CAR_Public/110505.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 88

                             Headlines

AMCOR AND VISY: Judge Approves AU$95-Mil. Class Action Settlement
ASTRAZENECA PLC: May Face Class Action Over Crestor Side Effects
BP WEST COAST: Sued Over Price Manipulation, Defective POS System
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Trial Date Set for June 2012
DULUTH, MN: Supreme Court Hears Retirees' Class Action

EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Removes "O'Connor" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
FORREST COUNTY, MS: Faces Class Action Over Juvenile Abuse
GULF RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action in California
HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Faces Class Action Over Huggies(R) Diapers
MIZE IMPORT: Sued for Violation of Illinois Prizes and Gifts Act

MYLIFE.COM: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over False Claims
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
RITE AID: Class Action Suits Over FLSA Violations Still Pending
RITE AID: Faces Wage and Hour Law Violations Suits in Calif.
SATYAM COMPUTER: PwC Settles Class Action for $25.5 Million

SHENGDATECH INC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
TEXAS: Comptroller Sued for Disclosing Private Employee Info
TOUHY MOBILE: Accused of Failing to Return Security Deposit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Acceleration Class Action

U.S. POTATO GROWERS: Milberg LLP Files Antitrust Class Action
UNITIL CORP: "Bellerman" Case Still Pending in Massachusetts Court
WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Fraud Class Action to Remain in State Court




                             *********

AMCOR AND VISY: Judge Approves AU$95-Mil. Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a federal court judge has approved a AU$95 million settlement
of a class action against Amcor and Visy Industries after the
parties agreed to extend the participation deadline, and the two
packaging companies offered to try to contact the thousands of
eligible customers who have not registered.

Justice Peter Jacobson said on May 2 he accepted that there had
been adequate notification by mail, newspaper advertising and
media reports.

The deadline for claimants to register with the law firm running
the class action, Maurice Blackburn, has been extended from May 4
to May 13.  The number of participants will not affect the AU$95
million to be paid by Amcor and Visy, but will influence the share
each customer will receive.

The class action claimed its members were overcharged AU$475
million during an alleged cartel to fix the prices of cardboard
boxes.

On March 7, the day the trial was due to begin, Amcor and Visy
agreed to pay 20% of the claim without admitting to price fixing.

On April 29, the court heard that only 936 of the 4,618 identified
members of the class action had notified Maurice Blackburn.

By 11:00 a.m. on May 2, the figure had risen to 1,010.  Tony
Bannon, SC, for the claimants, said the 1,010 accounted for about
44% of the value of cardboard-box purchases by members of the
class action.

Those eligible to join the suit were individuals or companies who
bought more than AU$100,000 worth of boxes from Amcor or Visy
between May 2000 and May 2005.

Justice Jacobson also approved additional payments by Amcor and
Visy of AU$16 million to cover Maurice Blackburn's fees and
interest and AU$9 million in other expenses.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: May Face Class Action Over Crestor Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seedol.com reports that Crestor has received many adverse remarks
and critiques in regard to its side effects.  There are many
problems that can occur during the use of this medication.  Thus,
victims of crestor side effects can file a court case in order to
receive full compensation. So, it is advisable to have a
professional Crestor attorney.  But how does all this happens?
Simple! A Crestor Class Action Lawsuit brings together groups of
individuals that believe they have been injured by taking
Crestor(R), into one large single lawsuit.  As a group, you will
have more influence in terms of sheer numbers against a larger,
more powerful corporation.  This increases the probability of a
large recovery and is also a way to cut court costs.  A Crestor
Class Action Lawsuit may result if enough people that have been
injured file a Crestor lawsuit.  Nothing is impossible.

Since as early as 2005, Public Citizen, a non-profit public
interest group, has expressed great concern about Crestor(R)'s
serious and potentially fatal side effects.  Public Citizen is an
advocacy group and not associated with the FDA or the
manufacturer.  The public interest group believes the Crestor side
effects could prove incapacitating or even deadly, warranting a
recall.  Moreover, it has been observed that Crestor can cause
kidney damage.  When Crestor was first approved, the FDA did not
approve the drug in stronger doses because of serious Crestor
kidney failure risks.  In an October 29, 2004 press release,
Public Citizen reported that the rate of kidney damage in Crestor
patients is 75 times higher than in patients taking other
cholesterol drugs.  There have been 29 reports of acute renal
failure or renal insufficiency.  Crestor kidney damage can lead to
the need for surgery to remove the kidney and possibly for ongoing
kidney dialysis treatment.

Crestor is the latest of six cholesterol reducing drugs called
statins and was approved in August of 2003 by the Food and Drug
Administration.  According to a May 2005 study done at Tufts
University, patients taking Crestor are eight times more likely to
develop rhabdomyolysis, nephropathy, renal failure or proteinuria
than patients taking Pravachol, and 6.5 times more likely to
develop those complications than patients taking Lipitor.  The
study, published in Circulation, reported that the adverse event
risk was 2.2 fold higher for Crestor versus Zocor.
Those who have been injured by this medication may have the legal
right to seek damages for their injuries through a Crestor Class
Action Lawsuit.  A lawsuit can compensate victims for their
medical expenses, loss of income, disability and psychological
suffering.


BP WEST COAST: Sued Over Price Manipulation, Defective POS System
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that 15 ARCO, BP,
and AmPm franchise owners claim that BP West Coast Products LLC
manipulates gas supplies and prices, so as to deliver less gas
when oil future prices are trending up and to deliver more gas at
a higher price when oil future prices are trending down.  The
federal class action also claims that BP required franchisees to
install a defective, centralized point-of-sale (POS) system that
hurt their businesses and brought customer complaints.

Lead plaintiff Green Desert Oil Group claims that BP sold
plaintiffs ARCO-brand gas stations "on the notion that ARCO has
been and would continue to be known for its low-priced gasoline
strategy as compared with other national brands, mainly due to an
early 1980s decision to emphasize cost cuts for cash-only policy
at its fuel pumps."

The class, led by 15 plaintiffs nationwide, says it has found that
BP does not deliver fuel on an "automatic" basis, despite having
the ability to.

The class claims BP manipulates "gas pricing by deliberating
delivering gas before or after price increases or decreases that
serve to increase the sales price charged to franchisees."

Franchisees say BP tells them by 1:00 p.m. of price changes, which
become effective at 3:00 p.m. that very day.  They say that "if
the price change increases, BP defendants will manipulate delivery
schedules so most of the deliveries occur past 3:00 p.m.," but if
the price decreases, defendants rush deliveries before 3:00 p.m.

Franchisees say that in 2009, they were forced to install a point-
of-sale system made by co-defendant Retalix Ltd., an Israeli
company.

They claim the defendants knew during beta testing of the system
that there were "several material defects in the design and
architecture of the software which would cause substantial harm
and damage to plaintiffs," but that BP required nationwide
installation of the system anyway.

BP West Coast Product President William Fry recognized in March
this year that the Retalix system was only "75% effective," but BP
still refused "to implement the older system which was
satisfactorily working and refused to consider other POS solutions
used by other national service station brands," the class claims.

The Retalix system fails to charge some customers who use debit
cards to pay for gas, but will charge other customers twice: for
their gas and for the gas bought by the customers who were not
charged, the franchisees say.

The franchisees claim that BP has deducted 5.5% of their gross
sales as an "advertising and promotion" fee, but actually dumped
some of that money into its general fund.

They also claim that they are required to buy certain supplies
from BP or specific third-party vendors, with "the prices paid for
most of these items and supplies . . . far higher than what
plaintiffs could pay in the open and fair market."

The class claims that BP intentionally diverts "placement fees" by
labeling them "placement allowances," since the defendants are
supposed to pay the franchisees placement fees.  The allowances,
however, "are assigned to BP defendants from franchisees for the
stated purpose of advertising and promotion," the complaint
states.

The franchisees seek class certification, damages, injunctive
relief to remove the Retalix system, and punitive damages for
breach of contract and negligence.

A copy of the Complaint in Green Desert Oil Group Inc., et al. v.
BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02087 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/02/BP.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          10960 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1910
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 477-2244
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Christopher Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          One William Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
               - and -

          James M. Lee, Esq.
          K. Luan Tran, Esq.
          LEE TRAN & LING APLC
          601 South Figueroa St., Suite 4025
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612-3737
          E-mail: jml@ltlcounsel.com
                  klt@ltlcounsel.com


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Trial Date Set for June 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington set for June 25, 2012, the trial date in a securities
class action lawsuit filed against Cell Therapeutics, Inc.,
according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On March 12, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors, styled Cyril Sabbagh, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics,
Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No.
2:10-sv-00414), or the Sabbagh action.  On March 19, 2010, a
substantially similar class action complaint was filed in the same
court, styled Michael Laquidari, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A.
Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-cv-00480), or
the Laquidari action.  On March 31, 2010, a third substantially
similar class action complaint was filed in the same court, styled
William Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Phillip M.
Nudelman, Louis A. Bianco, John H. Bauer, Richard L. Love, Mary O.
Mundinger, Jack W. Singer, Frederick W. Telling and Rodman &
Renshaw, LLC (Case No. 2:10-cv-00559), or the Snyder action.  The
securities actions are pending before Judge Marsha Pechman in the
Western District of Washington.  The securities complaints allege
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
certain alleged false and misleading statements.  The plaintiffs
in the Sabbagh and Laquidari actions seek unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 5, 2009, through February 8, 2010.  The
plaintiffs in the Snyder action seek unspecified damages on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
May 5, 2009, through March 19, 2010, including purchasers of
securities issued pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
July 22, 2009 public offering.  On August 2, 2010, the court
consolidated the securities actions, appointed lead plaintiffs,
and approved lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On September 27, 2010,
lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint with a
purported class period of March 25, 2008, through March 22, 2010.
On October 27, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an opposition on
December 3, 2010, and defendants filed their reply on December 22,
2010.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on
January 28, 2011.

On February 4, 2011, the court issued an order denying in large
part the defendants' motion.  The court has set a trial date of
June 25, 2012, for the securities class action.


DULUTH, MN: Supreme Court Hears Retirees' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Duluth News Tribune reports that the question of whether the city
of Duluth can change retirees' health insurance benefits to match
those of current employees is in the hands of the Minnesota
Supreme Court.

On the line is perhaps as much as $146 million in savings for the
city over the next 30 years.

Supreme Court Justices heard arguments on May 2 from the attorneys
representing the city and the retirees who sued the city over the
issue three years ago.  The justices have no deadline for issuing
a ruling.

"They said they will issue a decision in due course," said Duluth
City Attorney Gunnar Johnson, Esq., who attended the hour-long
hearing in St. Paul.  "I would anticipate a decision will come
within four to eight months."

Mr. Johnson said the hearing went well.

"Every one of them (the seven justices) asked a question, some
asked multiple questions, about the case," he said.  "They were
very well thought out and probing questions, very relevant to the
case."

Minneapolis attorney, John "Mac" Lefevre, Jr., Esq., argued the
city's case; Duluth attorney, Shelly M. Marquardt, Esq., argued
the retirees' case.  Mr. Lefevre deferred to Messrs. Johnson and
Marquardt couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

The issue has been in the courts since May 2008, when two city
retirees and a retiree's spouse filed what became a class-action
lawsuit against Duluth, claiming the city did not have authority
to change the health benefits it provided to them at the date of
their retirements.

Duluth took the position that it is required by contract only to
provide retirees with the same type of insurance coverage that
current employees receive.  District Court Judge Kenneth Sandvik
ruled in October 2009 that the city may modify the retirees'
benefits whenever and however benefits for active employees are
modified.  The retirees appealed Judge Sandvik's ruling, but the
Minnesota Court of Appeals largely upheld his decision in
September 2010.


EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Removes "O'Connor" Complaint to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Euromarket Designs, Inc., Case No. CGC-11-508848
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 4,
2011.  The plaintiff accuses Euromarket Designs, Inc., d/b/a Crate
& Barrel, of requesting and recording customer zip codes from
customers using credit cards at the point-of-sale in defendant's
retail establishments, a practice that is prohibited under The
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code Section
1747.08.

Defendant operates retail stores under the name Crate & Barrel
throughout the United States, including California.

Mr. O'Connor is a resident of California, and entered into a
retail transaction with defendant at one of defendant's California
stores.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Euromarket Designs, on
April 29, 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of
California, and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-02140 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          David R. Garcia, Esq.
          Brian R. Blackman, Esq.
          Elizabeth S. Berman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                  dgarcia@sheppardmullin.com
                  bblackman@sheppardmullin.com
                  eberman@sheppardmullin.com


FORREST COUNTY, MS: Faces Class Action Over Juvenile Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Forrest County, Mississippi,
unconstitutionally abuses youngsters at its Juvenile Detention
Center, shackling them at school, denying them medical care and
physically and mentally abusing them, according to a federal class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in M.T., et al. v. Forrest County,
Mississippi, Case No. 11-cv-00091 (S.D. Miss.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/02/GovtAbuse.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jody E. Owens, II, Esq.
          Poonam Juneja, Esq.
          Corrie Cockrell, Esq.
          Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
          MISSISSIPPI YOUTH JUSTICE PROJECT
          921 N. President St., Suite B
          Jackson, MS 39202
          Telephone: (601) 948-8882
          E-mail: jody.owens@splcenter.org
                  poonam.juneja@splcenter.org
                  corrie.cockrell@splcenter.org
                  sheila.bedi@splcenter.org


GULF RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on May 2 disclosed that a lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Gulf
Resources, Inc. common stock between the period of March 16, 2009,
to April 26, 2011.  Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 against Gulf Resources and certain
individual defendants.

According to the complaint, the company engaged in undisclosed
related party transactions, and Chinese regulatory filings showed
that the Company was materially smaller than it claimed to be.
The complaint states that a report pointed to certain evidence
indicating that Gulf Resources does not hold title to its Chinese
operating subsidiaries, shareholders' sole asset.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Gulf Resources
during the Class Period.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired
Gulf Resources shares during the Class Period, and either lost
money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to
join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do
so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable
law and file appropriate papers no later than June 29, 2011.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Gulf
Resources shareholder and/or have information relating to the
matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer
and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for
its clients.  It has been named to The National Law Journal's
"Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last eight years.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

Contact: Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: seidman@bernlieb.com
         Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com


HOGLA-KIMBERLY: Faces Class Action Over Huggies(R) Diapers
----------------------------------------------------------
Hadera Paper Ltd. disclosed that a petition was filed against
Hogla-Kimberly LTD (H-K), an associated company (49.9%), for the
approval of a class action.  According to the petition, the
plaintiff claimed that Huggies(R) diapers, marketed by H-K, which
she purchased, did not absorb as was expected due to a fault in
the diapers production line.  The plaintiff estimates the scope of
the class action to be approximately NIS1.1 billion.  At this
early stage, H-K is not able to assess the chances of the class
action and its influences.

Contact: Yael Nevo, Adv.
         Corporate Secretary and Legal Counsel
         Hadera Paper Ltd. Group
         Tel:+972-4-6349408
         E-mail: YaelN@hadera-paper.co.il


MIZE IMPORT: Sued for Violation of Illinois Prizes and Gifts Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Rowe, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Mize Import Group, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-15895 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty. April 29, 2011), brings claims against the defendant for
breach of contract, its violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and its violation of the
Illinois Prizes and Gifts Act.

As alleged in the Complaint, the defendant, which does business as
O'Hare Honda/Hyundai, is accused of mailing to the Class a prize
offer that represented that that they had won a prize, and then
failing to award plaintiff the prize or the retail value of the
prize, and by failing to disclose the retail value of all prizes
appearing on the prize offer.

Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County in the State of Illinois.
Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Illinois, having its principal place of business
in Cook County.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Hall Adams III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HALL ADAMS, LLC
          33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 445-4900
          E-mail: hall@adamslegal.net


MYLIFE.COM: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over False Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that MyLife.com dupes people to
pay for its services by falsely claiming that someone is searching
for them, according to a Los Angeles Superior Court class action.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Orkin Exterminating Co.
stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor laws,
according to a class action in Orange County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Salazar v. Orkin Exterminating Company,
Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2011-00470880 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/02/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex Sofonio, Esq.
          SOFONIO & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-9191
          E-mail: rex@sofoniolaw.com


RITE AID: Class Action Suits Over FLSA Violations Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation continues to face putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
of certain state wage and hour statutes, according to the
Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 26,
2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative
collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state
courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Oregon,
purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current and former
assistant store managers, or (ii) current and former store
managers and assistant store managers, respectively, working in
the Company's stores at various locations.  The lawsuits allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain state
wage and hour statutes.  The lawsuits seek various combinations of
unpaid compensation (including overtime compensation), liquidated
damages, exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.  In one of the cases, Craig et
al v. Rite Aid Corporation et al, pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, brought on
behalf of current and former assistant store managers, the Court,
on December 9, 2009, conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
assistant store managers since December 9, 2006.  Notice of the
Craig action has been sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 6,700 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,100 have joined the Craig action.

In another of the cases, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al,
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, brought on behalf of current and former
store managers and assistant store managers, the Court, on
April 2, 2010, conditionally certified a nationwide collective
group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers
since March 31, 2007.  The Court ordered that Notice of the
Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective
group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and
approximately 1,550 have joined the Indergit action.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure
associated with the lawsuits.  The Company's management believes,
however, that the lawsuits are without merit and not appropriate
for collective or class action treatment. The Company is
vigorously defending all of these claims.


RITE AID: Faces Wage and Hour Law Violations Suits in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation is a defendant in class action lawsuits
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, according to
the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 26,
2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws pertaining primarily
to pay for missed meals and rest periods.  These suits purport to
be class actions and seek substantial damages.

The Company did not identify parties to the suit nor the details
of the cases.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure
associated with the lawsuits.  The Company's management believes,
however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and
that their claims are not appropriate for class action treatment.
The Company is vigorously defending all of these claims.


SATYAM COMPUTER: PwC Settles Class Action for $25.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that investors
in Satyam Computer Services Ltd. settled a lawsuit against
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for $25.5 million related to PwC's
audit of the Indian firm that included a $1 billion overstatement
of assets.

Satyam, the software exporter embroiled in India's biggest
corporate fraud probe, reached a $125 million settlement in
February in the class action in New York.  Satyam agreed last
month to pay $10 million to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission lawsuit.

PricewaterhouseCoopers and four related entities audited or played
a role in the audits of Satyam's financial statements, according
to the shareholders' complaint.  The settlement, which requires a
judge's approval, was disclosed in filings dated April 29 in
federal court in Manhattan.

"Plaintiffs and lead counsel believe that the proposed PwC
settlement represents an excellent result and is in the best
interests of the class," lawyers for the investors wrote in court
papers.

In September, Satyam, based in Hyderabad, India, reported its
first annual earnings in two years.  Former Chairman Ramalinga
Raju disclosed in January 2009, that he overstated Satyam's assets
by $1 billion, triggering a stock plunge and investor lawsuits in
the U.S.  Tech Mahindra Ltd., based in Pune, India, acquired
control of the software-services provider in May 2009.  Satyam's
American depositary receipts traded on the New York Stock
Exchange.

PricewaterhouseCoopers India said in a statement it has reached an
agreement to settle the class action arising out of its Satyam
audits.

"The settlement agreement, if approved, would release all of the
named PwC defendants," according to the statement.

In addition to London-based PricewaterhouseCoopers International
Ltd., related India-based companies covered by the settlement are
Price Waterhouse (Bangalore), PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Ltd.
and Lovelock & Lewes.

The case is In re Satyam Computer Services Ltd. Securities
Litigation, 09-md-2027, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan).


SHENGDATECH INC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Gilmore, writing for inAudit, reports that following
allegations of accounting and operational issues raised by KPMG,
chemical company ShengdaTech, Inc., has received a letter from the
Listing Qualifications Department of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
delisting the Chinese firm.

Nasdaq found that ShengdaTech's securities were no longer
warranted based on several public disclosures.

Meanwhile, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC has filed a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the chemical company on behalf of investors
that purchased common stock of ShengdaTech between March 15, 2010,
and March 15, 2011.

The complaint alleged that ShengdaTech made materially false and
misleading statements with regards to its business, prospects, and
operations.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel particularly charged ShengdaTech of
violating the federal securities laws by failing to inform the
public that its internal controls contained material deficiencies.
In 2010, the chemical company's financial statements did not
comply with the US GAAP, the plaintiff added.

Citing the basis for delisting the chemical company, Nasdaq
pointed out that ShengdaTech had issues with its accounting and
operational practices as revealed by its independent registered
public accounting firm, KPMG.

Following KPMG's investigation into the alleged discrepancies
connected to ShengdaTech's financial reports, including that of
its subsidiaries, the chemical company formed a special committee
consisting of the members of its board and three independent
directors who were then authorized to probe the issues in
question.

Nasdaq added that ShengdaTech has been obstructing investigations
into these matters by at least refusing to present all the
necessary information.

ShengdaTech allegedly violated the rules set forth for the
functioning of the Audit Committee.  The chemical company also
failed to timely file with the Securities and Exchange Commission
its annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 10,
2010, which is required by the listing rule of Nasdaq.

Its inability to file the annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC
came after the pendency of the investigation which was to be
carried out by O'Melveny and Meyers of the special committee that
in turn brought in PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to conduct a
forensic audit.

Based on reports prepared by the special committee, ShengdaTech's
board of directors passed a resolution on March 26, 2011, to
implement a cash control and validation plan.  The resolution
required the transfer of control of all cash assets of the company
to another account solely accessible to the chairman of the audit
committee.

The resolution would cover the assessment of ShengdaTech's
relationships with its vendors, customers, banks, and other
related parties.

However, the cash control and validation plan were not enforced
despite the letters sent by the special committee to the
management on April 7 (request to comply) and April 22, 2011
(demand to comply), respectively.

Subsequently, KPMG sent a letter to the company's board of
directors on April 19, suggesting that ShengdaTech failed to take
prompt remedial actions regarding the discrepancies it identified
with the company's financial records.

The company's failure to take immediate actions was expected by
KPMG to warrant for its resignation as ShengdaTech's auditor.

The SEC received a notification from the company on April 20
confirming that it had received KPMG's letter.

The chemical company manufactures and sells nano-precipitated
calcium carbonate products.

The delisting action of Nasdaq may take effect only after a
hearing slated on May 26, 2011, following ShengdaTech's request
for a reconsideration of the matter with the Hearings Department
of Nasdaq.


ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that a federal judge on
April 29 approved a class-action settlement involving St. Vincent
Hospital and the method it used to collect overdue payments.

The court awarded plaintiff Michael Sargent $2,000 as part of the
lawsuit he brought against the hospital in October 2008.  The
class consisted of 21 parties that responded to the suit.

Mr. Sargent sued St. Vincent, claiming the hospital violated state
debt-collection law by using St. Louis-based Outsource Group Inc.,
which was not licensed as a collection agency in Indiana.

Mr. Sargent's suit was preceded by a court claim brought by
Outsource in August 2008, in Marion Superior Court in an attempt
to collect Mr. Sargent's overdue payment.

Outsource filed the suit even though it did not own the account
upon which Mr. Sargent was indebted and was not a licensed
collection agency in Indiana, according to court documents.

The class of plaintiffs represented anyone sued by Outsource for a
debt owed to St. Vincent, or any one of its entities, before
October 27, 2008, in which a judgment had not been rendered.

Including Mr. Sargent's award, the class received a total of
$31,500, of which $25,500 paid attorney's fees.

Lawyers filing the suit were:

          Robert E. Stochel, Esq.
          HOFFMAN & STOCHEL
          One Professional Center, Suite 306
          Crown Point, IN 46307
          E-mail: res@reslaw.org

               - and -

          Glenn S. Vician, Esq.
          BOWMAN HEINTZ BOSCIA & VICIAN, P.A.
          8605 Broadway
          Merrillville, IN 46410
          E-mail: glennsvician2@bhbvonline.com


TEXAS: Comptroller Sued for Disclosing Private Employee Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Texas Comptroller of
Public Accounts disclosed private information about 3.5 million
employees and ex-employees, exposing them to identity theft,
according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in McClung v. Combs, et al., Case No.
11-cv-01651 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/02/oOPS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall O. Sorrels, Esq.
          Muhammad S. Aziz, Esq.
          Karl P. Long, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
          800 Commerce Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-7211


TOUHY MOBILE: Accused of Failing to Return Security Deposit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Phillip Ward, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Touhy Mobile Homes Park, Inc., Case No.
2011-CH-15853 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. April 29, 2011),
accuses the mobile home park operator of mismanagement and
misappropriation of tenants' security deposit property and failure
to return tenants' security deposit and pay interest, in violation
of the Mobile Home Landlord and Tenant Rights Act, 765 ILCS
745/18.

The mobile home park owned, operated and managed by defendant is
located at 400-462 West Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, in Illinois.

Plaintiff Robert Phillip Ward is an owner of a new mobile home
located at Lot 35, 406 W. Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, in Illinois.
On September 20, 2000, plaintiff registered as a resident and was
approved as a tenant of the Touhy Mobile Homes Park.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Myrna Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MYRNA SMITH
          111 S. Virginia St. (Rt. 14), Suite L-O
          Crystal Lake, IL 60014
          Telephone: (815) 388-8098


TOYOTA MOTOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Acceleration Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports that a federal judge has again rejected
attempts by Toyota to dismiss lawsuits brought by car owners, who
claim that their vehicles lost value due to the potential risk of
sudden unintended acceleration, which led to the recall of several
million vehicles in recent years.

On April 29, Judge James Selna filed a tentative ruling allowing a
Toyota class action lawsuit over the acceleration problems to move
forward.  Judge Selna acknowledged that the lawsuits, which have
not yet been awarded class status, have enough merit to proceed.
Judge Selna said that there was enough evidence that plaintiffs
could argue that the vehicles were defective.

Judge Selna previously rejected attempts by Toyota to get the
lawsuits dismissed in December after the Japanese automaker argued
that the claims had no merit because they did not identify a
specific defect.

About 8.5 million Toyota vehicles have been recalled since
September 2009 due to complaints that they accelerate out of
control.  The recalls were issued in waves, starting with 4.2
million recalled for floormat problems.  Some later recalls
claimed SUA was caused by mechanical problems or problems with the
gas pedals.

Many of the claims filed by owners have focused on the vehicles'
electronic throttle systems, which some say may allow Toyota and
Lexus vehicles to accelerate out of control, potentially resulting
in an auto accident.

Toyota has denied that there is a problem with the throttle system
and denied that the vehicles are actually defective in any way.
Toyota officials have said that most of the problems were caused
by overly thick all-weather floor mats.

In addition to class action lawsuits over the recalls, Toyota also
faces a number of lawsuits over accidents caused by uncontrolled
acceleration of Toyota vehicles, including personal injury
lawsuits and wrongful death lawsuits filed by family members of
people allegedly killed when their vehicles accelerated out of
control.  In some of those cases, Toyota has reportedly paid
millions to settle the lawsuits.

In April 2010, all federal Toyota sudden acceleration lawsuits
were consolidated and centralized before Judge Selna as part of a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial proceedings.


U.S. POTATO GROWERS: Milberg LLP Files Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that
consumers were overcharged on their purchases of potatoes dating
back to 2004 through the present.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants, an alleged cartel consisting of among the largest
potato growers, cooperatives, processors and licensors, violated
federal and state antitrust laws by having entered into an illegal
scheme to restrict output and raise prices for potatoes.  The suit
covers consumers in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.  In December 2010, the
Court hearing the case appointed Milberg LLP as interim co-lead
counsel.

According to the complaint, defendants, who have been publicly
called the "potato cartel" and control 80% of the United States
potato supply, conspired to increase prices for fresh and
processed potatoes in the United States starting in 2004 by
reducing the potatoes grown or available for consumer markets.
Defendants' actions effectively reduced competition in the markets
for fresh and process potatoes throughout North America.

The defendants in the action include: United Potato Growers of
America, Inc., United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United II
Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United Potato Growers of Canada,
Wada Farms, Inc., Wada Farms Potatoes, Inc., Wada-Van Orden
Potatoes, Inc., Albert Wada, Blaine Larsen Farms, Inc., Blaine
Larsen, Potandon Produce LLC, Cornelison Farms, Inc., Keith
Cornelison, Michael Cranney d/b/a Cranney Farms, Snake River
Plains Potatoes, Inc., Driscoll Potatoes, Inc., Lance Funk d/b/a
Lance Funk Farms, Rigby Produce, Inc., Pleasant Valley Potato,
Inc., Raybould Brothers Farms LLC, RD Offutt Co., Dole Fresh
Vegetables, Inc., Dole Food Company, Inc., and Idahoan Foods LLC.

The action is part of a multi-district litigation captioned In Re
Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho and is
numbered 4:10-md-02186-BLW.

A copy of the 105-page complaint is available from the Court and
can be viewed on Milberg LLP's Web site at http://www.milberg.com

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
the lawsuit, please contact the following:

         Peter Safirstein, Esq.
         MILBERG LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10119-0165
         Phone number: 800-320-5081
         E-mail: contactus@milberg.com
         Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff


UNITIL CORP: "Bellerman" Case Still Pending in Massachusetts Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and
Electric Light Company remains pending in Massachusetts, according
to Unitil Corporation's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Unitil is the parent company of Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light
Company.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
January 7, 2009, in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric
Light Company.  On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed
in Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg.  The Amended
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008.  The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 Ice Storm.  On September 4, 2009, the
Superior Court issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part.

The Company anticipates that the court will decide whether the
lawsuit is appropriate for class action treatment in the fall of
2011.  The Company continues to believe the suit is without merit
and will defend itself vigorously.


WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Fraud Class Action to Remain in State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
alleging fraud and deceptive business practices against for-profit
Westwood College will remain in California state court, the United
States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit ruled on May 2,
affirming a longstanding legal principle that counterclaim
defendants cannot remove an action to federal court.

Westwood College subsidiary Westwood Apex sued California resident
Jesus Contreras in San Bernardino Superior Court for breach of
contract in 2010, seeking to recover some $20,000 in unpaid
student loans.  Mr. Contreras subsequently filed a class-action
counterclaim against Westwood College and others, claiming the
for-profit educational institution committed fraud, engaged in
unfair and deceptive practices and violated a number of
California's consumer-protection laws.

The counterclaim defendants (made up of all Westwood College
entities except Westwood Apex) petitioned to remove the case to
federal court in the Central District of California.  But the
District Court sent it back to state court, finding that removal
by a counterclaim defendant was not authorized under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in
Pasadena agreed, ruling that it would violate both established law
and apparent Congressional intent if it allowed Westwood to remove
the class action to the District Court.

"While CAFA eliminated several important roadblocks to removal of
class actions commenced in state court, we hold that [the section
of the Act relating to removal] did not change the longstanding
rule that a party who is joined to such an action as a defendant
to a counterclaim or as a third-party defendant may not remove the
case to federal court," Judge Milan Smith wrote for the panel.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Jay Bybee wrote that while "it
seems strange that Congress would have wanted to funnel class
actions filed by means of an original complaint into federal court
but keep those filed by means of a counterclaim in state courts,
. . . the CAFA achieves this particular result, and if Congress
does not like it, Congress should rethink the rule."

A copy of the Opinion in Westwood Apex v. Contreras, No. 11-55362
(9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/Qjjkpl


                            *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A.
Agravante, Ronald Sy, Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug,
Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *