---

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

             Thursday, June 28, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 127

                             Headlines

ACCESS ONE: Sued for Unsatisfactory Customer Service Agreements
AEROPOSTALE INC: Awaits Ruling on "Providence" Suit Dismissal Bid
ALLIANCE ONE: Awaits Order on Remaining Claims in Brazilian Suit
ARDEA BIOSCIENCES: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suit
ARMY AND AIR FORCE: Class Action Over Interest Rates Can Proceed

AUTOZONE INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Settles "Winslow" Securities Suit in Tennessee
BEST BUY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Alter Class Suit Dismissal
CANADA: School Class Action Notification Program Begins
CARY, NC: Red-Light Camera Suit Gets Class-Action Status

CHARMING SHOPPES: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
COMCAST CORP: Supreme Court to Decide on Antitrust Class Action
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger Suits
COST PLUS: Faces Three Class Suits Over Bed Bath & Beyond Merger
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Another Securities Suit Over May 18 IPO

GD-OTS INC: Shannon Townspeople Fail to Prove TCE-Cancer Link
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Rule 68 Claim
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Gets Favorable Ruling in Overtime Class Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Denies in Part Bid to Nix Securities Suit
JTH HOLDING: Bid to Consolidate RAL-Related Suits Granted

JTH HOLDING: Continues to Defend Class Suit in South Carolina
KAO USA: Sued Over Deceptive Advertising on Jergens Moisturizer
KIT DIGITAL: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Securities Law Violations
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: "Holton" Suit Deal Final Hearing on July 6
PATHEON INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Products

PELLA CORPORATION: Settles Pella(R) ProLine Casement Class Action
PFIZER CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Champix Class Action
PINNACLE FOODS: Sued Over Misleading Labels on Hungry Man Product
RALCORP HOLDINGS: Settled for $4.4-Mil. Class Actions in Calif.
READING SCHOOL: Laid Off Teachers File Class Action Grievance

RED BULL: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Tex Messages
SAIC INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate Seven Class Suits
SAIC INC: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in Class Suits Pending
SAUK VILLAGE: IML Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify, Suit Says
SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Gets Court OK to Replace Class Representative

UBS AG: Faces Class Action in New York Over Trading Loss
US AIRWAYS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Rulings in Gender Discrimination Suits
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Securities Suit Over New York Times Story
WAL-MART STORES: Petition in "Braun/Hummel" Suit Still Pending

WALGREENS: Employees File Class Action Over Off-Clock Hours
WASHINGTON, DC: Seeks to End Court Oversight on "Petties" Case
WEBMD HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in New York

* U.S. FREIGHT RAILROADS: Fuel Surcharge Class Action Can Proceed
* Attorney Files Class Action to Stop "We Buy Junk Cars" Texts
* Securities Suits for Accounting Allegations Increase in 2011


                          *********

ACCESS ONE: Sued for Unsatisfactory Customer Service Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Creative Designs Management Company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated v. Access One,
Inc., Case No. 2012-CH-22960 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 21,
2012) seeks a declaration that the provisions of the Defendant's
customer service agreements are unconscionable and unenforceable.

In July 2011, Creative Designs entered into a customer service
agreement for Access One to provide telecommunications services
for the Plaintiff's operations as well as for the residents of the
apartments it managed. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's
service was not satisfactory and that it wants to terminate the
service.  By this complaint, Creative Designs seeks (i) a
declaration that it is entitled to terminate its agreement with
Access One upon 90 days' notice, and (ii) a refund of charges paid
to Access One under duress.

Creative Designs, an Illinois corporation, manages multi-family
apartment buildings.

Access One is an Illinois corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence M. Benjamin, Esq.
          NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
          Two N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60602-3801
          Telephone: (312) 269-8000
          E-mail: lbenjamin@ngelaw.com


AEROPOSTALE INC: Awaits Ruling on "Providence" Suit Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aeropostale, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by the City of
Providence, according to the Company's June 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 28, 2012.

In October 2011, Aeropostale, Inc. and senior executive officers
Thomas P. Johnson and Marc D. Miller were named as defendants in
an action amended in February 2012, City of Providence v.
Aeropostale, Inc., et al., No. 11-7132, a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The lawsuit
was filed in New York federal court on behalf of purchasers of
Aeropostale securities between March 11, 2011, and August 18,
2011.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and prospects and failed to disclose that Aeropostale was
experiencing declining demand for its women's fashion division and
increasing inventory.  All defendants moved to dismiss this action
on March 12, 2012.  In the opinion of management, disposition of
this matter is not expected to have a material effect on the
Company's financial positions, results of operations or cash
flows.  The Company is vigorously defending this matter.


ALLIANCE ONE: Awaits Order on Remaining Claims in Brazilian Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance One International, Inc. is awaiting a court decision with
respect to the remaining claims in the class action lawsuit
pending in Brazil, according to the Company's June 13, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended March 31, 2012.

On June 6, 2008, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary and a number
of other tobacco processors were notified of a class action
initiated by the ALPAG - Associacao Lourenciana de Pequenos
Agricultrores ("Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco").
The class action's focus is a review of tobacco supplier contracts
and business practices, specifically aiming to prohibit processors
from notifying the national credit agency of producers in debt,
prohibiting processors from deducting tobacco suppliers' debt from
payments for tobacco, and seeking the modification of other
contractual terms historically used in the purchase of tobacco.
The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of Sao Lourenco
do Sul.  On April 20, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss the
class action was granted in part and denied in part.  A hearing
with respect to the remaining claims was scheduled for June 27,
2012.

The Company believes the remaining claims in this action to be
without merit and is vigorously defending the action.  Due to the
broad scope of the pleading, the ultimate exposure if an
unfavorable outcome is received is not estimable.

Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, Alliance One
International Inc. -- http://aointl.com/-- is an independent leaf
tobacco merchant.  It provides worldwide service to the large
cigarette manufacturers.  It purchases tobacco in more than 45
countries and serves manufacturers of cigarettes and other
consumer tobacco products in over 90 countries.  The Company's
revenues are primarily comprised of sales of processed tobacco and
fees charged for related services to manufacturers of consumer
tobacco products around the world.


ARDEA BIOSCIENCES: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ardea Biosciences, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's June 13, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On April 24, 2012, Ardea Biosciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Zeneca Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
AstraZeneca PLC ("Zeneca"), and QAM Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Zeneca ("Merger Sub").  The Merger Agreement
provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Zeneca.  On May 21, 2012, the Company filed a
definitive proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") describing the
Merger with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC").

A putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported
stockholder of Ardea against AstraZeneca PLC ("AstraZeneca"),
Ardea and the directors and President and Chief Executive Officer
of Ardea (collectively, the "Defendants") seeking, among other
things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement.  The putative class
action lawsuit, captioned Walker v. Ardea Biosciences, Inc., et
al. Case No. 37-2012-00096151-CU-BT-CTL (the "Litigation"), was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego (the "Court"), purportedly on behalf of the stockholders
of Ardea, and the plaintiff's complaint alleges, among other
things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of Ardea in connection with the
proposed Merger and that AstraZeneca aided and abetted this
alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

After filing the Litigation and engaging in certain discovery,
plaintiff's counsel indicated to Defendants' counsel that they
believed additional disclosures should be made available to the
stockholders of Ardea.

On June 13, 2012, the Defendants and the plaintiff in the action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") agreeing in
principle to settle the Litigation in exchange for Defendants'
agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures.  The MOU
contemplates that the parties will prepare a definitive
stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to court
approval.  If approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the
settlement will result in a release of the Defendants from all
claims that were or could have been asserted challenging any
aspect of or otherwise relating to the Merger, the Merger
Agreement or the disclosures made in connection therewith, and
that the Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Ardea has agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger in a supplement to
the Proxy Statement.  The supplemental disclosures are contained
in a proxy supplement filed with the SEC on
June 13, 2012 (the "Supplement") and should be read in conjunction
with the Proxy Statement, which should be read in its entirety.
In return, the plaintiff has agreed to the dismissal of the
Litigation with prejudice and to withdraw and/or refrain from
filing any and all motions seeking to enjoin or otherwise
challenging the Merger.  In addition, the MOU contemplates that
plaintiff's counsel will petition the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $600,000,
to be paid by Ardea or its insurers or successors.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will ultimately reach agreement on a
definitive stipulation of settlement or that the Court will
approve the proposed settlement, even if the parties were to enter
into such stipulation of settlement.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
stockholders of Ardea in connection with the proposed Merger or
the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of Ardea on June
19, 2012.

The Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously
deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the facts and
claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the
Litigation, including that they have committed any violations of
law or breach of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted any violations
of law or breaches of fiduciary duty, acted improperly in any way
or have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to the
plaintiff or to the purported class, and specifically deny that
any further supplemental disclosure is required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the directors
of Ardea failed to maximize stockholder value by entering into the
Merger Agreement with Zeneca and Merger Sub.  The settlement
contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be construed as, an
admission of wrongdoing or liability by any Defendant. However, to
avoid the risk of delaying the Merger, and to provide additional
information to the stockholders of Ardea at a time and in a manner
that would not cause any delay of the Merger, the Defendants
agreed to the settlement.  The parties considered it desirable
that the Litigation be settled to avoid the substantial burden,
expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation and to fully and finally resolve the Litigation.


ARMY AND AIR FORCE: Class Action Over Interest Rates Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a Northern
California federal court has certified a class and appointed class
representation against a military credit card company that
allegedly swindled 60,000 soldiers and veterans.

In 2009, lead plaintiff Taylor Russell sued the federal government
for credit cards issued by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service
(AAFES), which he said overcharged its customers.

Mr. Russell opened an AAFES account in 1997, went delinquent in
2000, and, through 2005, "AAFES applied an annual percentage rate
on his account of 14.25 percent even though the allegedly maximum
annual interest rate allowed pursuant to his credit card agreement
was never more than 12.25 percent and for most months was 12
percent," a ruling issued on June 20 states.

Mr. Russell's initial class claims were dismissed in June 2010,
because he received a full, $150 refund for his individual claim
before moving for class certification.

He appealed the dismissal of one claim -- that AAFES overcharged
on deferred payment plan (DDP) debt -- and, a federal court
disagreed that mooting his individual claim warranted dismissing
the DDP class claim.

According to U.S. District Judge William Alsup, "AAFES's credit
card agreements have undergone various modifications over the
years.  Between 1992 and now, the AAFES has modified their
standardized agreements at least twenty times.

"The AAFES allegedly violated these agreements through a common
practice of calculating interest charges on delinquent accounts on
a fixed rate basis using the prime rate at the time the account
became delinquent, instead of periodic adjusting the interest
rate."

AAFES voluntarily corrected delinquent accounts and issued refund
checks following Mr. Russell's initial suit.  By May 2010, it
adjusted 149,781 accounts and issued 101,351 refund checks, Judge
Alsup wrote.

However, in March 2012, the AAFES discovered 35 individuals that
should have received refunds, "but were inadvertently excluded."
And, "approximately 21,000 checks were returned as undeliverable
and another 40,000 checks remain uncashed.  That is, approximately
60 percent of persons the AAFES determined were owed refunds have
not been paid.  This amounts to approximately $2 of the $5 million
dollars in total refunds the AAFES determined was due," the 15-
page ruling continues.

AAFES failed to resend 60,557 uncashed or returned checks, Judge
Alsup said, and, "Only a couple of weeks ago did the AAFES
requested (sic) updated mailing addresses from the IRS on these
accounts.  This was done only after an order denied the AAFES's
motion to dismiss on remand."

Judge Alsup ruled that the class does not include Mr. Russell's
individual claim, and any class members with claims exceeding
$10,000 must expressly opt-in and waive their claims.

The Army and Air Force Exchange Service, founded in 1895, operates
3,100 facilities in 30 countries, five U.S. territories and 50
states; including convenience and speciality stores, movie
theaters and 2,000 fast food restaurants.  Its sales totaled $9.9
billion in 2010, according to shopmyexchange.com.  Judge Alsup
ordered the parties to submit an agreed-upon form of notice, a
joint proposal for dissemination of notice and the timeline for
opting out of the action by Aug. 9.

Mr. Russell must pay for the cost of notice, and a list of class
members must be provided to the court by August 2.

A copy of the Order Certifying Class and Appointing Class Counsel
in Russell v. United States of America, Case No. 09-cv-03239 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/25/Russell_USA_15.pdf


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

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 13, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 5, 2012.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Settles "Winslow" Securities Suit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc., in its June 1, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, attached a press release
announcing the settlement in principle of certain pending class
action securities litigation.

