complaint also alleges that certain defendants were "appointing" fiduciaries who failed to monitor the performance of the defendant-fiduciaries they appointed. Further, the Amended Complaint alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries for one another's alleged breaches. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in the amount of any losses the RSP and To-Ricos Plan attributable to the decline in the value of the common stock held by the Plans, to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' alleged diminution in value, costs and attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the RSP and To-Ricos Plan's participants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on May 3, 2010. The plaintiffs responded to that motion on July 2, 2010, dropping plaintiff Smalls from the case and adding an additional plaintiff, Stanley Sylvestros. The defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on August 2, 2010. The defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of their motion to dismiss on April 13, 2011, to which the plaintiffs responded on April 27, 2011. The plaintiffs in turn filed their own notice of supplement authority in opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 27, 2011, to which the defendants responded on May 10, 2011. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 25, 2012. About Pilgrim's Pride Pilgrim's Pride Corporation -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is one of the largest chicken companies in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The Company's fresh chicken retail line is sold throughout the U.S., throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico. The Company exports commodity chicken products to 90 countries. The Company operates feed mills, hatcheries, processing plants and distribution centers in 15 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Mexico. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit against its subsidiary remains pending, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp. Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding a financial restatement. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were made. The Company's motion to dismiss is pending. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Limits NJLAD Application to N.J. Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's motion seeking to limit the application of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to only those members of the purported class who worked in New Jersey was granted, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages. The defendants removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the individual defendants. The motion was granted. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Defends Female Sales Representatives' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of female sales representatives, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed by the defendants from February 17, 2010, to the present. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Still Awaits Order on NID Suit Dismissal Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In April 2010, a putative class action was filed against Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and NID, a test kit manufacturing subsidiary which was closed in 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of entities that allegedly purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits. The complaint alleges that certain of NID's test kits were defective and that defendants, among other things, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and state consumer protection laws. The complaint alleges an unspecified amount of damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. REPUBLIC SERVICES: $29.5-Mil. Livingston Suit Deal Now Final ------------------------------------------------------------ Republic Services, Inc.'s $29.5 million settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in Louisiana became final upon the expiration of the appeal period on February 23, 2012, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. On October 13, 2009, the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, issued its Post Class Certification Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a lawsuit alleging nuisance from the activities of the former hazardous waste facility owned by the Company's subsidiary CECOS International, Inc. (CECOS) located in Livingston Parish, Louisiana. The court granted class certification for all those living within a six mile radius of the CECOS site between the years 1977 and 1990. The Company appealed the class certification order. On August 17, 2011, the court of appeals granted a joint motion to remand the case to the trial court for the parties to finalize a proposed settlement. The parties executed a settlement agreement on September 15, 2011, which was approved by the trial court at a fairness hearing on December 8, 2011. The settlement agreement, which provides for payment of $29.5 million to settle the claims of the class, became final upon the expiration of the appeal period on February 23, 2012, at which time the Company made the $29.5 million payment. SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Still Awaits Okay of Consolidated Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. One of these private civil actions was filed on November 15, 2004, in South Carolina state court, York County Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and some of Sonic's South Carolina subsidiaries. The plaintiffs in that lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. The group of plaintiffs' attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries on February 14, 2005, in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged that certain products sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal manner. The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappelletti and Kelly Cappelletti, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. The South Carolina state court action and the North Carolina state court action were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (the "Arbitrator"). On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action including all of the states in which Sonic operates dealerships except Florida. Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers. The parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification. On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida. The Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision on the merits of the action. The merits of Claimants' assertions and potential damages would still have to be proven through the remainder of the arbitration. The Arbitrator stayed the Arbitration for thirty days to allow either party to petition a court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award. On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this consolidated arbitration filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class Certification in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court. On August 17, 2010, Sonic removed this North Carolina state court action to federal court, and simultaneously filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on Class Certification, with both filings made in the United Stated District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. On August 12, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued an Order granting Sonic's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award on Class Certification and denied Claimant's Motion to Dismiss the same. Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 12, 2011. The federal court's stay of the arbitration proceeding remains in force. At a mediation held January 16, 2012, Sonic reached an agreement with the Claimants to settle this ongoing dispute in its entirety. This agreement is subject to formal documentation and court approval. In the event that such formal documentation is completed and court approval is received, such a settlement would not have a material adverse effect on Sonic's future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Sonic is involved, and expects to continue to be involved, in numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business, including regulatory investigations and private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to represent a potential class or for which a class has been certified. Although Sonic vigorously defends itself in all legal and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future proceedings arising out of the conduct of Sonic's business, including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits, contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted with certainty. An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on Sonic's business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or prospects. Included in other accrued liabilities at both March 31, 2012, and December 31, 2011, was approximately $7.3 million in reserves that Sonic has provided for pending proceedings. Except as reflected in such reserves, Sonic is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, or a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, for pending proceedings. No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. SWISHER HYGIENE: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a securities class action on behalf of investors who purchased Swisher Hygiene Inc. stock commencing on March 31, 2011 and continuing through March 28, 2012. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, and alleges securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Class Period has been expanded to commence on March 31, 2011, rather than the previous date, May 5, 2011. For further information, please contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. toll- free at 1-888-884-4490 or by e-mail to rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com As alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the Company's financial strength and future prospects. These statements, however, were materially false and misleading when made because the Company: (1) was improperly accounting for business acquisitions; (2) was improperly calculating its allowance for doubtful accounts receivable; (3) was overstating its income; (4) was preparing and filing financial reports in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and (5) failed to have adequate internal and financial controls. On March 28, 2012, Swisher disclosed that its previously-announced financial results for the first, second and third quarter of 2011 should no longer be relied upon and that its Audit Committee was conducting an ongoing internal review, which was initiated following a concern raised by a former employee. On this news, Swisher shares declined $0.29 per share, or more than 9.5%, to close on March 28, 2012, at $2.76 per share. The Company's stock declined another $0.33 per share, or nearly 12%, on March 29, 2012 and has not recovered. If you bought Swisher shares during the Class Period (March 31, 2011 through March 28, 2012), and you are interested in discussing your rights free of charge, please contact Roy L. Jacobs. All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed by May 29, 2012. TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Headlight Assemblies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota's 2004-2009 Lexus has defective headlight assemblies that allow moisture to penetrate, subjecting motorists to dangerous short circuits, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Ho v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02672 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/25/Toyota.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Neda Roshanian, Esq. Michael Coats, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 E-mail: neda@yablonovichlaw.com michael@yablonovichlaw.com TOYS "R" US: Appeals From Consumer Suit Settlement Order Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the approval of Toys "R" Us, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated consumer class action lawsuit remain pending, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On July 15, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court") granted the class plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consumer class action commenced in January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005. Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby product manufacturers (collectively, with the Company and its Parent, the "Defendants") to impose, maintain and/or enforce minimum price agreements in violation of antitrust laws. In addition, in December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a similar action and another consumer class action was commenced making similar allegations involving most of the same Defendants. In January 2011, the parties in the consumer class actions entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the District Court in a final order in December 2011. In January 2012, certain parties who objected to the District Court's final approval of the settlement filed Notices of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. As part of the settlement, in March 2011, the Company made a payment of approximately $17 million towards the overall settlement. In addition, in January 2011, the plaintiffs, the Company and its Parent and certain other Defendants in the Internet retailer actions entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company made a payment of approximately $5 million towards the overall settlement. In addition, on or about November 23, 2010, the Company's Parent entered into a Stipulation with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") ending the FTC's investigation related to the Parent and its subsidiaries' compliance with a 1998 FTC Final Order and settling all claims in full. Pursuant to the settlement, in May 2011, the Company paid approximately $1 million as a civil penalty. TWININGS NORTH: Sued Over Mislabeled and Misbranded Tea Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Lanovaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Twinings North America, Inc., Case No. CV-12-02646 (N.D. Calif., May 23, 2012) is brought on behalf of a class of California consumers who, within the last four years, purchased the Defendant's tea products ("Misbranded Food Products"). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of illegal conduct, which has resulted in unjust profits. She contends that the Misbranded Food Products each contain an unlawful antioxidant, nutrient content and health claim on their label. Ms. Lanovaz is a resident of Los Gatos, California, who purchased Twinings Tea products in California during the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint. Twinings, a Delaware corporation, is a producer of retail tea products, including black, green and specialty tea products. Twinings sells its Misbranded Food Products to consumers through grocery stores, other retail stores and on its Web site throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1901 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 350 Campbell, CA 95008 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Frequent Flyer Program --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that United Airlines "fleeced its most loyal customers," who earned lifetime benefits by flying 1 million miles on United, by gutting their benefits in the Million Mile Club upon merging with Continental Airlines, a Million Miler claims in a federal class action. A copy of the Complaint in Lagen v. United Continental Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/25/UnitedAir.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Latham, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID H. LATHAM 150 N. Wacker Drive, #1400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-1910 E-mail: dhlatham@lathamlaw.net - and - John F. Edgar, Esq. Michael D. Pospisil, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Ave. Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 531-0033 E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com mdp@edgarlawfirm.com VERMILLION INC: Board Member Defends Securities Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- One of Vermillion, Inc.'s directors is defending a securities class action lawsuit filed in Texas, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011. Peter S. Roddy was appointed to the Company's Board of Directors and Audit Committee on February 18, 2010. Mr. Roddy has served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pain Therapeutics, Inc. since July 2004, and as its Chief Financial Officer since November 2002. On December 2, 2011, a class action complaint claiming violations of certain securities laws was filed against Pain Therapeutics Inc. and its executive officers, including Mr. Roddy, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas by a holder of its securities and its executive officers. This complaint alleged, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made by Pain Therapeutics regarding REMOXY during the purported class period from February 3, 2011, to June 23, 2011. XCEL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of 2nd "Comer" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their class action lawsuit against Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012. In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al., filed a second lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi. The complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their property. Plaintiffs base their claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence. Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., and its subsidiaries, Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation (NSP-Wisconsin) and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSP-Minnesota). The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown. The defendants, including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for dismissal. In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. While Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given the nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it could potentially have a material impact on Xcel Energy's consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position. No accrual has been recorded for this matter. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *