---

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

              Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 130

                             Headlines

ADT CORP: Awaits Court Approval of ADT Dealer Suit Settlement
ADT CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal From "Bateman" Suit Deal Still Pending
BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Faces Class Action Over Hair Treatment
CALIFORNIA CREDIT: Lawyers Fishing for People to Join Class Action

CANADIAN ELECTROLYTIC: Residents Get Claims Registration Notice
CENCOSUD SA: Awaits Decision on Appeal in Suit vs. Affiliate
CENCOSUD SA: Suit vs. Unit Pending in Supreme Court of Chile
CENTRO: Court Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Faces Securities Class Suit in California

CITIGROUP INC: Appeal From Ambac Settlement Approval Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Customer Suit Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend ERISA Lawsuits in New York
CITIGROUP INC: Defend Class Suits Over Auction-Rate Securities
CITIGROUP INC: Fact Discovery Still Underway in N.Y. Class Suit

CITIGROUP INC: Fact Discovery Underway in N.Y. Bond Litigation
CITIGROUP INC: LIBOR-Related MDL Remains Pending in New York
CITIGROUP INC: Still Awaits Order on Dismissal Bid in VFACA Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Still Defends Sherman Act Violations Class Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Morefield" Suit Pending

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Consolidated Suit Dismissal Bid Pending in Va.
COOK COUNTY, IL: Inmate Dental Class Certification Affirmed
DELTA ELECTRONICS: Recalls 68,000 Exhaust Fans Due to Fire Risk
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Reached Potential Deal to Settle "Pecover" Suit
ERESEARCHTECHNOLOGY INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits

EXELON CORP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
EXELON CORP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
FIREFLY LEGAL: Accused of Serving Fraudulent and Void Affidavits
FOREST OIL: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Initial Public Offering
FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Defends "Weber" Suit in California

GENERAL MARITIME: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
HOME DEPOT: Sued By Construction Materials Salesmen, Installers
IKEA NORTH: Recalls 102,000 Units of IKEA 365 + SANDA Track
ISHTEX TEXTILE: Recalls 6,000 Gabiano Children's Pajamas
LONE PINE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Initial Public Offering

MET LIFE: Appellate Court Reverses Class Action Certification
NATIONAL GRID: One Remaining Suit vs. KeySpan Still Pending
ORCHARD SUPPLY: Two Wage and Hour Class Suits Still Pending
OVERHILL FARMS: Class Cert. Bid in Ex-Employees Suit Denied
PAJAMAGRAM: Recalls 12,000 Children's Polyester Fleece Pajamas

PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Dias Suit Remains Pending
REGIONS BANK: Judge Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed
RIGO INT'L: Recalls 210,000 Children's Lounge Pants and Boxers
SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Suit in Georgia Alleging RICO Violations
SIEBERT FINANCIAL: Awaits OK of $1-Mil. Lehman-Related Suit Deal

STRATEGIC FORECASTING: Sept. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending in Calif.
WALT SLAUGHTER: Sued Over Faxing of Unsolicited Advertisements
WATKINS MANUFACTURING: Recalls 5,600 Spas Due to Fire Hazard

* Class Action Lawyer Tony Merchant Suspended


                          *********

ADT CORP: Awaits Court Approval of ADT Dealer Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation is awaiting court approval of an agreement
reached in April 2012 to settle a class action lawsuit commenced
by former dealers, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form
10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that the Company had charged to its authorized
dealers upon purchasing customer accounts.  The investigation
related to accounting practices employed by the Company's former
management, which were discontinued in 2003.  Although the Company
settled with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and
related parties have filed lawsuits against the Company in the
United States and in other countries, including a class action
lawsuit filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado,
alleging breach of contract and other claims related to the
Company's decision to terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002
and 2003.  In February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict
in the Company's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key
claims.  Upon appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the
verdict in the Company's favor in October 2011.  The plaintiffs
have requested that the Supreme Court of Colorado hear an appeal
of the Court of Appeals' decision.  The Supreme Court has not yet
ruled.

The parties agreed to settle this matter in April 2012 with no
cash consideration being paid by either side, which is subject to
final court approval.

The Company expects a favorable resolution of the class action
lawsuit in Colorado.  While it is not possible at this time to
predict the final outcome of the Colorado lawsuit or other
lawsuits stemming from dealer terminations, the Company does not
believe these claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


ADT CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 10-
12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two punitive class
actions that were filed on behalf of purported classes of persons
who claim to have received unsolicited "robocalls" in
contravention of the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  These lawsuits were brought by plaintiffs seeking class
action status and monetary damages on behalf of all plaintiffs who
allegedly received such unsolicited calls, claiming that millions
of calls were made by third party entities on the Company's
behalf.  The Company asserts that such entities were not retained
by, nor authorized to make calls on behalf of, the Company.  These
matters have been consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois into one civil action.  Each
violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages
($1,500 if a willful violation is shown).

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
claims and, accordingly, intends to vigorously defend against
these actions.  The Company has made no provision for this
contingency as a reasonable estimate of loss cannot be made at
this time.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal From "Bateman" Suit Deal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2007, a class action complaint, captioned Michael
Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (No. CV07-00171), was filed
against AMC Entertainment Inc. in the Central District of the
United States District Court of California (the "District Court")
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act ("FACTA").  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration
dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit
card may be printed on receipts given to customers.  FACTA imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed
to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual
losses incurred by the card holder.  On
October 11, 2011, the District Court granted final approval of the
class action settlement.  The settlement did not have a material
adverse impact to the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.  A Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals from the District Court's final approval order
was filed by a putative class member who objected to the class
settlement in the district court; the appeal is pending.

On May 14, 2009, Harout Jarchafjian filed a similar lawsuit
alleging that the Company willfully violated FACTA and seeking
statutory damages, but without alleging any actual injury
(Jarchafjian v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Case No.
CV09-03434)).  The District Court granted final approval of the
class action settlement on October 3, 2011.  The settlement did
not have a material adverse impact to the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 25, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 29, 2012.


BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Faces Class Action Over Hair Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Cochrane woman is joining a class action
lawsuit over a hair-straightening procedure that used
formaldehyde.

Terry Balcaen said a few years ago she had a Brazilian Blowout and
had a painful, long-lasting reaction to the hair treatment.

"As soon as she applied them it was burning, burning, burning my
scalp basically," Ms. Balcaen said.  "My eyes started watering and
I thought get this off of me, this is awful."

Brazilian Blowout Solution, which promises to smooth frizzy hair,
contains 12 per cent formaldehyde, far exceeding the allowable
level of 0.2 per cent in cosmetics.

Health Canada pulled the product in 2010.

Ms. Balcaen said two weeks after applying the product her hair
took a turn for the worst.

"Just clumps and clumps of my hair were just falling out," she
said.  "One of my co-workers said it looked like I had taken
scissors to the top of my hair."

Merchant Law Group Attorney Darren Williams said the lawsuit
involves people who suffered burns, hair loss and worse.

"It's not about I went to the stylist today to make myself pretty,
and 'Hey I'm not as pretty as I am supposed to look,'" Mr.
Williams said.  "That's not the point at all.  We have people who
went home, could no longer work because they had trouble
breathing."

"We have people who can't use perfumes or be exposed to other
chemicals now because of their reaction to this formaldehyde."

Mr. Williams said he expects thousands of people will sign up for
the class action lawsuit.


CALIFORNIA CREDIT: Lawyers Fishing for People to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Anderson, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that
California Credit Union League President/CEO Diana Dykstra said
attorneys in her state are "fishing for members" to take part in
class action lawsuits that accuse credit unions of improper
overdraft practices.

After speaking with the CEOs at the six credit unions currently
being sued, she said the suits are not only frivolous and
malicious, they lack duty of care.

"One of the plaintiffs hasn't even had an overdraft," Ms. Dykstra
said of one credit union, which she declined to name.

A few months ago, Ms. Dykstra said she received a call from a
member credit union in Northern California who said a radio ad was
running that urged listeners who had been harmed by credit union
overdraft practices to call a law firm.

Web site classaction.org is also fishing for plaintiffs, listing
"Unfair Overdraft Protection Fees" on the site under the Consumer
Fraud Class Action heading.

"Many of the country's largest banks, including Bank of America,
Citibank and Wachovia are allegedly subjecting their customers to
unfair and deceptive overdraft protection charges," the Web site
says.  "We are investigating to determine whether smaller,
regional banks are also engaging in similar practices."

Ms. Dykstra said attorneys bringing the suits against credit
unions are purposely listing volunteers as defendants to scare
them into settling without getting as far as the discovery phase.

Ms. Dykstra said the California league e-mailed member credit
unions shortly after she learned about the first suit against the
$751 million Xceed Financial Credit Union was served for a similar
suit in April.

In that e-mail, Ms. Dykstra said she encouraged CEOs to review
overdraft policies and procedures, because at the CEO level, many
may not know exactly how overdrafts are being sorted, charged or
paid.

"Make sure you know what you're doing, and that it's in the best
interest of members," she said.

Back when overdraft protections were first introduced, Ms. Dykstra
said the prevailing opinion at the time was that it was more
member-friendly to process items from large amounts to small, with
the idea that larger items would be more important.

A recent poll conducted by NAFCU and published in the trade
association's June issue of the Economic & CU Issues Monitor,
found that 83.3% of respondents process transactions
chronologically.  Another 9.5% process transactions according to
value with the largest items first, and 7.1% process transactions
by value with the smallest items first.

Ms. Dykstra said California credit unions targeted by the suits
tell her they don't intend to settle.

"No one is willing to pay to make it go away, it's a matter of
principle," she said.  "They didn't do anything wrong and they are
going to fight it."


CANADIAN ELECTROLYTIC: Residents Get Claims Registration Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Frank, writing for The Suburban, reports that some 98,000
West Island, St. Laurent and off-island households received a
notice in their mailbox, telling them how they can register to
claim compensation for the alleged effects of sulphur trioxide
cloud released from a Valleyfield zinc smelter in 2004.

The number of people eligible to be included in the class action
lawsuit might rise from the current 180,000, if Quebec Superior
Court authorizes the geographic area affected by toxic levels of
the chemical to be broadened.

"The path of the toxic cloud will have to be redrawn," Chantal
Desjardins told The Suburban in an electronic mail reply to
questions.  The lawyer, who pleaded the alleged victims' case in
court, asserted that the company had argued that only 5.9 tons of
sulphur dioxide were emitted, near midnight on August 9, 2004.

"We now know that at least 10 tons were indeed released as stated
by the representatives of the company themselves, which will
significantly increase the concentration [that residents were
exposed to]," Me. Desjardins claimed.

"The dispersion model that we used was [calculated based on the
release of] 5.9 tons over 32 minutes," she explained.  "We now
know that it was 10 tons released over 20 minutes.  The more gas
released per minute, the higher the concentration [in the air]."
Becomes sulphuric acid when inhaled.

If the court agrees, that would vastly increase the number of
people alleged to have been exposed to toxic levels of sulphur
trioxide as the cloud passed over Montreal on a warm summer night
when many slept with their windows open.

The gas is usually captured as part of the normal process of zinc
smelting, and not released into the atmosphere.

It turns to sulphuric acid when it is inhaled into the lungs,
which are moist.  Those sulphuric acid molecules are larger than
the sulphur trioxide molecules, hence more difficult to exhale.

"There have been no other releases over the years," Liana Centomo,
director of technology and environment at Canadian Electrolytic
Zinc told The Suburban in an interview.  The chemical engineer
explained that the Valleyfield plant has used the same smelting
process for a half-century.

"However we implemented more controls afterwards," she said,
"because we always want to improve our safety processes."

Ms. Centomo claimed that "the concentration within the radius of
the plant, which is not even in the West Island, could lead to
minor [discomfort], but that it would be a very short-lived
thing."

"We have information that a few -- maybe a dozen -- people went to
hospital but were released that evening with no consequences."

"We're a company that is recognized as a leader in the
environment," she added, "and we pour money into the plant to make
sure that things run safely and improve safety and care for the
environment."

"The cloud exposed more than two million people," claimed Me.
Desjardins.  "We have received thousands of e-mails from people
who are currently excluded [from the class action lawsuit].  That
is why the Web site www.nuagetoxique.com is currently inviting
them to register as 'excluded'."

People who register will receive newsletters about the progress of
the class action.

The lawsuit asks the court to order the company to pay $5,000 each
for most individuals who were allegedly affected.  It also is
asking for $10,000 compensation for each person who suffered "an
asthma crisis".

"The presumption of good faith," means that most people won't have
to undergo a medical exam to prove that they were affected, said
Me. Desjardins, who added that non-residents who were in the
designated areas at the time that the cloud passed over are also
eligible to register.

"Positively no medical proof will be required subsequently," she
emphasized, explaining that the legal term 'bodily insecurity'
pertains to exemplary damages for infringing upon claimants'
constitutional rights.

"[Most] members [of the class action lawsuit will be] taken at
their word," she added."  Those who suffered asthma attacks might
have to prove their medical condition [though], in order to claim
the $10,000."

If Quebec Superior Court agrees that a broader geographic area was
exposed to toxic levels of sulphur trioxide than was believed when
it authorized the class action to proceed, claims in what is
already the largest environmental lawsuit in Canadian history
could rise to many billions of dollars.


CENCOSUD SA: Awaits Decision on Appeal in Suit vs. Affiliate
------------------------------------------------------------
Cencosud S.A. is awaiting a court decision with respect to an
appeal in a class action lawsuit involving an affiliate, according
to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form F-1 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company's indirectly
controlled affiliate G Barbosa Comercial (Brazil) filed by the
Retail and Service Establishment Employees Union, Paulo Afonso and
the Region based on the alleged violation of the clause in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement that prohibits stores in this
region from operating on Sundays after 13:00 hours.  The request
for payment of fines to the Union has been confirmed in the first
and second instance rulings and the Company is awaiting the
decision on an appeal.

The Company says there is no evidence that could support a
reasonable estimate of the amount in question, given the extreme
difficulty of determining the number of employees allegedly
affected by the work schedule at that time.


CENCOSUD SA: Suit vs. Unit Pending in Supreme Court of Chile
------------------------------------------------------------
Cencosud S.A.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class action
lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court of Chile, according to
the Company's May 25, 2012, Form F-1 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In December 2006, the Servicio Nacional del Consumidor (the
National Consumer Protection Agency, or "SERNAC"), a Chilean
government entity that enforces compliance with the Ley de
Proteccion al Consumidor (the Consumer Protection Law), filed a
class action lawsuit before the Courts of Justice against Cencosud
Administradora de Tarjetas S.A., which was notified of the lawsuit
in January 2007.  The first instance court issued its decision on
December 31, 2010, ruling in the plaintiff's favor and sentencing
the defendant to return the excess money charged.  It accepted the
statute of limitations claim alleged by the Company's side only
with respect to charges made before 07/12/06; it sentenced the
defendant to pay each affected consumer one monthly tax unit and
to pay the government a fine of 50 monthly tax units.  As a result
of legal opinions from experts in the matter, Cencosud
Administradora de Tarjetas S.A. appealed the ruling.  On October
3, 2011, the Santiago Court of Appeals issued its ruling,
upholding the statute of limitations argument and, as a result,
overturned the first instance ruling.  The case is currently
pending before the Supreme Court of Chile.


CENTRO: Court Approves Shareholder Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court on June 27 approved the terms of settlement in
the long-running Slater & Gordon Centro shareholder class action.

The class action commenced in May 2008, following the near-
collapse of the Centro group in late 2007.

Slater & Gordon's clients had alleged that the company and its
auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, had misled the sharemarket by
failing to reveal critical information about billions of dollars
in short term debt.

Slater & Gordon's clients, about 5000 mostly mum and dad
investors, agreed on a settlement figure of AUD50 million last
month.  When combined with the settlement of a parallel proceeding
run by other solicitors, the result represented the biggest
shareholder class action settlement in Australia's history.

Federal Court Justice Middleton approved the terms of the
settlemen, giving Slater & Gordon a green light to begin the
process of distributing settlement proceeds to thousands of
investors who had suffered loss.

Slater & Gordon principal lawyer Toby Borgeest said [this] was an
important milestone for investors.

"Settlement of this class action brings to an end a long fight for
compensation," Mr. Borgeest said.

"Slater & Gordon's clients were predominantly small investors who
had entrusted retirement savings with Centro."

"Settlement means an end to uncertainty, and that we can now move
to distributing funds."

Mr. Borgeest said the distribution process would involve careful
verification of individual group member claims over the coming
months, and it is likely that checks can be issued before the end
of the year.

The class action was funded by litigation funder Comprehensive
Legal Funding LLC, which meant individual investors had not had to
pay fees to keep the litigation going, and were protected from
orders for payment of the legal costs of Centro and PwC.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
ChinaCast Education Corporation is facing a securities class
action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's June 12,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On May 25, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against
the Company, former chairman and chief executive officer Ron Chan
Tze Ngon and former chief financial officer Antonio Sena (Puente
v. Chinacast Education Corp., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-04621-JFW-
PLA).

The complaint generally alleges that, between February 14, 2011,
and April 2, 2012, all of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making false and misleading statements and failing to disclose
material adverse information about the Company's business,
operations and future prospects. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees and other costs.

The Company anticipates that additional similar lawsuits may be
filed.


CITIGROUP INC: Appeal From Ambac Settlement Approval Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement of a class action
lawsuit over Ambac Financial Group, Inc.'s securities remains
pending, according to Citigroup Inc.'s May 25, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Certain Citigroup affiliates have been named as defendants arising
out of their activities as underwriters of securities in actions
brought by investors in securities of issuers adversely affected
by the credit crisis, including AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
Ambac and Lehman, among others.  These matters are in various
stages of litigation.  As a general matter, issuers indemnify
underwriters in connection with such claims.  In certain of these
matters, however, Citigroup affiliates are not being indemnified
or may in the future cease to be indemnified because of the
financial condition of the issuer.

On September 28, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved a stipulation of settlement
with the underwriter defendants in IN RE AMBAC FINANCIAL GROUP,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and judgment was entered.  A member of
the settlement class has appealed the judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On December 22,
2011, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the appeal.
Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 08 Civ. 0411
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.) and 11-4643 (2d Cir.).


CITIGROUP INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Customer Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2004, a putative research-related customer class action
alleging various state law claims arising out of the issuance of
allegedly misleading research analyst reports concerning numerous
issuers was filed against certain Citigroup Inc. affiliates in
Illinois state court.  On October 13, 2011, the court entered an
order dismissing with prejudice all class-action claims asserted
in the action on the ground that the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 precludes those claims.  The court granted
leave for the putative representative plaintiff to file an amended
complaint asserting only his individual claims within 21 days.  An
amended complaint was not filed within the 21-day period.  The
putative representative plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal
from the court's October 13, 2011 order.  Additional information
concerning this matter is publicly available in court filings
under docket numbers 04-L-265 (Ill. Cir.) (Hylla, J.) and 5-11-
0504 (Ill. App. Ct. 5 Dist.).

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 25, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Defend ERISA Lawsuits in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in November 2007, numerous putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York by current or former Citigroup Inc. employees
asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) against Citigroup and its affiliates and subsidiaries and
current and former officers, directors and employees alleged to
have served as ERISA plan fiduciaries.  On August 31, 2009, the
district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint, captioned IN RE CITIGROUP
ERISA LITIGATION.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and, on
October 19, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the
case.  Additional information relating to this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 07 Civ. 9790
(S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.) and 09-3804 (2d Cir.).

Beginning on October 28, 2011, several putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York by current or former Citigroup employees
asserting claims under ERISA against Citigroup and Related Parties
alleged to have served as ERISA plan fiduciaries from 2008 to
2009.  Additional information relating to these actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11
Civ. 7672, 7943, 8982, 8990 and 8999 (S.D.N.Y.) (Koeltl, J.).

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 25, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


CITIGROUP INC: Defend Class Suits Over Auction-Rate Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
concerning auction-rate securities, according to the Company's May
25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup Inc. and its affiliates and
subsidiaries and current and former officers, directors and
employees, collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related
Parties, have been named as defendants in numerous actions and
proceedings brought by Citigroup shareholders and customers
concerning auction-rate securities (ARS), many of which have been
resolved.  These have included, among others: (i) numerous
lawsuits and arbitrations filed by customers of Citigroup and its
affiliates seeking damages in connection with investments in ARS;
(ii) a consolidated putative class action asserting claims for
federal securities violations, which has been dismissed and is now
pending on appeal; (iii) two putative class actions asserting
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which have been
dismissed and are now pending on appeal; and (iv) a derivative
action filed against certain Citigroup officers and directors,
which has been dismissed.  In addition, based on an investigation,
report and recommendation from a committee of Citigroup's Board of
Directors, the Board refused a shareholder demand that was made
after dismissal of the derivative action.  Additional information
relating to certain of these actions is publicly available in
court filings under the docket numbers 08 Civ. 3095 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Swain, J.), 10-722 (2d Cir.); 10-867 (2d Cir.); 11-1270 (2d
Cir.).


CITIGROUP INC: Fact Discovery Still Underway in N.Y. Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries and current and
former officers, directors and employees, collectively referred to
as Citigroup and Related Parties, have been named as defendants in
four putative class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On August 19, 2008,
these actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION.  The consolidated amended complaint
asserts claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Citigroup common stock from January 1, 2004, through
January 15, 2009.  On November 9, 2010, the district court issued
an opinion and order dismissing all claims except those arising
out of Citigroup's exposure to collateralized debt obligations
(CDOs) for the time period February 1, 2007, through April 18,
2008.  Fact discovery is underway.

Plaintiffs have not yet quantified the putative class's alleged
damages.  During the putative class period, as narrowed by the
district court, the price of Citigroup's common stock declined
from $54.73 at the beginning of the period to $25.11 at the end of
the period.  These share prices represent Citi's common stock
prices prior to its 1-for-10 reverse stock split, effective
May 6, 2011.  Additional information relating to this action is
publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead
docket number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.).

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 25, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


CITIGROUP INC: Fact Discovery Underway in N.Y. Bond Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery is underway in In re Citigroup Inc. Bond
Litigation, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Citigroup Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries and current and
former officers, directors and employees have been named as
defendants in two putative class actions filed in New York state
court, but since removed to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with
various offerings of Citigroup securities.  On December 10, 2008,
these actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP
INC. BOND LITIGATION.  In the consolidated action, lead plaintiffs
assert claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
corporate debt securities, preferred stock and interests in
preferred stock issued by Citigroup and related issuers over a
two-year period from 2006 to 2008.  On July 12, 2010, the district
court issued an opinion and order dismissing plaintiffs' claims
under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, but denying
defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims under Section 11.
Fact discovery is underway.  Plaintiffs have not yet quantified
the putative class's alleged damages.  Additional information
relating to this action is publicly available in court filings
under the consolidated lead docket number 08 Civ. 9522 (S.D.N.Y.)
(Stein, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: LIBOR-Related MDL Remains Pending in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of
Justice, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as agencies in other
jurisdictions, including the European Commission, the U.K.
Financial Services Authority, the Japanese Financial Services
Agency (JFSA) and the Canadian Competition Bureau, are conducting
investigations or making inquiries regarding submissions made by
panel banks to bodies that publish various interbank offered
rates.  As members of a number of such panels, Citigroup Inc.
subsidiaries have received requests for information and documents.
Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries and
is responding to the requests.

On December 16, 2011, the JFSA took administrative action against
Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. (CGMJ) for, among other
things, certain communications made by two CGMJ traders about the
Euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate (TIBOR) and the yen London
interbank offered rate (LIBOR).  The JFSA issued a business
improvement order and suspended CGMJ's trading in derivatives
related to yen LIBOR and Euroyen and yen TIBOR from January 10 to
January 23, 2012.  On the same day, the JFSA also took
administrative action against Citibank Japan Ltd. (CJL) for
conduct arising out of CJL's retail business and also noted that
the communications made by the CGMJ traders to employees of CJL
about Euroyen TIBOR had not been properly reported to CJL's
management team.  The inquiries by government agencies into
various interbank offered rates are ongoing.

Additionally, beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class
actions and other private civil lawsuits were filed in various
courts against banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their
affiliates, including certain Citigroup subsidiaries.  The
actions, which assert various federal and state law claims
relating to the setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the
Southern District of New York.  Additional information relating to
these actions is publicly available in court filings under docket
number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 25, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


CITIGROUP INC: Still Awaits Order on Dismissal Bid in VFACA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss certain claims in the putative class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of participants in its Voluntary Financial
Advisor Capital Accumulation Plan, according to the Company's
May 25, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Citigroup and its U.S. broker-dealer, Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., have been named as defendants in two putative class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, but since transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In the consolidated
action, lead plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative
class of participants in Citigroup's Voluntary Financial Advisor
Capital Accumulation Plan from November 2006 through January 2009.
On June 7, 2011, the district court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint and subsequently entered judgment.  On
November 14, 2011, the district court granted in part plaintiffs'
motion to alter or amend the judgment and granted plaintiffs leave
to amend the complaint.  On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging violations of Section 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
certain of plaintiffs' claims on December 21, 2011.  Additional
information relating to this action is publicly available in court
filings under the docket number 09 Civ. 7359 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein,
J.).

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


CITIGROUP INC: Still Defends Sherman Act Violations Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Sherman Act relating to
interchange fees, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries and
current and former officers, directors and employees, collectively
referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts.  These actions were consolidated with
other related cases in the Eastern District of New York and
captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT
ANTITRUST LITIGATION.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action are merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded
payment cards, as well as membership associations that claim to
represent certain groups of merchants.  The pending complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants have engaged in
conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount
fees on credit and debit card transactions in violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint also alleges additional
Sherman Act and California law violations, including alleged
unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and alleged unlawful
contracts in restraint of trade pertaining to various Visa and
MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct (including rules
allegedly affecting merchants' ability, at the point of sale, to
surcharge payment card transactions or steer customers to
particular payment cards).  In addition, supplemental complaints
filed against defendants in the class action allege that Visa's
and MasterCard's respective initial public offerings were
anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and
that MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulent
conveyance.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as joint and several
liability for treble their damages, including all interchange fees
paid to all Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa and
MasterCard transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1,
2004.  Certain publicly available documents estimate that Visa-
and MasterCard-branded cards generated approximately $40 billion
in interchange fees industry wide in 2009.  Defendants dispute
that the manner in which interchange and merchant discount fees
are set, or the rules governing merchant conduct, are
anticompetitive.  Fact and expert discovery has closed.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the pending class action complaint
and the supplemental complaints are pending.  Also pending are
plaintiffs' motion to certify nationwide classes consisting of all
U.S. merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment
cards and motions by both plaintiffs and defendants for summary
judgment.  The parties have been engaged in mediation for several
years, including recent settlement conferences held at the
direction of the court.  Additional information relating to these
consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under
the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.).

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


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Morefield" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 29, 2009, a class action lawsuit entitled Shirley Morefield
vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case # A-09-591338-C,
was brought in state court in Clark County, Nevada, against
Computer Sciences Corporation and certain current and former
officers and directors asserting claims for declarative and
injunctive relief related to stock option backdating.  The alleged
factual basis for the claims is the same as that which was alleged
in a prior derivative case, In re CSC Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, CV 06-5288, filed in U.S. District Court in Los
Angeles, which was dismissed on August 9, 2007, by such court.
This dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit, which
judgment is final.  The defendants in the Morefield case deny the
allegations in the complaint.  On
June 30, 2009, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 2:09-cv-1176-
KJD-GWF.  On motion made by the plaintiffs, the District Court
remanded the case to state court on February 18, 2010.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on April 30, 2010, and plaintiffs filed
their opposition on June 14, 2010.  A hearing took place on August
18, 2010.  A decision is still pending.  It is not possible to
make reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any,
that could result from this matter at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 29, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 30, 2012.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Consolidated Suit Dismissal Bid Pending in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville
Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et
al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD)
and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-
777-TSE-IDD).  On August 29, 2011, the four actions were
consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities
Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff.  A consolidated class
action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and
names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and
Donald G. DeBuck.  A corrected complaint was filed on October 19,
2011.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the business and operations of the Company.
Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure
of the Company's investigation into certain accounting
irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding
the status of the Company's agreement with U.K. National Health
Service.  Among other things, the plaintiff seeks unspecified
monetary damages.  The plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification with the court on September 22, 2011, and the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2011.  Both
motions are fully briefed, a hearing was held on November 4, 2011,
and the motions are now pending before the court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 29, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 30, 2012.

The defendants deny the allegations and intend to defend their
position vigorously.  It is not possible to make reasonable
estimates of the amounts or range of losses that could result from
this matter at this time.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Inmate Dental Class Certification Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that Cook County
Jail inmates can fight for better dental care as a class, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled,
noting that the case may have benefitted from inadvertent "judge
shopping."

Lead plaintiff John Smentek claims that the failure to make more
than a single dentist available to the 10,000 inmates of Cook
County jail constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

He proposed a class that would include both convicted inmates
seeking relief under the Eighth Amendment, and pretrial detainees
whose claims arose under the due-process clause of the 14th
Amendment.

But Mr. Smentek's suit came on the heels of two materially
identical, and ultimately unsuccessful, claims brought by former
Cook County Jail inmates Vincent Smith and Lance Wrightsell.

Though U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow cited those
earlier dismissals in initially refusing to certify Mr. Smentek's
proposed class, she reversed in light of Smith v. Bayer Corp., a
2011 Supreme Court decision that prevents federal courts from
enjoining copycat class action suits filed in federal or state
courts by individuals who were not party to the original case.

The 7th Circuit, which applied Smith last month to a case
involving Sears washer drums, affirmed somewhat reluctantly.

Echoing the qualms it expressed in the Sears case, the court said
it was "troubled" by the fact that Judge Lefkow certified
Mr. Smentek's class as 12 Cook County Jail dental suits remained
pending.

"The district judge's grant of class certification is therefore
affirmed," Judge Richard Posner wrote for a three-member panel.
"But this is not to say that the judge's ruling was correct; maybe
the other two judges were correct.  The appeal asks us to decide
only whether comity between federal district judges' rulings on
class certification is preclusive.  We have decided: it is not."

"We don't understand why all three cases were not assigned to the
same judge," the decision states earlier.  "Besides the usual
advantages of consolidation, it would have avoided the problem
that has precipitated the appeal in this case, because a single
judge would not be of different minds about three identical
lawsuits."

Comity played a large role in the ruling, with Judge Posner noting
that the high court never state the degree of deference federal
judges must have for each other's rulings.

"The court's reference to 'comity' in Smith v. Bayer Corp. was
cryptic," Judge Posner wrote.

He added that "a standard definition of 'comity' is 'the respect
that sovereign nations (or quasi-sovereigns such as the states of
the United States) owe each other.' . . . But [in other cases] ...
the word 'comity' is used in a looser sense to caution judges
against stepping on each other's toes when parallel suits are
pending in different courts."

Judge Posner said the Supreme Court intended judges to interpret
the term loosely, and said comity should not be considered as a
synonym for collateral estoppel.

"We are left with the weak notion of 'comity' as requiring a court
to pay respectful attention to the decision of another judge in a
materially identical case, but no more than that even if it is a
judge of the same court or a judge of a different court within the
same judiciary," he wrote.

A copy of the decision in Smentek, et al. v. Dart, No. 11-3261
(7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/28/cook.pdf


DELTA ELECTRONICS: Recalls 68,000 Exhaust Fans Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Homewerks Worldwide LLC, Lincolnshire, Illinois, and
manufacturer, Delta Electronics (Dongguan) Co. Ltd., of China,
announced a voluntary recall of about 68,000 units of Harbor
Breeze Bath Fans with Heater and Light.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fan's heater blades can fail to rotate properly, causing the
fan to overheat and posing a fire hazard.

The firm has received 11 reports of the fan overheating with
smoking or flames within the fan housing, including three reports
of minor property damage.

This recall involves plastic Harbor Breeze bathroom fans with a
center light and a heater.  The fans are white and measure about
11 x 17 inches.  Model number 7109-01-L, Lowe's item number 194492
and UPC code 820633985358 are printed on the fan's packaging.  A
date code beginning with either 0, 11, 12 or 13 is printed on the
fan's housing, which indicates the fan was manufactured between
August 2010 and March 2011.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12212.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Lowe's stores nationwide and at www.lowes.com from
September 2010 through March 2012 for about $90.

Consumers should stop using the recalled bathroom exhaust fans
immediately and contact Delta Electronics Dongguan to schedule a
free repair by a trained service technician.  For additional
information, contact Delta Electronics Dongguan toll-free at (855)
301-6578 between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.heaterfanrecall.com/


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Reached Potential Deal to Settle "Pecover" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. ("EA") disclosed in its May 25, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended March 31, 2012, that it reached a non-binding
settlement in principle in May 2012 to resolve a class action
lawsuit commenced by Geoffrey Pecover.

In June 2008, Geoffrey Pecover filed an antitrust class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that EA obtained an illegal monopoly in a
discreet antitrust market that consists of "league-branded
football simulation video games" by bidding for, and winning,
exclusive licenses with the National Football League, Collegiate
Licensing Company and Arena Football League.  In December 20,
2010, the district court granted the plaintiffs' request to
certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all consumers who
purchased EA's Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video
games after 2005.  The court has set a trial date for October
2012.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages.  The parties
initiated settlement negotiations in May 2012 and subsequently
reached a non-binding settlement in principle; however, no
settlement agreement has been approved by the court as May 25,
2012.  As a result, the Company recognized a $27 million accrual
in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 associated with the potential
settlement.


ERESEARCHTECHNOLOGY INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
eResearchTechnology, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's June 12, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 10, 2012, the Company announced that it entered into a
definitive agreement to be acquired by Explorer Holdings, Inc.
(Parent) and Explorer Acquisition Corp. (Merger Sub), affiliates
of Genstar Capital LLC (Genstar), a leading middle market private
equity firm, for $8.00 per share in cash in a merger valued at
approximately $400 million.  The proposed merger was approved
unanimously by the Company's Board of Directors, following a
recommendation by a Special Committee of independent directors.
Pending stockholder approval and satisfaction of customary closing
conditions, the transaction is expected to be completed during the
third quarter of 2012.

Multiple lawsuits have been brought against the Company, the
Company's board of directors, Parent, Merger Sub and Genstar
(collectively, the "Defendants") in connection with the Merger.
Specifically, on April 11, 2012, a purported class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, naming the Company, the members of the Company's board
of directors, Genstar, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants.  Two
similar complaints were filed in that Court on April 13, 2012, and
the Court consolidated those three cases on April 16, 2012.  A
fourth complaint was filed on April 17, 2012, and the Court
consolidated that case with the three previously-filed cases on
May 18, 2012.

Two other similar actions were filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia in the First Judicial District of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania on April 13, 2012, and May 9, 2012, respectively,
making similar claims and seeking similar relief.  In addition, on
May 21, 2012, a similar action was filed in the United States
District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Collectively, the lawsuits are referred to as the "Stockholder
Litigation").

On June 12, 2012, counsel for the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding"),
in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the
Stockholder Litigation.  The proposed settlement is conditional
upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate
stipulation of settlement, consummation of the Merger and final
approval of the proposed settlement by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

Pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
Company has agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the Merger.  In addition, in connection with the
proposed settlement and as provided in the Memorandum of
Understanding, plaintiffs will release defendants from any and all
liability.  Consistent with settlements in similar contexts,
plaintiffs' counsel might apply for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.  Plaintiffs have agreed that any such application
will be filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The Company has
not agreed to the appropriateness of any such award.  There can be
no assurance that the Merger will be completed, 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 settlement will not affect the amount of the consideration
that the Company's stockholders are entitled to receive in the
Merger.

The Defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in the Stockholder Litigation and specifically deny
that any breach of fiduciary duty occurred, or that any further
disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law.  However, to avoid
the risk that the Stockholder Litigation may delay or otherwise
adversely affect the completion of the Merger, to minimize the
expense of defending such actions, and to provide additional
information to the Company's stockholders at a time and in a
manner that would not cause any delay of the special meeting or
the Merger, the Defendants have agreed to the terms of the
proposed settlement.  The parties further considered it desirable
that the Stockholder Litigation be settled to avoid the expense,
risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to
fully and finally resolve the settled claims.  Plaintiffs in the
Stockholder Litigation have agreed to stay the Stockholder
Litigation pending final approval by the court of the settlement,
and to dismiss the Stockholder Litigation with prejudice upon
final approval by the court of the settlement of the Stockholder
Litigation.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, eResearchTechnology,
Inc. -- http://www/ert.com/-- provides technology-driven services
and medical devices primarily in North America, the United
Kingdom, and Germany.  The Company's cardiac safety solutions
include EXPERT, a technology platform for workflow-enabled cardiac
safety data collection, interpretation, and distribution of
electrocardiographic (ECG) data and images, as well as for
analysis and cardiologist interpretation of ECGs on research
subjects.


EXELON CORP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed in its May 25, 2012, Form 8-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that it
is awaiting execution of definitive settlement papers, and court
approval of the settlement, resolving merger-related class action
lawsuits.

On March 12, 2012, Exelon Corporation (Exelon) completed the
previously announced merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of April 28, 2011 (the Merger Agreement),
among Exelon, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (Constellation),
and Bolt Acquisition Corporation, formerly a Maryland corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon (Merger Sub).

In late April and early May 2011, shortly after Constellation
Energy and Exelon announced their agreement to merge the two
companies, twelve shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland. Each class
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of the
shareholders of Constellation Energy against Constellation Energy,
members of Constellation Energy's board of directors, and Exelon.
The shareholder class actions generally allege that the individual
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
proposed merger because they failed to maximize the value that the
shareholders would receive from the merger, and failed to disclose
adequately all material information relating to the proposed
merger.  The class actions also allege that Constellation Energy
and Exelon aided and abetted the individual directors' breaches of
their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits challenge the proposed
merger, seek to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger
until all material information is provided relating to the
proposed merger, and ask for rescission of the proposed merger and
any related transactions that have been completed as of the date
that the court grants any relief.  The class action lawsuits also
seek certification as class actions, compensatory damages, costs
and disbursements related to the action, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and rescission damages.  Plaintiffs in three of the
twelve lawsuits subsequently filed motions to consolidate all the
lawsuits.  The court has granted the motion to consolidate.

In August 2011, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
The class actions generally assert that Constellation Energy's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Constellation
Energy's shareholders in connection with the pending merger and
that Constellation Energy's directors, Constellation Energy, and
Exelon aided and abetted the alleged breaches and that
Constellation Energy's directors, Constellation Energy and/or
Exelon violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in
the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on
June 27, 2011.  The class actions seek various forms of relief,
including, among other things, a declaratory judgment, an
injunction prohibiting the merger, fees, expenses, and other
costs.