                    BancorpSouth's Statement

     TUPELO, Mississippi -- June 1, 2012 -- BancorpSouth, Inc.
(NYSE: BXS) announced that it has reached a settlement in
principle of the class action securities litigation pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
entitled Winslow vs. BancorpSouth, et al.  The settlement is
subject to execution of a definitive settlement agreement and
court approval.  In this lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that
BancorpSouth and certain of its executives violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding BancorpSouth's business and financial
results.  Defendants deny all of plaintiff's allegations of
wrongdoing.

     The parties, including the Company's insurance carriers,
negotiated the terms of the settlement, with the assistance of a
former United States federal district judge acting as a mediator,
that they believe are in their respective best interests.  The
settlement allows both sides to avoid the potential risks and
costs of lengthy litigation.

     BancorpSouth's insurance carriers will fund the settlement
payment, other than an immaterial amount of incidental expenses
that BancorpSouth will cover.  Management believes that the
settlement will not have a material adverse effect on
BancorpSouth's business, consolidated financial position or
results of operations.

                       About BancorpSouth

     BancorpSouth is a financial holding company headquartered in
Tupelo, Mississippi, with $13.0 billion in assets.  BancorpSouth
Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of BancorpSouth, Inc., operates
290 commercial banking, mortgage, insurance, trust and broker
dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas, and an insurance
location in Illinois.  BancorpSouth's common stock is traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BXS.


BEST BUY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Alter Class Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. is awaiting a court decision on plaintiffs'
motion to alter or amend a ruling dismissing their consolidated
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's June 13, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 5, 2012.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  This federal
court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made
available to the public.  Additionally, in March 2011, a similar
purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene
LeBlanc, against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the same court.  In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated
complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co.,
Inc., et al., was filed and served.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March
2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a
decision dismissing the action with prejudice.

In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the
court's decision on the Company's motion to dismiss.  An
opposition to the plaintiffs' motion was filed, and the Company
awaits the court's decision.  As a result, the court's decision on
the motion to dismiss is not final, and the time period for an
appeal thereof is delayed until 30 days after a court order
disposing of the plaintiffs' new motion.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action seek damages,
including interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the
costs and expenses they incurred in the lawsuits.  The Company
believes the allegations in the securities action are without
merit, and it intends to defend the action vigorously.  Based on
the Company's assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
securities action, their respective procedural litigation history,
and the degree to which the Company intends to defend its company
in these matters, the amount or range of reasonably possible
losses, if any, cannot be estimated.

Best Buy Co., Inc., is a multinational retailer of consumer
electronics, computing and mobile phone products, entertainment
products, appliances and related services.  It operates retail
stores and call centers and conduct online retail operations under
a variety of brand names such as Best Buy (BestBuy.com,
BestBuy.ca), Best Buy Mobile (BestBuyMobile.com), The Carphone
Warehouse (CarphoneWarehouse.com), Five Star, Future Shop
(FutureShop.ca), Geek Squad, Magnolia Audio Video, Pacific Sales
and The Phone House (PhoneHouse.com).  The Company is
headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota.


CANADA: School Class Action Notification Program Begins
-------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador authorized this,
and other forms of notice, as part of a notification program to
inform former students of the Lockwood, Yale, Makkovik, Nain and
St. Anthony schools and their families about their legal rights in
class action lawsuits.

Former students and their families have sued the Federal
Government of Canada about the management and operation of the
Lockwood, Yale, Makkovik, Nain and St. Anthony schools and the
harms and abuses committed against the children who attended them.
The lawsuits include two groups of people called a Survivor Class
and Family Class.  You are part of the Survivor Class if you
attended the Lockwood School, the Yale School, the Nain Boarding
School, the Makkovik Boarding School, or St. Anthony's Orphanage
anytime after March 31, 1949.  You are part of the Family Class if
you are (a) the spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or
sibling of a Survivor Class Member; (b) the spouse of a child,
grandchild, parent, grandparent or sibling of a Survivor Class
Member; (c) a former spouse of a Survivor Class Member; (d) a
child or other ancestor of a grandchild of a Survivor Class
Member; (e) someone who cohabitated with a Survivor Class Member
for at least one year before they died; (f) someone who supported
or was legally required to support a Survivor Class Member until
they died; or (g) someone who was supported by a Survivor Class
Member for at least three years prior to their death.

The lawsuits claim that the Government exposed former students to
child abuse, neglect, and physical, emotional, psychological and
sexual abuse.  They also claim that the Government did not protect
students' physical and mental well-being even though it was its
duty to do so.  The lawsuits seek money or benefits for Survivor
and Family Class Members.

The Government denies that it had a responsibility to protect the
children who attended these schools.  It claims that all it did
was provide money to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to
be used for the educational needs of Aboriginal persons.

The Court has not decided who is right.  The lawyers for the
former students and their families will have to prove their claims
at trials which are scheduled to begin in September 2013.  The
Court appointed the law firms of Koskie Minsky LLP of Toronto,
Ontario, Ches Crosbie Barristers of St. John's, Newfoundland and
Ahlstrom Wright Oliver & Cooper LLP of Sherwood Park, Alberta to
represent former students and their families as "Class Counsel."

Class Members who are residents of the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador have a choice about whether to stay in the lawsuits
or exclude themselves.  These Class Members don't have to do
anything to stay in the lawsuits.  They will be notified if any
money or benefits become available from the trials or possible
settlements.  But, they will give up their right to sue the
Government about what happened to them or their family member at
these schools.  Class Members who want to be excluded from the
lawsuits must submit an Exclusion Request Form by November 30,
2012.  Class Members who are no longer residents of the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador have a choice about whether to join
the lawsuits or not.  To join the lawsuits you must submit an Opt-
In Request Form by November 30, 2012.  Exclusion Request Forms and
Opt-In Request Forms are available at
http://www.NewfoundlandRScases.ca

Class Members who ask to be excluded or choose not to join the
lawsuits will not be able to get any money or benefits from these
lawsuits if any are received.  But, they will keep the right to
sue the Government on their own about what happened to them or
their family member at these schools.

For more information go to http://www.NewfoundlandRScases.ca
e-mail nfldresidentialschools@kmlaw.ca or call 1-866-386-9295.


CARY, NC: Red-Light Camera Suit Gets Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Siceloff and Andrew Kenney, writing for NewsObserver.com,
report that a Wake County judge has granted class-action status to
a lawsuit filed by two drivers against Cary's red-light camera
traffic enforcement system, opening the possibility that Cary
could be forced to refund $50 tickets paid by thousands of drivers
since late 2009.

The lawsuit was filed in 2010 by Brian Ceccarelli, an Apex
computer consultant.  He blames his November 2009 ticket on a
fleeting yellow light at Cary Towne Boulevard and Convention
Drive, arguing that it was too brief to give drivers time to stop
safely before the light turned red.

A second plaintiff, Lori Millette of Cary, blames a brief yellow
light for the ticket she received in May 2010 while making a left
turn at Kildaire Farm Road and Cary Parkway.

"My purpose all along is a safety matter," Mr. Ceccarelli said on
June 22. "All I want is the town of Cary to increase the yellow
time duration so they obey the law of physics, so people are
safe."

The ruling comes as Cary officials struggle with other problems
that have cut public support for the cameras, which were installed
to catch red-light runners at 18 intersections.  Cary's cameras
crank out more than 13,000 tickets a year.  A malfunction at one
light was blamed this spring for 31 erroneous tickets paid since
last summer.

"The program can't continue the way it's going," Mayor Harold
Weinbrecht said on June 22.  "We've spent a lot of staff time and
money administering the program."

The lawsuit is part of a multi-pronged campaign by Mr. Ceccarelli,
50, against red-light cameras everywhere.  He excoriates them on a
website, www.redlightrobber.com, and in essays that attack the
formulas used by traffic engineers across the United States to
determine how much yellow-light time drivers need before the
traffic light turns red.

Mr. Ceccarelli calls himself a physicist on the strength of his
undergraduate degree in physics from the University of Arizona. He
argues that it is impossible for drivers to stop their cars in the
short time allowed, citing Newton's second law of motion, which
explains the relationship between the mass of an object and the
amount of force needed to make it accelerate or decelerate.

Mr. Ceccarelli's arguments were dismissed in 2010 in formal papers
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), but he
expressed disdain in reply.

"They are just stupid," Mr. Ceccarelli said in April of traffic
engineers, writing in response to the ITE critique.

"The only reason why IIHS is for red light cameras is because
insurance companies get to raise premiums for drivers caught by
camera," Mr. Ceccarelli commented in March on a Web site article
about the cameras' use in Connecticut.

Mr. Ceccarelli said his lawyers have invested more than $300,000
in the case, money he'll be hard-pressed to cover unless he wins
the day and Cary is forced to pay the bill.  He said he brought
the lawsuit after engineers for Cary and the state Department of
Transportation failed to respond to issues he raised about the
red-light cameras.

Cary had sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, and had argued
against expanding it to class-action status.

After months of depositions and court hearings, Wake Superior
Court Judge Paul C. Ridgeway this week granted the request by
Mr. Ceccarelli and Ms. Millette to make it a class-action case,
adding other drivers who have been fined under Cary's red-light
cameras. Judge Ridgeway defined the class of plaintiffs in two
groups:

    * Drivers who were ticketed at Cary Town Boulevard and
Convention Drive between Dec. 2, 2009, when Mr. Ceccarelli
appealed his ticket, and March 19, 2010.  On that date, Cary
recalibrated the signal at that intersection, adding one-half
second to the yellow-light time.

    * Drivers who have been ticketed since Aug. 1, 2010, while
making left turns at any of these intersections that have cameras:
Maynard Road at Kildaire Farm Road; Kildaire Farm at Cary Parkway;
Cary Parkway at High House Road, and Walnut Street at Meeting
Street.

Judge Ridgeway's seven-page order gave no details about how the
affected drivers would be identified, or whether they would be
notified about the lawsuit.  Judge Ridgeway said it was not clear
how many drivers were affected.  He wrote that attorneys for both
sides had provided estimates ranging from hundreds to tens of
thousands, depending on how narrowly the judge defined the class
of plaintiffs.

Mr. Ceccarelli said he figured the ruling would make tens of
thousands of drivers eligible for refunds of their tickets, if the
plaintiffs win the case.  A Cary town spokeswoman pegged the
number somewhere below 9,000.  Mr. Ceccarelli said he expects the
case to go to trial in January, unless the two sides agree on a
settlement.

Attorney Elizabeth Martineau of Charlotte, representing Cary, did
not respond to a request for comment.  Paul "Skip" Stam of Apex,
lead attorney for Mr. Ceccarelli and Ms. Millette and a member of
the state House of Representatives, said he would not comment on
Judge Ridgeway's ruling.

In court documents, Mr. Ceccarelli blamed his ticket on a traffic
engineer's mistake.  The duration of the yellow light at the
intersection was based incorrectly on a speed limit of 35 mph, he
said, but the posted limit actually was 45 mph.  He said the
number of tickets issued at that intersection each month fell by
80 percent after Cary officials made corrections a few months
later, adding one-half second to the yellow light.

Cary's camera system is operated by Arizona-based Redflex Traffic
Systems, which is not named in the lawsuit.  Redflex keeps nearly
90 percent of the ticket revenue. The rest goes to the Wake County
schools.

Town officials said they were "very disappointed" in May when they
learned that one camera had malfunctioned for a year, spitting out
dozens of unwarranted tickets.

Town staff are researching the system's performance and could
present the data to the Cary Town Council this summer.  Mayor
Weinbrecht said the council will consider all options, including
shutting down or dramatically refiguring the project.


CHARMING SHOPPES: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Charming Shoppes, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
last month to settle merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's June 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

On May 1, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Ascena Retail Group, Inc.
("Ascena") and Colombia Acquisition Corp. ("Colombia"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Ascena.  The Company's Board of Directors and
the Boards of Directors of each of Ascena and Colombia unanimously
approved the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated
under it.

On May 4, 2012, a Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint captioned Pamela Kraus v. Charming Shoppes, Inc., et
al., No. 2012-04154, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Bucks County, Pennsylvania (the "Kraus Complaint").  The Kraus
Complaint purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of the
Company and names as defendants the members of the Board, as well
as the Company and Ascena.  The Kraus Complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with
the Offer and the Merger, and further claims that Ascena aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Kraus
Complaint further alleges that the Company's directors engaged in
abuse of control and gross mismanagement by entering into the
Merger Agreement.  The Kraus Complaint also alleges that the Offer
and Merger involve an unfair and self-serving sales process with
preclusive deal protection devices, and that the Company's
directors agreed to the transactions to benefit themselves
personally.  The Kraus Complaint seeks rescission of the Merger
Agreement and injunctive relief, including an order prohibiting
defendants from consummating the Offer and Merger, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On May 4, 2012, the Company received a letter from counsel for
Mario Lamanna (the "Demand Letter") demanding that the Board
commence an action on behalf of the Company against the individual
members of the Board for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of
allegedly wrongful conduct in connection with the Offer and the
Merger.  Specifically, the Demand Letter asserts that the
Company's directors breached their duties of loyalty, care, good
faith, and/or candor by causing and/or allowing the Company to be
acquired by Ascena for inadequate consideration and by failing to
adequately shop the Company before the transaction.  The Demand
Letter also alleges that the Company's directors agreed to the
Offer to benefit themselves personally, approved improper deal
protection devices, and ignored or failed to protect against
conflicts of interest.

