---

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

             Thursday, June 21, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 122

                             Headlines

AT&T INC: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Rebates
CENTRO: Awaits Decision on AUD200-Mil. Class Action Settlement
CONAGRA FOODS: Sued for Misrepresenting Kashrut Standards
CORELOGIC INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss FCRA Suit vs. Unit
CORELOGIC INC: Unit to Seek Appeal From Class Cert. Decision

COTY INC: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Nailgrowth Miracle Products
DENMARK: Class Action Over Lisbon Treaty Signing Fails
DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend "LMPERS" Shareholder Suit
ECOPETROL SA: Continues to Defend Six Class Action Lawsuits
ECOPETROL SA: Faces Suit Over Cano Limon Pipeline Oil Spill

ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Propoxyhene-Related Class Suit
ELI LILLY: Defends "Casseres" Actos-Related Class Suit in Canada
EXTENDED STAY: Faces Class Action Over Improperly Levied Taxes
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Class Action Over "Sponsored Story" Ads
G. WILLI FOOD: Awaits Hearing Results in Misleading Labels Suit

GIGAMEDIA LTD: Appeal From Approval of IPO Suit Deal Dismissed
GRUMA SAB: "Arevalo" Labor Law-Violation Class Suit Dismissed
GRUMA SAB: "Henderson" Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in November
GRUPO AVAL: Defends Class Suits Over Pension and Severance Funds
HAL LEONARD: Settles Sexual Harassment Class Action for $150,000

HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Court Denies Injunction in Policyholders Suit
HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Defends Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
LINKEDIN CORP: Sued Over Failure to Secure Users' Passwords
LLOYDS BANKING: Seeks Dismissal of HBOS Shareholder Suit in U.S.
MONSANTO: Dioxin Class Action Settlement Up for Approval

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Union County Files Suit Over Mortgage Fees
NORTH AMERICAN: July 5 Overtime Class Action Status Hearing Set
NUTELLA: Proposed Class Action Settlement Challenged
PINNACLE FOODS: Advocacy Groups to Sue Over GMO Food Labeling
PUBLIC BROADCASTING: Interns Mull Wage-and-Hour Class Action

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Sued Over Defective Turf Builder EZ Seed
ST. JUDE: Faces Class Action Over Defective Riata ICD Leads
STEINER U.S.: Sued Over False Claims on Bliss Body Care Creams
THQ: Robins Gellar Files Class Action Over uDraw Tablet
TOWN OF OSSIPEE, NH: Property Owners to File Class Action

WENDY'S INT'L: Judge Dismisses Part of Meal Break Class Action

* Tribunal Reprimands Solicitor Over Black Saturday Class Action


                          *********

AT&T INC: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Rebates
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T won't give
rebates it promised to customers, a class action claims in City
Court.

Named plaintiff TdD Attorneys At Law claims it qualified for a
$79.99 rebate when it signed a service contract with AT&T in 2009.
TdD says it submitted the required information, but still hasn't
received the rebate.

The class consists of all entities or individuals who are or have
been AT&T customers, who qualified for a rebate, but did not
receive it.  The class seeks its rebates and punitive damages for
breach of contract, fraud in inducement and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in TdD Attorneys at Law, LLC v. AT&T Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1222-CC08998 (Mo. Cir. Ct., City of St. Louis),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/18/AT&TCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ted D. Disabato, Esq.
          TDD ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLC
          727 N. First Street, Suite 310
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 276-1318
          E-mail: ted.disabato@tdd-law.com


CENTRO: Awaits Decision on AUD200-Mil. Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Wood, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a
proposed AUD200 million settlement of the long-running Centro
class action, which includes a huge payout by the accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, was due to be heard in the Federal Court
in Melbourne on June 19.

One of the critical aspects of the deal is the contribution by
PwC, Centro's former auditors, which until May had vigorously
defended its role in finalizing botched accounts for the property
group in 2007.

PwC will stump up AUD67 million of the settlement, and the balance
will come from the various Centro-related companies -- Centro
Retail Australia and the former Centro Properties Group and Centro
Retail Trust.

Justice John Middleton was expected to hear on June 19 that
shareholders who invested in Centro and who elected to participate
in two parallel class actions were formally notified on May 11 of
the proposed settlement and that, so far, not one of them has
objected to the deal.

Justice Middleton must decide if the settlement is fair and
reasonable, and on June 19 he was set to hear submissions from the
various parties.

Centro investors sued the property group and PwC, claiming they
had been misled and deceived by the group's failure to properly
disclose that it had substantial short-term debt in 2007.
Centro's share price slumped in December 2007 when the group
revealed it was having difficulties refinancing its short-term
debt.

The news, which emerged amid tumultuous conditions in world
financial markets, was a shock to investors because Centro's
preliminary accounts, released August 2007, indicated the group
had no short-term debt.

In fact, more than AUD3 billion of Centro's short-term debts had
been wrongly classified as long-term debt in the final version of
the 2006-07 accounts.

The Federal Court this year heard that if the debts had been
properly classified Centro would have been technically insolvent.

Last year, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
won a civil penalty case against Centro's former chief executive,
Andrew Scott, its former chief financial officer, Romano Nenna,
and all the directors who were on Centro's board at the time of
the error.  That case was heard by Justice Middleton.

Two class actions, run by law firms Maurice Blackburn and Slater &
Gordon, were heard in tandem by Justice Michelle Gordon earlier
this year.

Investors represented by Maurice Blackburn are set to share in
about AUD150 million of the settlement proceeds, before legal
costs, while Slater & Gordon's clients -- whose claims extend over
a slightly longer period -- will share about AUD50 million before
costs.

The case, which ran for 10 weeks before it was adjourned while
settlement talks proceeded, heard evidence from the PwC partner in
charge of the Centro audit, Stephen Cougle.

He declined to accept any responsibility for the errors in the
accounts, and instead blamed junior staff.

In turn, PwC argued that Centro was partly to blame for the
debacle because, according to PwC, Centro withheld information.

Justice Gordon was told of the proposed settlement on May 8.


CONAGRA FOODS: Sued for Misrepresenting Kashrut Standards
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Edelist, writing for The Jewish Press, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed in May against Hebrew National, manufacturer
of kosher meat products in the United States, alleges that the
company misrepresents its kashrut standards "as defined by the
most stringent Jews who follow Orthodox Jewish Law," the American
Jewish world reported.

Hebrew National products are certified kosher by Triangle K, and
its kosher slaughtering is provided by the Midwestern company AER,
according to the complaint filed in the Dakota County district
court of Minnesota.

The class action lawsuit was filed against ConAgra Foods, doing
business as Hebrew National, a Delaware corporation, alleging that
AER employees informed the company of procedures at
slaughterhouses that were in such direct violation of kashrut laws
that they "rendered the meat being processed not kosher."

The suit also accuses the company of mistreating its employees,
especially its kosher supervisors and slaughterers.  The firm AER
provides the kosher slaughtering services at Hebrew National
facilities in the Midwest.

Employees who complained about the inappropriate actions were
fired or transferred, the suit claims.

Among the complaints is that non-kosher meat was packaged and
labeled as kosher meat.  The complaints also said that the lungs
were not inspected well enough for imperfections and that some
cows were slaughtered incorrectly.

The suit also alleges that the employees were paid in violation of
American tax laws.

Shlomo Ben-David, owner of AER Services Inc., said in an interview
with Failed Messiah, who also offers a copy of the suit online,
that the allegations in the suit were too vague and did not cite
specific facts regarding the violations.

But the suit, which goes through an exhaustive discussion of
kosher meat requirements, is quite specific regarding the
complaints of AER employees.  Item 77 reads:

"When dirt or growths are on the animal's neck the mandatory clean
cut necessary for kosher slaughter (and ultimate certification)
cannot be made.  Meat from unclean animals (i.e. those with dirty
hides covered with mud, sand or stones) or animals with physical;
defects is improperly marked as kosher . . . Dirt on the animal
dulls the knives or causes nicks during cutting and the slaughters
cannot make the mandatory clean cut."

AER leased space from American Foods Group, LLC, which delivered
cattle to its facilities "to be slaughtered, inspected and
certified."  Item 78 alleges:

"Pressure is put on the employees inspecting and slaughtering the
cows to maximize kosher meat production by slaughtering unclean
cows.  Further, certain quotas are applied at the AFG facilities
to ensure that a certain predetermined amount of the total cattle
population (approx. 70-75%) brought to the AFG facility for
slaughter produces kosher meat to provide defendant.  By setting
artificial, pre-determined quotas, the kosher inspection process
becomes defective and unreliable.  Meat from cows that should not
qualify for kosher certification ends up being marked kosher."

The suit also alleges that "to speed the process, animals can be
killed by using an air compressor gun with a hollow bolt piston
immediately after the animal's throat is cut."


CORELOGIC INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss FCRA Suit vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois denied in March 2012 CoreLogic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary, according to
the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack"), one of the Company's
subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been
furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a
permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq., and seeks to
recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost of lawsuit.  On
September 20, 2011, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing.  That
motion was denied on March 7, 2012.  The Company has denied the
allegations and is defending against this claim vigorously;
however, it may not be successful.  At this time, the Company says
it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the
potential range of damages, if any.


CORELOGIC INC: Unit to Seek Appeal From Class Cert. Decision
------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. disclosed in its April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012, that its subsidiary intends to seek an
appeal from a decision certifying a nationwide class in a lawsuit
filed in California.

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, against Washington Mutual Bank
("WaMu") and First American eAppraiseIT ("eAppraiseIT") alleging
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The complaint was largely based on the complaint filed by the New
York Attorney General and alleged conspiracies between WaMu and
eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially
inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that
WaMu could then sell in the secondary market.  Plaintiffs
subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu and on March 9, 2009, and
August 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all claims against
eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's first motion for
class certification.  On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification.  On April 25, 2012, the
Court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a
nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006,
received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that
were obtained through eAppraiseIT.  CoreLogic Valuation Services,
LLC ("CVS"), as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to seek
appeal of that decision.

CVS intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, the
Company says it may not be successful.  At this time the Company
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential
range of damages, if any.


COTY INC: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Nailgrowth Miracle Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Coty pushes its Sally Hansen
Nailgrowth Miracle products with bogus claims that they "enhance
the growth" of fingernails, according to a Superior Court class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Morales v. Coty, Inc., et al., Case No.
CIVDS 1205740 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty.), is
available at:

      http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/18/Fingernails.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter J. Farnese, Esq.
          BESHADA FARNESE LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 356-4668
          E-mail: pjf@beshadafarneselaw.com


DENMARK: Class Action Over Lisbon Treaty Signing Fails
------------------------------------------------------
The Copenhagen Post reports that a class action lawsuit failed in
the Eastern High Court after it found the government did not have
to hold a referendum before signing the Lisbon Treaty.

The government did not violate the constitution when it signed the
Lisbon Treaty in 2007 without first holding a referendum, five
judges in the Eastern High Court found on June 15.

The verdict was made in a class action lawsuit launched by 34
individuals against the former Liberal-Conservative government.
They argue that the Lisbon Treaty handed sovereignty on a range of
issues affecting Denmark to the EU, and so would require a
referendum because it was not passed by a five-sevenths super
majority in parliament.

The Lisbon Treaty was ratified by parliament in 2008 and came into
effect on 1 December 2009.  It created the role of president of
the European Council, currently Herman van Rompuy, and also
strengthened the powers of the European Parliament.

After the verdict, the lawyer representing the 34 individuals, Ole
Krarup, a former MEP for the anti-EU party Folkebevaegelsen mod
EU, said he was disappointed by the verdict but that it was
expected.

"This shows that the courts don't dare to contradict the
government," Mr. Krarup said.

Both the prime miniter, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and the foreign
minister, Villy Sovndal -- who were members of the opposition at
the time the treaty was signed and ratified -- said they were
pleased with the verdict.

"We have noted the Eastern High Court's verdict with satisfaction,
which states that parliament did not violate any laws when it
implemented legislation regarding Denmark's accession to the
treaty," the two ministers stated in a press release.

Mr. Krarup said the decision would be appealed to the Supreme
Court.


DIEBOLD INC: Continues to Defend "LMPERS" Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2010, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Diebold, Incorporated, certain current and former
officers, and the Company's independent auditors (Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. KPMG et al., No.
10-CV-1461).  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between June 30, 2005, and January 15, 2008, and fees and expenses
related to the lawsuit.  The complaint generally relates to the
matters set forth in the court documents filed by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in June 2010 finalizing the
settlement of civil charges stemming from the investigation of the
Company conducted by the Division of Enforcement of the SEC (SEC
Settlement).

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the SEC for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

Management believes any possible loss or range of loss associated
with the putative federal securities class action cannot be
estimated. The parties to the shareholder derivative lawsuit have
agreed to a settlement of that action. The settlement, which
requires court approval before it will become effective, is not
anticipated to have a material impact on the Company's financial
position or results of operations.


ECOPETROL SA: Continues to Defend Six Class Action Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. continues to defend six class action lawsuits filed
against it and its subsidiaries, 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.

These are the most significant class action proceedings with
amounts of claims greater than $10,000, for which provisions have
been recognized according to the evaluations of the internal and
external attorneys of the Company, as of December 31, 2011 and
2010:

Proceeding                              Claim
----------            -----------------------------------------
Garcero partnership   Class Action of Luis Enrique Olivera Petro
agreement             against ECOPETROL, the nation, Ministry of
                       mines and others by extension of the
                       Garcero Association contract

Municipio de Aguazul, Class action.  Contributions to the
Tauramena             solidarity and redistribution of income
                       fund as a consequence of the generation of
                       electricity, according to the Law 142 of
                       1994.

Municipio de Arauca   Class action.  Contributions to the
                       solidarity and redistribution of income
                       fund as a consequence of the generation of
                       electricity, according to the Law 142 of
                       1994.

Departamento del      Class Action for the recalculation of
Tolima                royalties with a 20% specified rate in
                       Law 141 of 1994.

As of December 31, 2011, the balance of the provision for legal
proceedings amounts to $699,270.

These are the most significant processes of other companies into
the Corporate Group as of December 31, 2011 and 2010:

Corporate
Group Company         Claim           Stage of the proceedings
-------------         -----           ------------------------
Refineria de     Class Action -       First instance - The
Cartagena        Stamp pro-Culture    resolution of this matter
S.A.                                  is still pending.

                  Class Action -       First instance - Starting
                  Contribution by      evidence phase.
                  generation of
                  electricity.


ECOPETROL SA: Faces Suit Over Cano Limon Pipeline Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. is facing a class action lawsuit arising from an
oil spill on its Cano Limon - Covenas oil pipeline, 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 December 11, 2011, the Company's Cano Limon - Covenas oil
pipeline ruptured as a result of a soil motion caused by the heavy
rainy season.  While the accident did not result in any
fatalities, it resulted in crude oil spilling into the Iscala
creek.

On April 16, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit against it seeking monetary damages of approximately
Ps$85,936 billion related to the Cano Limon - Covenas crude oil
pipeline spill.  Based on a preliminary analysis, the Company
believes that the amount of money damages claimed is reckless.
The Attorney General's Office filed a motion requesting the judge
to require the claimant to justify the amount.  However, the
Company is still in the process of evaluating the merits of this
claim and whether the ultimate outcome is likely to have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Propoxyhene-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Along with several other manufacturers, Eli Lilly and Company has
been named as a defendant in approximately 150 cases in the U.S.
involving approximately 760 claimants related to the analgesic
Darvon and related formulations of propoxyphene.  These cases
generally allege various cardiac injuries.  In November 2011, a
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana (Ballard, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et
al.) against Lilly and other manufacturers as a putative class
action seeking to assert product liability claims on behalf of
U.S. residents who ingested propoxyphene and allegedly sustained
personal injuries.  The Company transferred the U.S. regulatory
approvals and all marketing rights to its propoxyphene products in
2002 to aaiPharma Inc., which subsequently transferred all such
approvals and marketing rights to Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and is
prepared to defend against them vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- is an
innovation-driven corporation, which is into developing a growing
portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest
research from its own worldwide laboratories and from
collaborations with eminent scientific organizations.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Company provides
answers, through medicines and information, for some of the
world's most urgent medical needs.