In the third quarter of 2011, the parties to the consolidated
action in the state court and the two actions in the federal court
entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth an
agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the actions.
Under the agreement, Constellation Energy and Exelon agreed to
provide certain additional disclosures in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger.  The agreement
provides that the actions will be dismissed with prejudice and
that the members of the class of Constellation Energy shareholders
will release the defendants from all claims that were or could
have been raised in the actions, including all claims relating to
the merger.  The agreement also provides that the plaintiffs'
counsel may apply to the state court for an award of attorney's
fees and expenses.  The settlement is subject to customary
conditions, including, among other things, the execution of
definitive settlement papers and approval of the settlement by the
state court.

Constellation Energy and Constellation Energy's directors believe
the actions are without merit and that they have valid defenses to
all claims asserted therein.  They entered into the memorandum of
understanding solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and
uncertainties inherent in further litigation.  If the state court
does not approve the settlement or any of the other conditions to
consummation of the settlement are not satisfied, Constellation
Energy and Constellation Energy's directors will continue to
defend their positions in these matters vigorously.


EXELON CORP: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' request for permission to file a third amended
complaint in a consolidated securities class action, according to
the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 12, 2012, Exelon Corporation (Exelon) completed the
previously announced merger contemplated by the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of April 28, 2011 (the Merger Agreement),
among Exelon, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (Constellation),
and Bolt Acquisition Corporation, formerly a Maryland corporation
and wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon (Merger Sub).

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008.  The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the
Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of
Constellation Energy between January 30, 2008 and September 16,
2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June
2008.  The securities class actions generally allege that
Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers
or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008
offering of Debentures.  The securities class actions also allege
that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or
was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted
public statements including in connection with its announcements
of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the
first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the
filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.  The securities class
actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as
class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there.  On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September
17, 2009.  On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and limiting the lawsuit to those
persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering.  In
August 2011, plaintiffs requested permission from the court to
file a third amended complaint in an effort to attempt to revive
the claims of the common shareholders.  Constellation Energy has
filed an objection to the plaintiffs' request for permission to
file a third amended complaint.

Given that limited discovery has occurred, that the court has not
certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their
potential damage claims, Constellation is unable at this time to
provide an estimate of the range of possible loss relating to
these proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of the
securities class actions or their possible effect on
Constellation's, or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's financial
results.


FIREFLY LEGAL: Accused of Serving Fraudulent and Void Affidavits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Socorro Rodriguez and Juan Rodriguez on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Firefly Legal IL, Inc. f/k/a
Excel Investigations, Pierce & Associates, P.C., Aurora Loan
Services, LLC, and Does 1 through 20, Case No. 2012-CH-23540 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 26, 2012) seeks a declaration that the
Defendants' affidavits of substitute service are incorrect,
fraudulent and void.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are victims of "robosigning"
affidavit fraud.  They lost their home in 2006, as a result of a
default judgment foreclosure lawsuit in the Illinois courts.  They
argue that the judgments are void because they and the Class
Members were never properly served.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Illinois.

Excel is a now-defunct company that performed process serving
services to Defendants Pierce and Aurora.  Excel now operates as
Firefly Legal. Pierce is a debt collection and foreclosure law
firm.  Aurora is a mortgage lending company, which was the alleged
mortgage servicer of the Plaintiffs' property at the time of the
foreclosure, and was the plaintiff in the foreclosure lawsuit.
Aurora is believed to be the current owner of the property.  The
Doe Defendants represent other alleged creditors for which Firefly
or Excel executed improper affidavits or substitute service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark A. Laws, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. LAWS
          200 North LaSalle, Suite 770
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 854-7030
          Facsimile: (312) 268-7304
          E-mail: mark@lawsatlaw.com


FOREST OIL: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Initial Public Offering
--------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Oil Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit arising
from its May 2011 initial public offering, according to the
Company's May 29, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On May 25, 2012, a lawsuit was brought as a purported class action
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
against Forest Oil Corporation ("Forest"), Lone Pine Resources
Inc. ("Lone Pine"), certain of Lone Pine's current and former
directors and officers (the "Individual Defendants"), and certain
underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants") of Lone Pine's initial
public offering in May 2011 (the "IPO").  The complaint alleges
that Lone Pine's registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state material facts relating to forest fires
that occurred in Northern Alberta in May 2011 and the rupture of a
third party oil sales pipeline in Northern Alberta in April 2011
and the impact of those events on Lone Pine, that the alleged
misstatements or omissions violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and that Lone Pine, the
Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants are liable
for such violations.  The complaint further alleges that the
Underwriter Defendants offered and sold Lone Pine's securities in
violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the
putative class members seek rescission of the securities purchased
in the IPO that they continue to own and rescissionary damages for
securities that they have sold.  Finally, the complaint asserts a
claim against Forest under Section 15 of the Securities Act,
alleging that Forest was a "control person" of Lone Pine at the
time of the IPO.  The complaint alleges that the putative class,
which purchased shares of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Lone Pine's registration statement and prospectus,
was damaged when the value of the stock declined in August 2011.
The complaint does not specify the amount of such damages.  Lone
Pine has existing obligations to indemnify Forest, the Individual
Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants in connection with the
lawsuit.  Forest believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend the claim against it vigorously.


FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Defends "Weber" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit initiated by Michelle Weber in California,
according to the Company's June 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

On February 2, 2012, a former California store employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court,
County of San Francisco, naming Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc.,
one of the Company's subsidiaries, as a defendant (Michelle Weber,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc., Case No. CGC-12-517909).  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law.  The complaint seeks,
among other relief, collective and class certification of the
lawsuit (the class being defined as all California retail store
hourly employees), unspecified damages, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court
might find just and proper.  The Company contests these
allegations and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  An
answer to the Plaintiff's first amended complaint was filed on
April 5, 2012.  This lawsuit is in its early stages and the
Company is unable to estimate its potential liability in the event
of an unfavorable outcome with respect to these allegations.


GENERAL MARITIME: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 27 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of General
Maritime Corporation between May 10, 2010 and November 16, 2011,
inclusive alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The case is entitled Phipps v. Tavlarios and Pribor, Case
No. 1:12-cv-04599-AJN (S.D.N.Y.).

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.,
825 East Gate Boulevard, Garden City, NY, 11530 at (888) 969-4242,
by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com or at:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/general-maritime-corporation-
gmrrq

General Maritime was, during the Class Period, a leading crude and
products tanker company serving principally within the Atlantic
basin, which includes ports in the Caribbean, South and Central
America, the United States, West Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe
and the North Sea.  The Complaint alleges that defendant John P.
Tavlarios, the Company's President and member of General
Maritime's Board of Directors during the Class Period, and
defendant Jeffrey D. Pribor, the Company's Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer during the Class Period,
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
material information, regarding General Maritime's business and
financial results.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants made statements that they believed General Maritime's
then-current cash balances, operating cash flows and available
borrowings were sufficient to meet the Company's liquidity needs
for late 2011 and early 2012, when there was no reasonable basis
to believe to do so.  When the truth about the Company's poor
financial condition was partially disclosed, the value of General
Maritime stock declined significantly until, on November 17, 2011,
the Company announced that it had a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, completely
wiping out all equity in the Company.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 27, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and
corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
States.


HOME DEPOT: Sued By Construction Materials Salesmen, Installers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Schneider and Jozef Jaworski, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 2012-CH-
23283 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 25, 2012) is brought on
behalf of two categories of persons, who perform, or performed
within the past three years, services for Home Depot:

   (1) those who sell construction materials, such as windows,
       siding and roofing at Home Depot, or the in-store
       salespeople; and

   (2) those who install construction materials for Home Depot
       customers, or the installers.

The Plaintiffs allege that Home Depot failed to classify them as
employees, and instead classified them as independent contractors,
even though there were no applicable exceptions under the Illinois
Employee Classification Act.  They seek damages and all other
available remedies under the IECA.

Mr. Schneider is a resident of DuPage County, Illinois, and was an
in-store salesperson from February 2011 through October 2011.  Mr.
Jaworski is a resident of Cook County, Illinois, and was an
installer from 2000 through early 2011.

Home Depot is a Delaware corporation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Harte, Esq.
          WILLIAM J. HARTE, LTD.
          135 S. La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603

               - and -

          Edward T. Joyce, Esq.
          Arthur W. Aufmann, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603-4300
          Telephone: (312) 641-2600
          Facsimile: (312) 641-0360

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Mays, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
                  scott@blockesq.com


IKEA NORTH: Recalls 102,000 Units of IKEA 365 + SANDA Track
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
announced a voluntary recall of about 5,000 units of IKEA 365 +
SANDA track, 28" and 45" in the United States or America and about
97,000 units worldwide.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The ground connection in the track is defective, posing an
electric shock hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves white, straight track systems used to hold
and power light fixtures.  The recalled tracks are model numbers
00149242 and 10149246, supplier number 21338 and date stamp 1134
through 1213.  The brand name IKEA, 365+ SANDA, supplier number
and date stamp are printed on a white label attached to the side
of the track.  The recalled tracks are 28" and 45" long.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12210.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide from September 2011 through
March 2012 from $15 to $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the track and return it to
any IKEA store for a replacement unit or a full refund.  For
additional information, contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com/


ISHTEX TEXTILE: Recalls 6,000 Gabiano Children's Pajamas
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ishtex Textile Products Inc. of Duluth, Georgia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,000 units of Gabiano Collection Boys
and Girls Pajamas, Sets and Gowns.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear posing a risk of burn injury to children.
The garments were advertised and sold as children's sleepwear.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all styles of boys and girls 100 percent
cotton pajamas, including sets (tops and bottoms), one-piece suits
and gowns in a variety of colors and designs in sizes 2 through
14.  "Gabiano" is printed on a tag sewn into the center back
neckline of the tops and gown and at the center back of the
bottoms.  This recall includes style numbers GB201, GB204, GB205,
GB207, GB208, GB213, GB215, GB220, GB225, GB230, GB245, GB250,
GB260, GB275, GB2001, GB2002, GB2011, GB2012, GB2021, GB2022,
GB2031, GB2032, GB2041, GB2042, GB3001 and GB3011.  The style
number is only printed on the sales tag and does not appear on the
garments.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12205.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
children's clothing and specialty retailers nationwide and online
including at The Pajama Princess in Austin, Texas, Anklebiter's in
Roswell, Georgia, Cute As A Button in Tarboro, North Carolina,
Bhumbles in Winder, Georgia, and www.bhumbles.com, from February
2010 to December 2011 for between about $20 and $50.

Children should stop wearing the recalled sleepwear immediately
and consumers should return it for a refund, exchange or store
credit.  For additional information, contact Ishtex Textile
Products toll-free at (800) 935-0914 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or by e-mail at
info@ishtex.com or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.ishtex.com/


LONE PINE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Initial Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Pine Resources Inc. is facing a purported class action
lawsuit over its initial public offering, according to the
Company's May 29, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On May 25, 2012, a lawsuit was brought as a purported class action
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
against Lone Pine Resources Inc. (the "Company"), certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers (the
"Individual Defendants"), certain underwriters (the "Underwriter
Defendants") of the Company's initial public offering in May 2011
(the "IPO"), and Forest Oil Corporation ("Forest").  The complaint
alleges that the Company's registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted to state material facts relating to
forest fires that occurred in Northern Alberta in May 2011 and the
rupture of a third party oil sales pipeline in Northern Alberta in
April 2011 and the impact of those events on the Company, that the
alleged misstatements or omissions violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), and that the
Company, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants
are liable for such violations.  The complaint further alleges
that the Underwriter Defendants offered and sold the Company's
securities in violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act,
and the putative class members seek rescission of the securities
purchased in the IPO that they continue to own and rescissionary
damages for securities that they have sold.  Finally, the
complaint asserts a claim against Forest under Section 15 of the
Securities Act, alleging that Forest was a "control person" of the
Company at the time of the IPO.  The complaint alleges that the
putative class, which purchased shares of the Company's common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration
statement and prospectus, was damaged when the value of the stock
declined in August 2011.  The complaint does not specify the
amount of such damages.  The Company has existing obligations to
indemnify the Individual Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants
and Forest in connection with the lawsuit.  The Company believes
that these claims are without merit and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.


MET LIFE: Appellate Court Reverses Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that the Fifth District Appellate Court has reversed a
Madison County judge's certification of a class action lawsuit
against Met Life and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.

In November 2010, then-Judge Dan Stack appointed Granite City
chiropractor Lawrence Shipley to represent a class alleging breach
of contract on insurance claims submitted in 15 states since 1993.

Mr. Shipley contends in his complaint that the defendants failed
to pay reasonable medical expenses provided under his patient's
insurance policy.

After Mr. Shipley's patient, Glen Harford, received treatment for
injuries sustained in a car accident, he assigned his claim for
medical payment under his MetLife policy to Mr. Shipley.  The
chiropractor then submitted his bill for Harford's treatment to
the insurance company, which used a computer software program to
reduce the bill.

On June 22, a panel of the appellate court reversed the class
certification and remanded the case back to the Madison County
Circuit Court, holding that "individualized issues regarding
whether class members submitted reasonable bills for payment and
whether medical providers possessed a valid assignment of their
patients' causes of action would predominate over any common
issues."

The appellate court decision was released in a five-page
unpublished order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23.  Justice
Stephen Spomer delivered the judgment of the panel with Justices
James Donovan and Bruce Stewart concurring.

SLC Chapman LLC, the Wood River law firm representing Mr. Shipley,
intends to appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court, said
firm assistant Lisa Shewmake.  She said the firm's "position will
be stated in the briefings" and that attorney Mark Brown is
handling the case.

Attorneys at HeplerBroom LLC represented Met Life in its petition
to appeal.  A request for attorney information and comment was not
immediately returned on June 27.

Mr. Shipley filed a two-count complaint against the insurance
companies in 2003.  His first count accused the defendants of
breach of contract in that they failed to pay the full amount of
medical expenses incurred by one of his patients.  The second
count, which was not at issue in the appeal, alleged a cause of
action for a violation of the state's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act.

His amended motion for class certification sought to certify a
class including all insured persons or medical providers in 15
states who 1) submitted a claim to the defendants for reasonable
payment of medical expenses, 2) had their claim adjusted by
MetLife and reviewed by its computer bill software program, 3)
received partial payment in an amount less than the submitted
medical expenses and 4) received an amount less than the state
policy limits.

Aside from a few exclusions, the class approved by Judge Stack
covered insurance claims made from Feb. 21, 1993 to the date of
the certification order and insured persons and providers in
Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

In the appellate court's analysis, Justice Spomer wrote that "the
allegations of the class action complaint and posture of this case
are identical to" those discussed in Bemis v. Safeco Insurance
Co., a 2011 ruling out of the Fifth District.

The Bemis court, Justice Spomer wrote, held that "individualized
issues regarding whether the bills submitted by a medical provider
reflect reasonable charges for necessary medical services and
whether medical providers possess valid assignments would
predominate at trial, defeating the commonality requirement for a
class action as set forth in section 2-801 of the Illinois Code of
Civil Procedure."

Mr. Shipley previously argued that the court's reliance in Bemis
on the Supreme Court's ruling in Avery v. State Farm and other
cases dealing with the commonality requirements is misplaced
because the state high court misconstrued and misquoted language
in cases that predate Section 2-801.

"This court is bound by principles of stare decisis to follow
Avery and its progeny unless and until they are overruled by the
Illinois Supreme Court," Justice Spomer reasoned.  "For these
reasons, we find that the circuit court erred when it granted
plaintiff's motion for a class certification.

The citation for the unpublished order in this case is 2012 IL App
(5th) 100619-U.  The Madison County case number is 03-L-277.


NATIONAL GRID: One Remaining Suit vs. KeySpan Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
One putative class action against National Grid plc's subsidiary,
KeySpan Corporation, remains pending in federal court, according
to the Company's June 12, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2012.

Two putative class actions were commenced in 2009 against KeySpan
and Morgan Stanley, one in the federal court and one in a New York
state court.  The claims were based on allegations that the
financial swap transaction between KeySpan and Morgan Stanley
dated January 18, 2006, caused customers of Consolidated Edison,
Inc. to overpay for electricity between May 2006 and February
2008.  Both claims were dismissed -- the first on March 22, 2011,
and the second on appeal on April 10, 2012.

On January 6, 2012, a third putative class action was commenced in
the federal court on behalf of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
customers on similar grounds and in respect of the same financial
swap transaction which the Company also believes is without merit.


ORCHARD SUPPLY: Two Wage and Hour Class Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two wage and hour class action lawsuits against Orchard Supply
Hardware Stores Corporation remains pending, according to the
Company's June 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

Two putative class action lawsuits, brought on behalf of current
and former employees, are pending against the Company.  One of
these lawsuits was brought in 2010 and one was brought in 2011.
These lawsuits allege the Company failed to comply with various
California labor laws, including misclassification of non-exempt
employees as exempt employees, failure to pay regular, overtime,
and final wages, failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.  The Company denies
the allegations in the claims of these lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend itself against them.  However, the Company
cannot predict with assurance the outcome of these lawsuits and
accordingly adverse developments, settlements, or resolutions may
occur and negatively impact income in the quarter of such
development, settlement, or resolution.  Based on the information
currently available, the Company does not believe that either of
these lawsuits would have a material adverse effect on the
consolidated financial position or results of operations of the
Company.

The Company was subject to another putative class action lawsuit
brought in 2011 on behalf of current and former employees alleging
the Company failed to comply with various labor laws.  Without any
settlement payment made by the Company, the Plaintiffs voluntarily
requested dismissal of this lawsuit without prejudice.  The Court
granted the Plaintiff's dismissal request on April 30, 2012.


OVERHILL FARMS: Class Cert. Bid in Ex-Employees Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Rudis, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Overhill Farms, Inc. on June 28 announced a court ruling in the
Company's favor, denying class action status to a lawsuit filed by
several former employees.

Judge David L. Minning of the Los Angeles Superior Court issued
the ruling in the lawsuit filed July 1, 2009, by employees who had
been terminated by the Company a month earlier for using invalid
Social Security numbers in connection with their employment.

The lawsuit claimed that the Company had required employees to put
on and remove protective clothing and wash their hands before and
after working without paying employees for that time, along with
other alleged violations of labor regulations.  The Company denied
the allegations.

Judge Minning ruled that the plaintiffs named in the purported
class action could not adequately represent the interests of other
employees, in part because they "lied to their employer" about
certain facts.  "This is a serious charge against their
credibility," the judge ruled, which "raises serious doubts that
they should stand in a position of fiduciary responsibility to the
class members."

The judge also noted that some sworn statements from members of
the purported class of employees "lack credibility," while other
statements they made contradict the claims in their lawsuit.

Judge Minning ruled that "evidence demonstrates that this class
does not meet certain requirements for certification" as a class
action lawsuit.

The denial of class action certification is subject to appeal, and
plaintiffs can pursue their claims individually.  The Company said
that, based on the strength of the court's ruling and on the
Company's employment practices, it was confident it would prevail
in any further litigation.

Mr. Rudis said, "We have stated from the outset that we believe
these claims were completely without merit, and are pleased by the
court's ruling.  This ruling vindicates our decision to vigorously
oppose any attempt to exploit the unfortunate circumstances of our
former employees to damage the Company and its shareholders."

