CAR_Public/110613.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, June 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 115

                             Headlines

ADVANCED ANALOGIC: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
AT&T: Settles Class Action Over Internet Taxes for $956 Million
BANCO SANTANDER: Planos Economicos Suits Remain Stayed
ELBIT IMAGING: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in Class Status Appeal
ELBIT IMAGING: Ruling on 3rd Party's Representation Bid Pending

ELBIT IMAGING: Minority Shareholders Suit Settled in Sept. 2010
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Unit Continues to Face Suit in California
H&R BLOCK: Penn. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Class Action Appeal
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOL: Sued Over Unlawful Restraint Policy
KING AMERICA: Faces Class Action for Polluting Ogeechee River

LAN CARGO: Board Approves Price-Fixing Class Action Settlement
LAWSON SOFTWARE: Faces Investor Class Action Over Infor Sale
MACY'S INC: "Shanehchian" Suit Remains Pending in Ohio
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Faces Class Action Over Reapportionment Plan
NEW SOUTH WALES, AU: Faces Class Action Over Child Detention

QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls 100 Bicycle Racks Due to Fall Hazard
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Bondholder Class Action Certified in N.Y.
SINO-FOREST CORP: Kirby McInerney Retained to Probe Class Suit
SINO-FOREST CORP: Rochon Genova Files Securities Class Action
TIVO INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Remain Pending

TORO CO: Appeals on Lawnmower Suit Settlement Dismissed
TORO CO: Lawnmower Class Suit in Canada Remains Pending
UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Braun/Hummel Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal in "Dukes" Case Pending in Supreme Court

WELLS FARGO: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $32 Million
XE SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Employee Benefits
YAHOO: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Securities Class Action




                             *********

ADVANCED ANALOGIC: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Advanced Analogic
Technologies is selling itself too cheaply, through an unfair
process, to Skyworks Solutions, for $259 million or a stock-and-
cash deal valued at $6.13 per share, shareholders say in a class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Bushansky v. Advanced Analogic
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-11-CV-202403 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/08/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          E-mail: jlurie@weisslurie.com
                  lparker@weisslurie.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Julia J. Sun, Esq.
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com
                  jsun@weisslurie.com


AT&T: Settles Class Action Over Internet Taxes for $956 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maisie Ramsay, writing for Wireless Week, reports that AT&T has
been tasked with the enormous job of reimbursing customers for
taxes paid on mobile Internet service under a $956 million
settlement in a class action lawsuit.

The suit alleged the operator violated the Internet Tax Freedom
Act, which bans taxes on Internet access.

Under the terms of the settlement, AT&T is required to get nearly
$956 million in tax refunds from state and local authorities on
behalf of plaintiffs in the class.

The tax refunds will be passed along to customers who initially
paid the taxes on their mobile Internet service.

About 32 million people are covered by the settlement, according
to a June 2 order from a judge in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

AT&T has denied any wrongdoing in the case and has stopped
charging some taxes and fees on its data plans.

"AT&T Mobility collected only those taxes that we believed we were
required to collect, and passed them along to state and local
taxing authorities," said AT&T spokesman Marty Richter.  "While we
strongly deny any wrongdoing, and no court has found that AT&T
Mobility committed any wrongdoing, we agreed to settle these cases
to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation."

The settlement covers all AT&T Mobility customers who were charged
taxes on Internet service between Nov. 1, 2005, and Sept. 7, 2010.
The Internet Tax Freedom Act bars federal, state and local
governments from taxing Internet access.  The law was first
enacted in 1998.  Its moratorium on Internet taxes has been
repeatedly extended and currently extends until 2014.


BANCO SANTANDER: Planos Economicos Suits Remain Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits filed against Banco Santander, S.A.'s
subsidiary, Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A., relating to inflation-
linked contracts, known as planos economicos, remain stayed
according to the Company's June 6, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

Like the rest of the banking system, the Company's subsidiary,
Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A., has been the subject of claims from
customers, mostly depositors, and of class actions brought by
consumer protection associations and the public prosecutor's
office, among others, in connection with the possible effects of
certain legislative changes relating to differences in the
monetary adjustments to interest on bank deposits and other
inflation-linked contracts (planos economicos).  The plaintiffs
considered that their vested rights in relation to the
inflationary adjustments had been impaired due to the immediate
application of these adjustments.  In April 2010, the High Court
of Justice set the statute of limitations period for these class
actions at five years, as requested by the banks, rather than
twenty years, as sought by the plaintiffs, which will
significantly reduce the number of actions of this kind brought
and the amounts claimed in this connection.  As regards the
substance of the matter, the decisions issued to date have been
adverse for the banks, although two proceedings have been brought
at the High Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court as a
result of which the matter is expected to be definitively settled.

In August 2010, the High Court of Justice handed down a decision
finding for the plaintiffs in terms of substance, but excluding
one of the planos from the claim, thereby, reducing the claimed
amount and confirming the five-year statute of limitations period
for these class actions.  Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Federal
Court issued an injunctive relief order whereby all the
proceedings in progress were stayed until this court issues a
final decision on the matter.  Consequently, enforcement of the
decision handed down by the High Court of Justice was also stayed.

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


ELBIT IMAGING: Awaits Supreme Court Ruling in Class Status Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. is awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
with respect to a pending appeal from the denial of appellants'
motion to certify their claim as a class action, according to the
Company's June 6, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 2, 1999, a number of institutional and other investors
holding shares in the Company's subsidiary, Elscint Ltd.,
instituted a claim against the Company, Elscint, Europe Israel
(M.M.S.) Ltd., Control Centers Ltd., past and present officers in
the said companies and others.  Together with the claim an
application was filed to certify the claim as a class action on
behalf of everyone who was a shareholder in Elscint on September
6, 1999, and until the lodging of the claim, excluding the Company
and certain other shareholders.

The Plaintiffs claim continued and systematic oppression of the
minority shareholders in Elscint, which caused them monetary
damages and which started -- so they allege -- in the oppressive
agreements Elscint made for the realization of the main part of
its assets, continued with the sale of the control in Elscint to
the EIL and with the breach of a tender offer made by the Company
to purchase the minority shares of Elscint and ended with the
agreements executed by Elscint for the acquisition of the hotel
operations and the Arena commercial center in Israel, from EIL and
Control Centers, respectively ("September 99 Transactions") based
on inflated appraisal.

Due to these acts, the Plaintiffs allege that the value of
Elscint's shares fell during the period between February 24, 1999,
and up until the date at which the claim was instituted from a
price of $13.25 per share to a price of $7.25 per share.  The main
relief which the original claim sought was to order the Company to
carry out a tender offer for Elscint's shares at a price of $14
per share, and alternatively, to purchase Elscint's shares held by
the Plaintiffs at a price to be set by the court.  Further
alternatively, the Plaintiffs sought, in their original claim,
that the court grants an order prohibiting the execution of the
September 99 Transactions and for the restitution of all money
paid, if paid within the framework of the transactions.  Some of
the relief sought was also sought as a derivative relief on behalf
of Elscint.

On January 11, 2009, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the claim as a class action.  On March 26, 2009,
the Plaintiffs appealed the said decision before the Supreme
Court.

On December 8, 2010, following a lengthy hearing, the Supreme
Court suggested the appellants to seriously consider withdrawing
their appeal.  On January 5, 2011, the appellants notified the
court that they wish to continue with the appeal proceedings.  The
Company is awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling, according to the
Company's Form 6-K filing with the SEC on April 18, 2011.

                      Motion for Discovery

On May 20, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for discovery
claiming that the court dismissed only their motion to certify the
claim as a class action, while their personal and/or derivative
claims were still pending.  On June 30, 2009, the district court
dismissed the Plaintiffs motion for discovery.  The court
expressed, inter alia, its opinion that the Plaintiffs could not
continue to plead this case as a derivative claim, and ordered the
Plaintiffs to file a notice detailing their reasons as to why
should the court not dismiss these proceedings altogether, while
maintaining the Plaintiffs' right to file individual claims.  On
November 5, 2009, 18 out of 31 plaintiffs filed their stand,
according to the court's decision of June 30, 2009, regarding the
question whether the claim should be dismissed in limine.  The
rest 13 Plaintiffs have not filed their stand.  The Plaintiffs
claimed that all proceeding before the district court should be
postponed until the Supreme Court gives its decision on the
appeal.

Management estimates, based on the Group's legal counsel's belief
-- in light of the decision to dismiss the claim and the decision
on the motion for discovery (in which the court expressed its
opinion that the Plaintiffs could not continue to plead this case
as a derivative claim); and based on the information and the
documents delivered to them and as far as they know at this stage
-- that the probability of the claim being upheld is no greater
than 50%.

The Company says that a determination against it in the proceeding
may materially adversely affect its results of operations.


ELBIT IMAGING: Ruling on 3rd Party's Representation Bid Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Haifa District Court has yet to rule on the appropriateness
of a third party claimant to serve as a class representative in a
lawsuit against Elbit Imaging Ltd., among others, according to the
Company's June 6, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 6, 2006, a third party instituted two claims before
the Haifa District Court in which he sued the Company, Elscint
Ltd., Europe Israel (M.M.S.) Ltd., Control Centers Ltd. and
others.

These statements of claim constitute an almost identical copy of
the claim in the 1999 lawsuit against the Company and others, and
the Plaintiff asked to combine the hearings with those in that
lawsuit.  In the statements of claim, the Plaintiff asked to
approve the claims he had instituted as class actions, however, no
separate applications have been served to the Companies for the
certification of the claims as class actions.  In the first claim,
the Plaintiff alleges acts of oppression towards the Company's
shareholders and in the second claim the Plaintiff alleges acts of
oppression towards Elscint's shareholders.

