---

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

             Thursday, June 14, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 117

                             Headlines

ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Class Suit Over Diesel Discount
ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Class Suit Over Petrol Discounts
ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Petrol Temperature Suit vs. Unit
ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Suit Over Sale of Dairy Products
ALON HOLDINGS: Tenant Class Suit vs. Dor Alon Remains Pending

ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Accused of Consumer Protection Law Violation
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Accused of Misleading "YOU" Card Holders
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Unconsumed Gas
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit Over "Ski" Soft White Cheese
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit Over White Cheese Packages

AMGEN: Supreme Court Agrees to Review Anemia Drug Class Action
CANADA: Lake Manitoba Flood Victims Mull Suit
CANADA: 65% of Flood Victims in Winnipeg Get Compensation
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA: Housing Authority Sued Over Surcharges
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Loses Bid to Seal Records on ATC Devices

ECOLAB INC: Accused of Misclassifying Specialists and Trainees
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Awaits Sup. Ct. Ruling on Ohio Class Suit Appeal
FMC CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Canadian Antitrust Suits
GRAMMY AWARDS: Implements Changes Following Class Action
HUNTSMAN CORP: Awaits Approval of Canadian Antitrust Suit Deal

HUNTSMAN CORP: Calif. Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Cert. Hearing in Maryland Suit Set for Aug.
INDONESIA: KPU Jakarta Sued Over Final Voters' List Irregularities
JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Man Sues Lawyers in Tax Refund Suit
KROSSLAND COMMUNICATIONS: Aug. 6 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set

MERRILL LYNCH: Continues to Fight Former Brokers' Pay Claims
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Denies Misleading Players on Concussion Evidence
NEW YORK, NY: Muslims File Class Action v. NYPD
PEPSICO: Faces Class Action Over Tropicana Product Labels
QUICK TRIM: Kardashian Sisters Respond to Diet Pill Class Action

RED BULL: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless Files Claims Over Property Seizures
TOYS R US: July 27 Status Conference Set for Class Action
VENOCO INC: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Action Suits
VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Continues to Defend Citizens Insurance Suit

VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Faces Suit Arising from Employment Records
VMJ INC: Diamonds Men's Club Strippers File Class Action
WEBLOYALTY.COM: Sued Over Fee-Based Membership Programs
WESTERN COAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Canada
WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Colorado Class Suits


                          *********

ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Class Suit Over Diesel Discount
------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class
action was filed against Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s
"YOU" loyalty plan, claiming that discounts for filling the car
with diesel at Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. petrol
stations, which the club supposedly promised as well as wrongly
advertised were not given in reality.  If the claim were to be
accepted as a class action, the claimant assesses his claim at
NIS54 million.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the
opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be
rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not make any
provision for this claim in its financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Class Suit Over Petrol Discounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, a claim and a request to recognize it as a class
action was filed against Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s
"YOU" loyalty plan customer club, claiming that discounts for
filling the car with petrol at Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988)
Ltd. petrol stations, which the club supposedly promised were not
given.  If the claim were to be accepted as a class action, the
claimant assesses his claim at NIS894 million.  In the opinion of
the Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the
chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly,
the Company did not make any provision for this claim in its
financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Petrol Temperature Suit vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary
relating to petrol temperature, according to the Company's April
30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2010, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed with the District Court in Tel
Aviv, in Israel, against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd.,
and other fuel companies in the total amount of approximately
NIS197 million.  The issue in the claim is differences in
temperature of the petrol between the moment it is acquired by the
fuel companies and the moment it is sold to the customers, in a
way that misstates the amount of energy sold to the customers and
this way, according to the claimant, the fuel companies profit
millions of NIS per annum.  Based on information received from Dor
Alon's management, the Company believes that the chances that the
claim will be allowed are less than 50%, and therefore Dor Alon
did not make a provision in its financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Still Defends Suit Over Sale of Dairy Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. was
served with a claim and a request for approval as a class action
(the "Claim"), in connection with the sale of various cheese and
dairy products in the Company's supermarket chains operated by
subsidiary Mega Retail Ltd.  The plaintiff has alleged that the
Company sells in its supermarkets various cheese and butter
substitute products while presenting them as cheese products and
butter and that the customers are mislead by its alleged
representations regarding such products.  The plaintiffs have
requested to certify the claim as a class action representing all
the customers who bought such products in the seven years prior to
the filing of the claim.  The plaintiff's personal claim is
estimated to be approximately NIS700, and if the claim is
certified as a class action, the approximate claim against the
Company is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately NIS456
million.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of
its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision
for this claim in its financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


ALON HOLDINGS: Tenant Class Suit vs. Dor Alon Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by a tenant of Alon
Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary remains pending,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On November 3, 2010, a claim and a request to approve the claim as
a class action was issued against a subsidiary of Dor Alon Energy
In Israel (1988) Ltd. and other gas companies (the share of Dor
Alon's subsidiary was estimated at NIS4 million).  The issue in
the claim is the alleged cooperation between the gas companies and
apartment builders which requires tenants to enter into contracts
with a certain gas supplier in a way the tenant allegedly overpays
the gas company.  The subsidiary of Dor Alon filed its response to
court.  Based on information received from Dor Alon's management,
the Company believes that the chances that the claim will be
allowed are less than 50%, and therefore Dor Alon did not make a
provision in its financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Accused of Consumer Protection Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary, Eden Teva
Market, is facing a purported class action lawsuit alleging
violation of the Consumer Protection Law, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In January 2012, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against Eden Teva, regarding
the alleged violation of the Consumer Protection Law and its
regulations, by not marking the price per weight unit of certain
products which are packed by Eden Teva.  If the Claim is approved
as a class action, the approximate claim is estimated by the
plaintiff at approximately NIS5 million.  In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Accused of Misleading "YOU" Card Holders
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending
a purported class action lawsuit alleging it misleads its "YOU"
loyalty plan card holders, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In November 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against Mega Retail Ltd.,
alleging that Mega Retail is misleading its "YOU" card holder
customers, by charging prices higher than advertised for products
offered within its customers' loyalty plan.  If the claim is
approved as a class action, the approximate claim is estimated by
the plaintiff at approximately NIS10 million.  In the opinion of
the Company, should it be obligated to pay any amount with regard
to this matter, it is not expected to be a material sum.  In the
opinion of the Company and its advisors, the provisions included
in the Company's financial statements are sufficient to cover the
potential liabilities.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Unconsumed Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to
defend a purported class action lawsuit over unconsumed gas in LPG
containers, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On March 22, 2009, a class action was filed against a subsidiary
of Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. and other gas companies;
the amount of the claim is NIS821 million (Dor Alon's subsidiary's
share in the said amount is NIS32 million).  In the statement of
claim it is asserted that when the defendants replace a gas
container to the consumer the container still contains a certain
volume of gas, which is later used by the defendants.  According
to the claimants, the defendants fully charge the claimants for
the gas in the container but the consumers do not use all of the
gas they pay for, since some of the gas is taken back by the
defendants.  Dor Alon filed a statement of defense and an
application for striking it out in limine.  Based on information
received from Dor Alon's management, the Company believes that the
chances that the claim will be allowed are less than 50%, and
therefore Dor Alon did not make a provision in its financial
statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit Over "Ski" Soft White Cheese
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending
a purported class action lawsuit alleging it charged higher prices
than it should have charged on packs that contain two boxes of
"Ski" soft white cheese, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In July 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as class action was filed against Mega Retail Ltd.,
claiming that Mega Retail charged higher prices than it should
have charged on packs that contain two boxes of "Ski" soft white
cheese produced by Strauss Group and sold in cardboard packs, and
contrary to its promise that the discount would account to 20% of
the price of "Ski" boxes of 500 grams, granted an actual discount
of only 3%, causing the consumers to pay NIS3.73 more than they
should for each pack.  The appellant claims that as a result of
not being given the discount by Mega Retail the damage incurred by
the class members is approximately NIS19 million per month.  The
court was also asked to issue an affirmative order to instruct the
respondent to grant to the consumers who buy the larger packages a
significant discount of at least 20% relative to the price per
unit of the product in the smaller package.  In the opinion of the
Company, should it be obligated to pay any amount with regard to
this matter, it is not expected to be a material sum.  In the
opinion of the Company and its advisors, the provisions included
in the Company's financial statements are sufficient to cover the
potential liabilities.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Defends Suit Over White Cheese Packages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending
a purported class action lawsuit regarding its 500 gram and 750
gram white cheese packages, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In July 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as class action was filed against Mega Retail Ltd.,
claiming that Mega Retail misleads its consumers to think that the
500 gram and 750 gram white cheese packages manufactured by
Strauss Group and Tnuva Corporation, which are labeled as "Economy
Packs" are sold at a discount compared to 250-gram packages.  The
appellant argues that the damage incurred by all members of the
class totals approximately NIS28 million.  It has also requested
to issue an affirmative order to instruct Mega Retail to provide
its clients, who buy the larger packages, a significant discount
of at least 20% compared to the price per unit of the product in
the smaller package.  In the opinion of the Company, should it be
obligated to pay any amount with regard to this matter, it is not
expected to be a material sum.  In the opinion of the Company and
its advisors, the provisions included in the Company's financial
statements are sufficient to cover the potential liabilities.