Overhill Farms, Inc. -- http://www.OverhillFarms.com-- is a
supplier of prepared frozen foods for branded retail, private
label foodservice and airline customers.  Its product line
includes entrees, plated meals, bulk-packed meal components,
pastas, soups, sauces, poultry, meat and fish specialties, as well
as organic and vegetarian offerings.


PAJAMAGRAM: Recalls 12,000 Children's Polyester Fleece Pajamas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
PajamaGram of Shelburne, Vermont, announced a voluntary recall of
about 12,000 children's pajamas.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injury to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The pajamas are 100 percent polyester fleece sold in sizes 12
months to 4T and in boys and girls sizes 6 through 14.
"PajamaGram" is printed on the neck tag.  The pajamas come in two
styles: one-piece hood and feet pajamas, and two-piece sets.  The
style/GPU number is printed on a second tag sewn into either the
neck or side of the pajamas and the pajama pants.  The following
pajamas are included in this recall:

Model               Colors/Description                 GPU No.
-----               ------------------                 -------
Hoodie Footie       Pink with zip-off feet and hood    JSLHFP1
for Girls

Hoodie Footie       Blue with zip-off feet and hood    JSLHFB1
for Boys & Girls

Sweetheart Hoodie   Pink with a red heart print and    JSLHFV1
Footie for Girls    zip-off feet and hood

Winter Whimsy       Red with a snowman/penguin print   JSLHFW1
Hoodie Footie for   and zip-off feet and hood
Boys and Girls

Lodge Fleece Set    Two-piece set.  Blue shirt with    JSLLFB1
for Toddlers,       moose applique and white
Boys and Girls      moose/snowflake print pant

Snuggle Fleece      Two-piece set.  Light blue shirt   JSLAFG1
Argyle Set for      with pink and blue argyle print
Girls               pant

Infant Lodge        White with moose/snowflake         JSLLFB2
Fleece One-Piece    print.  Pajamas have feet and a
                     front zipper

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12204.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
PajamaGram website, telephone and catalogue from September 2011
through March 2012 for between $26 and $40.

Children should stop wearing the pajamas immediately and consumers
should contact PajamaGram for a replacement, exchange or full
refund.  For additional information, please contact PajamaGram
toll-free at (800) 262-1162 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.pajamagram.com/


PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Dias Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perfumania Holdings, Inc.'s bid to dismiss a class action lawsuit
over its merger with Parlux Fragrances Inc. is pending in
Delaware, according to the Company's June 12, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On April 18, 2012, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of December 23, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and
among Perfumania, Parlux Fragrances Inc., a Delaware corporation,
and PFI Merger Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Perfumania ("Merger Sub"), Perfumania acquired all
the outstanding shares of Parlux common stock via a merger of
Parlux with Merger Sub, with Parlux surviving the merger.  Parlux
was then merged into PFI Merger Sub I, LLC, which survived this
second merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Perfumania and
changed its name to Parlux Fragrances, LLC. ("Parlux, LLC").  The
merger was consummated following the approval and adoption of the
Merger Agreement by Parlux shareholders and the approval by
Perfumania shareholders of the issuance of shares of Perfumania
common stock to the Parlux shareholders pursuant to the Merger
Agreement.  Trading in Parlux's common stock on the NASDAQ stock
market terminated after market close on April 18, 2012.

Following the announcement of the Company's merger agreement with
Parlux on January 5, 2012, a putative class action complaint,
captioned as Shirley Anderson v. Parlux Fragrances, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida, on behalf of a purported
stockholder of Parlux.  The case was transferred to the Complex
Business Division No. 7 and assigned case number 12-000344-CA-07.
The named defendants included Parlux, the individual members of
the Parlux board of directors and the Company.  The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the members of the Parlux board
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the
Merger Agreement, that the merger consideration negotiated in the
merger agreement was inadequate, that certain of the defendants
had improper conflicts of interest by reason of the existing
relationships between Parlux and the Company, and that the terms
of the Merger Agreement failed to provide the Parlux stockholders
with certain procedural protections and imposed improper deal
protection devices that would preclude competing offers.  The
complaint further alleged that Parlux and the Company aided and
abetted the members of the Parlux board in their alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff sought a determination that
the lawsuit was a proper class action and that the plaintiff was a
proper class representative, orders enjoining the defendants and
their agents from consummating the proposed transaction unless and
until Parlux adopted and implemented a procedure to obtain a
merger agreement that provided the best possible terms for the
Parlux stockholders, rescinding any terms of the proposed
transaction already implemented, and awarding damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.  On February 7, 2012, the Anderson plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint in which the claims and defendants
remained the same, but, among other additions, plaintiff added
allegations concerning the independent committee of the Parlux
board of directors that she alleged raised questions as to that
committee's impartiality.

On February 9, 2012, another class action complaint, captioned as
Arthur Weill v. Esther Egozi Choukroun, et al., (Case Number 2012-
CV-3508-07) was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, on behalf of
a purported stockholder of Parlux.  The Weill action alleged the
same claims and operative facts as the Anderson action and the
Dias action and requested similar relief.  On February 24, 2012,
the Court consolidated the Anderson and Weill actions.  On
February 29, 2012, the Court also granted the defendants' motion
to stay the consolidated actions in light of the Dias action in
Delaware.  On May 29, 2012, plaintiffs in the consolidated
Anderson and Weill action filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,
dismissing the consolidated lawsuits with prejudice.

On January 31, 2012, an additional putative class complaint,
captioned as Jose Dias v. Fredrick E. Purches, et al., (Case
Number 7199 VCG) was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State
of Delaware on behalf of a purported stockholder of Parlux.  The
Dias action alleges the same claims and operative facts as the
Anderson action and requests similar relief.  The Dias plaintiff,
joined by the plaintiff in the Anderson action, filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the merger based on
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Parlux board in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement, the alleged
inadequacy of the merger consideration and Parlux's alleged
failure to make material disclosures relating to the merger.  On
April 5, 2012, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it
in part.  The Court ordered Parlux and the Company to file with
the SEC certain additional information about the process followed
by the financial advisors to Parlux's board of directors, which
both companies did on April 6, 2012.  The Court did not enjoin the
stockholder meeting scheduled for April 17, 2012, on the condition
the additional information be filed, did not enjoin the
consummation of the merger, and did not grant any relief other
than that those noted.  Discovery in the Dias litigation
continues.  On April 19, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss
this action.  On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed notices of non-
opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss.  Currently being
briefed before the Court are the defendants' motions to dismiss,
the Parlux defendants' motion for sanctions and attorneys' fees,
and the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, in which the
plaintiff is seeking an award of $500,000 in attorneys' fees.

On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff in the Anderson action in Florida,
which has been stayed by order of the Florida Court, filed a new
action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware a
captioned as Shirley Anderson v. Parlux Fragrances, Inc., et al.
(Case Number 7305-VCP), alleging the same facts and claims as were
in her Florida action.  Plaintiff has not served this action on
the Company.  As noted, however, the plaintiff in this action
joined in the motion for a preliminary injunction filed in the
Dias action and dismissed her action in Florida.


REGIONS BANK: Judge Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Hubbard, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that a
Florida lawsuit against Regions Bank seeking class-action status
over the company's partnership with an unregistered investment
firm can move forward after a judge ruled the statute of
limitations hasn't been triggered.

A judge in U.S. District Court in Miami ruled last month that the
suit can proceed on behalf of 14,000 investors who put up about
$250 million through a company named U.S. Pension Trust Corp. that
partnered with Birmingham-based Regions.

U.S. Pension Trust has already been sanctioned after being found
guilty of unlawfully engaging in the sale of securities as an
unregistered dealer.  It had to pay back $62 million to investors
and forfeit $50 million in civil penalties.  In 2009, Regions
agreed to pay $1 million to settle a Securities and Exchange
Commission case over the matter.

Now, Regions is defending the Florida suit seeking class-action
status for its part in the unregistered U.S. Pension Trust Corp.
investment program.  Regions, the suit says, was the trustee of
the plan, which swept up investment money mostly in Latin American
nations for investment in U.S. mutual funds through the Birmingham
bank.

"In turn, Regions personally participated or aided in USPT's sales
of securities to plaintiffs and the class in violation" of Florida
law, the suit reads.  "As such, Regions is liable to plaintiffs
and the class members."

Evelyn Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Regions, declined to comment on
the matter, citing the pending nature of the litigation.

Regions had argued in court papers that the statute of limitations
had passed on the matter.  The investment plans were sold from
1995 through 2008, according to court documents.

The judge in the case disagreed, ruling that the starting date for
the ticking of the statue of limitations clock was September 2009,
when Regions settled with the SEC.

The lawsuit seeking class-action status and repayment of money
invested says Regions performed a wide variety of tasks in support
of the unregistered investment plan.  They included, the suit
says, the use of Regions' name and logo on sales materials;
production of a marketing video; training to USPT sales
representatives; and sharing fees with USPT.

Regions is the largest private-sector employer in the metro area,
with 6,000 workers.  The company operates about 1,700 branches in
16 states.  Company shares have risen about 8.2 percent in the
past year.


RIGO INT'L: Recalls 210,000 Children's Lounge Pants and Boxers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rigo International Inc., of Los Angeles, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 210,000 units of Boys and Girls Pull-On
Lounge Pants and Girls Boxers.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The pants and boxers fail to meet the federal flammability
standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injury
to children.

Rigo has received one report of a garment catching fire and
causing severe burns to the front and back of both legs of a 9-
year-old boy.