The Plaintiff alleges continued and systematic oppression of the
minority shareholders in Elscint and the Company, which caused him
monetary damages and which started -- so he claims -- in the
oppressive agreements Elscint made for the realization of the main
part of its assets, continued with the withholding of information
from the stock exchange and from the public, with the sale of the
control in Elscint to the Company's controlling shareholder and
with the breach of a tender offer made by the Company to purchase
of the minority shares of Elscint and ended with the agreements
executed by Elscint for the acquisition of the hotel operations
and the Arena commercial center in Israel,  from EIL and Control
Centers, respectively ("September 99 Transactions") at a lower
value than the consideration received for them.

The main relief sought in the claim is compensation consists of
(i) punitive damages for the acts of the defendants; and (ii)
damages for "mental anguish" to the Plaintiff and to the proffered
class.  In addition, the Plaintiff is also suing for compensation
for the difference between the price at which Elscint shares were
actually sold by the Plaintiff and the proffered class members and
in the sum of $14, plus interest and linkage differences since
1999.  Furthermore, the Plaintiff is also claiming for harm caused
to the value of his holdings in the Company's shares.  It will be
noted that the statements of claim in both proceedings require
certain clarifications, due to the wording of the claims.

In the pre-trial session held at the District Court on
February 22, 2007, the Court asked the parties to refer to the
question of the appropriateness of the claimant to serve as a
class representative and on the issue of the overlap between the
claims lodged by the Plaintiff and the 1999 Claim.  The parties
were given the opportunity to complete their arguments in this
matter, and in this framework the Plaintiff asked, inter alia,
that he would be allowed to take legal representation for the
proceedings.  All the parties have submitted the completion of
their arguments in writing.  No decision has yet been handed down
in this matter.  On January 24, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a
request to examine the documents in the 1999 lawsuit, Civil Case
1318/99.  On February 14, 2010, the Defendants filed their
responses.  In light of the fact that the original request was not
sent to the Defendants, despite the court's order, on December
2010, the court handed his decision to struck out the Plaintiff's
request to examine the documents.

The Company and its investees' legal counsel are of the opinion
that -- in light of the early stages of these proceedings, before
the lodging of statements of defense or responses to the
applications to certify the claims as class actions, and even
before any substantive hearing has been held on the motion to
certify the claim as class action and/or of the claim -- it is
difficult to evaluate the chances of the proceedings.
Nevertheless, management estimates, based on the Group's legal
counsels opinion that -- taking into account, amongst other
things, the great similarity with the 1999 Claim, and given that
these proceedings were instituted without legal representation for
the Plaintiff, at this stage, and so long as the Plaintiff is not
represented in the proceedings -- the probability of the claims
being upheld is not greater than 50%.

The Company also says that a determination against it in the
proceeding may materially adversely affect its results of
operations.


ELBIT IMAGING: Minority Shareholders Suit Settled in Sept. 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of the minority shareholder class-action lawsuit
against Elbit Imaging Ltd., Elscint Ltd., Elscint's past directors
and others was approved in September 2010, according to the
Company's June 6, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In September 1999, a claim was filed by a shareholder of the Elbit
Imaging Ltd.'s subsidiary, Elscint Ltd., against Elscint, the
Company, Elbit Medical Holdings Ltd., Elron Electronic Industries
Ltd. and six former directors of Elscint together with an
application to certify said claim as a class action.  The
plaintiff claimed that the Company acted, through Elscint's
directors, systemically with the aim of emptying and diluting
Elscint of its business, assets, capital and value, whilst
enriching other companies in the Group at the expense of Elscint
and at the expense of the minority shareholders of Elscint.  The
plaintiff also alleged that several significant transactions
executed by the Company and Elscint in 1998 were all done whilst
oppressing the minority shareholders of Elscint and in
contravention of Section 235 of the Israeli Companies Ordinance.

On August 25, 2010, a settlement agreement has been signed, in
which the plaintiff agreed to withdraw from the proceedings.
According to the settlement, some of the defendants, including the
Company, agreed to pay the plaintiff a certain amount, of which
the Company's part is immaterial.  The settlement agreement was
approved by the courts on September 1st, 2010.


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Unit Continues to Face Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
FriendFinder Networks Inc.'s subsidiary, Various Inc., continues
to defend itself against a consumer class action arbitration
pending in California, according to the Company's June 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 27, 2006, a claimant filed a consumer class action
arbitration at Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.
or JAMS in San Jose, California, alleging a nationwide class
action against the Company's subsidiary, Various Inc., under a
variety of legal theories related to, among other things,
representations regarding the number of active users on its
internet dating Web site, causing the appearance of erroneous
member profiles, and a failure to adequately remove or account for
alleged erroneous member profiles.  The claimant is seeking
unspecified damages.  Various Inc. disputes the claims and intends
to defend the arbitration vigorously.