AMGEN: Supreme Court Agrees to Review Anemia Drug Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that
Biotechnology company Amgen still has a chance to duck claims that
it inflated stock prices with misstatements about its anemia
drugs, after the Supreme Court agreed to review the case on
June 11.

Investors led by Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds say
that Amgen promoted its products despite facing concerns from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

They say Amgen hid the true nature of these concerns and that the
company shuttered a clinical trial when results showed that its
product exacerbated tumor growth in some patients.

Amgen also allegedly misrepresented the on-label safety of the
drugs and improperly promoted off-label usage, the investors
claim.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles certified the
class after finding that the plaintiffs had reliance in common
based on the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
in November 2011, defining this presumption as "the principle that
the market price of a security traded in an efficient market
reflects all public information and therefore that a buyer of the
security is presumed to have relied on the truthfulness of that
information in purchasing the security."

That decision also rejected Amgen's call for proof of materiality
rather than mere plausible allegations among the class.

"Plaintiffs need not prove materiality to avail themselves of the
fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance at the class
certification stage," Judge Barry Silverman wrote for the
unanimous, three-judge panel in Pasadena.  "They need only allege
materiality with sufficient plausibility."

Judge Silverman added that the proposed class had "plausibly
alleged that several of the defendants' public statements about
Amgen's pharmaceutical products were false and material."

"Coupled with the concession that Amgen's stock traded in an
efficient market," he wrote, "this was sufficient to invoke the
fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance."


CANADA: Lake Manitoba Flood Victims Mull Suit
---------------------------------------------
CTVWinnipeg.ca reports that approximately 400 people affected by
flooding around Lake Manitoba last spring met on June 6 to discuss
legal options.

Twin Lakes Beach Association hosted the meeting and a lawyer was
present.

The purpose of the meeting was to educate with the possibility of
filing of a class-action lawsuit against the province included on
the agenda.

The province said it has received nearly 2,700 applications for
compensation from residents in the area.  Of those, 97 applicants
have appealed what the province offered them in compensation.


CANADA: 65% of Flood Victims in Winnipeg Get Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Owen, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that more
than 65 per cent of victims of the 2011 flood have received at
least an initial compensation payment, Infrastructure and
Transportation Minister Steve Ashton said on June 7.

Mr. Ashton said under the province's Building and Recovery Action
Program, more than half of the applicants have received advanced
or final payments for a total of C$66.4 million.

And under the Disaster Financial Assistance program, more than 50
per cent of claims are complete and more than C$300 million paid
out, he said.

"There's still more to come," Mr. Ashton said.

The pace of flood payments comes the day after 400 people attended
an information session at Sisler High School on June 6 to discuss
the possibility of a class action lawsuit against the province to
win more in compensation.

Mr. Ashton said his flood recovery update was planned in advance
of the June 6 meeting.

He added the total cost of fighting the 2011 flood is expected to
be nearly C$1 billion.

The province is also hiring four more property assessors to speed
up appraisals for flood-impacted properties on Lake Manitoba and
has added six new commissioners to help with the claims appeals
process.  About 50 properties a week are being assessed.  The
province also recently hired eight new appraisers.  All appraisals
will be completed by the end of August.

Mr. Ashton also said the province has issued a request for
proposals related to a flood mitigation study for the Lake
Manitoba watershed including Lake Winnipegosis, Dauphin Lake and
the Shoal Lakes, and the Assiniboine River Basin including Lake of
the Prairies and the Qu'Appelle and Souris rivers.

The independent consultant will be asked to identify potential
methods for enhanced flood protection in these areas.


CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA: Housing Authority Sued Over Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Mckenzie, writing for Daily Progress, reports that six
Charlottesville public housing residents, with help from the local
Legal Aid Justice Center, have filed a federal class action suit
against the city's housing authority claiming the city has
illegally overcharged residents for utility service since 2003.

The suit, filed on June 7 in U.S. District Court in
Charlottesville, claims the Charlottesville Redevelopment and
Housing Authority consistently levied surcharges on residents for
electrical service and other utilities that pushed the tenants'
cost for rent and utilities past the federal maximum of 30 percent
of income.

Federal law requires public housing authorities receiving funds
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development limit
the amount of rent to 30 percent of a tenant's income.  That 30
percent must include reasonable utility charges that represent
what a "conservative household of modest means" would spend.

Federal law allows utility surcharges to be levied against tenants
to adjust the actual cost of utilities used by public housing
tenants, but legal aid attorneys say between 75 percent and 90
percent of all residents in public housing are charged surcharges
every year.

Figures released by the justice center show 72 percent of public
housing residents were ordered to pay surcharges in 2010 and 74
percent in 2011.

In summer months for 2010 and 2011, no fewer than 80 percent of
the 271 units subject to overage payments were required to pay the
surcharges.  Failure to pay the surcharges is the same as not
paying rent and can lead to eviction.

"For the last two years there hasn't been a month when at least
half of the [public housing tenants] have not suffered overuse
charges," said John Conover, of legal aid.  "I think that fails
the smell test."

The suits seeks to force the Charlottesville Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to fix the issue by resetting the utility
allowance to more accurately reflect actual usage and keep rent
and utility costs within the 30 percent of the tenant income
limit.

The suit also asks the court to order the authority to compensate
current and former residents for the overage charges going back to
2003.

"I have only been in my position for less than two months and
cannot comment on what was done prior," Constance Dunn, executive
director of the authority, said on June 7.  "My legal counsel is
unavailable at the moment so I would not want to comment further."

Ms. Conover said the residents, the justice center and the housing
authority have discussed the issue for nearly two years before
residents decided to file the suit.

"These figures charged in the allowance were set in 2003 based on
a survey that no one in the authority has been able to locate,"
Mr. Conover said.  "The federal government asked the authority to
review the charges but the authority declined.  And in the 2003
resolution approving the allowance, the authority approved as an
incentive to conserve energy a $50 savings bond to be given to
each household that does not exceed annual electric consumption.
No savings bond has ever been given out."

The lawsuit asks the court to require the authority to issue a
savings bond to all of those past and current tenants who met the
2003 resolution's requirements.

Janyce Lewis, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said the
additional utility charges skewed her budget to the point that, in
order to pay the charges and avoid being evicted, she had to
borrow money from a payday loan organization at a high interest
rate.

"It was either that or I would have to move," she said.  "Paying
that loan and the high interest rates and the current bills meant
my family had to do without a lot of things, like new shoes and
picnics.  I know a lot of my neighbors who are in the same boat
and have had family or friends help them out."

Ms. Lewis said she and other residents are concerned that filing a
suit could lead to the authority retaliating against them,
possibly finding reasons to evict them because of their actions.

"A lot of people are afraid to speak up," she said.  "This is
something I can do to help my community and my neighbors.  This is
supposed to be a great place to live.  We just want to be treated
fairly."

A hearing date has not been set yet in the case.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Loses Bid to Seal Records on ATC Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Carole Donoghue, writing for CSP Daily News, reports that Costco
Wholesale Corp. has failed in its attempt to get a federal court
to seal records showing how much it will cost the company to
install temperature-compensation devices on its dispensers.

Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, presiding over automatic temperature
compensation class action cases in Kansas, has refused to redact
information from one of her rulings, saying the public has a right
to know.

The information Costco wanted sealed involves a settlement it has
signed with class action plaintiffs who have sued more than 120
refiners and marketers for failing to install automated
temperature compensation (ATC) devices at retail.  The plaintiffs
claim that consumers are overcharged for fuel during hot weather,
when fuel expands in volume at the station only to shrink later in
the car's tank.

Under a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court in April,
Costco committed to equip new and existing dispensers in warm-
weather states with ATC within five years of the equipment being
available on the market.  The agreement covers Costco sites in 14
states -- Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah and Virginia.

Costco was the first company to sign a settlement agreement in
order to get out of the litigation, which is now in its fifth
year.  Other companies have also negotiated deals, including
ExxonMobil, BP, Casey's General Stores, CITGO, ConocoPhillips,
Shell and its subsidiaries Motiva Enterprises and Equilon
Enterprises, Wal-Mart, Sam's East Inc. and Sam's West Inc. and
Sinclair Oil and Valero.

Costco wanted to redact gasoline revenue and transaction data
which it contended was "confidential and competitively sensitive."
It not only suggested that the court black out the information
concerned, but also asked that the fact that it was making such a
request be kept secret too.

While Costco discloses some information on an aggregate basis in
its annual report, it does not share the information by state or
by transaction.  Allowing the public and, more specifically
Costco's competitors, to access the information "poses a
substantial risk to Costco's interests and could adversely impact
Costco's ability to compete in future," the company claimed in a
court filing.

According to the documents, Costco wanted to keep hidden the fact
that its cost of converting to ATC pumps is estimated to be $7.77
million -- or roughly 0.02% of its total revenue in the 14 states.

Costco's total fuel revenue in the conversion states was
approximately $4.044 billion in 2010, reaped from a total of
118.73 million separate transactions.  If the number of sales
Costco makes over the next five years were to remain static in
those states, Judge Vratil calculated that Costco's total cost of
implementing ATC would amount to 1.3 cents per transaction.

Judge Vratil noted that she had cited some of the information
already in coming to her decision about objections made to the
Costco settlement by some consumers who claimed that Costco would
simply adjust the price of its fuel so that the public would end
up paying the same amount for temperature-compensated fuel as they
did for non-ATC fuel.

Judge Vratil said Costco had provided no evidence to support its
assertions of competitive harm and had cited no law to support its
position that the information should be sealed.  The information
was important in her decision-making and the company's interests
do not outweigh those of the public, which has "a fundamental
interest in access to that information," she ruled.

Marketers have little sympathy for Costco's position.

"We have been disapproving of Costco's behavior throughout this
whole issue," said Dan Gilligan, president of the Petroleum
Marketers Association of America (PMAA).  "Costco has tried to
gain a competitive advantage in the minds of consumers by
suggesting that it will install ATC at retail.  They took that
risk and now must live with the consequences of their competitive
information being made public."


ECOLAB INC: Accused of Misclassifying Specialists and Trainees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Cancilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ecolab, Inc., a corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-03001
(N.D. Calif., June 11, 2012) alleges that throughout the relevant
class period, Ecolab has maintained a policy and practice of
unlawfully classifying Mr. Cancilla and members of the proposed
class as "exempt" from overtime requirements.

The Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Defendant unlawfully
classified all persons who are employed, or have been employed
during the relevant time period, in the Service Specialist and
Service Specialist Trainee positions ("Covered Employees") as
exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law
requiring premium and double-time pay for all overtime hours
worked.  He argues that Ecolab misclassified him and other Covered
Employees as exempt employees and, as a result, Ecolab failed to
pay them for all the overtime they worked, and failed to pay them
for missed meal periods.

Mr. Cancilla is a resident of California.  He was employed by the
Defendant from approximately September 2008 through August 2010.
He was initially hired as a Service Specialist Trainee, but
following his training period, he was reclassified as a Service
Specialist.  His territory was the San Jose area in California.

Ecolab is an international sanitation supply company headquartered
in St. Paul, Minnesota, with offices in the state of California,
including in this judicial district.  The Company provides
sanitation and pest control supplies, foodservice equipment repair
and parts, food safety services and consulting to restaurants,
hospitals, food and beverage plants, laundries, schools, retail
and commercial properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Zieff, Esq.
          David A. Lowe, Esq.
          John T. Mullan, Esq.
          RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE LLP
          351 California Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 434-0513
          E-mail: sgz@rezlaw.com
                  dal@rezlaw.com
                  jtm@rezlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd Jackson, Esq.
          LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1800
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824
          Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
          E-mail: tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP
          26 West Portal Avenue, Suite 1
          San Francisco, CA 94127
          Telephone: (415) 702-9869
          Facsimile: (415) 592-8671
          E-mail: rnelson@nelsonlawgroup.net

               - and -

          James M. Finberg, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Awaits Sup. Ct. Ruling on Ohio Class Suit Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corporation is awaiting a ruling from the Supreme
Court of Ohio on an appeal from the dismissal of a class action
lawsuit over discount reduction, according to the Company's May 1,
2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy Corp., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and Ohio Edison Company
seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a
class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had
previously been in place for residential customers with electric
heating, electric water heating, or load management systems.  The
reduction in the discount had been approved by the Public
Utilities Commission of Ohio.  In March 2010, the named-defendant
companies filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of
jurisdiction.  The court granted the motion to dismiss and the
plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint by
the Court of Common Pleas on all counts except for one relating to
an allegation of fraud which it remanded to the trial court.  The
Companies timely filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court
of Ohio on December 5, 2011, challenging this one aspect of the
Court of Appeals opinion.  The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed to
hear the appeal.


FMC CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Canadian Antitrust Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend itself from putative antitrust
class actions pending in Canadian courts, according to the
Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

In 2005 after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury
investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted
in no charges brought against the Company) and the filing of
various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have
all been settled, putative class actions against the Company and
five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under
the laws of Canada.  The other five defendants have settled these
claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million.  On
September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005.  The Company's motion for leave to
appeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010.
Since then, the case has been largely dormant.  In early 2012, the
parties began a more detailed dialogue on discovery and at a
hearing on April 5, 2012, they requested the judge to issue more
specific guidance on document production.  Since the proceedings
are in the preliminary stages with respect to the merits, the
Company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of its
potential exposure of loss at this time.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend these matters.


GRAMMY AWARDS: Implements Changes Following Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mesfin Fekadu, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
year after the Grammy Awards cut 31 categories, sparking protests
and a lawsuit by Latin jazz musicians, the music organization has
made more changes by adding three awards, including the
reinstatement of best Latin jazz album.

The Recording Academy announced Friday, June 8, in a statement to
AP that the upcoming Grammys will feature 81 categories.  It
reduced the number from 109 to 78 last year.

New entries include awards for best urban contemporary album, to
honor R&B albums that may include elements of pop and rock, and
best classical compendium to highlight albums "involving a mixture
of classical subgenres."

The academy shook up the music industry when it announced in April
2011 that it would downsize its categories to make the awards more
competitive.  That meant eliminating categories by sex, so men and
women compete in the same vocal categories.

But it also eliminated other niche fields and created broader
ones.

Some artists protested the change and others -- including Herbie
Hancock, Paul Simon and Bill Cosby -- complained.  The group that
filed a lawsuit, which was dismissed in April, was led by Bobby
Sanabria, the Grammy-nominated Latin jazz musician who accused the
academy of not following the proper procedures to implement the
changes.  Part of the class-action lawsuit called for the
reinstatement of the best Latin jazz album award.

That award was consolidated, making Latin jazz musicians compete
against a larger group of artists in the best-jazz-instrumental
category at the 54th Grammys, which were held in February.

"Every year we want to look at these objectively and make a good
musical decision and not be influenced by politics and pressure,"
said Neil Portnow, the president and CEO of the Recording Academy.
"I will say it's incredibly unfortunate that a very small group
chose to voice their discontent with a lawsuit that had no basis."

He continued: "Not only is it distracting from a time standpoint
but it also costs a great deal of money to have to defend
something that we knew was completely defensible."

The new decisions were made at the Academy's annual Board of
Trustees meeting last month.

Other changes include splitting up the best Latin pop, rock or
urban album honor into two awards, now known as best Latin pop
album and best Latin rock, urban or alternative album.  However,
the best Banda or Norteno album and best regional Mexican or Tejan
album have been combined into one award: best regional Mexican
music album.

Mr. Portnow says a number of proposals were filed, noting that
"the volume was definitely up" this year compared to past ones.

"I don't hold anything against the Latin jazz community for the
passion that they have for their music," he said.  "The (Latin
jazz) community put a good proposal together this year, and we see
the results of that."

The 55th Grammy Awards will air Feb. 10 on CBS.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Awaits Approval of Canadian Antitrust Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman International LLC is awaiting court approval of a
settlement resolving antitrust class action lawsuits filed in
Canada, according to the Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

Two civil antitrust class action cases were filed May 5 and 17,
2006 in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Canada and Superior
Court, Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, on behalf of
purported classes of Canadian direct and indirect purchasers of
MDI, TDI and polyether polyols.  On April 11, 2012, the Company
reached agreement to resolve these cases for an amount immaterial
to its consolidated financial statements.  The Canadian settlement
is subject to court approval.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Calif. Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
An antitrust class action lawsuit against Huntsman International
LLC remains pending in California, according to the Company's May
1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company was named as a defendant in civil class action
antitrust suits alleging that between 1999 and 2004 it conspired
with Bayer, BASF, Dow and Lyondell to fix the prices of MDI, TDI,
polyether polyols, and related systems ("polyether polyol
products") sold in the U.S. in violation of the federal Sherman
Act.  These cases are consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols"
cases in multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas.

In addition, the Company and the other Polyether Polyols
defendants were named as defendants in three civil antitrust suits
brought by certain direct purchasers of polyether polyol products
that opted out of the class certified in the Kansas multidistrict
litigation.  The relevant time frame for these cases is 1994 to
2004 and they are referred to as the "direct action cases."  The
class action and the direct action cases were consolidated in the
Kansas court for the purposes of discovery and other pretrial
matters.

In the second quarter of 2011, the Company settled the class
action and was dismissed as a defendant.  On December 29, 2011,
the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the direct
action plaintiffs for an amount immaterial to its financial
statements and was dismissed from those cases on December 30,
2011.

A purported class action case filed February 15, 2005, by
purchasers in California of products containing rubber and
urethane chemicals and pending in Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco is stayed pending resolution of the Kansas
multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in this matter make
similar claims against the defendants as the class plaintiffs in
the Kansas multidistrict litigation.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Class Cert. Hearing in Maryland Suit Set for Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider certification of a class in a consolidated
lawsuit against Huntsman International LLC is scheduled for August
13, 2012, before a Maryland federal court, according to the
Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two purported class
action civil antitrust suits alleging that the Company and its co-
defendants and other co-conspirators conspired to fix prices of
titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002
and the present.  The cases were filed on February 9 and 12, 2010
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and a
consolidated complaint was filed on April 12, 2010.  The other
defendants named in this matter are E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millennium Inorganic Chemicals,
Inc. and the National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited (d/b/a
Cristal).  A class certification hearing is scheduled for
August 13, 2012 and trial is set to begin September 9, 2013.
Discovery is ongoing.


INDONESIA: KPU Jakarta Sued Over Final Voters' List Irregularities
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jakarta Post reports that an advocacy group has registered a
class action lawsuit against the Jakarta General Elections
Commission (KPU Jakarta) over allegations of irregularities in the
their final voters' list (DPT).

The group, Jakarta Baru, filed its lawsuit at the Central Jakarta
district court on Monday.

Jakarta Baru coordinator Habiburokhman said that part of the
problems with the final voters list was the high amount of voters
who had been listed twice.

"We see that there are 1.4 million suspected double voters [on the
final voters' list]," Habiburokhman said on June 11, after filing
the lawsuit, as quoted by kompas.com.

He hoped that this case could be prioritized so that there could
be legal certainty during the upcoming gubernatorial elections.

He said that the elections should even be delayed in order to
settle alleged inconsistencies.

Jakarta Baru is not the only group having problems with the KPU
Jakarta's final voters' list.  Gubernatorial candidates and the
public have also expressed complaints.

In response, the KPU head of logistics, Aminullah, said that
ineligible voters, or voters with double names or ID card numbers,
would be marked gray so polling station officers would recognize
them.

In addition, the KPU will only issue one voting card for voters
listed twice.


JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Man Sues Lawyers in Tax Refund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Velasco, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that a man
who has not received his rebate from Jefferson County's
replacement occupational tax has filed a legal malpractice suit
claiming lawyers in the tax case failed to protect their clients
from a refund plan with "woefully inadequate" safeguards for
workers, records show.

The suit asks Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert Vance to order
lawyers Wilson Green, Clay Lowe Jr. and Donald Jones Jr. to pay
the refund, plus punitive damages and related costs to each worker
who has not received a share of occupational taxes from late 2010
and early 2011.

The suit, filed last month by Birmingham lawyer James Woolley on
behalf of Zachary Spitzer, seeks class-action status for all
workers who have not received their refunds from the replacement
tax.

Circuit Judge Charles Price struck down the replacement tax and a
business license fee in December 2010.  The original levies were
repealed in a different suit by Circuit Judge David Rains in
January 2009, and refunds are ongoing.

The new suit tracks issues raised in a February 2012 analysis by
The Birmingham News about whether the court-approved refund plan
ensured that workers actually would receive the money they are
due.

About $18 million was available for taxpayers, after deductions
for lawyer fees and refund costs.

The News analysis found that bulk refund checks were sent to
businesses with no clear instruction that the money was to be
divided among affected workers.

Public notice that refunds had been sent were delayed by several
months, and neither taxpayer lawyers nor the refund agent knows
what each worker paid or was owed, records show.

Efforts were unsuccessful to reach Messrs. Green, Lowe or Jones,
whose 2009 class-action lawsuit ultimately killed the replacement
tax.

In an interview earlier this year, Messrs. Lowe and Green defended
the refund plan in their case, saying it was efficient and
effective.

Messrs. Green and Lowe said the same approach worked when
Jefferson County provided refunds after a different occupational
tax suit they filed in 2000.

The legal malpractice suit contends that Messrs. Green, Lowe and
Jones breached their duties to clients when they failed to object
to the refund plan Judge Price ordered, or seek a hearing for
public comment.

The new suit also said the $6.4 million fee Judge Price awarded
the lawyers in April, two hours after they filed their initial
request, was excessive.

Efforts were unsuccessful to reach Mr. Woolley for comment.

The refunds are being sent via businesses because the county did
not keep tax records for each worker.

Businesses would withhold the tax from workers' pay, then send the
county a bulk monthly payment.

The bulk refund checks the administrator, Simeon Penton, sent to
businesses had an attached notice saying the checks represented
money paid "for your" tax obligation, and is "your pro-rata
share."  It also advises the company to consult a tax professional
about "your" income tax liability.

The taxpayer lawyers failed to adequately represent their clients
by allowing refunds to be sent through a third party "with the
mere hope" the money would reach workers, Mr. Woolley wrote in the
lawsuit.

"Not only is there no mention that a majority of these dollars
belong to the employees, there is affirmative indication that all
of the dollars belong to the employer," Mr. Woolley wrote.
Some of the money from back taxes had been made available to
workers as early as March 2011, and most of the tax refunds were
mailed out in the fall of 2011, Mr. Penton told The News.
But Mr. Penton did not publicly disclose he had sent refunds until
Dec. 28, 2011.

All but $1.1 million of the checks have been cashed, Mr. Penton
said on June 8.  But people have continued to complain they have
not gotten their money.

The News analysis found some employers, due to newspaper coverage
of the tax case, figured out the refund checks were intended for
workers and distributed the money.  But some employers cashed the
check without passing anything on to affected workers.

The refund plan that Judge Rains approved in the other
occupational tax case contrasts sharply in its transparency and
protections for affected workers, court records show.

The special master in the earlier tax case, Ed Gentle, is
gathering workers' tax data from their employers during the refund
period.

Refunds are sent through the employers, but checks are made out to
an individual workers.  Each lists the amount of tax withheld, the
amount subject to the refund, the deduction for lawyer fees, the
net refund and how to contact Mr. Gentle.

Each batch of refund checks is disclosed in the public court
record when Judge Rains approves it, and Mr. Gentle has published
a list of companies that have not provided the tax data.

Including refunds approved last week, about $11 million has been
sent to nearly 171,000 workers since September.

The refunds in the original tax case are expected to cost $1.1
million, which Judge Rains ordered the county to fund.  In the
latter tax case, Judge Price ordered the $525,000 cost to come out
of the taxpayer refund money.


KROSSLAND COMMUNICATIONS: Aug. 6 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Consumer Law Group of California on June 11 issued a statement
regarding the Carol Galvan, et al. v. Krossland Communications,
Inc. case.

SUMMARY CLASS NOTICE

This summary notice is issued in accordance with the Court order
dated May 21, 2012 preliminarily approving the settlement of Carol
Galvan, et al. v. Krossland Communications, Inc., United States
District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:08-CV-
00999-JVS (ANx).  Lolis Tackwood represents a class of pre-paid
calling card customers who purchased certain calling cards
distributed by Krossland between August 26, 2004 and May 21, 2012,
other than for purposes of re-sale, and other than calling cards
distributed by Locus, AT&T, T-Mobile, Boost, Total Call and IDT.
A list of those cards affected by this settlement can be reviewed
by accessing http://www.KrosslandSettlement.com

If consumers who purchased these calling cards submit a Claim
Form, they can receive a Refund PIN that can be used to make
telephone calls to any location in North, Central or South
America, at the rate of 20 cents/minute to any telephone number
within the United States and any landline telephone number in
North, Central or South America, and 50 cents/minute to any
cellular telephone number outside the United States in those
locations.  There shall be a total cap of $250,000 on the dollar
amount of Refund PINs, less certain fees and costs.  Individual
claims are capped at $16.00 in Refund PINs, rounded up to the
nearest 50 cent increment, based on 30% of the face value of
consumers' eligible Krossland Calling Card purchases during the
Class Period, subject to possible proration as described in the
full class settlement notice.  The Refund PIN may be used within 1
year of activation, and a deadline for using this PIN shall be
provided with the PIN. Settlement Class members can submit a Proof
of Claim Form online at http://www.KrosslandSettlement.comor by
requesting a Proof of Claim Form from the Settlement Administrator
and submitting it to the address below.

To be excluded from this settlement, or to object to the
settlement, Settlement Class Members must follow the instructions
in the Notice described below.  The deadline to opt out of the
settlement is August 6, 2012.  The deadline to submit any
objection is July 27, 2012.

This is only a summary of the settlement.  For additional
information regarding this settlement, the full Notice of Class
Action Settlement is available at
http://www.KrosslandSettlement.comor from the Settlement
Administrator at Galvan, et al. v. Krossland Communications, Inc.,
c/o GCG, P.O. Box 9904, Dublin, OH 43017-5804. You may also call
1-888-277-6762 if you have any questions.


MERRILL LYNCH: Continues to Fight Former Brokers' Pay Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Giannone, writing for Reuters, reports that Merrill
Lynch's approach to fighting more than 1,000 former brokers who
claim the firm denied them more than $1 billion in deferred
compensation shows no signs of softening.

The second-largest U.S. brokerage was ordered in April to pay
$10.2 million to two former brokers who an arbitration panel said
were owed compensation Merrill had refused to pay.  Merrill was
also fined more than $100,000 during the case for what arbitrators
deemed abusive and fraudulent conduct.

Merrill immediately went to court to try to get the award
overturned on allegations of arbitrator bias.

The unusually detailed arbitration ruling from the case offers a
window into the approach lawyers say Merrill has used in the last
several years to fight claims from former brokers.  It could also
provide a look at what hundreds of former brokers pursuing similar
claims may face as those cases wind their way through arbitration.

"Merrill has been very aggressive and has tried to make an example
of former brokers who dared to question anything 'Mother Merrill'
has done," said Steven Caruso -- sbcaruso@aol.com -- of Maddox
Hargett & Caruso in New York, a plaintiff's lawyer who represents
investors against brokerages and is chairman of a Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority advisory group that weighs in on
arbitration rules and procedures.

He said that since Bank of America Corp acquired Merrill, the firm
has taken "a scorched earth approach" to broker pay cases.

The current cases stem from Merrill's September 2008 merger
agreement with Bank of America.  At issue are years of deferred
compensation held in stock savings plans.  That money is typically
only paid if a broker stays at the firm for a certain number of
years.  But brokers also get paid if they leave for "good reason"
as defined by the compensation plans.

More than 3,300 brokers left Merrill after the BofA deal and now
many of them, after Merrill denied their deferred-pay requests,
are pursuing claims that the merger constitutes good reason for
collecting their deferred pay.

An internal Merrill analysis cited by a FINRA arbitration panel
estimated the firm's total potential "good reason liability
exposure" from departing brokers could range from "hundreds of
millions" to "several billion" dollars.

Merrill says the cases are without merit.

"Financial advisors who received stock awards understood that they
would forfeit any unvested stock if they decided to leave the
firm," a Merrill spokesman said on June 7.  "Merrill Lynch's
acquisition by Bank of America alone didn't trigger any change to
that as an acquisition by itself does not provide any basis for
these type of claims."

In the 16-page ruling that resulted in a $10.2 million award for
two former Merrill brokers, Tamara Smolchek and Meri Ramazio,
arbitrators not only disagreed with that stand, but also detailed
Merrill's treatment of its brokers and its tactics during the
hearings.

Merrill "made fraudulent misrepresentations and withheld
information from claimants," the panel said as it explained its
decision to award punitive damages of $5 million, "and used other
retaliatory and coercive tactics against (brokers) to accomplish
its unlawful objective" of withholding pay.

The panel said Merrill fraudulently forced brokers to submit their
pay claims to a "sham" committee established to review good-reason
claims, but which rejected every claim.  The committee provided
"no credible documentation" to arbitrators of its procedures to
review claims, the panel said.

The panel ordered Merrill to pay the two brokers more than
$100,000 for actions that "hindered, disrupted and delayed" the
proceedings.  One example: Merrill was ordered to deliver a log of
documents it believed should be kept confidential.  When Merrill
didn't do so in 11 days it was given a two-day extension.  With
the log still not forthcoming, the panel imposed sanctions of
$1,000 an hour.  Merrill then produced the log and paid $3,500 to
the panel.

The panel also cited Merrill's efforts to intimidate Ms. Smolchek
by bringing up a medical issue after the topic had been barred.
The firm had to pay her $10,000 as punishment.

Merrill was "exercising our rights under the process," the bank
spokesman said.

Merrill's approach to broker compensation issues have resulted in
other recent fines and rebukes.

In January, FINRA fined Merrill $1 million after concluding that
the brokerage tried to circumvent FINRA's rules requiring it to
submit to FINRA arbitration in pay disputes.

Last year, a California arbitration panel awarded former Merrill
broker Bradford Shaffer $3.8 million in a pay dispute and in its
ruling said Merrill engaged "in a knowing and aggressive defense"
of an "unsupportable position."

Neither case was related to the current deferred pay claims.

So far, Merrill has settled several current deferred-pay cases,
won at least two arbitration cases and has lost twice.

A FINRA arbitration panel in October 2010 awarded $1.2 million to
two brokers in a deferred compensation case that first raised
questions about Merrill's potential legal exposure.

Then, in an April 3 decision, arbitrators awarded the $10.2
million -- $5.2 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in
punitive damages -- to Ms. Smolchek and Ms. Ramazio.

Within an hour of receiving the ruling, Merrill asked a Florida
federal court to throw out the decision on grounds that panel
chairwoman Bonnie Pearce was biased against the firm.  Ms. Pearce
is married to a lawyer who represented clients against Merrill at
least five times and won a $1.3 million award against the firm in
2003.

Merrill said Ms. Pearce did not properly disclose her potential
conflicts and that the brokerage was not aware of these details
until the hearings were underway, according to court documents.

But three weeks ago, Merrill's lawyers disclosed that eight days
before the Ms. Smolchek hearings began, a Merrill lawyer had
printed out pages from Robert Pearce's law firm Web site detailing
his background and his Merrill cases.

"Merrill has an uphill battle on its hands," to overturn the award
said Thomas Lewis, a New Jersey-based lawyer specializing in
broker employment issues, but who is not involved in these
deferred pay cases.

Judges rarely overturn arbitration awards and bias is hard to
prove, Mr. Lewis and other lawyers say.

While arbitration rulings do not establish precedent for future
cases, a federal judge's comments and reasoning could have direct
bearing on hundreds of cases waiting in the wings.  If Merrill
prevails, other brokers might be deterred from seeing their cases
through or filing claims, lawyers for brokers said.

Industry lawyers say Merrill might be better off settling the
pending compensation cases quickly and, potentially, by embracing
a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in 2008 by Alabama brokers
Scott Chambers and John Burnette on behalf of all Merrill advisers
with pay claims.

Merrill declined comment on the topic of settlement talks.  But
Florida lawyer Michael Taaffe, who represents Ms. Smolchek and
about 1,000 other former Merrill brokers, said Merrill has settled
a number of his cases that had been scheduled to begin in May and
June and that other hearings were postponed to create time to find
a resolution.

In April, Merrill asked a Manhattan federal judge for more time to
prepare its defense in the proposed class action.  A May 21
hearing to certify the class was postponed until late summer.

"They're dying a death by a thousand cuts," said securities lawyer
Aegis Frumento, who is not involved in these cases.  "I'd think
they would be better off seeking a global resolution."


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Denies Misleading Players on Concussion Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Chang, writing for The Improper, reports that the
National Football League vehemently denies it deliberately hid
evidence of the link between football-related concussions and
long-term brain damage.

"The NFL has long made player safety a priority and continues to
do so," the league said in a statement on June 7, 2012.

"Any allegation that the NFL sought to mislead players has no
merit.  It stands in contrast to the league's many actions to
better protect players and advance the science and medical
understanding of the management and treatment of concussions."

The statement came in response to a massive class action that was
filed in Philadelphia federal court on June 7, where more than
2,000 former NFL players sued the league, accusing it of
deliberately concealing evidence that football-related head
injuries leads to long-term brain damage, including Alzheimers,
Lou Gehrig's disease, depression and other neurological disorders.

"The NFL, like the sport of boxing, was aware of the health risks
associated with repetitive blows producing sub-concussive and
concussive results and the fact that some members of the NFL
player population were at significant risk of developing long-term
brain damage and cognitive decline as a result," the complaint
alleges.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of several tragic suicides of
former NFL stars, including legendary linebacker Junior Seau, who
shot himself to death on May 2, 2012 at the age of 43.  His
shocking suicide is reminiscent of the 2011 death of NFL star Dave
Duerson, who also died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the
chest at age 50.

In his suicide note, Mr. Duerson asked that his brain be donated
to a research center because he believed the head trauma he
suffered during his professional football career had caused him to
suffer irreparable brain damage.  Mr. Duerson's final words were:
"Please, see that my brain is given to the N.F.L.'s brain bank."

In April 2012, former Atlanta Falcons star Ray Easterling shot
himself to death at his home in Virginia at age 62.

At the time of his suicide, Mr. Easterling had been in the midst
of a lawsuit against the NFL claiming it had tried to hide the
link between football and brain injuries.  Mr. Easterling had
complained of depression, insomnia and dementia for the past 20
years.  His widow, Mary Ann Easterling, is among the plaintiffs.

"I wish I could sit down with (NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell) and
share with him the pain.  It's not just the spouses, it's the
kids, too," Mrs. Easterling, 59, told The Associated Press.  "Kids
don't understand why Dad is angry all the time."

Experts say two football players running full speed at 20 miles an
hour can generate 1,800 pounds of force in a head-on collision.

"Despite its knowledge and controlling role in governing player
conduct on and off the field, the NFL turned a blind eye to the
risk and failed to warn and/or impose safety regulations governing
this well-recognized health and safety problem," according to the
lawsuit.


NEW YORK, NY: Muslims File Class Action v. NYPD
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Kouri, writing for Law Enforcement Examiner, reports that
Muslims living in northern New Jersey announced that they had
filed a class-action lawsuit against the New York City Police
Department's surveillance of mosques, businesses, universities and
other locations as part of its anti-terrorism program.

The lawsuit was filed on June 7 in federal court in Newark (Essex
County), New Jersey, on behalf of a number of Muslim-American
organizations, Muslim-owned businesses, and individual members of
the Islamic community, according to a national Muslim group.

The group -- Muslim Advocates -- said in a statement: "[Thurs]day,
a diverse group of American Muslim plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to
end the New York City Police Department's invasive and
discriminatory spying program.  The suit, filed by Muslim
Advocates, the leading national legal advocacy group working to
defend the civil liberties of American Muslims, details countless
acts of invasive and discriminatory spying authorized by Police
Commissioner Ray Kelly."

While the NYPD's surveillance operation outraged the members of
the New York-New Jersey Muslim communities, it is supported by the
majority of residents, according to recent polls.  A Quinnipiac
Poll revealed that 62 percent of New Jersey voters said the NYPD's
focus on Muslims was appropriate, 18 percent said it was unfair
and 20 percent did not express an opinion.  Republicans supported
it 83-8 percent, Democrats by 44-27 percent, and independents by
64-17 percent.

In the lawsuit, the Muslim plaintiffs stated they found it
necessary to sue in order "to affirm the principle that
individuals may not be singled out for intrusive investigation and
pervasive surveillance simply because they profess a certain
faith."

The anti-terrorism operation by the NYPD's Intelligence Division
"casts guilt on all people of that faith by suggesting that
Muslims pose a special threat to public safety," the plaintiffs
stated.

Another large Muslim group -- the Council on American Islamic
Relations -- is expected to file a similar lawsuit in Manhattan
against the NYPD.  A CAIR affiliate, attorney Mary Catherine Roper
from the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, stated,
"They should be spending their time looking at the more specific
behaviors that ought to draw their attention and make them
investigate a person or a group."  She goes on to say that
congregating to pray should not be a foundation of suspicion.

However, a number of Islamic terrorists arrested by the FBI
emanated from a Jersey City mosque including Sheikh Omar Abdel-
Rahman a/k/a "The Blind Sheikh." The plan to bomb the World Trade
Center in 1993 was proven to have been hatched in that large
mosque.

Besides the civil lawsuit, three dozen Democrat members of
Congress have asked for a full Justice Department investigation.

"I can't read their minds or look into their hearts, but based on
their actions it seems to me the Democrats will always jump at the
chance to investigate cops or intelligence agents or military
personnel, but are lax when it comes to investigating the enemies
of the U.S. or the criminals," said former police detective Mike
Snopes, who served in the NYPD Intelligence Division.

"Holder, Lautenberg and others are disturbed with the [NYPD]
because the department didn't allow political correctness to get
in the way of protecting New Yorkers," Mr. Snopes said.

"And as far as New Jersey, let's remember that members of a Jersey
City mosque were involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
Center," Mr. Snopes added.


PEPSICO: Faces Class Action Over Tropicana Product Labels
---------------------------------------------------------
Josh Salman, writing for Bradenton Herald, reports that the
lawsuit by a California woman concerned with the amount of
processing that goes into Tropicana orange juice has triggered
nearly two dozen similar complaints, putting the citrus industry's
current standards at center stage.

The class-action claims against Tropicana's parent company PepsiCo
along with those against Coca-Cola and its Simply Orange product
will be heard together in court at a date yet to be determined.
No monetary damages have been set.

The cases allege Tropicana uses artificial sources to increase the
shelf-life of a product it labels as "100 percent natural" -- a
slogan that's accompanied by the logo of an orange with a straw
stem.

About 20 lawsuits have now accumulated against Florida orange
juice makers, the majority of which target Tropicana, a company
that processes 41 million boxes of fruit annually using one in
every three oranges grown in Florida.

The proceedings will get to the heart of a three-year battle
between the orange juice industry and opponents of so called
flavor packs, which are used to restore citrus taste and aroma in
batches of juice that have been processed.

Tropicana continues to stand by its product.

"Our juice is safe and nutritious and Tropicana remains committed
to offering great-tasting 100 percent orange juice with no added
sugars or preservatives," said Tropicana spokesman Michael Torres.
"We take the faith that consumers place in our products seriously
and are committed to full compliance with labeling laws and
regulations."

The burst of legal claims were spurred by Angelena Lewis, a
Northern California woman upset Tropicana was charging more for
its Pure Premium, which she inferred was freshly-squeezed because
it was in the grocer's refrigeration cooler.

The 25-page complaint uses prior research on the pasteurization
effects of orange juice to argue any product that was freshly
squeezed would have a much shorter shelf life.

The lawsuit seeks relief for all purchasers of Tropicana not-from-
concentrate juice.

"It's not natural orange juice," the suit states.  "It is instead
a product that's scientifically engineered in laboratories, not
nature, which explains its shelf-life of more than two months."

The lawsuits also refer to flavor packs, which were first brought
to the public's attention three years ago in a controversial book
authored by Alissa Hamilton.

Because not all oranges taste the same, and they ripen at
different times, large juicers blend the fruit together for year-
round consistency, sometimes allowing it to process for months.

Coupled with pasteurization, a heating method used to kill
spoilage organisms, the process can strip away oxygen and
eventually flavors.

Using flavor packs derived from the oranges to restore those
characteristics is essential, and commonplace in the industry,
said Kristen Gunter, executive director of the Florida Citrus
Processors Association.

She believes the Tropicana attacks are part of a broader movement
by consumer groups to push environmentally sustainable agriculture
by targeting the citrus industry's biggest players.

Most of the practices used by Tropicana are consistent with the
standards of every other commercial juicer in Florida, Ms. Gunter
said.

"They're picking on the wrong industry," she said.  "We're one of
the most highly standardized industries in the U.S. and that's
because we went to Washington and said we wanted definitions for
pasteurized, concentrated and freshly squeezed juice so one
couldn't paint itself off as another."

The orange juice under legal attack was labelled as pasteurized, a
clear warning it was not straight from the grove.

The discrepancy lies with the wording "all natural," which carries
no formal definition by either the Federal Trade Commission or
Food and Drug Administration.

As long as the product is free of added color, flavor and
synthetic substances, it's OK.

The Tropicana lawsuit argues orange juice flavor packs fail in all
three cases.

Many national brands are now adopting the "natural" term to
attract the health-conscious consumer, but with no clarity as what
it means pertaining to packaged food, companies have free reigns
to use it however they see fit, Ms. Gunter said.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against Snapple, Tostidos, and
Ben and Jerry's ice cream, records show.

"Flavor packs in just hearsay," said Dean Mixon, owner of Mixon
Fruit Farms, a small orange juice maker in Bradenton.

"But in any business, if you're dishonest about your product,
you're not being ethical."


QUICK TRIM: Kardashian Sisters Respond to Diet Pill Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
AceShowbiz.com reports that the Kardashian sisters have responded
to the Quick Trim lawsuit.

A class-action lawsuit was filed earlier this year, claiming that
Kim Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian and Khloe Kardashian made
"unsubstantiated, false and misleading claims" in ads, interviews
and tweets about the efficacy of the diet pills.

Consumers believed the reality stars sold bogus pills to millions
of gullible consumers especially after the FDA found out that the
main ingredient in Quick Trim was caffeine.  They said the sisters
tricked them into buying the product which is not effective for
weight-reducing.

The Kardashians have counteracted the $5 million lawsuit, saying
in legal documents that they are just the faces for Quick Trim and
should not be held responsible for the brand's lies.  They pointed
out the absence of a law that puts a spokesperson in blame for
false advertising.  Therefore, the sisters want their name cleared
out from the lawsuit.

Kim and her sisters apparently were still endorsing Quick Trim
last month.  Kim made a trip to London to promote the weight
management system at Westfield mall and St. Pancras Renaissance
Hotel.


RED BULL: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Red Bull North America stiffs
workers for overtime, a worker claims in a Los Angeles Superior
Court class action.


SACRAMENTO, CA: Homeless Files Claims Over Property Seizures
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Hubert, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that
nearly 900 homeless men and women have filed claims for
reimbursement for bicycles, tents and other items seized by city
police during raids of illegal campsites in recent years.

The claims are part of an unusual process to resolve a federal
class-action lawsuit charging that police stomped on the
constitutional rights of homeless people by grabbing their
belongings and throwing them away without giving the owners a
chance to get them back.

As of June 6, 864 people had filed claims for property seized by
Sacramento police since 2005, said Mark Merin, a Sacramento
attorney representing the homeless.  Mr. Merin said he expects
more claims to be filed.

Plaintiffs whose claims are approved will receive payments of
either $400 or $750, depending upon the value of the property.

The city could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars
in payments to homeless people, depending upon how many claims are
deemed valid, plus attorney fees for four years of work and a
three-week trial.

Senior Deputy City Attorney Chance Trimm said, however, that the
city will fight any claims that appear to be bogus, and might go
to court to fight paying attorney's fees.

"Some of these claims are missing key information," such as birth
dates and Social Security numbers, and will likely be thrown out,
Mr. Trimm said.  Others list campsite locations such as "the Snake
Pit," and "the Island," names familiar only to homeless people and
their advocates.

A professional claims administrator will make a preliminary ruling
on the validity of each case.

If a dispute arises that cannot be resolved between the battling
parties, a federal judge who has been appointed as a special
master in the case will step in.

The process follows a federal court trial last year in which a
jury found that the city failed to properly notify homeless people
about how to retrieve their possessions, and failed to implement
policies for handling that property.

The trial featured a parade of homeless and formerly homeless
people, some of whom testified tearfully about losing "survival
gear," including tents and lanterns, as well as personal items
from family photographs to prescription medications.

The city's star witness was a police officer fondly known as
"Batman" among homeless men and women.  He testified that he and
his partners are obligated to enforce a city ordinance that bans
camping in undesignated areas for more than 24 hours.

Police routinely must roust campers in response to complaints, he
said, and then clean up the messes left behind.

During the past few months, homeless people have been filling out
claim forms handed out at shelters, soup kitchens and campsites.
The form asks for identifying information, including a Social
Security number, dates of when property was seized, location and
information about whether city employees were responsible for
taking the items.  It also asks about the homeless person's
efforts to recover the property.

Sacramento County originally was part of the civil lawsuit but
settled its portion in 2009 with a payment of $488,000 and the
development of elaborate policies for tagging and storing items
seized during sweeps of illegal campsites.

About 300 people filed claims against the county, which paid out
about $200,000 to plaintiffs.  Mr. Trimm said he believes that
fewer claims will be validated against city officers because they
did a good job of marking and storing property seized at homeless
campsites. In many cases, no one claimed the items, he said.

Mr. Trimm said it might take months to sort out which claims
against the city are valid.  Mr. Merin said he hoped checks would
be issued this summer.

"We're not going to spend hours and hours resolving each claim,"
said Mr. Merin.  "That wouldn't make sense.  I would hope that we
would err on the side of generosity."


TOYS R US: July 27 Status Conference Set for Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Durand, writing for The Daily Journal, reports that a man
whose refund at a San Mateo Toys "R" Us store was prorated because
he received a gift card at the time of initial purchase is suing
the toy chain, claiming he would have been better off paying full
price instead of losing out on $3.10.

Steven E. Lewan claims in the suit filed June 1 in San Mateo
County Superior Court that the corporation violated several
aspects of the business and professions code, the civil code and
consumer legal remedies act.  Mr. Lewan's case is also demanding
jury trial as a class action on behalf of himself and anybody else
who found themselves in a similar situation.  The suit estimates
the total number is "at least in the thousands."

Mr. Lewan's attorney David Parisi could not be reached for comment
but states in the suit that his client is "a perfect example of
[the company's] coupon program gone wrong."

On Oct. 3, 2011, Mr. Lewan spent $137.56 on five items, using a
coupon that promised a free $10 gift card on future purchases if
he spent more than $75. Six days later, he returned a Race Along
Chuck toy valued at $34.99 plus tax. However, according to the
suit, Mr. Lewan only received a refund of $31.89 plus tax.

The suit claims the toy chain is guilty of not only running a bad
coupon program but also fails to abide by California law
obligating stores to disclose if they do not fully refund items
returned within seven days of purchase.

Had Mr. Lewan not used the coupon and purchased the Ride Along
Chuck separately, he would not have lost $3.10, the suit states.
However, a Toys "R" Us representative points to the corporation's
policy spelled out on its Web site.

Kathleen Waugh, vice president of corporate communications, said
she cannot comment on pending litigation but pointed out the
policy online entitled "Returns of items where free gift card was
received with purchase."  The policy states that the value of the
free gift card or merchandise will be deducted from the refund
amount unless it is returned unused or in resaleable condition.
Mr. Lewan's suit, though, argues he never received an explanation
of the return policy until after attempting the return and that a
manager he spoke with on Oct. 9 wasn't able to explain the pro-
rated guidelines.

Mr. Lewan was still above the $75 threshold after returning the
toy so he would have not lost any money had he made two purchases
rather than combining them and using the coupon, according to the
suit.

The suit also cites the California civil code which holds that
retail sellers who don't offer full refunds must display the
policy publicly.

The case is next scheduled for a complex case status conference
July 27 and a case management conference Oct. 12.


VENOCO INC: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Venoco, Inc., continues to defend itself from several class action
lawsuits challenging its merger with Timothy Marquez, owner and
chief executive officer of TimBer, LLC, and his affiliates,
according to the Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012.

On January 16, 2012, the Company announced it had entered into a
merger agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates
pursuant to which, at closing, each of the shareholders other than
Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would receive $12.50 for each share
of Company stock (the "Merger").  Following announcement of the
merger agreement, four additional suits were filed in Delaware and
three suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as
defendants the Company and each of its directors.  Each action
seeks certification as a class action.  Plaintiffs in both the
Delaware and Colorado actions challenge the Merger and allege,
among other things, that the consideration to be paid is
inadequate.  The complaints filed in Delaware were consolidated.
The consolidated complaint seeks, among other relief, to enjoin
defendants from consummating the Merger and to direct defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
in the best interests of the shareholders.  On April 25, 2012
plaintiffs in the Delaware action withdraw their request for a
preliminary injunction.  The Company has reviewed the allegations
contained in the complaints and believes they are without merit.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Continues to Defend Citizens Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s Xactware subsidiary continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers of
property casualty insurance policy from Citizens Property
Insurance Corporation, according to the Company's May 1, 2012 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On February 28, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint
filed in the Florida State Circuit Court for Pasco County naming
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ("Citizens") and the
Company's Xactware subsidiary.  The complaint alleged a class
action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against
defendants and was brought on behalf of "all individuals who have
purchased a new or renewed a property casualty insurance policy
from Citizens" where Citizens used Xactware's 360Value product to
determine replacement value of the property.  On March 12, 2012,
plaintiffs served an amended complaint on Xactware adding
additional causes of action alleging: (1) Citizens and Xactware
knowingly made false statements to the plaintiff class concerning
their properties' replacement cost values; (2) fraud against
Xactware based on its alleged misrepresentation of the replacement
value of plaintiffs' properties; (3) conspiracy against Citizens
and Xactware based on their alleged artificial inflation of the
value of plaintiffs' properties; and (4) products liability
against Xactware, claiming Xactware defectively designed 360Value
as used in the Florida insurance market.

The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as
well as unspecified monetary damages alleged to be in excess of
$1,000 for the class.  At this time, it is not possible to
determine the ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability
related to, this matter.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Faces Suit Arising from Employment Records
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Verisk Analytics, Inc., is facing a putative class
action lawsuit arising from its failure to implement policies and
procedures relating to the disclosure of criminal record
information contained in employment records, according to the
Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

On April 20, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed
on April 16, 2012 in Alameda County Superior Court in California
naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.  The
complaint titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc. et al.
alleges a nationwide putative class action on behalf of all
persons who have been the subject of a consumer report furnished
to a third party by Intellicorp for employment purposes and whose
report contained any negative public record of criminal arrest,
charge or conviction during the 5 years preceding the filing of
the action until final resolution.  The complaint alleges that
Intellicorp failed to implement policies and procedures designed
to ensure that criminal record information provided to employers
is complete and up to date, and failed to notify class members
contemporaneously of the fact that criminal record information was
being provided to their employers and prospective employers.  The
complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not
less than one hundred dollars and not more than one thousand
dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees
as well as unspecified monetary damages for the named plaintiff.
At this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate
resolution of or estimate the liability related to this matter.


VMJ INC: Diamonds Men's Club Strippers File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that three self-described
"strippers" say in a federal class action that they are among 200
women the owner-operators of Diamonds Exclusive Men's Club of
Mobile charged to work there, forced to share tips, paid less than
minimum wage and misclassified as independent contractors.

A copy of the Complaint in Mud, et al. v. VMJ, Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-00384 (S.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/11/Strippers.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
          245 E. Intendencia Street
          Mobile, AL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600


WEBLOYALTY.COM: Sued Over Fee-Based Membership Programs
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that WebLoyalty.com "preys on"
online consumers by causing them "to unknowingly 'enroll' in its
fee-based membership" programs, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Park v. Webloyalty.com, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-01380 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/11/WebLoyalty.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  alisa@pattersonlawgroup.com


WESTERN COAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Vancouver-
based Western Coal Corp. artificially drove down its share price
in 2007 to allow certain investors and insiders to make millions,
a $220-million lawsuit headed to court on June 11 alleges.
Western Coal, a mid-sized coal producer with mines in B.C. and
West Virginia, was taken over by Birmingham, Ala.-based Walter
Energy Inc. last year.  But the company and some of its investors
and officials still face allegations filed in the 2009 lawsuit.

The case, one of an increasing number of similar shareholder
lawsuits filed in Ontario in recent years, goes before Mr. Justice
George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court for a hearing in
Toronto this week.

Plaintiffs are being represented by lawyer James Orr of Kim Orr
Barristers PC, and are seeking permission for the lawsuit to
proceed as a class action on behalf of Western Coal shareholders
who suffered losses.

The allegations, which lawyers for Western Coal called "baseless"
in a court submission, have not been proven.  Lawyers for both
sides declined to comment.

The lawsuit alleges that Western Coal injected a financial results
release in November of 2007 with bad news to "spread alarm" among
investors and give the "false impression that [Western Coal] was
on the verge of bankruptcy."

The share price on the Toronto Stock Exchange price fell more than
70 per cent after the numbers came out, sliding from $1.68 to just
50 cents, prompting some investors to cut their losses and sell.

The lawsuit alleges that a major shareholder, Britain-based
Cambrian Mining PLC, and one of Cambrian's shareholders, a
Guernsey-registered hedge fund called Audley European
Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., boosted their stakes in Western
Coal and made hundreds of millions when coal prices increased and
the shares bounced back.

Audley injected $30-million in convertible debentures, which were
worth $430-million when the company was taken over last year at
$11.50 a share, the plaintiffs state in court documents.

A lawyer for Audley responded in a court submission that the hedge
fund was forced to come "to the rescue" of Western Coal during its
"financial storm," and the fund had been "shocked" by Western
Coal's financial results.

Three Western Coal directors also bought shares the week after the
bad results came out, the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit cites internal e-mails sent by senior company
officials before the financial release in November, 2007, stating
that Western Coal had decided to "clean house" and "enhance the
losses" in its financial statements.  It alleges the company used
an outdated, and much lower, coal price to make its cash flow look
worse.

In court submissions, lawyers for Western Coal and Cambrian say
the company's disclosures contained "no misrepresentations," and
that the plaintiffs' claims are not backed up by evidence.

They argue the company was struggling due to the rising Canadian
dollar and other problems, and faced a demand for a quick $15-
million payment from its lead lender, BNP Paribas, by the end of
November 2007.  It was auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Western
Coal says, that insisted language warning of "substantial doubt"
about the company's ability to pay its debts should be inserted in
the financial results.

The company and Audley deny that any discussions about boosting
investment took place before the financials came out.


WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Colorado Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company continues to defend itself from putative
class action lawsuits filed in Colorado, according to the
Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments.  The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009.  The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010.  On September 21,
2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint.  On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint.  The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended
complaint and the Smet complaint.  On November 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims.  On February 4, 2011, the Court
dismissed plaintiffs' consumer protection claims.  On March 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory
relief claim and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. as a
defendant.  On April 25, 2011, the Company and Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims.  Western Union
Financial Services, Inc. also moved to compel arbitration of the
plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration.  On
November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration and the stay request.  Both companies appealed the
decision.  On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the
District Court proceedings pending their appeal.  The plaintiffs
have not sought and the Court has not granted class certification.
The Company and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. intend to
vigorously defend themselves against both lawsuits.  However, due
to the preliminary stages of these lawsuits, the fact the
plaintiffs have not quantified their damage demands, and the
uncertainty as to whether they will ever be certified as class
actions, the potential outcome cannot be determined.


                           *********

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  * * *