The recalled items are Academy pull-on lounge pants for boys and
girls, and boxers for girls.  The garments are made of 100 percent
cotton and have elastic or fabric waistbands.  The pants and
boxers have a variety of colors and print designs, including
guitars, bikes, skates, footballs, baseballs, softballs, soccer
balls, volleyballs, deer, zebra, horses, penguins and leopards.
Some clothing may have the words "cheer," "champs," "soccer
stars," "peaceful," "dance" or "perfect 10" printed on them.  The
garments are sold in sizes XS through L for boys or 6 through 14
for girls.  The garments have identification numbers on a tag
directly under the size tag on the rear section of the waistband.
Garments with the following identification numbers are included in
this recall:

                  Identification Numbers
              ------------------------------
              377676, 377677, 377678, 377679
              ------------------------------
              454818, 454819, 454820, 454821,
              454822, 454823, 454824, 454825,
              454826, 454827, 454828, 454829
              ------------------------------
              466629, 466630
              ------------------------------
              555571, 555572
              ------------------------------
              564822, 564904, 564938, 564939
              ------------------------------

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12206.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Academy Sports and Outdoor stores in Texas from
January 2010 to March 2011 for about $8.

Children should stop wearing the recalled sleepwear immediately.
Consumers should return the sleepwear to Academy for a refund,
exchange or store credit.  For additional information, contact
Rigo toll-free at (888) 229-1292 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday or visit Rigo's Web site at
http://www.rigointernational.com/


SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Suit in Georgia Alleging RICO Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, according to the Company's May 29, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2012.

On February 16, 2012, two of the Company's former employees sued
it and seven of its current and former employees in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for
damages allegedly caused to them by the defendants' alleged
violations of the federal and State of Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Acts.  The
plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on behalf of all hourly-paid workers
legally authorized to be employed in the United States who have
been employed at the Company's processing plant located in
Moultrie, Georgia, since 2008.

The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the defendants
conspired to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants at the
Moultrie plant to "save Sanderson millions of dollars in labor
costs because illegal aliens will work for extremely low wages,
will typically not complain about workplace conditions and
injuries, and because of their vulnerable situation, will accede
to managers' demands to work harder than American citizens and
legal aliens."  The action is brought as a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons legally authorized to be employed in the
United States who have been employed at the Moultrie plant as
hourly wage earners in the four years before the filing of the
case, and the plaintiffs seek certification of that class.  The
plaintiffs are suing for money damages, injunctive relief and
revocation of the Company's license to conduct business in the
State of Georgia.

Based on its present knowledge, the Company considers the claims
made in this lawsuit to be baseless.


SIEBERT FINANCIAL: Awaits OK of $1-Mil. Lehman-Related Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Siebert Financial Corp. is still awaiting court approval of its $1
million settlement of a class action lawsuit over notes issued by
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's June
12, 2012, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In a prior year, Siebert had been named as one of the defendants
in a class action pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York.  Among other claims, the third
amended complaint in the action asserted on behalf of a class of
purchases in a public offering of $1,500,000,000, 6.75%
Subordinated Notes due 2017 (the "Notes"), issued by Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc., ("LBHI") and certain smaller issuances of
other securities that Siebert and other underwriters of the Notes
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and other
applicable law in that relevant offering materials were false and
misleading.  Siebert had purchased $15 million of the Notes and
$462,953 of other securities as an underwriter in the offerings.
Siebert and other underwriters moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint on various grounds.  The Court granted in part and
denied in part the motion by an order dated July 27, 2011.

On November 3, 2011, Siebert and the plaintiffs class agreed to
resolve all claims against Siebert in consideration of a $1
million payment by Siebert.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company had accrued a $1
million provision for loss to reflect the settlement.  As certain
defendants did not agree to a settlement, additional liability to
the Company is possible.  At present, the Company is uncertain as
to the potential liability, if any, in connection with the non-
settling defendants.


STRATEGIC FORECASTING: Sept. 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Basil Katz, writing for Reuters, reports that the global security
analysis company Strategic Forecasting Inc. will settle a class
action lawsuit brought by one of its customers over a crippling
attack by hackers who stole data of clients including Henry
Kissinger, court documents show.

U.S. District Judge Denis Hurley in Central Islip on New York's
Long Island earlier this month gave his stamp of approval to a
proposed settlement in a case that was filed in January.

Stratfor, as the Austin, Texas-based firm is known, was breached
in December by hackers affiliated with the Anonymous group who
published lists of hundreds of thousands of e-mail addresses
belonging to subscribers along with thousands of customer credit
card numbers.

The lists included information on people including former U.S.
Vice President Dan Quayle, former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey.

U.S. federal prosecutors in Manhattan have charged one person in
the United States and four Irish and British men with the hack.

By giving his preliminary approval to the settlement, the judge
granted class action status to the underlying lawsuit.

In his June 14 order, the judge said a class member, for purposes
of qualifying for the settlement, was any person or company who
was a current or former Stratfor subscriber as of December 24,
2011.

Under the settlement terms, Stratfor does not admit any
"wrongdoing, fault, violation of law or liability of any kind."  A
spokesman for Stratfor did not immediately return a request for
comment.

The settlement called for Stratfor to offer class members who opt
in to it one month of free access to its service, worth $29.08,
and an electronic book published by Stratfor called "The Blue
Book," priced at $12.99.  The two together may cost Stratfor
approximately $1.75 million, according to estimates in the
settlement.

The settlement also calls on Stratfor to pay for a credit
monitoring service for class members who ask for it, as well as to
continue paying for additional security to protect its networks.
A $400,000 lump sum will go to paying plaintiff attorneys and
various fees.

Once the settlement is given final approval, Stratfor agrees to
share any amount it recovers from its insurer over the breach, the
settlement documents said.

Stratfor describes itself as a subscription-based publisher of
geopolitical analysis with an intelligence-based approach to
gathering information.

The attorneys appointed by the judge to be the lead lawyers for
the class did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Their client, David Sterling of Sterling & Sterling Inc, is a New
York-area insurance broker.

The judge set a final approval hearing, known as a fairness
hearing, for September 28.

The case is Sterling et al v. Strategic Forecasting, Inc. et al,
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, No 12-
00297.


TEAVANA HOLDINGS: Wage and Hour Suit Still Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Teavana Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a wage and hour class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
June 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 29, 2012.

On December 28, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit styled
Chavez v. Teavana Corp. alleging wage and hour violations of the
California Labor Code for General Managers in California was filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  The
plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and other putative class
members, compensatory damages, restitution, putative and exemplary
damages, penalties, interest and other relief.  The Company
disputes the material allegations in the complaint and intends to
defend the action vigorously.  Due to inherent uncertainties of
litigation and because the lawsuit is in early procedural stages,
the Company cannot at this time accurately predict the ultimate
outcome, or any potential liability, of the matter.


WALT SLAUGHTER: Sued Over Faxing of Unsolicited Advertisements
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Class, Inc., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. Walt Slaughter Associates,
LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, Case No. 2012-CH-23439
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 26, 2012) challenges the
Defendant's practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
prohibits a person or entity from faxing or having an agent fax
advertisements without the recipient's prior express invitation or
permission.  The Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages for
each of the Defendant's violation of the TCPA.

First Class is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.  First Class, without its prior
permission, received a faxed advertisement from the Defendant in
March 2012.

Walt Slaughter is a Tennessee limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
          Andrew C. Murphy, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN, PC
          17W 220 22nd Street - Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-[00000]
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
                  psl@ditommasolaw.com

               - and -

          Jason G. Shanfield, Esq.
          SHANFIELD LAW FIRM, LTD.
          833 North Hoyne Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Telephone: (312) 638-0819
          E-mail: jason@shanfieldlawfirm.com


WATKINS MANUFACTURING: Recalls 5,600 Spas Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
spa manufacturer, Watkins Manufacturing Corp., doing business as
Hot Spring Spas and Limelight Hot Tubs, of Vista, California, and
heater manufacturer, Therm Products, a division of Caldesso LLC,
of San Bernardino, California, announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,600 units of Hot Spring Spas and Limelight Hot Tubs.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

A loose internal electrical connection of the spa heaters can
overheat and ignite, posing a fire hazard.

Watkins Manufacturing has received 31 reports of heaters on these
spas overheating, five of which resulted in a fire.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall includes the following 11 models of Hot Spring Spas
and Limelight Hot Tubs brand spas installed with Therm Products
No-Fault Water Heaters: Aria, Envoy, Flair, Glow, Grandee,
Jetsetter, Prodigy, Pulse, Sovereign, Vanguard and Vista.  The
recalled spas were manufactured from March 2011 to December 2011
and were installed since October 2011.  The date is represented by
2N, 3N, or 4N in the spa's seven to 10 alpha-numeric serial code.
For example, xxx2N#### or xxx4N####, where "xxx" represents a
series of letters one to three characters long, and "####" is a
four-digit numerical sequence.  The model name and serial code are
printed on a label within the spa's equipment compartment, located
behind a removable panel on the side of the spa.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12211.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at independent spa dealers nationwide from March
2011 to March 2012 for between $6,000 and $12,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled spas and shut
off power to the spa unit, following instructions provided in the
owner's manual or by the Watkins-Therm Products Response Hotline.
Consumers should contact the Watkins-Therm Products Response
Hotline or their Watkins Manufacturing spa dealer for a free
replacement heater and installation by a service technician.
Watkins Manufacturing spa dealers are also contacting all affected
owners to schedule the free installation of a replacement heater.
For more information, contact the Watkins-Therm Products Response
Hotline at (855) 226-1314 anytime, or visit the Therm Products'
Web site at http://www.thermproducts.com/or the Watkins
Manufacturing Web site at http://www.hotspring.com/


* Class Action Lawyer Tony Merchant Suspended
---------------------------------------------
Canadian Press reports that a Regina lawyer who has filed many
high-profile class-action lawsuits has been suspended.  A
disciplinary committee of the Law Society of Saskatchewan has
ordered Tony Merchant suspended for three months for conduct
unbecoming a lawyer.  The penalty comes after a hearing found
Mr. Merchant guilty for his actions in a case dating back to 2003.
Mr. Merchant breached a court order that required his firm to pay
into court settlement proceeds due to a client pending the outcome
of a family property issue.  The hearing also found he told that
same client to defy a court order.  Mr. Merchant had been found
guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer three times before.


                           *********

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  * * *