H&R BLOCK: Penn. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has again agreed to hear an appeal in a
long-running class action lawsuit against H&R Block Inc.

The Court, in a two-page order on May 25, granted H&R Block's
petition for allowance of appeal, limited to these two questions:

   -- Whether the Court should accept the appeal to consider
whether the Superior Court erred for the fourth consecutive time,
by failing to apply the proper standard and scope of review when
it reversed the trial court's decertification of a 600,000-member
class, disregarded the Court's instruction to review the trial
court's decision on the merits, misconstrued the significance and
holding of the Superior Court's prior decision in the case, and
made no finding of abuse of discretion but simply substituted its
own view of the facts for that of the trial court?

   -- Whether the Court should accept the appeal to consider
whether, contrary to its decision in Frowen v. Blank, plaintiffs
in a consumer class-action case may demonstrate the level of
"overmastering influence" sufficient to establish a confidential
relationship solely with general information about a corporation's
advertising campaign -- without any evidence that individual class
members were influenced by the campaign, let alone showed
"weakness" or "dependence" or "trust, justifiably reposed" based
on information they saw or heard?

At issue is H&R Block's Rapid Refund program.

On April 23, 1993, Sandra Basile filed a lawsuit against Block,
alleging, among other things, that it breached its fiduciary duty
in connection with the program.  The Rapid Refund program allowed
individuals to receive their income tax refund within days after
electronically filing their income tax return by receiving a
short-term loan from Mellon Bank.

Ms. Basile alleged that Block deceived customers because they did
not know they were receiving a short-term loan from a bank and the
fees imposed by Block were actually extremely high interest rates
on the short-term loan.  Ms. Basile sought certification of a
class of individuals with similar claims.

On Jan. 17, 1996, the trial court entered an order that it would
presume that Block was an agent of any person for whom it prepared
a tax return.  On May 30, 1997, the trial court, by relying on the
January presumption order, granted class certification on the
issue of breach of fiduciary duty only.  Block did not seek to
file an immediate interlocutory appeal at this time.  Instead,
Block and the newly certified class filed cross motions for
summary judgment.

On Dec. 31, 1997, the trial court granted Block's motion for
summary judgment and denied the plaintiff class' motion for
summary judgment.  The trial court held that Block did not have an
agency or confidential relationship with the class and, therefore,
there was no breach of fiduciary duty.

The class filed an appeal, claiming the trial court should have
granted their motion for summary judgment because Block owed them
a fiduciary duty based on an agency and/or confidential
relationship.  On Feb. 13, 1998, Block filed cross-appeals,
challenging the trial court's January 1996 presumption order and
the May 1997 class certification order.

On appeal, the superior court held Block's cross-appeal challenge
to the January 1996 presumption order was waived for failure to
preserve its objection to this presumption order in the trial
court.  The superior court also held that an agency relationship
existed between Block and the class.  The court did not discuss
whether a confidential relationship existed.

Based on the existence of an agency relationship, the superior
court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case
to the trial court.

Block then filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the
superior court, seeking to challenge its determination that an
agency relationship existed.  The court granted review and held
that the superior court erred in holding that an agency
relationship existed.  The case was remanded to the superior court
to address whether a confidential relationship existed.

On remand, the superior court held that the record established a
prima facie case that a confidential relationship existed between
Block and the class, and remanded the case back to the trial
court.

In the trial court, Block filed a motion for decertification of
the class, which was granted on Dec. 20, 2003.  The trial court
ruled that individualized evidence was necessary to prove breach
of a fiduciary duty based on a confidential relationship and,
therefore, the case could not be tried as a class action.

The class filed an appeal from the decertification order and on
March 1, 2006, an en banc panel of the superior court reversed the
decertification.  The court held that Block had waived its right
to challenge the class certification because it did not do so
during the first appeal to the superior court in 1998.  Block
again filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the superior
court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, by per curiam order, the superior court granted
allowance of appeal and remanded the case to the superior court
with specific instructions to address Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure 501 and 511, and related case law.  On remand,
the en banc superior court again did not reach the merits of the
trial court's decision regarding class certification but instead
held only that Block had waived its challenge to class
certification.

The court granted allowance of appeal on March 25, 2008, to
determine whether the superior court misapplied the aggrieved
party doctrine by requiring Block to appeal from an earlier class
certification order even though summary judgment was entered in
Block's favor.

The state Supreme Court then reversed the superior court's
decision concluding that Block had not waived its right to seek
decertification of the class by its post-certification conduct.
The Court remanded the case back to the superior court for
consideration of the merits of the trial court's decision to
decertify the class.

The superior court, in an opinion filed Oct. 7, 2010, reversed the
trial court's decision decertifying the class and remanded the
case to that court.

In its order last month, the Supreme Court also granted H&R
Block's application for leave to file a reply brief in further
support of petition for allowance of appeal, but denied the
application to strike portions of plaintiff's answer to the
petition for allowance of appeal and the application for leave to
file post petition communication.


JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOL: Sued Over Unlawful Restraint Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Poverty Law Center disclosed that it filed a federal
civil rights class action lawsuit on June 8 against the Jackson
Public School system on behalf of students who are subject to the
district's unlawful restraint policy.  The SPLC filed the lawsuit
after JPS refused to respond to a demand letter requesting that
the school district end the practice of punishing children for
minor rule violations by handcuffing and shackling them to poles
and railings at the Capital City Alternative School.

The lawsuit details how JPS officials often shackle and handcuff
children to railings and poles and leave them unsupervised for up
to six hours at a time.  Frequently, these children are forced to
eat their lunches while restrained and must beg JPS staff to
release them in order to use the restroom.  They are forced to
endure this abusive and excessive restraint as a consequence for
perceived violations of minor school rules -- such as uniform
violations.

"At the highest level of the district, Jackson Public Schools
officials have failed to protect students from a prison-like
environment where children are subject to regular shackling and
chained to poles and railings as a consequence for minor, non-
criminal violations of school rules," said Jody Owens, who leads
the SPLC's Mississippi office.  "Not only does this handcuffing
policy violate the U.S. Constitution but it demonstrates a
diseased school culture and a broken model of school discipline
that focuses on criminalizing students at the expense of educating
them."

The Jackson Public School District has struggled to implement fair
and effective school discipline practices.  According to publicly
available data, the Jackson Public School District suspends
children at twice the rate of the national average.  A 2009 ACLU
report documented that Jackson's Capital City Alternative School
had an "especially punitive atmosphere," enforcing "its zero
tolerance policy 'to the utmost degree,'" and using this policy
"to deliberately push out challenging and 'undesirable' students."

The lawsuit asserts that students at the Capital City Alternative
School have regularly been disciplined for minor infractions, such
as not wearing a belt or for wearing mismatched shoelaces, by
being shackled for hours at a time to a fixed object.

These students are left unsupervised and are denied access to
classroom instruction.  The specific allegations in the complaint
include:

    * A 15-year-old female student was handcuffed to a railing for
several hours after she was accused of greeting her friend too
loudly in the school hallway.

    * Another student was shackled to a railing for an entire
school day because the student did not wear a belt.  The student
was even forced to eat lunch while handcuffed.

    * One student spent an entire school day handcuffed and
shackled to a railing because he wore shoes that schools officials
deemed to be the wrong color.

JPS Officials Responded in a statement saying:

"The Jackson Public School District takes any allegation of this
nature very seriously.  The JPS legal department will respond to
the lawsuit in the appropriate legal manner.  JPS is totally and
fully committed to providing a safe learning environment for all
of its students."


KING AMERICA: Faces Class Action for Polluting Ogeechee River
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims King
America Finishing contaminated the air and water with caustic
chemicals, killing fish and alligators and hurting people along
tens of miles of the Ogeechee River.

A copy of the Complaint in Anderson, et al. v. King America
Finishing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2011CV201659 (Ga. Super. Ct.,
Fulton Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/08/Enviro.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq.
          HURT, STOLZ & CROMWELL, LLC
          650 Oglethorpe Avenue, Suite 6
          Athens, GA 30606
          Telephone: (706) 395-2750
          E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com

               - and -

          F. Edwin Hallman, Jr., Esq.
          Richard A. Wingate, Esq.
          HALLMAN & WINGATE, LLC
          166 Anderson Street, Suite 210
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (404) 588-2535
          E-mail: ehallman@hallmanwingate.com
                  rwingate@hallmanwingate.com


LAN CARGO: Board Approves Price-Fixing Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hall, writing for AvStop Online Magazine, reports that
LAN Cargo disclosed that on June 6, its board of directors
approved a settlement agreement related to the civil class action
pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The civil class action was initiated against 42 airlines, among
which LAN Cargo and ABSA were included.  As of June 9, ten
airlines including: Lufthansa, American Airlines, Japan Airlines,
Air France-KLM, SAS, All Nippon Airways, Cargo lux, Qantas, Thai
Airways and British Airways have all reached similar settlement
agreements with the class action plaintiffs and agreed to pay
settlement amounts which total US$367.9 million.

These companies engaged in conspiracy in the United States and
elsewhere to eliminate competition by fixing the cargo rates
charged to customers for international air shipments, including to
and from the United States.  Once this settlement agreement is
approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, it will conclude the civil class action
lawsuit against LAN Cargo and ABSA.

The settlement agreement establishes that LAN Cargo pay the amount
of US$59.7 million and ABSA, in which LAN Cargo has an ownership
stake, pay US$6.3 million, for a total amount of US$66 million.
The payment of the full amount will be disbursed no later than
June 14, 2011.

The civil class action originated as result of an investigation
initiated by the Department of Justice of the United States of a
significant number of airlines, among them LAN Cargo and ABSA.
The investigation was concluded with the execution of a Plea
Agreement that was announced by the Company on January 21, 2009.
As of June 9, 19 airlines have executed similar plea agreements
with the DOJ.