On May 7, 2012, a Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint captioned Philip E. Ricciardi v. Charming Shoppes, Inc.,
et al., No. 2012-04154, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Bucks County, Pennsylvania (the "Ricciardi Complaint").  The
Ricciardi Complaint purports to assert both direct and derivative
claims and names as defendants the members of the Board, as well
as the Company, Ascena, and Colombia.  The Ricciardi Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection
with the Offer and the Merger, and further claims that Ascena and
Colombia aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The Ricciardi Complaint further alleges that the Company's
directors engaged in self-dealing and corporate waste by entering
into the Merger Agreement.  The Ricciardi Complaint seeks
rescission of the Merger Agreement and injunctive relief,
including an order prohibiting defendants from consummating the
Offer and Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief.

On May 14, 2012, the Company received a letter dated May 8, 2012,
from counsel for Phillip E. Ricciardi (the "Ricciardi Demand
Letter") demanding that the Board conduct an investigation and
commence an action on behalf of the Company against the individual
members of the Board for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of
allegedly wrongful conduct in connection with the Offer and the
Merger.  The Ricciardi Demand Letter refers to the allegations set
forth in the Ricciardi Complaint.

On May 8, 2012, a Verified Class Action and Shareholder Derivative
Complaint captioned Mario Lamanna v. Charming Shoppes, Inc., et
al., No. 2012-04275, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Bucks County, Pennsylvania (the "Lamanna Complaint").  The Lamanna
Complaint purports to assert both direct and derivative claims and
names as defendants the members of the Board, the Company, Ascena,
and Colombia.  The Lamanna Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company's directors engaged in waste of corporate assets
and breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders
in connection with the Offer and the Merger, and further claims
that Ascena and Colombia aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  Specifically, the Lamanna Complaint asserts
that the Company's directors wrongfully allowed or caused the
Company to be acquired by Ascena for unfair and inadequate
consideration.  The Lamanna Complaint further alleges that the
Company's directors failed to take steps to maximize the value of
the Company to its public shareholders, failed to properly value
the Company and its assets and operations, and ignored or failed
to protect against conflicts of interest with respect to the Offer
and Merger.  The Lamanna Complaint also alleges that the Offer and
Merger involve unfair and preclusive deal protection devices, and
that the Company's directors agreed to the transactions to benefit
themselves personally.  As to the Board's rejection of the Demand
Letter, the Lamanna Complaint alleges the Board's rejection was
unreasonable, not in good faith, and not protected by the business
judgment rule.  The Lamanna Complaint seeks rescission of the
Merger Agreement and injunctive relief, including an order that
prohibits defendants from consummating the Offer and Merger, and
an award of attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, in addition
to other relief.

On May 9, 2012, a Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint captioned Robert Steinfeld v. Charming Shoppes, Inc., et
al., No. 2012-04284, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Bucks County, Pennsylvania (the "Steinfeld Complaint").  The
Steinfeld Complaint purports to assert claims derivatively on
behalf of the Company and names as defendants the members of the
Board, as well as the Company and Ascena.  The Steinfeld Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection
with the Offer and the Merger, and further claims that Ascena
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
Steinfeld Complaint further alleges that the Company's directors
engaged in abuse of control and gross mismanagement by entering
into the Merger Agreement.  The Steinfeld Complaint also alleges
that the Offer and Merger involve an unfair and self-serving sales
process with preclusive deal protection devices, and that the
Company's directors agreed to the transactions to benefit
themselves personally.  The Steinfeld Complaint seeks rescission
of the Merger Agreement and injunctive relief, including an order
prohibiting defendants from consummating the Offer and Merger, and
an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to
other relief.

On May 22, 2012, a Verified Class Action and Shareholder
Derivative Complaint captioned John Vineyard v. Charming Shoppes,
Inc., et al., No. 2012-04715, was filed in the Court of Common
Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania (the "Vineyard Complaint").
The Vineyard Complaint purports to assert both direct and
derivative claims and names as defendants the members of the
Board, the Company, Ascena, and Colombia.  The Vineyard Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors engaged
in waste of corporate assets and breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's shareholders in connection with the Offer and the
Merger, and further claims that Ascena and Colombia aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  Specifically,
the Vineyard Complaint asserts that the Company's directors
wrongfully allowed or caused the Company to be acquired by Ascena
for unfair and inadequate consideration.  The Vineyard Complaint
further alleges that the Company's directors failed to take steps
to maximize the value of the Company to its public shareholders,
failed to properly value the Company and its assets and
operations, and ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of
interest with respect to the Offer and Merger.  The Vineyard
Complaint also alleges that the Offer and Merger involve unfair
and preclusive deal protection devices, and that the Company's
directors agreed to the transactions to benefit themselves
personally.  In addition, the Vineyard complaint alleges that the
defendants disseminated a materially false and misleading Schedule
14d-9.  The Vineyard Complaint seeks rescission of the Merger
Agreement and injunctive relief, including an order that prohibits
defendants from consummating the Offer and Merger, and an award of
attorneys' fees and other fees and costs, in addition to other
relief.

On May 23, 2012, an Individual and Class Action Complaint
captioned Judith Nadler v. Charming Shoppes, Inc., et al., No.
2:12-cv-02838-HB, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Federal Action").
The complaint in the Federal Action names as defendants the
Company and the members of the Board.  The complaint in the
Federal Action alleges, among other things, that defendants
disseminated a Schedule 14d-9 in which they made untrue statements
of material facts or failed to state all material facts necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances in which they were made, not misleading, or engaged
in deceptive or manipulative acts or practices.  The complaint in
the Federal Action also alleges that the Offer and the Merger are
on terms that are fundamentally unfair.  The Federal Action seeks
injunctive relief, including an order that prohibits defendants
from consummating the Offer and Merger, and an award of attorneys'
fees and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On May 23, 2012, by agreement of the parties, a Stipulation and
Order Regarding Consolidation of Related Actions and Appointment
of Lead Counsel was filed with the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks
County, Pennsylvania with regard to the actions described in the
Kraus Complaint, the Ricciardi Complaint, the Lamanna Complaint,
the Steinfeld Complaint, and the Vineyard Complaint.  The court
approved the order on May 24, 2012, which consolidated these
proceedings before the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, into a single case captioned In Re Charming Shoppes,
Inc. Derivative and Class Action Litigation, No. 2012-04154 (the
"Consolidated Action").  Also on May 24, 2012, the plaintiffs in
the Consolidated Action filed a Verified Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") that purports to
assert both direct and derivative claims and names as defendants
the members of the Board, the Company, Ascena, and Colombia.  The
Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors engaged in waste of corporate assets and breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with
the Offer and the Merger, and further claims that Ascena and
Colombia aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  Specifically, the Amended Complaint asserts that the
Company's directors wrongfully allowed or caused the Company to be
acquired by Ascena for unfair and inadequate consideration.  The
Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company's directors
failed to take steps to maximize the value of the Company to its
public shareholders, failed to properly value the Company and its
assets and operations, and ignored or failed to protect against
conflicts of interest with respect to the Offer and Merger.  The
Amended Complaint also alleges that the Offer and Merger involve
unfair and preclusive deal protection devices, and that the
Company's directors agreed to the transactions to benefit
themselves personally.  In addition, the Amended Complaint alleges
that the Schedule 14d-9 was materially false and misleading. The
Amended Complaint seeks rescission of the Merger Agreement and
injunctive relief, including an order that prohibits defendants
from consummating the Offer and Merger, and an award of attorneys'
fees and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

The defendants named in the Consolidated Action and the Federal
Action (collectively, the "Defendants") believe that the
Consolidated Action and the Federal Action are entirely without
merit, and that they have valid defenses to all claims raised by
Judith Nadler and the plaintiffs named in the Consolidated Action
(collectively, the "Plaintiffs").  Nevertheless, and despite their
belief that they ultimately would have prevailed in the defense of
the Plaintiffs' claims, to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction associated with such litigation, on May 31, 2012, the
Defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with
the Plaintiffs.  Under the MOU, the Plaintiffs and the purported
class of Company shareholders they represent agreed to negotiate
and present a final stipulation of settlement to the court
presiding over the Consolidated Action which provides for the
dismissal with prejudice of the Consolidated Action and the
Federal Action and the discharge and release of the Defendants,
their agents, advisors, and certain affiliated parties from and
against all direct, derivative, legal, or equitable claims, known
and unknown, that are based on, arise out of, or relate in any
way, directly or indirectly, to the allegations and claims in the
Consolidated Action, the Federal Action, the Offer, the Merger,
and other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement
(collectively, the "Contemplated Transactions"), the negotiations
and deliberations related to the Merger Agreement, the various
public filings relating to the Contemplated Transactions, and
certain other potential legal or equitable claims described more
fully in the MOU.  In exchange for such settlement and release,
the parties agreed, after arm's length discussions between and
among the Defendants and Plaintiffs, that the Company would
include additional supplemental disclosures in the Schedule 14d-9,
although the Company and the other Defendants do not make any
admission that such additional supplemental disclosures are
material as a matter of law or in the context of a shareholder's
decision to tender shares of the Company's common stock into and
accept the Offer.  After reaching agreement on the substantive
terms of the MOU, the parties also agreed that they would attempt
to reach an agreement as to an amount of attorneys' fees and
expenses that the Company, or its successor, will pay to
Plaintiffs' counsel.  If the parties are not able to agree on the
amount of fees payable to Plaintiffs' counsel within two weeks of
executing the MOU, then Plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses from either the court presiding over
the Consolidated Action or the court presiding over the Federal
Action, but not both.  If agreement is reached on the amount of
attorneys' fees and expenses payable to Plaintiffs' counsel,
Plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses and the Company, or its successor, will pay an amount
decided by the court, not to exceed the agreed upon amount.
Defendants reserved their right to contest the amount of fees and
expenses sought by Plaintiffs' counsel.  The settlement is also
contingent upon, among other things, consummation of the
Contemplated Transactions and the approval of the Court of Common
Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.  The MOU recognizes, among
other things, that the parties will cooperate and use their best
efforts to execute a Stipulation of Settlement and present the
Stipulation of Settlement and such other documentation as may be
required by the court within thirty (30) days from the date of the
MOU in order to obtain court approval of the settlement.

The MOU provides that the Defendants deny that they committed any
violation of law or breach of duty or acted improperly in any way,
and they believe that they acted properly at all times and that
the Consolidated Action and the Federal Action have no merit, but
wish to settle the Consolidated Action and the Federal Action in
order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further
litigation.

Any settlement will not affect the amount of the Offer Price or
the Merger consideration.  There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.  In the event that the
MOU is not approved and the conditions are not satisfied, the
Defendants will continue to vigorously defend the Consolidated
Action and the Federal Action.


COMCAST CORP: Supreme Court to Decide on Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Supreme Court agreed on June 25 to decide the fate of an antitrust
class action by Comcast customers who say they paid higher rates
for cable-television because the media giant perpetrated a
"clustering scheme" in the greater Philadelphia area.

In taking up the case, the justices said they would decide
"whether a District Court may certify a class action without
resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible
evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is
susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis."

Six Comcast customers filed suit in December 2010, accusing the
cable giant of trying to monopolize the market for non-basic-
cable-television in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

By engaging in a series of acquisitions and swaps with competing
cable providers, Comcast allegedly increased its market share in
the area from 24 percent in 1998 to about 70 percent by 2007.

A federal judge certified the class in January 2010 after a four-
day evidentiary hearing that included submission of 32 expert
reports.

The plaintiffs say Comcast engaged in similar anticompetitive
conduct in the Chicagoland area, and a suit over an alleged Boston
cluster is pending, but the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit addressed only the Philadelphia accusations in
August.

A three-judge panel upheld certification for a class consisting of
roughly two million cable-television subscribers in parts of
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

The plaintiffs say Comcast purchased and swapped for competing
cable systems as part of a monopoly-minded "clustering scheme" to
fortify its presence in Philadelphia and surrounding counties.

They accuse Comcast of participating in "conduct intended to
exclude competition from . . . RCN Telecom Services . . . by
denying it access to [cable-television channel] 'Comcast
Sportsnet,' requiring contractors to enter non-compete agreements"
and "inducing potential customers to sign up for long contracts
with special discounts and penalty provisions" in the areas where
RCN intended to establish a competing cable operation, according
to the 3rd Circuit.

A key issue on appeal was how to define the geographic market for
non-basic-cable-television in the greater Philadelphia area -- or,
as one 3rd Circuit judge put it during oral argument: "What's the
region in which claims could sensibly be brought together and
looked at for common proof?"

Comcast said the geographic market should be limited to the
individual household.

"Because an individual can choose only among providers offering
video programming services to his household, Comcast asserts that
the geographic market must be the household," Judge Ruggero
Aldisert wrote for the majority.

But the plaintiffs say the market should include a bundle of
counties home to millions in the tri-state area.

The District Court found that to be an appropriate definition at
this stage in the litigation, and the 3rd Circuit agreed, noting
that the multicounty definition could still be disputed at trial.

Comcast's narrow, household-based market-definition ignores the
realities of the cable-television industry and the scope of the
market in which suppliers "effectively compete," the panel found.

The panel also rejected Comcast's claim that there was no genuine
competition to eliminate in the so-called multicounty market, and
that it was RCN Telecom's own financial woes that were preventing
RCN from establishing a serious regional presence.

Evidence thus far "demonstrates that Comcast's alleged clustering
conduct indeed could have reduced competition, raised barriers to
market entry [by another provider] . . . and resulted in higher
cable prices to all of its subscribers in the [multi-county]
Philadelphia Designated Market Area [DMA]," the panel found.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Kent Jordan said he would vacate
certification and ask the District Court to consider creating sub-
classes, as proving damages would be difficult with a single
class.

"The variation in conditions within the nearly 650 franchise areas
in the Philadelphia DMA means that the issue of [proving and
calculating] damages is more fractured than a single class can
accommodate," Judge Jordan wrote.

A copy of the Order in Comcast Corp., et al. v. Behrend, Caroline,
et al. is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/25/sc6-25.pdf


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 2012, Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. filed
a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to
disclose that it signed a memorandum of understanding to settle
merger-related class action lawsuits.

Parties signed the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding
the settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of February 5, 2012 (the "Merger
Agreement"), among SureWest Communications, a California
corporation ("SureWest"), Consolidated Communications Holdings,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Consolidated"), WH Acquisition
Corp., a California corporation ("Merger Sub I"), and WH
Acquisition II Corp., a California corporation ("Merger Sub II"
and together with the Merger Sub I, "Merger Subs"), pursuant to
which, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, Merger Sub I,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated, will merge with and
into SureWest (the "First Merger"), and then SureWest will merge
with and into Merger Sub II, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Consolidated (the "Second Merger" and together with the First
Merger, the "Mergers").

In connection with the Mergers, between February 17, 2012, and
April 18, 2012, SureWest, the members of SureWest's board of
directors, Consolidated and the Merger Subs, were named as
defendants in five purported shareholder class action lawsuits
that were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Placer, the "State Actions," and one additional lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California, the "Federal Action."  The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that SureWest's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to SureWest's shareholders in negotiating and entering into
the Merger Agreement and by agreeing to sell SureWest at an unfair
price, pursuant to an unfair process and pursuant to unreasonable
terms, and that SureWest, Consolidated, and the Merger Subs aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  On May 17,
2012, the plaintiffs in the Federal Action requested a temporary
stay of the Federal Action, which the court granted, and began
coordinating with the plaintiffs in the State Actions.

On June 1, 2012, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum
of understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a proposed
settlement of the State Actions and the Federal Action, which
would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against
all of the defendants.  The proposed settlement is conditional
upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate
stipulation of settlement and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the court presiding over the State Actions.  In
addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the
memorandum of understanding, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses as part of the settlement.  There can be no assurance
that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if
the parties enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.  The proposed settlement will not
affect the amount of the merger consideration that SureWest's
shareholders are entitled to receive in the Mergers.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the lawsuits and specifically deny that any
supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law.  However, to minimize the
expense of defending the lawsuits, to avoid the risk of delaying
or adversely affecting the Mergers and the related transactions,
and to provide additional information to SureWest's shareholders
and Consolidated's stockholders, at a time and in a manner that
would not cause any delay of the special meeting of SureWest's
shareholders, the annual meeting of Consolidated's stockholders or
the Mergers, SureWest and Consolidated have determined to provide
supplemental disclosures, as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding and proposed settlement.


COST PLUS: Faces Three Class Suits Over Bed Bath & Beyond Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Plus, Inc. is facing three class action lawsuits arising from
its proposed merger with Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., according to the
Company's June 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

On May 8, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., a New
York corporation ("BBBY"), and Blue Coral Acquisition Corp., a
California corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of
BBBY ("Purchaser"), pursuant to which Purchaser agreed to commence
a tender offer (the "Offer") to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock at a purchase price of $22.00
per share, net to the holder in cash (the "Offer Price"), without
interest and subject to any required withholding of taxes.  The
Offer commenced on May 25, 2012.

On May 11, 2012, and May 22, 2012, alleged shareholders of the
Company filed putative class actions captioned Gary Ogurkiewicz v.
Cost Plus, Inc., et al., Case No. RG 12-629912, and Willie M.
Richardson v. Cost Plus, Inc., et al., Case No. RG 12-631301, in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.
The defendants are the Company, members of the Company's board of
directors, Purchaser and BBBY.  The complaints allege that the
individual defendants violated California law by breaching their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with
the Merger Agreement and the transaction contemplated thereby.
Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that the
proposed Merger arises out of a flawed process which resulted in
an unfair price for the Company's shares and a failure to maximize
stockholder value.  The complaints also allege that the process
will deter other purported interested parties from launching a
competing offer.  The lawsuits further allege that Purchaser and
BBBY aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties.  In addition, the Ogurkiewicz action alleges
that the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, an order declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable,
enjoining defendants from consummating the proposed Merger,
rescinding the proposed Merger if it is consummated, awarding
damages, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 25, 2012, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action captioned Irene Dixon v. Cost Plus, Inc.,
Case No. 12-2721, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The defendants are the Company,
members of the Company's board of directors, the Merger Sub and
the Parent.  The complaint alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, including the Williams Act, by omitting
material facts from the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement the Company filed with the SEC on May 25, 2012, in
connection with the proposed Merger.  In addition, the complaint
alleges that the individual defendants violated California law by
breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in
connection with the Merger Agreement and the transaction
contemplated thereby.  Specifically, the complaint alleges, among
other things, that the proposed Merger arises out of a flawed
process which resulted in an unfair price for the Company's shares
and a failure to maximize stockholder value.  The complaint also
alleges that the process will deter other purported interested
parties from launching a competing offer.  The lawsuit further
alleges that Purchaser and BBBY aided and abetted the individual
defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, an order enjoining defendants from
consummating the proposed Merger, rescinding the proposed Merger
if it is consummated, awarding damages, and awarding attorneys'
fees and costs.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Another Securities Suit Over May 18 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Ahrendtsen, and Aaron M. Levine, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., Mark
Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L.
Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham,
Reed Hastings, Peter A. Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce
Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Barclays Capital, Inc., Case No.
3:12-cv-03212 (June 20, 2012) is brought on behalf of all those
who purchased the common stock of Facebook pursuant and traceable
to the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering seeking to
pursue remedies upon the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing their preparation.  They argue that the true
facts at the time of its initial public offering were that
Facebook was then experiencing a severe and pronounced reduction
in revenue growth due to an increase of users on its Facebook app
or Web site through mobile devices rather than a traditional
personal computer such that the Company told the Underwriter
Defendants to materially lower their revenue forecasts for 2012.

The Plaintiffs are shareholders of Facebook.

Facebook, which maintains its principal executive offices in Menlo
Park, California, operates as a social networking company
worldwide.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.  Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs,
Merrill Lynch, and Barclays Capital served as underwriters of the
IPO.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Larry S. Berman, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: ALevin@LFSBLaw.com
                  lberman@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Burke, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Steven N. Berk, Esq.
          BERK LAW PLLC
          2002 Massachusetts Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 232-7550
          Facsimile: (202) 232-7556
          E-mail: steven@berklawdc.com


GD-OTS INC: Shannon Townspeople Fail to Prove TCE-Cancer Link
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dougherty, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
Justice Bernard Godbout has ruled in a class-action suit that the
townspeople of Shannon, north of Quebec City, did not prove their
contention that the presence in their drinking water of TCE, a
solvent used on the nearby Valcartier army base to clean artillery
and ammunition and a known carcinogen, was responsible for
abnormally-high cancer rates in the town.

But Justice Godbout did rule that contamination of well water in
Shannon by trichloroethylene was an inconvenience to residents,
ordering the government to pay compensation of C$15,000 to about
300 affected residents who were among the 2,700 present and former
residents lending their name to the class-action suit.

That would mean damages of C$4.5 million, far short of the C$200
million to C$300 million in damages lawyer Charles Veilleux, who
resigned from his law firm to lead the court battle, hinted the
class-action could yield.

"The evidence did not demonstrate that it is probable that the
spilling of TCE contaminated the groundwater under the
municipality of Shannon, making it the cause of an abnormally-high
number of cancer cases, disease and other allergic reactions,"
Justice Godbout wrote in his judgment delivered on June 21.

Marie-Paule Spieser, a nurse living in Shannon, in whose name the
class-action was presented, called the judgment "a big
disappointment," noting cases of cancer she knows about.

"It hurts me," Ms. Spieser said.  "We worked so hard."

Shannon Mayor Clive Kiley said tests showed Shannon residents had
as much as 900 micrograms of TCE in their bloodstream, much higher
than the 50 micrograms acceptable norm in Canada.  In some
jurisdictions, such as Minnesota, the acceptable level is 5
micrograms.

In a statement Mr. Veilleux noted that Justice Godbout recognized
the defendants -- the attorney general of Canada, GD-OTS Inc. and
Societe immobiliere Valcartier -- were responsible for
contamination of the groundwater by TCE, after they denied until
January 2010 that TCE from the base had entered the environment.

"In light of the importance of the judgment and the questions
raised, counsel will continue to analyze it and will meet again
with representatives of the Shannon citizens' group in coming days
to discuss the situation."

Dr. Claude Juneau, a doctor in Shannon for 37 years, compiled
records of cancer cases, in particular in a zone he called the red
triangle and testified at the class-action trial that he had no
doubt the presence of TCE was responsible for high rates of cancer
and other illnesses in the town.

Witnesses for the government side argued that because of the small
population of Shannon it was not possible to prove scientifically
that the cancer rate was abnormally high and that the rate of
illness was linked to the TCE in the water.

Shannon residents used to bring their well water as a gift when
they were visiting people elsewhere, judging it to have a superior
taste.  They now are supplied with water from Quebec City's mains.

A U.S. study found TCE, nicknamed "tricky," is a potential kidney
carcinogen and there is evidence it can lead to cardiac anomalies
and possible heart defects in the unborn.


GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Rule 68 Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that the Supreme
Court has agreed to hear a Pennsylvania woman's claim that her
employer's use of Rule 68 preemptively mooted her case, depriving
her and members of a prospective class from a reasonable
opportunity to deliberate the merits of collective action.

Laura Symczyk, a nurse employed by the Genesis Healthcare Corp.,
also known as Genesis Edlercare, sued her employer on behalf of
herself and similar situated individuals in December 2009,
claiming the company's then new pay-deduction policy violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The policy subjected the pay of certain employees to an automatic
meal break deduction whether or not they performed compensable
work during their breaks.

In February 2010, Genesis filed an answer to Ms. Symczyk's
complaint and served her with an offer of a Rule 68 judgment of
$7,500 in alleged unpaid wages, attorneys' fees and court costs.

Unaware of the offer -- to which Ms. Symczyk did not respond --
the federal court in Philadelphia entered a scheduling offer
providing or an initial 90 day discovery period, at the close of
which Ms. Symczyk could move for conditional certification.

Following the court's ruling on certification, the parties were to
have an additional 6 month discovery period to commence at the
close of any court-ordered opt-in window.

Genesis moved to dismiss, raising objections from Ms. Symczyk that
the company had engaged in a strategic attempt to "pick [her] off"
before the court could consider her certification motion.

In May 2010, the court concluded the Genesis offer mooted the
collection action and that the action should be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ms. Symczyk appealed, complaining that class certification within
the 3rd Circuit is essentially a moving target because some courts
rely merely on plaintiffs having made a "substantial allegation"
in their pleadings, while others demand a "modest factual showing"
Against such a backdrop, she asked the court to decide whether an
FLSA collective action becomes moot when "(1) the putative
representative receives a Rule 68 offer in full satisfaction of
her individual claim prior to moving for "conditional
certification," and (2) no other potential plaintiff has opted in
to the suit."

On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit concluded the "modest factual showing" standard -- which
works in harmony with the opt-in requirement to cabin the
potentially massive size of collective actions -- "best comports
with congressional intent and with the Supreme Court's directive
that a court 'ascertain the contours of [a collective] action at
the outset.'"

As for the Rule 68 judgment the court acknowledged that such an
offer would moot a case involving an individual plaintiff, but
said "conventional mootness principles do not fit neatly within
the representative action paradigm."

In that light, the court said that when a Rule 68 judgment is
offered, the most appropriate course of action for the court is to
relate the certification motion back to the filing of the class
complaint.

Such an act, it said, would ensure the use of Rule 68 would not
prevent a collective action from playing out according to the
directives of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"In essence, the relation back doctrine allows a district court to
retain jurisdiction over a matter that would appear susceptible to
dismissal on mootness grounds by virtue of the expiration of a
named plaintiff's individual claims," wrote Circuit Judge Julio
Fuentes.

He added later, "The relation back principle ensures that
plaintiffs can reach the certification state . . .  [and] helps
safeguard against the erosion of FLSA claims by operation of the
Act's statute of limitations."


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Gets Favorable Ruling in Overtime Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Katzanek, writing for The Presss-Enterprise, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18 ruled in favor of
pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline, deciding that drug
companies do not have to pay their sales representatives overtime
when they visit doctors' offices on promotional calls.

On a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled against two former sales
representatives, Michael Christopher and Frank Buchanan, who
claimed in their class action suit that the task of visiting
medical offices promoting medications often involved 50- or 60-
hour work weeks.

The overtime rules have numerous exemptions, and one of them is
for white-collar "outside sales" staff.  Plaintiffs Christopher
and Buchanan claimed they were entitled to overtime because they
really were not sales staff.  They were considered employees
involved in promotional activities and did not consummate sales
transactions.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, ruled against the
two workers and upheld an earlier ruling by a California appeals
court.  Several other drug companies have faced similar lawsuits.
One, which involved Abbott Laboratories and Eli Lilly, was decided
in the companies' favor by an appeals court two months ago.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Denies in Part Bid to Nix Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Goldman
Sachs cannot wiggle out of class action securities fraud claims by
arguing that public statements that it valued "honesty,"
"integrity" and "fair dealing" were "puffery," not promises, a
federal judge ruled.

"Goldman's arguments in this respect are Orwellian," U.S. District
Judge Paul Crotty wrote in a footnote to his 27-page order.
"Words such as 'honesty,' 'integrity,' and 'fair dealing'
apparently do not mean what they say; they do not set standards;
they are mere shibboleths.  If Goldman's claim of 'honesty' and
'integrity' are simply puffery, the world of finance may be in
more trouble than we recognize."

On April 26, 2010, shareholder Ilene Richman filed a class action
against Goldman Sachs, in the wake of the bank's infamous Abacus
investment.

Weeks earlier, the Securities and Exchange Commission claimed
Goldman Sachs created Abacus 2007-AC1 in February 2007 at the
request of John Paulson, a hedge fund manager who earned $3.7
billion by correctly betting that the housing bubble was about to
burst.

The bank paid $550 million on July 15, 2010 to settle the SEC's
suit without confirming or denying the allegations.

At the time, the SEC called it the largest penalty a Wall Street
firm ever paid, with $300 million going to the Treasury Department
and the rest going to investor restitution.

But the settlement did not resolve Richman's class action, which
claimed that statements the bank made about the Abacus and three
other transactions materially misled shareholders.

Some of those allegedly misleading statements include a 10-K form
stating, ""We have extensive procedures and controls that are
designed to . . . address conflicts of interest"; and annual
reports stating, "Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our
business" and "We are dedicated to complying fully with the letter
and spirit of the laws, rules and ethical principles that govern
us."

Citing the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's
decision in the case of Rombach v. Chang, Goldman Sachs wrote in a
motion to dismiss, "Expressions of puffery and corporate optimism
do not give rise to securities violations."

Judge Crotty rejected that argument.

"Goldman must not be allowed to pass off its repeated assertions
that it complies with the letter and spirit of the law, values its
reputation, and is able to address 'potential' conflicts of
interest as mere puffery or statements of opinion," he wrote.
"Assuming the truth of plaintiffs' allegations, they involve
'misrepresentations of existing facts.'"

Judge Crotty added that Goldman Sachs' refusal to admit guilt
about the Abacus deal in SEC settlement rang hollow in light of
the company's subsequent statements.

"Goldman's assertion that it 'neither admitted, nor denied' that
its Abacus disclosures were fraudulent is eviscerated by its
concession that 'it was a mistake for the Goldman marketing
materials to state that the reference portfolio was 'selected by'
ACA Management LLC without disclosing the role of Paulson & Co.
Inc. in the portfolio selection process and that Paulson's
economic interests were adverse to CDO investors,'" the order
states.  "Goldman paid a $550 Million settlement to the SEC-the
largest SEC penalty in history-because of the 'mistake' it
acknowledged."

Judge Crotty rejected that it was a "mistake" at all.

"With respect to Abacus, Goldman certainly knew that Paulson
played an active role in the asset selection process," he wrote.
"How else could Goldman admit that it was a 'mistake' not to have
disclosed such information?"

Executives Lloyd Blankfein, David Vinier and Gary Cohn likely also
knew, he added.

"These allegations, taken as true, show that each individual
defendant actively monitored the status of Goldman's subprime
assets and subprime deals during the relevant time, and that each
knew that Goldman was trying to purge these assets from its books
and stay on the short side," the order states.  "These allegations
create a strong inference that the Individual Defendants knew that
Goldman was making material misstatements in the Abacus, Hudson,
Anderson, and Timberwolf I CDOs, when it sold poor quality assets
to investors without disclosing its or Paulson's substantial short
positions."

The bank and its executives were not obligated, however, to
disclose the Wells notice informing them that the SEC would bring
an enforcement action against them, Judge Crotty decided, in the
bank's only favorable ruling in its motion to dismiss.  The press
department for Goldman Sachs declined comment on the decision.

A copy of the Opinion & Order in Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-03461 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/B5iEl0


JTH HOLDING: Bid to Consolidate RAL-Related Suits Granted
---------------------------------------------------------
A motion to consolidate class action lawsuits over its refund
anticipation loan was granted in April, according to JTH Holding,
Inc.'s June 1, 2012, Form 10-12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York, since the initial filings.  The allegations
underlying each of these lawsuits, which were filed by the same
set of attorneys, are that an electronic refund check ("ERC")
represents a form of refund anticipation loan ("RAL"), because the
taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that an ERC is
therefore subject to federal truth-in-lending disclosure and state
law requirements regulating RALs.  Each of the cases differs in
that it alleges violations of state-specific RAL and other
consumer statutes.  All of the lawsuits purport to be class
actions, and in each lawsuit the plaintiffs allege potential
damages in excess of $5 million.  The Company is aware that
virtually identical lawsuits have been filed against at least two
of its competitors in a number of jurisdictions.  In December
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate all of the
then-pending cases before a single judge in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois.

In April 2012, the consolidation motion was granted, and the
Company expects the cases filed in January, February and May 2012
to be consolidated, as well.

The Company says that if it is unsuccessful in any of these
lawsuits, it may not only incur damages in connection with the
claims being made in the lawsuits, but it may be forced to alter
the manner in which it markets its ERCs in order to comply with
federal and state requirements that apply to loans.  Accordingly,
an adverse outcome in this litigation may materially and adversely
affect the Company's operations and financial results, and such
additional compliance could be costly and burdensome and affect
customer use of the ERC product.


JTH HOLDING: Continues to Defend Class Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
JTH Holding, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit in
South Carolina, according to the Company's June 1, 2012, Form 10-
12G/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In November 2010, several former customers of one of the Company's
South Carolina franchisees initiated a purported class action
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and another of
its employees in the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, in a case styled Martin v. JTH Tax, Inc.  In
this case, the plaintiffs allege that employees of the Company's
franchisees fraudulently increased customer tax refunds, and that
this behavior was pursuant to a plan or scheme in which the
Company and its employees were involved.  In this case, the
plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $5 million, certification of
class action status, treble damages under a claim pursuant to The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970,
punitive damages, and other damages.  This case is in the very
early stages of the proceeding.


KAO USA: Sued Over Deceptive Advertising on Jergens Moisturizer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kao USA cannot deliver on its
promises that Jergens Skin Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer
reduces the appearance of cellulite, a federal class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Burns v. Kao U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 12-
cv-03261 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/25/jergens.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com


KIT DIGITAL: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIT digital, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of securities laws, according to the Company's
June 1, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On May 25, 2012, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against the Company, Kaleil Isaza Tuzman, Robin Smyth and
Gavin Campion for an alleged class period of November 8, 2011,
through May 3, 2012, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and alleging that the individuals are also liable
under Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
purported control person liability.  The action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The Company has not yet been served with any complaint and
has not yet analyzed the allegations.  The allegations appear to
relate to disclosures made by the Company pertaining to
integration of acquired businesses and other disclosures
pertaining to the operations and financial condition of the
Company.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.

New York-based KIT digital, Inc., is a premium provider of end-to-
end video management software and services.  Its KIT Video
Platform, a cloud-based video asset management system, enables
clients in the enterprise, media and entertainment and network
operator markets to produce, manage and deliver multiscreen social
video experiences to audiences wherever they are.  The Company
services clients in more than 50 countries including some of the
world's biggest brands such as Airbus, AT&T, The Associated Press,
BBC, Best Buy, Bristol-Myers Squibb, BSkyB, Disney-ABC, FedEx,
Google, HP, MTV, News Corp, Telecom Argentina, Telefonica,
Universal Studios, Verizon, Vodafone and Volkswagen.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: "Holton" Suit Deal Final Hearing on July 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing of Marvell Technology Group Ltd.'s
settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Dan Holton is
set for July 6, 2012, according to the Company's June 1, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On October 18, 2006, Dan Holton ("Holton"), a former employee of
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. ("MSI"), filed a civil complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court.  Holton alleges that MSI
misclassified him as an exempt employee.  Mr. Holton claims that
due to its misclassification MSI owes him unpaid wages for
overtime, penalties for missed meal periods, and various other
penalties under the California Labor Code, as well as interest.
Mr. Holton also pursues a cause of action for unfair business
practices under the California Business & Profession Code.  Mr.
Holton brought his complaint as a class action.  On July 8, 2009,
the court granted certification of the following class: "All
Individual Contributor Engineers who held the title of PCB
Designer, Associate Engineer, Engineer, Staff Engineer and Senior
Engineers, who at any time during the class period while holding
these positions did not have a degree above a baccalaureate degree
nor a degree above a baccalaureate degree in a field of science
related to the work performed, and worked for MSI in California,
at any time from October 19, 2002 through the present."  MSI
disputed all plaintiff's class claims.

On November 23, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement
and plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The settlement was approved by the Court on
March 16, 2012, and will become effective after three additional
settlement class members are notified and have an opportunity to
object to the approval.  The final settlement approval hearing is
set for July 6, 2012.  The settlement amount, which was recorded
in the Company's financial statements in fiscal 2012, was not
material to the Company's results of operations.


PATHEON INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Patheon Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit over alleged
defective products, according to the Company's June 13, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, a customer gave notice of
its intent to seek indemnification against the Company pursuant to
a manufacturing service agreement ("MSA") for all costs associated
with a recall of an allegedly defective product.  The Company
accrued $1.7 million, net of expected insurance proceeds, to cover
recall costs and costs to replace returned products.  During the
first quarter of fiscal 2012, the customer gave further notice of
its intent to seek indemnification pursuant to the MSA for all
actual and potential third-party claims that have been or may be
filed against it in connection with the recall and the alleged
product defects, as well as all costs and expenses of the defense
and settlement of such claims.  During the second quarter of
fiscal 2012, the Company accrued an additional $2.4 million, for
additional returned products from the customer.

To date, three putative class actions and two single plaintiff
actions have been commenced in the United States against the
customer in connection with the allegedly defective products, and
the Company has also been named in one of the putative class
actions.  As these cases are at an early stage, the Company is
unable to estimate the number of potential claimants or the amount
of potential damages for which the Company may be directly or
indirectly liable in the actions.


PELLA CORPORATION: Settles Pella(R) ProLine Casement Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pella Corporation on June 22 announced a proposed settlement
agreement to resolve the Saltzman vs. Pella class-action lawsuit
involving Pella(R) ProLine casement, awning and transom windows
made in 2006 and earlier.  Pending court approval of the
settlement, the proposed agreement will extend customer service
support with a claims process for early products with service
needs.  The lawsuit does not involve any products currently sold
by Pella.

"We are pleased to have created a settlement framework that
extends our existing customer support program with a claims
process for older ProLine casement, awning and transom windows,"
said Pat Meyer, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of
Pella Corporation.  "In the overwhelming majority of cases, our
Pella windows performed extremely well and as designed.  We know
that each home or building is unique and the settlement is
designed to address the relatively small number that may have
experienced a problem.

"Pella continues to innovate in the design and features of our
windows and doors to improve their performance and customer
benefits," he added.  "For example, we have added
EnduraGuard(R)wood treatment as a triple protection for Pella wood
windows and other enhancements and design changes, as part of our
continuous product improvement and enhancement efforts at Pella."

Pella and the plaintiff's law firm filed the settlement agreement
proposal with the federal district court in Chicago for the
court's approval, prior to being implemented.  Pending review by
the court, customer notifications could begin as early as this
fall.

"As a financially strong, customer-focused company, Pella
Corporation is prepared to provide for claims if and as needed,
while continuing to serve our customers well just as we've done
since 1925," Mr. Meyer said.

Ameet Sachdev, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that the
agreement covers a nationwide class of consumers who bought
ProLine casement, awning and transom windows made by Iowa-based
Pella from 1991 to 2006.  Pella shipped an estimated 6 million
such windows, according to Richard Burke, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

Consumers may be eligible to receive between $750 and $6,000.  The
settlement also provides benefits beyond the warranty to consumers
whose windows may suffer wood rot in the future, according to
court papers.

The proposed settlement was filed in a Chicago federal court
earlier this week and must be approved by a judge.

Mr. Burke represents Dr. Leonard Saltzman, who built a home in
Lake Forest in 1995 that contained several ProLine casement
windows.  Ten years later he began to notice some of the window
frames were rotting, but the windows were no longer under
warranty.

Leonard Saltzman, a Lake Forest doctor, filed a lawsuit in 2006,
alleging that the windows had a design defect that permits water
to seep behind the aluminum cladding and cause wood rot.

Pella had denied the allegations and said wood could rot for many
reasons.  The company did not admit to any defects in its ProLine
windows as part of the settlement, Burke said.

U.S. District Court Judge James Zagel certified the suit as a
class action, and a federal appellate court upheld the decision.


PFIZER CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Champix Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy E. Harnett, writing for Times Colonist, reports that the
smoking-cessation drug Champix, offered free of charge by the B.C.
government as part of its antismoking program, is the target of a
class-action lawsuit that was certified against Pfizer Canada
Inc., in Ontario last week.

Colwood's Patricia Clow launched a class-action lawsuit in B.C.
against Pfizer Canada two years ago.  Her daughter Heidi, 22,
committed suicide in October 2009, five months after taking
Champix to help her quit smoking.

Ken Parker, 58, began similar legal action in Ontario.  He took
the drug in December 2007.  A month later, he suffered an
emotional breakdown and in February attempted suicide.

Champix was introduced for distribution and sale in the Canadian
market about April 2007.  It is known commercially as Chantix in
the United States.

The legal proceedings involve people who took Champix and allege
that they developed psychological side-effects that might have
included attempted suicide.  It is alleged that Pfizer failed to
warn the public about the potential for these side-effects.

In his decision released on June 21, Justice Paul Perell, of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, certified the class-action on
the basis of failure to warn.

"I conclude that Mr. Parker's motion should be granted," Justice
Perell wrote.

Mr. Parker was the proposed representative plaintiff for the
class-action, which will include Ms. Clow and others.  He alleged
in court documents that, as a consequence of ingesting Champix, he
and other members of the class experienced neuropsychiatric
adverse events -- including suicidal and homicidal thoughts.

Mr. Parker is back at work, but he is divorced from his wife and
estranged from his two children, and says he will never recover
from the negative effects of the drug or his suicide attempt.

Between January 2007, when Champix was first marketed in Canada,
and Dec. 31, 2011, Health Canada received 1,724 adverse-reaction
reports on the drug.

Through the B.C. government's smoking cessation program launched
in September 2011, PharmaCare now covers a single continuous
course of one of two prescribed smoking-cessation drugs --
varenicline (Champix) and bupropion (Zyban) -- or a free 12-week
supply of nicotinereplacement gum or patches.

The B.C. government said the neuropsychiatric side-effects from
smoking-cessation drugs are rare.

"While we can't comment on a particular court case, we made the
decision to cover Champix based on a thorough review of solid
clinical research and evidence, which found that the benefits of
covering this drug in our smoking-cessation program outweighed the
risks, including the risks association with depressive thoughts,"
said Ryan Jabs, spokesman for the B.C. Ministry of Health, on
Friday.

The ministry, the national Common Drug Review and Health Canada
reviewed all the available research on Champix before B.C. decided
to cover it, Mr. Jabs said in a statement.

Any prescription drug may produce side-effects.  "That's why
people need to talk to their doctors about whether this drug is
right for them, and to ensure they're monitored while taking the
drug," Mr. Jabs said.

Champix attaches to nicotine receptors in the brain to decrease
cravings and reduce the pleasurable psychological effects of
nicotine.  However, it is also associated with neuropsychiatric
side-effects, including suicidal thoughts or actions, depression,
mood swings and agitation.

It is not known whether the neuropsychiatric effects are solely
related to the prescription drug, nicotine withdrawal or
underlying symptoms that nicotine may be medicating.

Alan Cassels, a drugpolicy researcher at the University of
Victoria, said there is good reason to be concerned about Champix.
The drug expert and author said he can't understand why the B.C.
government would cover its cost without restrictions on its use.

Moreover, the possible adverse side-effects might be a reasonable
risk for battling a life-threatening illness, "but smoking is not
a disease and clearly there are other safer ways to quit smoking."

The smoking-cessation drug is only marginally more effective than
quitting cold turkey, Mr. Cassels said.


PINNACLE FOODS: Sued Over Misleading Labels on Hungry Man Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hungry Man frozen dinners and
other Pinnacle Foods Group products contain trans fatty acids
though their labels claim otherwise, a federal class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Rohrbough v. Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC,
Case No. 12-cv-00757 (W.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/25/hungryman.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq.
          Keith C. Lamb, Esq.
          Blake P. Green, Esq.
          BURGESS AND LAMB, P.C.
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone (816) 471-1700
          E-mail: mitch@burgessandlamb.com
                  keith@burgessandlamb.com
                  blake@burgessandlamb.com

               - and -

          Ralph K. Phalen, Esq.
          RALPH PHALEN ATTY. AT LAW
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 589-0753
          E-mail: phalenlaw@yahoo.com

RALCORP HOLDINGS: Settled for $4.4-Mil. Class Actions in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. settled for $4.4 million three class action
lawsuits brought by former employees, according to the Company's
June 13, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Two subsidiaries of the Company are subject to three lawsuits
brought by former employees currently pending in separate
California state courts alleging, among other things, that
employees did not receive statutorily mandated meal breaks
resulting in incorrect payment of wages, inaccurate wage
statements, unpaid overtime and incorrect payments to terminated
employees.  Each of these lawsuits was filed as a class action and
seeks to include in the class certain current and former employees
of the respective subsidiary involved.  In each case, the
plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees,
compensatory and other monetary damages, statutory penalties, and
injunctive relief.  No determination has been made by any court
regarding class certification.

In April 2012, the Company, plaintiffs and a third party staffing
agency formerly used by the Company agreed to the terms of a
proposed settlement with respect to these lawsuits.  Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed to pay
$4.4 million in order to resolve these claims.  The Company
accrued $4.4 million related to the proposed settlement during the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, however, it is possible that up to $1.5 million could
be returned to the Company depending upon the number of current
and former employees who participate in the settlement.  The
proposed settlement requires court approval which the Company
expects will occur during the third quarter of fiscal 2012.


READING SCHOOL: Laid Off Teachers File Class Action Grievance
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Mekeel, writing for Reading Eagle, reports that the union
representing 110 teachers recently laid off by the Reading School
District is doing its part to make sure those layoffs were done
properly, union officials said on June 22.

Bryan Sanguinito, president of the Reading Education Association,
confirmed that the union submitted a class-action grievance on
behalf of the teachers immediately after the layoffs were
announced June 5.

He said he expects to meet with officials from the district's
human resources department to discuss the layoffs.

Officials from the human resources department were unavailable for
comment.

The layoffs were part of the district's effort to close a more
than $40 million gap in its 2012-13 budget.  The district will
also lay off dozens of other employees and is planning to close
five schools.

The teachers union contract gives any laid off teacher the right
to a hearing.  Mr. Sanguinito said the class-action grievance was
filed because of the sheer number of teachers let go.

The union president said the grievance was filed to make sure
teachers were treated fairly, not because the union believes the
district necessarily did anything wrong.

"It's just a measure to be certain everything was legitimate," he
said.  "We want to make sure our people were furloughed properly.

"This is just a measure just in case they screwed something up."

Some of the issues the grievance addresses are matters of
seniority and if furloughs were handed out for appropriate
reasons.

Districts can only lay off teachers if programs are cut, schools
are closed or enrollment significantly declines.

Questions have arisen recently over whether the district is
following the proper procedure for closing schools.  District
officials have said that since the schools are only being closed
temporarily the district does not have to follow school closure
procedures listed in the state school code.

Mr. Sanguinito said that if the state Department of Education
challenges that point of view and does not allow the district to
close schools before the start of the school year, it could mean
many of the laid off teachers would be back on the job.

Mr. Sanguinito said he also plans to discuss with district
officials how recalls will be handled if the district decides to
bring back some of the laid off teachers.

He said there is a process that needs to be followed to ensure
fairness, including a lottery system to determine seniority for
employees who started on the same day.


RED BULL: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Tex Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class wants Red
Bull North America to stop sending unsolicited text messages to
consumers' cellphones.

A copy of the Complaint in Miller v. Red Bull North America, Inc.,
Case No. 12-cv-04961 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/25/redbull.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  avold@siprut.com


SAIC INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate Seven Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAIC, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to transfer
seven pending class action lawsuits, plus a related case, to a
single court for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings,
according to the Company's June 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in the following seven putative class
action lawsuits filed in October 2011 through March 2012: (1)
Richardson, et al. v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science
Applications International Corporation, United States Department
of Defense, et al. in U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia; (2) Arrellano, et al. v. SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas; (3) Biggerman, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (4) Moskowitz, et al.
v. TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al. in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (5) Palmer, et al. v.
TRICARE Management Activity, Science Applications International
Corporation, United States Department of Defense, et al., in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia; (6) Losack, et al. v.
SAIC, Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California; and (7) Deatrick v. Science Applications International
Corporation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The lawsuits were filed following the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a Company employee.  The employee was
transporting the backup tapes between federal facilities under an
IT services contract the Company was performing in support of
TRICARE, the health care program for members of the military,
retirees and their families.  The tapes contained personally
identifiable and protected health information of approximately
five million military clinic and hospital patients.  There is no
evidence that any of the data on the backup tapes has actually
been accessed or viewed by an unauthorized person.  In order for
an unauthorized person to access or view the data on the backup
tapes, it would require knowledge of and access to specific
hardware and software and knowledge of the system and data
structure.  The Company has notified potentially impacted persons
by letter and is offering one year of credit monitoring services
to those who request these services and in certain circumstances,
one year of identity restoration services.

The complaints in the seven lawsuits vary in their allegations and
causes of action against the Company and include allegations of
negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied-in-fact
contract, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private
facts and statutory violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, California data breach notification requirements,
the California Unfair Competition Law, the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and the Privacy Act of 1974.  The complaints seek monetary
relief, including unspecified actual damages, punitive damages,
statutory damages of $1,000 for each class member and attorney's
fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.  The Company
has filed motions to dismiss in five of the seven cases.  In
addition, the Company has filed a motion with the Judicial Panel
for Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer the seven pending
cases, plus a related case, to a single court for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings.  Proceedings in each of the
seven pending cases and the related case have been stayed pending
a decision by JPML on the Company's motion.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
the claims made in the class action lawsuits.  The Company has
insurance coverage against judgments or settlements relating to
the claims being brought in these lawsuits, with a $10 million
deductible.  The insurance coverage also covers the Company's
defense costs, subject to the same deductible.  As of April 30,
2012, the Company has recorded a loss provision of $10 million
related to these lawsuits, representing the low end of the
Company's estimated loss.  The Company believes that, if any loss
is experienced by the Company in excess of its estimate, such a
loss would not exceed the Company's insurance coverage.  As these
lawsuits progress, many factors will affect the amount of the
ultimate loss, resulting from these claims being brought against
the Company, including the outcome of the Company's motions to
dismiss, the results of any discovery, the outcome of any pretrial
motions and the courts' rulings on certain legal issues.