ELI LILLY: Defends "Casseres" Actos-Related Class Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company is defending a class action lawsuit
commenced by Casseres et al. in Ontario, Canada, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

The Company has been named along with Takeda Chemical Industries,
Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (together "Takeda") as a defendant in
product liability cases in the U.S. related to the diabetes
medication Actos, which the Company co-promoted with Takeda in the
U.S. from 1999 until September 2006.  Under the Company's
agreement with Takeda, the Company will be indemnified by Takeda
for its losses and expenses in connection with the U.S. litigation
in accordance with the terms of the agreement.  The Company has
also been named along with Takeda as a defendant in a purported
product liability class action in Ontario, Canada (Casseres et al.
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al.) related to
Actos, which the Company promoted in Canada until 2009.  The
Company believes these claims are without merit and is prepared to
defend against them vigorously.

Eli Lilly and Company -- http://www.lilly.com/-- is an
innovation-driven corporation, which is into developing a growing
portfolio of pharmaceutical products by applying the latest
research from its own worldwide laboratories and from
collaborations with eminent scientific organizations.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the Company provides
answers, through medicines and information, for some of the
world's most urgent medical needs.


EXTENDED STAY: Faces Class Action Over Improperly Levied Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Gazzar, writing for Pasadena Star-News, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed against the city and a hotel chain
claims the city "improperly levied (hotel) taxes."

The complaint, filed earlier this month in Los Angeles Superior
Court, amends an action filed on behalf of several former and
current guests of Extended Stay Hotel in Arcadia.  It does not
specify the amount of damages sought.

"The class action lawsuit is the best vehicle to recover
improperly levied taxes that have been imposed by the city for as
many as 10 years," Attorney Jason Ochs, who is representing the
plaintiffs, said.

The lawsuit alleges that the HVM LLC Management Company, doing
business as Extended Stay Hotels, has improperly levied a daily
room tax on guests beyond 30 days and in violation of state and
local law.

"In some instances a portion of the tax has been paid back to the
complaining resident," the lawsuit alleges.  "In other instances,
defendant HVM has refused to reimburse the guest for any portion
of the improperly levied tax."

Mr. Ochs said that the city is also being sued since they "have
required the hotel to impose these taxes" through a conditional
use permit drafted in 1997.  The permit says that if guests stay
longer than 30 days, they would have to re-register and continue
to pay a hotel tax.

"They wanted to market themselves as a long-term stay (hotel) but
under the (conditional use permit) they would have to tax people
indefinitely," Mr. Ochs said.

A hotel representative could not be reached on June 15.

Arcadia Mayor Bob Harbicht acknowledged that hotel guests staying
longer than 30 days must pay the hotel tax.  He added officials
were comfortable "that we are not in violation of the law."

When the hotel applied to have a conditional use permit to have an
extended stay hotel, the city was concerned about the potential
that it could turn into "a rooming house," he said.

That's why they included the requirement that they re-register
after 30 days.

"We just don't think the law prohibits what we were doing," he
said.

Arcadia voters approved a ballot measure this spring that extended
the hotel room tax charged to visitors from up to 30 days to up to
90 days, however the change will not affect the lawsuit.

The City Council is also now revisiting the requirement imposed on
Extended Stay that guests re-register after 30 days, Mayor
Harbicht said.  The item was discussed and continued at the last
council meeting.

Mayor Harbicht said now that extended stay hotels are more
popular, city officials will likely rescind the requirement.

"We're not concerned anymore about it becoming a rooming house,"
where residents stay permanently, he said.


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Class Action Over "Sponsored Story" Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chow, writing for Reuters, reports that Facebook has
settled a lawsuit over its "Sponsored Stories" advertisements and
will pay $10 million to charity.

Five Facebook members sued the social-networking site for
allegedly using their names and images in "Sponsored Story"
advertisements without their consent.  That violates California's
"right to publicity" law, their federal lawsuit claimed.

In a "Sponsored Story," an ad for a product appears on a user's
Facebook page.  The ad also shows which of that user's friends
"likes" the advertiser, and includes those friends' names and
profile pictures.

Facebook's executives have touted the added value of seeing
friends' "likes" in "Sponsored Story" advertisements, the
plaintiffs' lawsuit alleged.  Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has
called such trusted referrals as the "Holy Grail" of advertising;
COO Sheryl Sandberg has stated that friend-endorsed ads are worth
two to three times the value of a non-endorsed ad on Facebook.

Facebook tried to dismiss the suit last year, but a federal judge
allowed it to proceed.  The plaintiffs could show they were
economically hurt by the use of their names and images, the judge
said.

Under California's "right of publicity" law, a person or entity
that knowingly uses another person's name, image, or likeness for
commercial purposes without consent can be held liable for
damages.

The plaintiffs wanted their Facebook "Sponsored Story" lawsuit to
become a class action, which could have included some 100 million
Americans and billions in potential damages, according to Reuters.

But in the Facebook settlement, the $10 million in damages will
not go to Facebook users; rather, it will go to a charity that has
not been disclosed.  A legal principle known as cy pres allows
funds to go to a charity when payments to the plaintiffs are not
feasible.

The Facebook settlement was reached last month, but details were
only disclosed over the weekend.  Facebook declined to comment
about the settlement, Reuters reports.


G. WILLI FOOD: Awaits Hearing Results in Misleading Labels Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. is awaiting hearing results in
the class action lawsuit over misleading product labels, 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 January 2011, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit alleging that it misled its customers by
misleadingly labeling a product that the Company imports.  The
groups which the lawsuit desires to represent include any Israeli
resident who bought this product due to such person's preference.
The plaintiff appraises the group's damages at NIS3 million
(approximately US$ 785 thousand).  Hearing was set for May 2012.
At the current preliminary stage of the dispute, the Company's
management and legal counsel cannot assess the chances of the
parties.


GIGAMEDIA LTD: Appeal From Approval of IPO Suit Deal Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
GigaMedia Limited's global settlement of a consolidated class
action lawsuit arising from its 2001 initial public offering
became final after the remaining appeal was dismissed, 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 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("District Court") against the Company in connection with the
initial public offering of its stock.

The complaint alleged that the Company violated Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  In October 2002, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the individual defendants without prejudice.  On
February 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion and order on
defendants' motions to dismiss, which granted the motions in part
and denied the motions in part.  As to GigaMedia, the Rule 10b-5
claims were dismissed without prejudice, while the Section 11
claims survived the motion.  Discovery in the actions commenced.

In June 2004, plaintiffs and issuer defendants, including the
Company, presented the executed settlement agreement (the
"Issuers' Settlement") to the judge during a court conference.
Subsequently, plaintiffs and issuer defendants made a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.  The key terms
of the Issuers' Settlement included: 1) the insurers of the
issuers would provide an undertaking to guarantee that the
plaintiffs would recover a total of $1 billion; 2) the insurers
would pay up to $15 million for the notice costs arising from the
settlement; 3) the issuers would assign their interest in certain
claims against the underwriters to a litigation trust, represented
by plaintiffs' counsel; and 4) the plaintiffs would release all of
the settling issuer defendants.  That is, if plaintiffs were
successful in recovering more than $1 billion from the
underwriters, the issuer defendants would not be obligated to pay
any additional amounts.  If plaintiffs recovered less than $1
billion from the underwriters, the insurers would pay the deficit
between $1 billion and the amount received from the underwriters.

On February 15, 2005, the judge issued an opinion and order
granting preliminary approval to the settlement agreement subject
to a narrowing of the proposed bar order as to only contribution
claims.  On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing on
the proposed Issuers' Settlement, which was subject to the court's
approval.

On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating the District Court's
class certification in the six focus cases, which do not include
the Company.  Because the Second Circuit's opinion was directed to
class certification in the focus cases, the opinion's effect on
the proposed class to be certified by the District Court in
connection with the Issuers' Settlement was unclear.

On December 15, 2006, the District Court held a conference with
all counsel in the IPO securities class action lawsuit to discuss
the impact of the foregoing opinion.  In the conference, the
District Court agreed to stay all proceedings, including discovery
and consideration of the Issuers' Settlement, pending further
decisions from the Second Circuit.

On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition in the Second
Circuit for rehearing and rehearing en banc regarding the decision
on class certification (the "Petition").  On April 6, 2007, the
Second Circuit rendered its decision which denied the Petition.

In April, May, and June 2007, the District Court held several
conferences to discuss the issues regarding class certification,
statute of limitations, the Issuers' Settlement and discovery.  In
June 2007, a stipulation terminating the Issuers' Settlement was
submitted to the District Court.

In September 2007, discovery moved forward in the six focus cases,
which do not include the Company.  Plaintiffs filed amended
complaints against the focus case issuer and underwriter
defendants and moved for class certification in those actions.  In
November 2007, the underwriters and issuers filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints in the focus cases.  In December
2007, plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motions to
dismiss.  In January 2008, defendants filed their reply briefs in
further support of the motions to dismiss.

On March 26, 2008, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss the focus cases.  The motion to
dismiss was granted only as to claims brought under Section 11 of
the Securities Act by plaintiffs who sold their securities for a
price in excess of the initial offering price and by those
plaintiffs who purchased outside the previously certified class
period.

On April 9, 2008, the underwriters filed a motion for
reconsideration of the holding in the March 26, 2008 opinion that
the Section 11 claims against the focus case issuer was not time
barred, on the basis that no Section 11 class in that case was
certified in 2004.  The issuers joined in that motion on behalf of
the focus case issuer by letter to the District Court on
April 10, 2008.

In December 2007, the issuers filed their oppositions to class
certification in the focus cases.  In March 2008, plaintiffs filed
their reply brief in further support of class certification.  The
underwriters and issuers submitted sur-replies in further
opposition to class certification on April 22, 2008, addressing
issues related to the deposition of the plaintiffs' expert.

As set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement and accompanying documents, which were filed on April
2, 2009, after eight years of litigation all parties to the IPO
Cases have agreed to settle the actions on a global basis (the
"IPO Settlement Agreement").  Pursuant to the IPO Settlement
Agreement, the defendants have agreed to pay $586 million in total
to settle all 309 IPO Cases, including the GigaMedia action.  The
agreement to settle was reached after a lengthy mediation followed
by months of negotiation to reach agreement on the details.  As to
the Company's portion of the settlement payment, its insurance
companies are paying the entire settlement amount.

In June 2009, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the IPO Settlement Agreement.
Subsequently, in October 2009, the judge granted final approval to
the settlement.  Certain objectors have filed notices of appeal to
the United States Circuit Court for the Second Circuit seeking to
reverse or vacate the order granting final approval to the IPO
Settlement Agreement.  However, no briefs have been filed yet with
respect to these appeals.

In January 2010, the IPO Settlement Agreement required that the
IPO Securities Litigation Settlement Fund (the "Settlement Fund")
be treated as a Qualified Settlement Fund within the meaning of
Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1 and that each transferor of funds to
the Settlement Fund provide a statement to the administrators of
the Settlement Fund pursuant to Treasury Regulation 1.468B-3(e) by
January 31, 2010.  Liaison counsel for the issuers has submitted a
combined statement on behalf of all such issuers.  Six notices of
appeal and one petition to appeal the certified class have been
filed and all but two of the six have been withdrawn.  In October
2010, for the two appeals that were not withdrawn, plaintiffs-
appellants filed their opening briefs.  The opening briefs
challenged the settlement on several grounds, including
certification of the classes, the fees, and the expenses awarded
to the plaintiffs' counsel.  On December 30, 2010, the answering
briefs were filed, and on May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit issued
a ruling on the two remaining appeals, granting the motion to
dismiss one of the appeals, and remanding the other appeal back to
the District Court to determine procedural issues relating to
standing.

The remaining objector filed an appeal of that decision on
September 23, 2011.  Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal on
October 25, 2011, on the basis of, inter alia, lack of standing.
The remaining objector opposed Plaintiffs' motion on November 3,
2011, and Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on October 14, 2011.
This last objector in the IPO Settlement Agreement reached an
agreement with the Plaintiffs, and on January 9, 2012, the parties
executed a Stipulation of Dismissal, wherein the only pending
appeal was withdrawn with prejudice.  As a result, the appeals
process has now been completed.

The Company says it had an insurance policy with American
Insurance Group with $10 million of liability coverage when the
class action lawsuit was made.  The Company believes that the
insurance coverage is sufficient to cover the liability arising
from the settlement and claim.


GRUMA SAB: "Arevalo" Labor Law-Violation Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Guadalupe Arevalo against
Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. was dismissed in March following the
parties' settlement of the dispute, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On March 24, 2009, Guadalupe Arevalo, a former employee, filed a
class action complaint for damages and equitable relief, currently
being heard by the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, for an alleged: (1) failure to pay minimum
or contractual wages, pay overtime, and provide accurate wage
statements, in violation of the California Labor Code; (2) failure
to pay wages due to former employees at the time of resignation
and/or discharge; and (3) violation to certain provisions of the
California Business and Professions Code.  On June 10, 2010, the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint incorporating an
additional cause of action for failure to provide meal periods as
required by law.  The parties reached a court approved settlement
on March 26, 2012, and the case has been dismissed.


GRUMA SAB: "Henderson" Suit vs. Unit Dismissed in November
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Mary Henderson against a
subsidiary of Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. was dismissed in November
2011, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

Mary Henderson brought a class action lawsuit against Gruma
Corporation for (1) false advertising under the Lanham Act, (2)
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, (3) violations
of California's False Advertising Law, and (4) violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The complaint alleged
that Gruma Corporation's labeling of its guacamole flavored dip
and spicy bean dip products is false and misleading.  The
complaint was subsequently amended to dismiss the Company under
the Lanham Act claim.  The case was settled on November 21, 2011,
for $3,000 and has been dismissed.


GRUPO AVAL: Defends Class Suits Over Pension and Severance Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. is defending itself and its
subsidiaries against class action lawsuits commenced against
pension and severance fund administrators in Colombia, 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.

The Company, its banking subsidiaries, Sociedad Administradora de
Fondos de Pensiones y Cesantias Porvenir S.A. and Corporacion
Financiera Colombiana S.A ("Corficolombiana") are party to
collective or class actions ("acciones populares" or "acciones de
grupo").  Collective actions are court actions where an individual
seeks to protect collective rights and prevent contingent damages,
and obtain injunctions and damages caused by an infringement of
collective rights.

All pension and severance fund administrators in Colombia,
including Porvenir, are subject to at least two class actions in
which certain individuals are alleging that the pension and
severance funds administrators have caused damages to their
customers by (1) paying returns earned by the severance and
pension funds below the minimum profitability certified by the
Superintendency of Finance, and (2) making payments to its
customers -- under the scheduled retirement system -- below the
established standards.  Additionally, Porvenir and four of the
largest pension and severance funds are subject to a
constitutional action relating to charging commissions above the
legally established limits for contributions to mandatory pension
funds.  These constitutional actions are seeking the payment of
the alleged damages caused to fund managers' customers.  No
provisions have been established in connection with these three
constitutional actions because the amount is unquantifiable, and
the Company considers the probability of loss to be remote.


HAL LEONARD: Settles Sexual Harassment Class Action for $150,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that Winona-based Hal Leonard Publishing
Co. has settled a sexual harassment class action suit with the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  The music publisher
will pay $150,000 to a class of women who claim they had to endure
unwanted grabbing, squeezing and sexual innuendo.

The lead plaintiff in the case left the company and detailed to
investigators how the women complained to management about ongoing
co-worker harassment, but never received a response.  The company
maintained a sexual harassment policy, but never enforced it.

In addition to paying the women, Hal Leonard Publishing agreed to
a three-year consent decree under which it apologized to the
former employee who filed the original discrimination charge.  It
must conduct annual anti-discrimination training (which the EEOC
may observe), provide the EEOC with documentation of an
accountability provision in performance evaluations of supervisors
and lead employees; and provide the EEOC with documentation of all
sexual harassment complaints.


HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Court Denies Injunction in Policyholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court issued an order in April 2012, denying among other things,
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the consolidated
class action lawsuit commenced by policyholders, according to
Harleysville Group Inc.'s April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On September 28, 2011, Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company (the
Mutual Company), which owns approximately 53% of the outstanding
common stock of the Company and the Company or HGI entered into an
agreement and plan of merger (the Merger Agreement) with
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide) and a subsidiary
of Nationwide (Nationals Sub).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
the Mutual Company will merge into Nationwide with Nationwide as
the surviving Company and the policyholders of the Mutual Company
will become policyholders and members of Nationwide.  In addition,
Nationals Sub will merge into HGI with HGI as the surviving
company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nationwide.  As a result
of the HGI merger, all outstanding shares of common stock of HGI
held by stockholders, other than Nationwide, will be converted
into the right to receive $60.00 per share in cash.  The Mutual
Company has also entered into a voting agreement with Nationwide
under which it agreed to vote its 53% interest in HGI in favor of
the merger.  The Merger Agreement restricts the Mutual Company,
HGI and all affiliates from engaging in certain activities and
taking certain actions without Nationwide's approval, including
among others, the payment of shareholder dividends by HGI.

After the announcement of the Merger Agreement, the Mutual Company
received five letters on behalf of purported policyholders
objecting to the merger of the Mutual Company into Nationwide (the
Parent Merger).  Six lawsuits were filed against the Mutual
Company brought by purported policyholders challenging the
proposed transaction.  Initially, Nationwide was named as a
defendant in three of these lawsuits.  Since their initial filing,
three of the lawsuits against the Mutual Company have been
dismissed and the remaining three consolidated into one action.

On January 20, 2012, pursuant to a Court Order, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the CCADC) on
behalf of the three plaintiffs with continuing lawsuits against
the Mutual Company.  The CCADC contains nine claims variously
stated as being derivative and/or class in nature: (1) declaratory
and injunctive relief contending that the Merger and the Parent
Merger (the Mergers) are fundamentally unfair; (2) declaratory and
injunctive relief contending that the draft proxy statement for
the policyholders-members of the Mutual Company, which was filed
by the Mutual Company with the Pennsylvania Insurance Department
on December 23, 2011, is materially misleading; (3) declaratory
relief contending that the Merger Agreement prevents the Special
Litigation Committee formed by the Mutual Company's board of
directors from performing its authorized function; (4) equitable
relief contending that the Mutual Company has been effectively
demutualized; (5) breach of duty by the Mutual Company's
directors; (6) aiding and abetting a breach of duty by the Mutual
Company's directors, Nationwide and Merger Sub; (7) unjust
enrichment against the Mutual Company's directors, the two
directors of the Company who are only directors of the Company,
the Mutual Company, Nationwide and Merger Sub; (8) constructive
trust against the Mutual Company, Nationwide and Merger Sub; and
(9) declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of
allegedly unlawful provisions of the Merger Agreement against
Nationwide and the Company.  On January 31, 2012, all defendants
filed preliminary objections to the CCADC.

In response to the demands and complaints, the Mutual Company's
Board of Directors established a Special Litigation Committee to
investigate the claims set forth in the demands and complaints and
to determine the most appropriate actions for the Mutual Company
to take in response to them.  The Special Litigation Committee
consists of three newly appointed independent directors of the
Mutual Company.  None of the members of the Special Litigation
Committee own any stock of the Company.  On
February 8, 2012, the Court issued an Order which granted the
Special Litigation Committee's motion to have until March 1, 2012,
to issue its report on its investigation.

On March 1, 2012, the Special Litigation Committee issued a report
of its investigation, which concluded that: (1) the Mutual Company
directors had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations and had not
breached their duties of care and loyalty in negotiating and
entering into the Merger Agreement with Nationwide; (2) the Merger
Agreement transaction is intrinsically fair and satisfies the
standards of both fair process and fair result; (3) the derivative
claims filed by the plaintiffs lack merit; (4) it is in the best
interests of the Mutual Company that the plaintiffs' derivative
claims be dismissed; (5) the Parent Merger is in the best
interests of the Mutual Company, including its policyholders; and
(6) substantial delay in the consummation of the Parent Merger
would be damaging to the Mutual Company and, therefore, the Parent
Merger should proceed without further disruption.  On the same
day, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to dismiss
the derivative claims contained in the CCADC.

Following a hearing held on April 19-20, 2012, on April 23, 2012,
the Court issued an Order which (1) denied the plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction because plaintiffs failed to show they
would be irreparably harmed if the Parent Merger was consummated
since any harm the policyholders may suffer can be recompensed
with money damages and since plaintiffs failed to show that the
proxy statement submitted to members/policyholders contained false
statements of material fact or that material facts were omitted
from the proxy statement; (2) determined, at such time, not to
impose a constructive trust over the merger consideration to be
paid to directors and officers of the Mutual Company who are
defendants under the CCADC; (3) granted, in part, the defendants'
motion to dismiss for lack of irreparable harm with respect to (a)
the plaintiffs' request to enjoin the Mutual Company policyholder
vote; (b) to require the Mutual Company to issue a new proxy
statement; and (c) to strike certain provisions from the Merger
Agreement; and (4) found the Court lacked jurisdiction to impose a
constructive trust over the merger consideration to be paid to the
stockholders of the Company who are not parties to the CCADC.


HARLEYSVILLE GROUP: Defends Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harleysville Group Inc. continues to defend a consolidated merger-
related class action lawsuit in Delaware, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On September 28, 2011, Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company (the
Mutual Company), which owns approximately 53% of the outstanding
common stock of the Company and the Company or HGI entered into an
agreement and plan of merger (the Merger Agreement) with
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide) and a subsidiary
of Nationwide (Nationals Sub).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
the Mutual Company will merge into Nationwide with Nationwide as
the surviving Company and the policyholders of the Mutual Company
will become policyholders and members of Nationwide.  In addition,
Nationals Sub will merge into HGI with HGI as the surviving
company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nationwide.  As a result
of the HGI merger, all outstanding shares of common stock of HGI
held by stockholders, other than Nationwide, will be converted
into the right to receive $60.00 per share in cash.  The Mutual
Company has also entered into a voting agreement with Nationwide
under which it agreed to vote its 53% interest in HGI in favor of
the merger.  The Merger Agreement restricts the Mutual Company,
HGI and all affiliates from engaging in certain activities and
taking certain actions without Nationwide's approval, including
among others, the payment of shareholder dividends by HGI.

On October 4, 2011, the Company, the Mutual Company, the Company's
directors, Nationwide and a subsidiary of Nationwide (Merger Sub)
were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v.
Harleysville Group Inc., et al.  That action, purportedly brought
on behalf of a class of stockholders, alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good
faith, candor and independence.  The complaint further alleges
that the Company's directors, through their acts, transactions and
courses of conduct, are attempting to unfairly deprive
stockholders of the true value of their investment in the Company.
The complaint further alleges that there exists an imbalance and
disparity of knowledge between the Company's directors and its
public stockholders which makes it inherently unfair for the
Company's directors to benefit from their own interests to the
exclusion of maximizing stockholder value.  The complaint further
alleges that the Company's directors failed to disclose to the
plaintiffs all material information necessary to cast an informed
stockholder vote on the proposed transaction.  The complaint
further alleges that Nationwide and Merger Sub aided and abetted
the claimed breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's
directors.  The plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable
relief, including a request that the court enjoin the Company from
consummating the Merger, as well as damages, fees and costs.  To
date, by agreement of the parties, the Company has not filed an
answer to this complaint.

On October 6, 2011, the Company, the Mutual Company, the Company's
directors, Nationwide and Merger Sub were named as defendants in a
putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, captioned Eric H. Berger v. Harleysville Group
Inc., et al.  That action, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of stockholders, alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith,
candor and independence.  The complaint further alleges that the
directors, through their acts, transactions and courses of
conduct, are attempting to unfairly deprive the Company's
stockholders of the true value of their investment in the Company.
The complaint further alleges that there exists an imbalance and
disparity of knowledge between the Company's directors and its
public stockholders which makes it inherently unfair for the
Company's directors to benefit from their own interests to the
exclusion of maximizing stockholder value.  The complaint further
alleges that the directors failed to disclose to the plaintiffs
all material information necessary to cast an informed stockholder
vote on the proposed transaction.  The complaint further alleges
that Nationwide and Merger Sub aided and abetted the claimed
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors.  The
plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, including a
request that the court enjoin the Company from consummating the
Merger, as well as damages, fees and costs.  To date, by agreement
of the parties, the Company has not filed an answer to this
complaint.

The plaintiffs in both the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees
Retirement System and the Berger cases are represented by the same
law firm.  On October 21, 2011, the Court of Chancery of Delaware
entered an order agreed to by counsel for the plaintiffs and
counsel for the Company, the Mutual Company, the Company's
directors, Nationwide and Merger Sub consolidating both cases.  On
January 3, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, which adds allegations about the sale
process, asserting that there was not a vigorous enough effort to
find other buyers at a higher price together with alleged
disclosure shortfalls, all by reference to the preliminary proxy
statement filed by the Company with the SEC on December 23, 2011.
To date, by agreement of the parties, the Company has not filed an
answer to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

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


LINKEDIN CORP: Sued Over Failure to Secure Users' Passwords
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that hackers
infiltrated LinkedIn's Web site and posted more than 6 million
LinkedIn users' passwords online, customers claim in a federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff Katie Szpyrka claims the social network failed to
encrypt 120 million users' "personally identifiable information,"
including e-mail addresses, passwords and login credentials.

"Sometime this year, hackers infiltrated LinkedIn's servers and
accessed database(s) containing its users' PII [personally
identifiable information]," according to the complaint.  "After
retrieving this data, the hackers publicly posted over 6 million
LinkedIn users' passwords online.  Because LinkedIn used
insufficient encryption methods to secure the user data, hackers
were able to easily decipher a large number of the passwords."

Ms. Szpyrka claims LinkedIn stored users' passwords in an
"outdated hashing function" that was published by the National
Security Agency in 1995, the "unsalted SHA1 hashed format."

Industry standards require adding "salt," or assigning random
values to a password, before the text is input into a hashing
function, the complaint states.

"While some security threats are unavoidable in a rapidly
developing technological environment, LinkedIn's failure to comply
with long standing industry standard encryption protocols
jeopardized its users' PII, and diminished the value of the
services provided by defendant -- as guaranteed by its own
contractual terms," the complaint states.

Approximately 6.5 million LinkedIn users' hashed passwords were
posted online on June 6, Ms. Szpyrka says.  Three days later, she
claims, the company "admitted that it was not handling user data
in accordance with best practices."

Ms. Szpyrka, a LinkedIn user since 2010, calls the announcement
and subsequent promised updates to the website, "too little too
late."

"LinkedIn failed to use a modern hashing and salting function, and
therefore drastically exacerbated the consequences of a hacker by
bypassing its outer layer of security," the complaint states.  "In
so doing, defendant violated its privacy policy's promise to
comply with industry standard protocols and technology for data
security.  . . .

"Had LinkedIn used proper encryption methods, and a hacker were
able to penetrate LinkedIn's network, he would be limited in his
ability to inflict harm."

LinkedIn, launched in May 2003, "operates the world's largest
professional network on the Internet with more than 120 million
members in over 200 countries and territories [and] represents a
valuable demographic for marketers with an affluent and
influential membership," according to its Web site.  Accounts cost
from $20 to $100 per month.

Ms. Szpyrka, of Illinois, seeks class certification, injunctive
relief, costs and damages for breach of contract, negligence and
unfair competition.

A copy of the Complaint in Szpyrka v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case
No. 12-cv-03088 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/18/Linkedin.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

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


LLOYDS BANKING: Seeks Dismissal of HBOS Shareholder Suit in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Quinn, writing for The Telegraph, reports that Lloyds
Banking Group has asked the courts to throw out a US shareholder
lawsuit accusing it of fraud in relation to its controversial
take-over of HBOS.

The bank, which was forced to acquire its Scottish rival at the
height of the 2008 credit crisis, has filed a motion to dismiss
the suit, which accuses Lloyds and Sir Victor Blank and Eric
Daniels, its former chairman and chief executive, of making
misleading statements about the quality of the transaction.

In the motion, filed in the US District Court in New York,
solicitors acting for Lloyds claim the shareholders are attempting
to assert "a classic case of 'fraud by hindsight'", arguing that
there is "no basis" for accusing the bank or its ex-directors of
fraud.  The language used in the court filings is the strongest
yet used by the bank to rebut the claims, which were first
reported by The Sunday Telegraph in January.

The original claim was lodged by three sets of solicitors on
behalf of Albert Ross, of Louisiana, who owned 1,400 Lloyds
American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) and is being used to lead a
class action.

The basis of the claim was comments made by Mr. Daniels at the
time of the deal in September 2008 about the merged bank's "robust
capital position," contrasting it with the need to receive as much
as GBP25.4 billion of emergency liquidity assistance from the Bank
of England only months later.

"Plaintiff and other Lloyds ADR holders would undoubtedly have
liked to know the companies' year-end 2008 results sooner.  They
would have preferred for Defendants to have told them in advance
about the events that would happen in the fourth quarter of 2008
and the facts that would be disclosed in February 2009," reads the
motion to dismiss.

But, it continues, "Plaintiff has made no particularized
allegations showing that Defendants knew but intentionally failed
to disclose material facts about HBOS's financial state in the
fourth quarter of 2008."

The motion to dismiss, filed by New York solicitors Hughes Hubbard
& Reed, also cites the Financial Services Authority's report into
HBOS's corporate bank, and the fact that "the extent of the
deterioration in HBOS's commercial loan portfolio was not even
known to HBOS's own management until after year-end 2008."

The filing also asserts that the claims are time-barred because of
the two-year statute of limitations for securities fraud claims in
New York.

Lloyds' own attempts to have the suit thrown out are of interest
to aggrieved British shareholders, who have begun mounting their
own case against the bank and its former board.

Lloyds Action Now, a shareholder action group, is known to be
watching the case closely given the ramifications it would have
for its own fight were Mr. Ross and his supporters to be
successful.

LAN, which represents around 4,000 UK-based investors, has
retained the services of Jeremy Cousins QC as it puts its case
together.

A LAN spokesman said of the US case: "If the motion to dismiss is
rejected, it is highly significant for the fate of UK
shareholders."

LAN is in talks with a number of professional funders to pay for
the case, although a final decision has not yet been taken.
Lloyds declined to comment further.


MONSANTO: Dioxin Class Action Settlement Up for Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Kate White, writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that a
hearing was set to take place on June 18 to determine whether a
multimillion-dollar settlement in the huge class-action Monsanto
dioxin lawsuit should be approved.

The judge must decide if the settlement reached Feb. 24, after
nearly a decade of litigation, is fair, reasonable and adequate.

Under the tentative agreement, chemical giant Monsanto will
provide class-members up to $93 million.  The company has agreed
to a 30-year medical monitoring program with a primary fund of $21
million for testing, and up to $63 million in additional funding,
if necessary.  It also has agreed to spend $9 million cleaning
4,500 homes.

The settlement also would allow residents to retain their right to
file personal-injury lawsuits against Monsanto if medical tests
turn up illnesses potentially related to dioxin exposure.

Word of the settlement emerged on the eve of an expected six-month
trial in a case in which Nitro-area residents sought medical
monitoring for dioxin-related illnesses and a cleanup of what they
argue is a contaminated community.

Before an agreement in a class-action lawsuit is finalized, the
members of the class must be notified of the proposed settlement
and given a chance to object to its terms.

Expert testimony must be presented to prove the settlement is
appropriate and that the testing procedures of the medical
monitoring match the benefits that originally were sought, among
other things.

In their lawsuit filed in 2004, Nitro residents said Monsanto
unsafely burned dioxin wastes and spread contaminated soot and
dust across the city, polluting homes with unsafe levels of the
chemical.

For more than 50 years, the Monsanto plant in Nitro churned out
herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals.  The plant's
production of the defoliant Agent Orange created dioxin as a toxic
chemical byproduct.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Union County Files Suit Over Mortgage Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Stewart, writing for The Southern Illinoisan, reports that
Union County wants to make sure its citizens know who is holding
their mortgages, and it has filed suit in state court to help
bring that information to light.

In March, Union County State's Attorney Tyler Edmonds and County
Clerk Bobby Toler filed a class action complaint against a number
of nationally recognized banks -- including Wells Fargo, Citibank
and Bank of America -- and specifically against Mortgage
Electronic Registration System. Inc, also known as MERS or
Merscorp Inc.

The suit alleges the banks are violating state law by avoiding the
recording of mortgage assignments and paying the attendant
recording fee by using Merscorp as a placeholder in county
records.

"Unfortunately, what these banks are doing is avoiding that
recording process," Mr. Edmonds said.  "The banks are filing these
liens in the name of MERS.  When that mortgage is transferred back
and forth between banks, it remains filed with MERS.  So if you're
wanting to walk down to the county courthouse and determine who
has a lien against your house or a house you want to purchase, you
can't tell, because all it says is MERS."

Mr. Edmonds said this system the banks have developed has led to
confusion over the true holder of the title, and that opens the
door to a lot of negative potential consequences.

"We've seen throughout the country where there's been mortgage
fraud and other things," Mr. Edmonds said.  "This is just
something where the banks need to follow the law everyone else is
required to follow, including our local people here and our local
banks."

MERS and Merscorp Inc. also were named as defendants in a case
brought by St. Clair County State's Attorney Brendan Kelly and
recorder of deeds Mike Costello in May.

"The system set up by MERS allows financial institutions to avoid
transparency in transfer of property and to evade county recording
fees, which every other citizen has to pay," Mr. Kelly told the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

MERS has publicly defended the system in the past, saying it has
helped reduce mortgage fees and paperwork.

However, homeowners, as well as the general public and courts, do
not have access to the information in the MERS system as they
would a county recorder's database.

Whenever documents are filed in the county clerk's office, there
is a fee that has to be paid.  Mr. Edmonds said that is another
aspect of the suit -- the banks are avoiding those fees, therefore
shorting the taxpayers of Union County.

There is the possibility this suit will be transferred to federal
court because it deals with a number of out-of-state institutions.

No local banks are named in the Union County suit.  Mr. Edmonds
said it is his understanding all local banks are complying with
the law.

"It's pretty simple," Mr. Edmonds said.  "We think if you go down
to the clerk's office, you should be able to look it up and see
who you owe money to on your house."


NORTH AMERICAN: July 5 Overtime Class Action Status Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Lopez, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a Fresno
courtroom soon will be the legal battleground in a multimillion-
dollar case over claims that hundreds of escrow and title officers
weren't paid overtime due to them from North American Title Co.

Over the past six years, escrow and title companies throughout
California have paid millions in damages after losing class-action
lawsuits to escrow and title officers who weren't paid for
overtime.  But North American is fighting back against the class-
action suit.

North American does business in 14 states including California and
has offices in Fresno and Visalia.  But the Fresno roots of this
overtime battle go deeper than that, to a defamation trial six
years ago in Fresno County Superior Court.

In April 2006, Fresno escrow officer Lisa English was awarded
nearly $200,000 in damages after she testified her former bosses
at Financial Title Co. tried to blackball her by firing her and
then claiming she wasn't a good worker.

During the trial, Ms. English looked gaunt, prompting questions
from her Fresno attorney, Stephen Cornwell, who learned his client
had been working long hours -- and not getting overtime pay.

Since then, Ms. English's case has spawned several successful
multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuits throughout the state on
behalf of escrow and title officers who never got overtime pay,
Mr. Cornwell said.

But the one against North American -- which could be worth $40
million or more in damages -- has yet to be tried.  A hearing on
the class-action status opposed by the title company will be July
5 in Fresno County Superior Court.

Michael Brewer, an attorney for North American, said the company
does not comment about pending litigation.  But in court papers,
the title company is seeking to decertify the class-action status,
which would force each plaintiff to sue the title company
individually -- a costly endeavor.

According to experts, Ms. English's account of working long hours
and not getting paid overtime is a classic case of wage theft.

"It's a national crisis," said Kim Bobo, executive director of
Chicago-based Interfaith Worker Justice, a nonprofit that
advocates for workers.

Wage theft is prevalent, Ms. Bobo said, because corporations know
there are only about 1,000 labor enforcement staffers for 130
million workers nationwide.

In addition, workers are vulnerable because they are happy to have
a job in these tough economic times, she said.

But Fresno attorney Todd Barsotti, an expert on employment law who
is not associated with the North American Title case, said
corporations aren't always to blame.

In general, people who produce a product are eligible for overtime
pay, while executives who regularly supervise other employees
typically are exempt.

But for decades, workers such as paralegals or escrow officers
considered themselves professionals and believed they weren't
entitled to overtime, Mr. Barsotti said.  "More often than not,
companies aren't aware they are breaking the law."

But if a company gets caught not paying overtime, Mr. Barsotti
said, "it's going to be expensive."

Since Ms. English's defamation case in 2006, Mr. Cornwell has been
involved in five class-action lawsuits against three title
companies claiming nearly $56 million for unpaid overtime.

But North American Title Co. isn't budging.  For the past five
years, it has challenged the class-action lawsuit and has
assembled a team of attorneys. Fresno attorney Nicholas "Butch"
Wagner has countered with his own team of heavy-hitters, including
Mr. Cornwell and former federal Judge Oliver W. Wanger.


NUTELLA: Proposed Class Action Settlement Challenged
----------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a proposed settlement of a
class action suit against makers of the chocolate hazelnut spread
Nutella isn't melting in the mouths of some of its intended
beneficiaries.  A chief focus of dissatisfaction is that the class
lawyers will walk away with $3.75 million in fees, almost 70
percent of the $5.5 million settlement.


PINNACLE FOODS: Advocacy Groups to Sue Over GMO Food Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Galloway, writing for VTDigger, reports that the legal
advocacy groups, the Vermont Community Law Center and Law For
Food, plan to file a class action lawsuit against Pinnacle Foods
Group, which owns Log Cabin Syrup and Birds Eye frozen vegetables,
over GMO food labeling.

The crux of the lawsuit is whether labeling GMO and synthetic food
products as "all natural" violates the Vermont Consumer Protection
Act.

Attorneys Jared Carter and Kenneth Miller, who say the suit is the
first of its kind, was set to make the announcement 11:00 a.m. on
June 18 on the steps of City Hall.


PUBLIC BROADCASTING: Interns Mull Wage-and-Hour Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that public television shows often
operate on a shoestring.  According to Lucy Bickerton, the Public
Broadcasting Service (PBS) "Charlie Rose" interview show was so
cheap, it used interns like her to fill in for actual employees.

According to her lawsuit, filed in March, that violated New York's
wage-and-hour law.

Ms. Bickerton, who interned on the show in 2007, claims she worked
25 hours per week for no pay.  Her suit alleges she and nine other
interns shepherded guests, prepared press packets and cleaned the
set after tapings, tasks she says constituted the work of an
employee, not an intern.

According to the law, interns must receive training, not replace
paid employees.

Ms. Bickerton's attorneys are looking for other interns to come
forward as part of a class action against the show.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Sued Over Defective Turf Builder EZ Seed
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Home Depot and Lowe's sell defective Scotts Miracle-Gro "Turf
Builder EZ Seed" that doesn't work, as its touted "super absorbent
mulch" sucks the water away from the seeds.