The company maintains a policy of rigorous compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations in the countries in which it
operates.  As part of its permanent commitment to good corporate
governance and transparency in its corporate actions, LAN has
further reinforced the control mechanisms of its strict compliance
program.  Furthermore, the company has implemented a new code of
conduct that will govern all of its employees worldwide.

LAN Airlines is one of the leading passenger and cargo airlines in
Latin America.  The company and its affiliates serve over 76
destinations around the world through an extensive network that
offers full connectivity within Latin America, while also linking
the region with North America, Europe and the South Pacific, as
well as 93 additional international destinations through its
various code share agreements.  LAN Airlines and its affiliates
have a leading position in their respective domestic markets of
Chile and Peru as well as an important presence in the Argentinean
and Ecuadorian domestic markets.  In November 2010, LAN acquired
Colombian airline AIRES.

Currently, LAN Airlines and its affiliates operate 123 passenger
aircraft while LAN Cargo and its respective affiliates have a
fleet of 14 dedicated freighters.  The Company has one of the
youngest fleets in the world which has meant greater efficiency
and a significant reduction in CO2 emissions, reflecting its
strong commitment to the protection of the environment.


LAWSON SOFTWARE: Faces Investor Class Action Over Infor Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Kanaracus, writing for The IDG News Service, reports that a
pair of Lawson Software shareholders have filed a class action
lawsuit to block the ERP (enterprise resource planning) software
vendor's sale to Infor and its parent company Golden Gate Capital,
according to documents filed on June 7 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.

Lawson and Infor officials violated state law and U.S. securities
rules by reaching an agreement, announced in March, to sell Lawson
"at an unfair price of $11.25 per share via an unfair process,"
according to the lawsuit by shareholders Marcia Green and Austen
Swaim.  At that price, Infor would buy Lawson for roughly US$1.8
billion.

After Infor's offer, Lawson's share price rose to more than $12.
In addition, "premiums in comparable acquisitions announced within
the last twelve months have averaged more than triple what Lawson
shareholders will receive should the Proposed Acquisition be
consummated," the lawsuit stated.

The proposed deal is also designed to ensure Lawson will be sold
"on terms preferential" to certain officials at the companies,
"but detrimental to plaintiffs and other public stockholders of
Lawson."

The lawsuit notes that investor Carl Icahn took an 8.5% stake in
the company last year.  Mr. Icahn is known as an "activist"
investor for his practice of actively trying to change a company's
direction in ways he believes will benefit shareholders.

While observers speculated that Mr. Icahn would push for a sale of
Lawson, the shareholder suit presents a twist on that scenario.

"Rather than maximize shareholder value as a stand-alone company,
the Board is attempting to sell the Company now so as to prevent
Icahn from potentially using his significant stake in Lawson as a
means of attempting to oust management," it stated.  If the deal
gets approved, "management will be able to retain their positions
with the go-forward company and successfully avoid any possible
attempt to replace them by Icahn and the other shareholders who
are unhappy with their stewardship."

Mr. Icahn could not immediately be reached for comment on June 8.

The plaintiffs are asking for an injunction stopping the sale and
a directive ordering the defendants "to obtain a transaction which
is in the best interests of Lawson's shareholders."

It's not clear whether one would come from another vendor besides
Infor.  In a proxy statement on the deal that Lawson filed last
month, it referred to sale talks with a number of additional
unnamed parties, but those discussions apparently did not lead to
a superior bid.

Lawson, which is known for its strong presence in health-care
software, had been negotiating with Infor since mid-2010,
according to the proxy.

An Infor spokesman declined comment.  Lawson did not respond to a
request for comment.

Shareholder lawsuits are a common occurrence during tech mergers
and acquisitions, but rarely seem to drastically impede or stop
deals from being completed.  Earlier last week, SAP said a court
had granted preliminary approval of a settlement tied to class
action litigation brought by shareholders of Sybase, which SAP
bought last year.


MACY'S INC: "Shanehchian" Suit Remains Pending in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Ebrahim Shanehchian against
Macy's, Inc. over the Company's 401(k) and profit sharing plans
remains pending, according to the Company's June 6, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On October 3, 2007, Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in
the Macy's, Inc. Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan, filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the
401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing
Plan between February 27, 2005, and the present.  The lawsuit has
been conditionally certified as a class action.  The complaint
alleges that the Company, as well as members of the Company's
board of directors and certain members of senior management,
breached various fiduciary duties owed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act to participants in the 401(k) Plan
and the May Plan, by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects in
relation to the integration of the acquired May operations,
resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the Company's
stock price and "imprudent investment" by the 401(k) Plan and the
May Plan in Macy's stock.  The plaintiff seeks an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and costs.  The Company believes
the lawsuit is without merit and intends to contest it vigorously.


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Faces Class Action Over Reapportionment Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Nassau County will dilute minority voting strength in its proposed
redistricting on Long Island.

A copy of the Complaint in Boone, et al. v. Nassau County
Legislature, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02712 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/08/Voting.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frederick K. Brewington, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FREDERICK K. BREWINGTON
          556 Peninsula Boulevard
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Telephone: (516) 489-6959

               - and -

          Randolph M. McLaughlin, Esq.
          78 North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10603
          Telephone: (914) 422-4340
          E-mail: rmclaughlin@hfesq.com


NEW SOUTH WALES, AU: Faces Class Action Over Child Detention
------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Bruce, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reports that young people are being falsely imprisoned as often as
twice a week because of errors in police reporting data, lawyers
say.

They spend "degrading, humiliating and frightening" nights in
prison cells in what an advocacy group has described as a "wanton
disregard" of the human rights of young people.

A class action has been brought against the state of New South
Wales by law firm Maurice Blackburn and the Public Interest
Advocacy Centre (PIAC) on behalf of the hundreds of young people
who have been falsely imprisoned because of an error in the NSW
police computer system, COPS.

"We've had to bring on a class action in an attempt to get justice
for young children who have been so abused," Maurice Blackburn
managing principal Ben Slade said on June 8.

"Police have this complete wanton disregard of the human rights of
our young people and this is in breach of the convention of the
Rights of the Child, and the police have to be called to account."

The incarcerations have been blamed on a failure in the computer
system the police use to pick up changes that have been made to
the record, after people have appeared in court.

"This is happening in our estimation at least twice a week to
young people in NSW and has been happening for many years, at
least five years," Mr. Slade said.

Musa Konneh was only 18 when he was wrongfully arrested,
handcuffed, strip searched and locked overnight in a cell with
other adult men.

Mr. Konneh said he tried to explain to an officer that the
computer system should have been changed after his case for riding
on the train without a ticket had been dismissed in the Children's
Court four days earlier.

"I thought I would be safe in this country and I could have a
peaceful life without any trouble," Mr. Konneh said.

PIAC acting principal solicitor Vavaa Mawuli said a coalition of
organizations had been lobbying the government to stop the
unlawful detention of children.

"We want them to change the system, fix the system and also
compensate the victims of these unlawful detentions," she said.

"We estimate there might be another 200 young people like Musa,
not just in Sydney but across NSW who have suffered as a
consequence of this faulty system.

"We're calling on the government to do something in order to
change that now."

Mr. Slade said the move had come after years spent lobbying the
government and police to stop wrongfully arresting young people.

"Young people for a number of years have been arrested and falsely
detained by police, often overnight, often for even longer than
that, and in circumstances that are degrading, humiliating and
frightening," he said.

"They should never have been arrested and detained at all."

A spokesman for Police Minister Michael Gallagher said he was
unable to comment as the matter was before the courts.

Maurice Blackburn and the PIAC are encouraging young people who
have been unlawfully detained to call or register interest through
Facebook.


QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls 100 Bicycle Racks Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Quality Bicycle Products of Bloomington, Minnesota, announced a
voluntary recall of about 100 carrier racks for mounting over
front bicycle wheel.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle rack's mounting bracket can crack or break.  When this
happens, the rack can fall onto the bicycle's front wheel, posing
a fall hazard to the rider.

The firm has received one report of a rack mounting bracket
breaking while the rider was on the bicycle, resulting in minor
cuts.

This recall involves Civia Loring bicycle racks.  They have black
aluminum tubing with bamboo panels and mount to the bicycle's
front fork.  The word "Civia" is printed on the rack's side
panels.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11241.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
independent bicycle stores nationwide from December 2009 through
February 2011 for about $175.

Consumers should remove this rack from their bicycles immediately
and contact the store where purchased for a full refund or
replacement.  For additional information, contact Quality Bicycle
Products toll-free at (877) 311-7686 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://civiacycles.com/aftermarketloringfrontrackrecall/


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Bondholder Class Action Certified in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, a nationwide class-action law firm, on June 8
disclosed that a judge has certified and ordered notice be given
to the class in a case against the Republic of Argentina.

Hagens Berman's case, filed on December 19, 2006, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is
one of only a few to receive class certification.  Bondholders
brought the case after Argentina declared a moratorium on foreign
debt on December 23, 2001, and allegedly failed to pay its debts.
Hagens Berman's filed complaint asserts that Argentina's actions
constitute a default of the bond agreement between the government
and bondholders.

On March 27, 2009, Judge Thomas P. Griesa granted certification to
a class of bondholders, allowing the case to move forward as a
class action.  According to the court's latest ruling, issued
June 6, 2011, the class has been amended to include all
bondholders who purchased interests prior to December 19, 2006,
and have not participated in the exchange offers previously made
by Argentina.

In the coming weeks, all individuals who are believed to be part
of the class will be notified of their rights.