SAIC INC: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in Class Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff is pending in the two
remaining securities class action lawsuits against SAIC, Inc.,
according to the Company's June 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions: (1) City of Westland Police &
Fire Retirement System v. SAIC, Inc. et al., in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York; (2) Williams v. SAIC,
Inc. et al., in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia; and (3) Locals 302 & 612 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement
Trust v. SAIC, Inc. et al., in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Each case names as defendants the
Company, its chief financial officer, former chief executive
officer, and the former program manager on the CityTime program,
and each was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of
SAIC's common stock from April 11, 2007, through September 1,
2011.  Each complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations
that the Company and individual defendants made misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating
income, and internal controls in connection with disclosures
relating to the CityTime project.  The plaintiffs seek to recover
from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified
amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying
SAIC's stock at an inflated price.

The plaintiff in the Williams case voluntarily dismissed his
complaint in May 2012.  Pending before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York in the two remaining securities
cases is a motion by a purported stockholder group consisting of
the Indiana Public Retirement System, Indiana State Teachers'
Retirement Fund and Indiana Public Employees' Retirement Funds to
be appointed lead plaintiff.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.


SAUK VILLAGE: IML Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Municipal League Risk Management Association v. Village
of Sauk Village, Louis Tower, Roger G. Peckham, Robert Chavez,
Derrick Burges, David Hanks, Ed Meyers, Rosie Williams, and
Bernice Houston and Francine Anderson, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, individual citizens and residents of
the Village of Sauk Village, Case No. 2012-CH-23046 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., June 21, 2012) is a judgment action, which seeks a
declaration that the Plaintiff does not owe either a duty to
defend or indemnify Sauk Village, its current and former mayors,
and members of its current and former Board of Trustees, against a
class action lawsuit brought by Bernice Houston and Francine
Anderson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
individual citizens and residents of Sauk Village (the "Underlying
Plaintiffs").

The Plaintiff contends that it has no duty to defend or indemnify
Sauk Village and the Underlying Defendants under public officials
coverage grants because (i) the accounting sought by the
Underlying Plaintiffs is not a "loss" as defined by the coverage
grants, and (ii) the monetary judgment sought by the Underlying
Plaintiffs is excluded from the coverage grants' definition of
"loss" for it amounts to disgorgement or restitution of wrongfully
retained tax revenue, which is deemed uninsurable as a matter of
public policy.

The Illinois Municipal League is a not-for-profit association of
1,130 municipalities comprising of Illinois cities, villages and
incorporated towns.  The Association is an inter-governmental
association of municipalities that provides joint self-insurance
and risk management services to IML members.

The Sauk Village is an Illinois municipality located in Cook and
Will Counties, Illinois.  Sauk Village is a member of the
Association.  Louis Tower is an Illinois resident and the current
mayor of Sauk Village.  Roger Peckham is an Illinois resident and
the former mayor of Sauk Village.  Bernice Houston and Francine
Anderson are Illinois residents.  The other Individual Defendants
are Illinois residents and current and former members of Sauk
Village's Board of Trustees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Postel, Esq.
          Le G. Trieu, Esq.
          LINDSAY, RAPPAPORT & POSTEL, LLC
          10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1301
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 629-0208
          E-mail: jpostel@lrplawfirm.com
                  ltrieu@lrplawfirm.com


SOCORRO ELECTRIC: Gets Court OK to Replace Class Representative
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julia M. Dendinger, writing for DChieftain.com, reports that
despite protests that they were never actually party to litigation
against the Socorro Electric Co-op, a district court judge allowed
for the filing of an amended complaint to replace a SEC board of
trustees member with two other member-owners as the class action
representative.

On June 21, Judge Albert J. Mitchell Jr. ruled that Carol Auffrey
of Quemado and Herbert Myers of Socorro could replace SEC Trustee
Charlie Wagner as representatives of the class in the countersuit,
which asks for class action certification.

The initial cross claim, filed in August 2010 in response to SEC's
lawsuit against its members, named current and former co-op
officials individually as defendants.  This one lists Socorro
Electric Cooperative, Inc. as the cross claim defendant.

The amended version retains many of the same charges of breach of
fiduciary duty by members of the co-op's board of trustees and the
former general manager, but differs from the original complaint by
naming different parties to the lawsuit.

The countersuit came in response to a lawsuit Socorro Electric
filed against all of its approximately 10,000 member-owners in
June 2010 in an effort to block new bylaws that require it to
operate with increased transparency.

Though the co-op lost the lawsuit, Judge Mitchell allowed the case
to continue to consider the merits of the countersuit.  He has yet
to decide whether he'll accept it or certify the class, but opened
the case up to discovery to assist him with the decision.

The judge also ordered that because "the law expects certain
people to have certain titles," going forward, Ms. Auffrey and
Mr. Myers would be the plaintiffs and SEC will be the defendant.
Judge Mitchell said Mr. Wagner would not be dismissed as the class
representative until the amended complaint had been filed.

"This is not about technicalities," Judge Mitchell said.  "It's
about details.  This will keep Mr. Wagner in until we have another
party."

Judge Mitchell earned a chuckle from the dozen spectators when he
said going forward, this would be "a simple class action case."

The amended countersuit includes many of the same charges as the
first version.  It claims: The co-op long maintained a system of
unequal and improper voting districts; Patronage capital was
withheld from members at times when they should have received
payments; Members of the board of trustees received excessive
amounts of compensation; Board members breached their fiduciary
duty in numerous ways, including with regard to contractual
obligations to co-op members and reporting financial and
accounting records.

While individual trustees and former co-op officials are no longer
specifically named in the amended complaint, the revised version
still asks that they be held accountable and be disgorged for all
expenses and compensation deemed excessive.

The complaint asks the judge to, "Enter judgment that SEC is
liable for exemplary damages based on malice, willful, reckless or
wanton behavior, behavior or acts or omissions done in bad faith
by the SEC or the board of trustees in an amount sufficient to
punish SEC and to deter similar conduct in the future."

Members would be entitled to damages in the amount of patronage
capital that the complaint claims should have been retired and
paid to them during the relevant time period, and attorneys
representing members would be awarded fees.

The amended complaint was filed by William "Bill" Ikard of the
Ikard Wynne law firm of Austin, Texas, which, in 2009, helped win
a class action settlement against Pedernales Electric Cooperative
that resulted in $23 million being returned to members in the form
of patronage capital.  Ikard Wynne has been working in concert
with the Deschamps & Kortemeier law firm of Socorro, attorneys for
Auffrey and Myers.

On June 21, Darin Foster, the attorney representing the SEC,
argued that the amended claim was nothing more than an attempt to
"sneak in a substitute party."  Mr. Foster said Auffrey and Myers
were not parties to the case.

"The litigation was brought against all the members.  Those who
did not answer, were dismissed.  It's like they didn't exist,"
Mr. Foster said.  "Now they want to come in and take Mr. Wagner
out, put new plaintiffs in and file an entirely new suit."

Mr. Foster said amending the claim would reframe the class, making
the case more complex and expensive.  He also said Mr. Wagner did
not respond to the original lawsuit brought by the co-op.

Mr. Ikard countered that Mr. Wagner did indeed reply, noting that
every filing was footnoted with the caveat that the filing was on
behalf of Ms. Auffrey and Mr. Myers.

"That was based on the assumption that the court would grant leave
to file," Mr. Ikard said. "There is no question that the
defendants in this case were only dismissed because the court
required dismissal.

"Previous lawyers allowed service by publication."

He added that all trustees will be excluded as members of the
class.  Trustees all live within the SEC service area and are
themselves member-owners; in essence the board of trustees sued
itself in 2010.

When he made his determination, Judge Mitchell said he felt the
case would be different if Mr. Wagner had originally filed the
lawsuit.

"SEC made the decision to get into litigation with all its
members.  Was it a wise decision? Whether it was or not, the
decision was made by the board that they want to litigate with all
its members," Mr. Mitchell said.  "The case has been well
publicized.  Everybody knows there is litigation going on.  The
concerns raised by the co-op is valid and they will be reviewed as
we go forward.

"In the interest of justice and judicial economy, at this point in
this case, I will allow the amended complaint," the judge ruled.

Judge Mitchell directed that under the SEC bylaws, the matter be
placed on the co-op's agenda for its July 25 board meeting.

Judge Mitchell instructed attorneys to have a final amended
complaint ready for presentation at a status hearing three to four
weeks after that meeting.

He and the lawyers estimated that by the time all the filings are
done and responses completed, the matter should be ripe to come
back before the judge in mid- to late-November.

At the outset of the hearing, Judge Mitchell addressed an issue
that has been dragging on since the beginning of the year -- the
dismissal and payment of attorney Thomas Fitch.

Mr. Fitch, along with law partner Polly Ann Tausch, was one of the
attorneys who defended the original case SEC brought against its
member-owners.

The judge had previously agreed to temporarily delay payment to
all the attorneys involved, totaling $13,000.  During the hearing
on June 21, Judge Mitchell ordered SEC pay Fitch $2,000, and that
he be released from the case.  Mr. Fitch and Ms. Tausch previously
submitted a billing statement for more than $3,800 for their work
on the case.

Judge Mitchell also directed that Mr. Fitch be notified if the co-
op appealed the original case.

In May 2011, Judge Mitchell ruled in a landmark case in which
Socorro Electric Cooperative sued all of its approximately 10,000
member-owners in an effort to block three bylaws -- each aimed at
increasing transparency -- passed by members at the 2010 annual
meeting.

The ruling meant that the democratically controlled rural electric
utility must abide by the New Mexico Open Meetings Act and
Inspection of Public Records Act -- state legislation incorporated
into the co-op bylaws by the members two years ago.

In the ruling last year, Judge Mitchell said the co-op should have
been following the bylaws since they were adopted on April 17,
2010.

Stephen Kortemeier, with Deschamps & Kortemeier law firm of
Socorro, agreed to let the fees his company was seeking be placed
into the registry of the court within 30 days, so that the monies
could be paid out once litigation was finalized on the original
case.


UBS AG: Faces Class Action in New York Over Trading Loss
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that UBS AG was hit
with a putative class action in New York federal court on June 22
claiming that its officers made false and misleading statements in
relation to the $2.3 billion trading loss it experienced last
year.

The complaint, filed by the C.D.T.S. No. 1 and A.T.U. Local 1321
Pension Plan, alleges that UBS officers were dishonest in filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about the bank's
internal control during the time one of its traders, Kweku
Adoboli, allegedly oversaw unauthorized trades.


US AIRWAYS: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that US Airways failed to pay
overtime or give breaks to field service agents and full-time ramp
agents, a class claims in court.

A copy of the Complaint in Angeles, et al. v. US Airways, Inc., et
al., Case No. CGC-12-521809 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/25/usairways.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
          Un Kei Wu, Esq.
          Ernesto Sanchez, Esq.
          LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2760 Mission Street
          San Mateo, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 695-1000


WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Rulings in Gender Discrimination Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on its motions
to dismiss two gender discrimination class action lawsuits pending
in California and Texas, according to the Company's
June 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
which was commenced as a class-action lawsuit in June 2001 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, asserting that the Company had engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments, and seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  As defined by the district court, the
class included "[a]ll women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic
retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or
may be subjected to Wal-Mart's challenged pay and management track
promotions policies and practices." The Company appealed the order
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently to the
United States Supreme Court.  On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court
issued an opinion decertifying the class and remanding the case to
the district court.  On October 27, 2011, the plaintiffs'
attorneys filed an amended complaint proposing a class of current
and former female associates at the Company's California retail
facilities, and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January
13, 2012.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas entitled Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., proposing a class of
current and former female associates at the Company's Texas retail
facilities, and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 5,
2012.

While management cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these
matters, management does not believe the outcome will have a
material effect on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Securities Suit Over New York Times Story
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is facing a securities class action lawsuit
asserting allegations similar to those set forth in a New York
Times news story, according to the Company's June 1, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in several recently-filed lawsuits in
which the complaints closely track the allegations set forth in a
news story that appeared in the New York Times on April 21, 2012.
One of these is a securities lawsuit that was filed on May 7,
2012, in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee (City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., USDC, Middle Dist. of TN, Nashville, TN,
5/7/12), in which the plaintiff alleges various violations of the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA") beginning in 2005,
and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating to certain
prior disclosures of the Company.  The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased or acquired stock
of the Company between December 8, 2011, and April 20, 2012, and
seeks damages and other relief based on allegations that the
defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock.  In
addition, eleven derivative complaints were filed in April and May
2012, in Delaware and Arkansas, also tracking the allegations of
the Times story, and naming various current and former officers
and directors as additional defendants.  The plaintiffs in the
derivative lawsuits (in which the Company is a nominal defendant)
allege, among other things, that the defendants who are or were
directors or officers of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with oversight of FCPA compliance.

While management cannot predict the outcome of these matters,
management does not believe the outcome will have a material
effect on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.


WAL-MART STORES: Petition in "Braun/Hummel" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s petition for allowance of appeal in the
wage and hour class action lawsuit pending in Pennsylvania remains
pending, according to the Company's June 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., a class action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court
of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs
allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours
worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and
rest breaks.  On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages
to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for
off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks.  The jury found in
favor of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.  On
November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the
approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees.  By operation of law, post-judgment interest
accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per
annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was November
14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set
aside on appeal.  The Company believes it has substantial factual
and legal defenses to the claims at issue, and on December 7,
2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal.  The Company filed
its opening appellate brief on February 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed
their response brief on April 20, 2009, and the Company filed its
reply brief on June 5, 2009.  Oral argument was held before the
Superior Court of Appeals on
August 19, 2009.  On June 10, 2011, the Superior Court of Appeals
issued an opinion upholding the trial court's certification of the
class, the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory
penalties and prejudgment interest, but reversing the award of
attorneys' fees and remanding it back to the trial court for a
downward adjustment.

On July 10, 2011, the Company filed an Application for Rehearing
En Banc with regard to the portions of the opinion that held in
favor of the plaintiffs, which was denied on August 11, 2011.  On
September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance of
Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The plaintiffs filed
a response on September 23, 2011, and the Company filed a reply
brief on September 30, 2011.

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses
to the claims at issue, and plans to continue pursuing appellate
review.


WALGREENS: Employees File Class Action Over Off-Clock Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Katzanek, writing for The Presss-Enterprise, reports that
Walgreens employees in California have filed a class-action suit
against the pharmacy chain, claiming the company, in effect,
forced them to work off the clock.

The case, which is hardly unique in California, involves workers
who are detained at the door at the end of the day while the
manager or a security agent, searches the employees' bags for
potentially stolen merchandise.  The basis of the suit is that the
worker has already clocked out for the day.

It brings into play one of the key words in wage-and-hour
disputes, which is "control."  The workers are required to hang
around while their bags and packages are inspected.  They remain
under Walgreens' control.

Therefore, the suit contends, they legally must be paid, and if
they've already put in eight hours then they qualify for overtime.
This is the second time a suit such as this has been filed in
California this year alone.  The other was filed by five current
and former Forever 21 employees, who were forced to follow a
similar loss-prevention procedure.


WASHINGTON, DC: Seeks to End Court Oversight on "Petties" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, the District of Columbia filed a motion on June 21 in
Washington federal court to end court orders governing the city's
handling of transportation for students with special needs.  The
move is part of ongoing efforts to close class actions filed
against D.C. beginning in the 1970s over its failure to provide
basic social services.

The case, Petties v. D.C., was filed in 1995 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, accusing city officials of
mismanaging the transportation system for special needs students.
In yesterday's motion, the city proffered that it had met the
requirements for exiting court oversight.

Petties is one of six remaining class actions involving the city's
ability to care for some its most vulnerable residents; in each of
the cases, the city was placed under court oversight through
consent decrees.  D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan has made
ending these cases a priority, both because he thinks the city has
made the necessary reforms and because they pose a tremendous
financial burden.  In the June 21 filing, his office estimated
that the city has spent $16 million on the Petties case alone.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office, Ted Gest, declined
to comment, saying his office wanted to "let the filing speak for
itself."

A lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Petties, Bradford Johnson of
Washington's Johnson Law Group International, said he and the
other plaintiffs' counsel are still reviewing the filing to decide
on their next steps.  He noted that even if the city does regain
full control of managing its transportation system, court
supervision won't fully end until the case is dismissed, which
doesn't automatically happen if the motion is granted.

"We're fully supportive of the city getting out of the litigation,
we just want to make sure the institutional capacity and the
governance climate in the district will support continued good
performance," Mr. Johnson said.

He noted, for instance, that while the city offered data proving
they provided on-time transportation services for the second half
of the school year, data from the beginning of the school year --
the most challenging time for the system, Mr. Johnson said -- was
"alarming."  The city acknowledged in its filing that there were
"a number of challenges" at the beginning of the year, but that
the school opening in August 2011 "exceeded all expectations" in
spite of the earthquake and a major storm that hit the region that
month.

Mr. Nathan's predecessors have pushed to end consent decrees for
years, but he's had a recent run of success.  In February, he
secured a settlement with plaintiffs in a class action surrounding
the city's handling of its mental health system, known as the
Dixon case.  Last July, the city exited part of a case known as
Blackman/Jones, a 1997 class action that had to do with the city's
handling of due process complaints in special education cases.

In the June 21 motion, the city pushed for a court hearing as soon
as possible in the hopes of ending oversight before the beginning
of the next school year.

"[T]here is no valid reason to perpetuate these costs in these
times of fiscal austerity," the city argued in its brief.  "The
District should be relieved of this unduly, expensive, and now
unnecessary exercise so it can better spend its funds on other
governmental matters which require these resources."


WEBMD HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Feinstein, On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly
Situated v. WEBMD Health Corp., Martin J. Wygod, Herman Sarkowsky,
Neil F. Dimick, James V. Manning, Joseph E. Smith, Stanley S.
Trotman, Jr., Jermone C. Keller, Mark J. Adler, M.D., Kevin M.
Cameron, Abdool Rahim Moossa, M.D., and Cavan M. Redmond, Case No.
652147/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 20, 2012), is a shareholder class
action brought on behalf of WebMD shareholders to enjoin the
shareholder vote scheduled to be held at the annual shareholder
general meeting on July 24, 2012.

The Individual Defendants have violated fiduciary duties of care,
loyalty and good faith owed to the public shareholders of WebMD,
and have acted to potentially put their personal interests ahead
of the interests of WebMD shareholders, Ms. Feinstein alleges.
She contends that the dissemination of a materially misleading and
incomplete Proxy in connection with the Shareholder Vote
constitute a breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties to her and
the Class.

Ms. Feinstein is a shareholder of WebMD.

WebMD, a Delaware corporation, provides health information
services to consumers, physicians, healthcare professionals,
employers, and health plans.  The Company provides its services
through its public and private online portals and health-focused
publications.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of WebMD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


* U.S. FREIGHT RAILROADS: Fuel Surcharge Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that a lawsuit
alleging that four major freight railroads in the U.S. conspired
to fix fuel surcharges, illegally charging their customers
billions of dollars, can move forward as a class, a federal judge
ruled.

In 2007, the Olin Corporation and seven other companies sued BNSF
Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, CSX
Transportation, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company.

The plaintiffs claimed that the four railroads, which control more
than 90 percent of rail freight shipments in the United States,
conspired at industry meetings to fix fuel surcharges as a
percentage of overall transportation costs, rather than linking
the charges to actual fuel prices, over a four year period.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman granted class certification and
defined the class as, "All entities or persons that at any time
from July 1, 2003 until December 31, 2008 (the 'Class Period')
purchased rate-unregulated rail freight transportation services
directly from one or more of the Defendants, as to which
Defendants assessed a stand-alone rail freight fuel surcharge
applied as a percentage of the base rate for the freight transport
(or where some or all of the fuel surcharge was included in the
base rate through a method referred to as 'rebasing')."

The opinion accompanying his order will remain under seal until
July 10, 2012, to allow the parties to request redactions.

According to Business Week, the stock prices of the defendants
fell one to three percent in response to the judge's decision.

The court appointed Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Hausfeld
LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

A copy of the Order in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1869 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/25/fuel.pdf


* Attorney Files Class Action to Stop "We Buy Junk Cars" Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Odzer, writing NBC Miami, reports that Hallandale Beach
attorney Scott Owens has filed a class-action lawsuit to try to
stop "we buy junk cars" text messages.

Jose Roque makes his living on the phone, so an unwanted barrage
of text message solicitations is bad for business.

But the consultant's cell phone is constantly being flooded with
the "we buy junk cars" text messages that everyone seems to get,
all the time.

"You can't even sleep," Mr. Roque said.  "I made it a point to
shut off my phone.  Usually I would leave it on at night in case
of emergency, but not anymore."

Mr. Owens said one man has received as many as 3,500 of the
illegal text messages.  Mr. Owens has a filed a class-action
lawsuit in federal court in Broward County against three men he
says are responsible for bombarding cell phones with the spam junk
car texts.

"This particular text message has become a blight upon Florida
consumers, it's being sent at all hours of the day, sent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and quite
frankly, it's annoying the heck out of most Floridians," Mr. Owens
said.

Mr. Owens said the law provides a $500 penalty for every illegal
text message.  He said the junk car guys are certainly making
money, as the scrap metal from a car is worth much more than the
400 bucks they typically offer.

Only one of the defendants has been served with the suit.
Mr. Owens said he hasn't yet found the other two men who he says
the phone numbers come back to in the junk car messages.

Asked what he hoped to accomplish with the lawsuit, Mr. Owens
responded, "Well, the first goal is to stop the messages."

He is handling the case pro bono and says if there is a
settlement, he will donate it to charity.

Mr. Roque joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff to get some relief.
He says he's tried calling the numbers and asking them to stop.

"They were insinuating that I had a car for sale, trying to hide
how they got my number, and I said look, my car's not for sale, I
don't have a junk car, I'm not interested -- and don't call me
anymore but they kept on texting, texting, texting," he said.


* Securities Suits for Accounting Allegations Increase in 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements-2011
Review and Analysis, a new report by Cornerstone Research,
securities class action filings that involve accounting
allegations increased in 2011 from 2010, which had the lowest
number of accounting case filings in recent years. Of the 188
securities class actions filed in 2011, 70 included accounting
allegations, compared with 46 in 2010. This increase can be
attributed in part to the number of Chinese reverse merger filings
in 2011, which are significantly more likely to involve
restatements of financial statements and, as a result, include
alleged violations of generally accepted accounting principles.

The number of accounting case filings involving financial
statement restatements also increased, reversing a four-year trend
of declines. In 2011, 20 accounting case filings included
restatements, compared to 12 case filings in 2010. Declines in the
number of financial statement restatements had been widely
attributed to improved corporate governance practices as a result
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). In 2010, however, the number of
restatements by public companies increased, which may have
contributed to the increase in case filings involving
restatements.

For the second consecutive year, more than 60 percent of
accounting case filings included allegations of internal control
weaknesses. Only 17 percent of initial filings with these claims
were accompanied by company announcements reporting the presence
of internal control weaknesses over financial reporting. During
2006 to 2011, accounting cases with internal control allegations
that were accompanied by announcements of internal control
weaknesses by the company tended to settle for higher amounts.

In addition to the 188 new class actions, plaintiffs also filed
amendments to 164 cases during 2011. Amendments frequently
resulted in changes in class periods to include accounting-related
announcements, including investigations of accounting
irregularities by regulators, auditor resignations, or
announcements of restatements of financial statements. For cases
in which the class period was extended, 56 percent included new
accounting allegations. Amendments also added accounting-related
defendants, most often members of the audit committee. Of
complaints amended in 2011, one in four named audit committee
members, up from less than one in 10 in the corresponding initial
filings.

A sharp decline in the number of settlements occurred in 2011, and
in contrast to the prior five years, accounting cases constituted
less than half of the total volume of settlements. However,
accounting cases continued to represent a disproportionately
higher share of total settlement values. As in past years,
accounting cases resulted in higher settlement outcomes,
particularly for cases in which companies faced SEC actions.

Commentary

Dr. Elaine M. Harwood, Vice President of Cornerstone Research:

    * As we approach the tenth anniversary of the passage of SOX,
it is interesting to observe the increase in allegations related
to SOX 404 reporting in recent years. This trend suggests that
plaintiffs believe that including allegations of internal control
weaknesses will bolster their position in litigation, regardless
of whether material weaknesses were actually present, but
settlements in recent years do not support that position.

    * Amended filings in 2011 resulted in the addition of
accounting-related defendants and allegations, likely increasing
the complexity of these cases. The added complexity of accounting
cases may explain why they are still less likely to be dropped or
dismissed and settle for a disproportionately higher total
settlement value than non-accounting cases.

Additional Key Findings

    * Accounting cases continue to be dismissed less frequently
than non-accounting cases. For example, of the securities class
actions filed in 2006, only 38 percent of accounting cases were
dismissed by the end of 2011, compared with 46 percent of non-
accounting cases.

    * For cases filed during 2006 through 2011 that reached
disposition by the end of 2011, only 8 percent of accounting cases
were voluntarily dismissed, compared with 27 percent of non-
accounting cases. A relatively low percentage of both accounting
and non-accounting cases reached a ruling on summary judgment.

    * Cases involving write-downs settle for higher values than
cases not involving write-downs (even when compared with cases
involving restatements). Cases involving financial statement
restatements, however, settle for a significantly higher
percentage of "estimated damages." This suggests that the higher
settlement values associated with cases involving write-downs are
due in part to the higher investor losses involved with these
cases.


                           *********

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  * * *