ST. JUDE: Faces Class Action Over Defective Riata ICD Leads
-----------------------------------------------------------
MedCity reports that Minnesota medical device company St. Jude
Medical has been hit with a shareholder class action lawsuit in
its own backyard for failing to disclose the full extent of the
problems with its now-recalled, defective Riata and older leads,
thereby maintaining an inflated share price.

Sales of the Riata ICD leads were discontinued when it was found
that the lead wires came out of their insulation.  The leads have
also failed because of short circuiting.  In April, St. Jude
Medical stopped selling two other leads that had the same problem
of wires coming out of their insulation.

The plaintiff in the class action lawsuit is Robert Satow, who
filed the lawsuit on behalf of other shareholders.  Here is a
portion of the complaint:

(St. Jude Medical) failed to disclose the full extent of the
problems with its products.  First, defendants failed to disclose
that the Riata and Riata ST were also associated with short
circuits unrelated to the protruding wires.  Although less
frequent than the protrusions, the short circuits were much more
dangerous. Second, defendants failed to disclose that two other
leads sold by the company, the QuickSite and QuickFlexLeft -
Ventricular leads, suffered from the same protruding wires that
plagued the Riataand Riata ST.

Subsequently, on March 27, 2012, The NewYork Times disclosed the
results of an analysis performed by an independent researcher, Dr.
Robert Hauser, which indicated that the Riata and Riata ST caused
short circuits.  Defendants vehemently challenged these findings,
thus maintaining the artificial inflation in St. Jude's stock.
On April 4, 2012, defendants finally disclosed that the QuickSite
and QuickFlex Left-Ventricular leads also suffered from the same
protruding wire defect asthe Riata and Riata ST.  Sales of the
QuickSite and QuickFlex Left-Ventricular leadswere discontinued.
As a result of these disclosures, the closing price of St. Jude's
stock dropped from $43.80 to $38.91 over three trading days, a
decline of over 11%.  This decrease was a result of the artificial
inflation caused by defendants' misleading statements coming out
of the price.

A St. Jude spokeswoman offered no comment to the charges, noting
only that St. Jude Medical typically updates investors of
significant litigation in its quarterly earnings report.  The next
one is expected in August, she said.


STEINER U.S.: Sued Over False Claims on Bliss Body Care Creams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Steiner U.S. Holdings
defrauds consumers by claiming its Bliss brand body care creams
"deliver slimmed, toned, reshaped and firmed skin," a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Zelaya v. Steiner U.S. Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. 12-cv-00966 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/18/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
          MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC
          1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 542-3555
          E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com


THQ: Robins Gellar Files Class Action Over uDraw Tablet
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Futter, writing for Ripten, reports that a second lawsuit
has been filed, accusing THQ of failure to accurately disclose
performance of the failed uDraw tablet.  The firm of Robins Gellar
Rudman & Dowd has initiated a class action in the state of
California on behalf of purchasers of common stock during the
period of May 3, 2011 and February 3, 2012.

Ripten said that should the courts find that THQ knowingly
misrepresented the performance of the uDraw tablet against
internal expectations, they would be in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

THQ has recently completed a leadership shuffle that saw the
ouster of former Executive Vice President of Core Games Danny
Bilson and the appointment of Jason Rubin, co-founder of Naughty
Dog, as President.  Additionally, the publisher also sold off the
UFC license to EA and subsequently laid off staff at its San Diego
studio.  The company is also in the process of initiating a
reverse stock split to avoid delisting by NASDAQ (as it was
required to do in 1995).


TOWN OF OSSIPEE, NH: Property Owners to File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Larissa Mulkern, writing for Union Leader, reports that the
attorney representing many of the shorefront property owners on
Ossipee Lake has asked the Superior Court for permission to file a
class-action suit with the state's Supreme Court.

The original case was filed last year by homeowners Roland Cherwek
and James Fitzpatrick Jr. and the owners of 61 other properties
who say that the Town of Ossipee's base tax rate for their
waterfront property is overassessed.

Ossipee's board of selectmen has denied abatements requests filed
by the homeowners.  Thus, through their attorney, Amy Manzelli of
Baldwin & Callen, PLLC of Concord, the petitioners sought to get
the case approved as a "class-action" suit against the town.

Ms. Manzelli filed a "Petitioner's Motion to Allow Interlocutory
Appeal" to the Carroll County Superior Court on May 31.  In an
earlier ruling, Judge Steven Houran had declined permission for
the parties to bring a class-action lawsuit against the town and
declined a subsequent motion to reconsider the ruling.

The plaintiffs say that the land base shorefront property values
are overassessed in comparison to other parts of Center Ossipee
and that the calculations used to figure the rate do not include
all the property sales transactions.  Those sales would include
what the assessor deemed as "distressed" sales -- a sale in the
event of divorce or to settle an estate of a deceased owner.

The town's contract tax assessor, David Wiley, used a base land
tax rate for waterfront properties in the area at $400,000 per
every first six-tenths of an acre.  The proposed lawsuit does not
challenge other parts of assessing value, such as the value of
buildings, improvements or adjustments for the character of the
land, according to court documents.

In the appeal motion, Manzoni states that the plaintiffs,
including those not separately named, have one thing in common --
they share a similar land-value rate on which their taxes are
based.

"All real property is unique.  However, the uniqueness of real
property does not preclude a class action in this real estate tax
abatement matter.  Petitioners challenge only the base land rate,
a figure that is identical, not unique, for all proposed class
members.  If the proposed class members prevail, the figure will
be lowered, but will remain identical for all the proposed class
members.  Thus, the trial court's grant of the town's motion to
disallow class certification should be corrected," stated
Ms. Manzelli in the interlocutory appeal to the court.

Ms. Manzelli said it was difficult to predict when Judge Houran
would render a decision in this case, but that the Town of
Ossipee, through its counsel, Richard Sager of Sager & Haskell,
has indicated it would not object to the motion.

"The time in which the court would render a decision varies
widely," she said.


WENDY'S INT'L: Judge Dismisses Part of Meal Break Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Camille DeMere, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge
on June 13 dismissed part of a putative class action alleging
Wendy's International Inc. prevented its hourly California workers
from taking meal and rest breaks, finding some claims in the
plaintiff's third amended complaint still didn't meet legal
standards.

U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow sided with the burger
chain, dismissing three of Katherine Lopez's class action claims
with prejudice.  She also dismissed Lopez's claims under the
California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, but will allow
her to amend the claims.


* Tribunal Reprimands Solicitor Over Black Saturday Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Hewitt, writing for Northern Weekly, reports that a solicitor
who rushed to be the first to lodge a class action over the Black
Saturday Kilmore East-Kinglake fires has been reprimanded.

Daniel Oldham pleaded guilty to misconduct over lodging class
actions for the Black Saturday bushfires and the 2003 alpine fires
in the names of victims who had not given permission.

In a recent ruling, the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal restricted the lawyer's areas of practice to building,
construction, property and owners corporation law for two years
and fined him AUD30,000.

VCAT found he issued proceedings quickly "because of his self-
interest in wanting his firm to be the first" and that he was
"ignorant" of the many rules involving class actions.

It found that although a Black Saturday victim had not given
permission to be named as the lead plaintiff, and then asked to be
removed from that position, Mr. Oldham took months to comply. The
tribunal also found Mr. Oldham did not have an alpine victim's
permission to use his name as lead plaintiff. "(The cases) involve
incompetence and ignorance by a practitioner operating outside his
area of expertise and without undertaking or organizing adequate
research," it said.

Maurice Blackburn senior associate Rory Walsh said his firm had
launched a class action in the Kilmore East-Kinglake fire -- which
was not associated with Mr. Oldham or his firm Oldham Naidoo --
and represented 1500 people.  "We're preparing for what is
anticipated to be a hard-fought trial, which begins on January 29
next year and is expected to run in excess of five months," he
said.


                           *********

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  * * *