According to the lawsuit, Argentina had issued approximately $88
billion in debt as of December 23, 2001, but stopped making
payments after declaring a moratorium on foreign debt.

If the court finds that the Argentine government illegally
defaulted on the bonds, its commercial assets in the United
States, including bank accounts and state-owned companies, could
be seized and used to compensate class members.

More about the case can be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/argentine_bonds.htm

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm.  It has
offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles,
Minneapolis, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
Founded in 1993, the firm represents plaintiffs in class actions
and multi-state, large-scale litigation that seek to protect the
rights of investors, consumers, workers and whistleblowers.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Kirby McInerney Retained to Probe Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sino-Forest Corporation investor has retained Kirby McInerney
LLP to investigate and possibly bring a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons who acquired shares of Sino-Forest Corp.

The firm has been retained to investigate potential violations of
the federal securities laws related to the Company's public
statements.  On June 2, 2011, analyst firm Muddy Waters Research
published a report asserting that Sino-Forest greatly exaggerated
its assets.  For example, the report alleged that Sino-Forest
overstated its forestry purchases in China's Yunnan province by
more than C$800 million.  Muddy Waters also claimed that the
Company's "capital raising is a multi-billion dollar Ponzi
scheme."  On this news, shares of Sino-Forest stock lost nearly
two-thirds of its value.

If you acquired Sino-Forest shares and wish to discuss this
matter, please contact us, toll free, at (888) 529-4787 or by e-
mail at info.newcases@kmllp.com

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- specializes in
complex litigation, including securities class actions.

CONTACT: Francisco Loya, Esq.
         Beverly Tse Mirza, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: 888-529-4787
         E-mail: floya@kmllp.com


SINO-FOREST CORP: Rochon Genova Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP has commenced a class action on behalf of
shareholders of Sino-Forest Corporation alleging securities law
violations by the company, certain of its officers and directors,
its auditors, and underwriters.

Sino-Forest operates as a forestry plantation company in the
People's Republic of China.  The company acquires, cultivates, and
sells standing timber or harvested logs from its purchased,
integrated, and planted plantations, and sources and sells logs,
veneer, sawn timber, and other wood-based products.

The class action has been brought on behalf of Sino-Forest
shareholders who purchased shares of Sino-Forest on the TSX on or
after May 17, 2004, and on behalf of those who purchased shares
directly through the company's 2009 prospectus offering.  It
alleges misrepresentations in Sino-Forest's filings, including the
2009 prospectus offering, press releases and public statements
that, among other things, greatly exaggerated the company's assets
and revenues.  The allegations are not yet proven.  As of market
close on June 7, 2011, shares of Sino-Forest had dropped over 75%
since June 2, 2011, resulting in a market loss of almost $3.5
Billion.  This precipitous decline in the company's value followed
the release of a report, and supporting documentation, by Muddy
Waters, LLC, a Hong Kong-based research and investment firm, which
revealed detailed evidence of systemic and comprehensive fraud and
illegal activity by Sino-Forest.

Muddy Waters alleges that the company exaggerated its assets by
overstating its timber purchases, including one purchase from the
Yunnan region in China that was inflated by over $800 million.  It
further states that Sino-Forest inflated its revenues through the
use of undisclosed "authorized intermediaries" to fabricate sales
transactions for which there is no supporting documentation.  The
intermediaries were allegedly employed to create an accounting
event for Sino-Forest even though it risked no capital and moved
no physical goods.

Rochon Genova LLP is one of Canada's leading class action firms
dedicated to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors.


TIVO INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of a settlement resolving a consolidated
securities class action against TiVo Inc. remain pending,
according to the Company's June 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors originally
named as defendants in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  This action, which is captioned Wercberger
v. TiVo et al., also names several of the underwriters involved in
the Company's initial public offering as defendants.  This class
action is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from the time of the Company's IPO
(October 31, 1999) through December 6, 2000.  The central
allegation in this action is that the underwriters in the
Company's IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from,
and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors
who purchased the Company's stock in the IPO and the after-market,
and that the TiVo defendants violated the federal securities laws
by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the underwriters
had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed arrangements.  More
than 300 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits.  In February
2003, after the issuer defendants (including the TiVo defendants)
filed an omnibus motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed the
Section 10(b) claim as to the Company, but denied the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 claim as to the Company and virtually all
of the other issuer-defendants.  On October 8, 2002, the Company's
executive officers who were named as defendants in this action
were dismissed without prejudice.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the suit announced a proposed
settlement with the Company and the other issuer defendants.  This
proposed settlement was terminated on June 25, 2007, following the
ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit on December 5, 2006, reversing the District Court's
granting of class certification in the six focus cases currently
being litigated in this proceeding.  The proposed settlement had
provided that the insurers of all settling issuers would guarantee
that the plaintiffs recover $1 billion from non-settling
defendants, including the investment banks who acted as
underwriters in those offerings.  The maximum amount that could be
charged to the Company's insurance policy under the proposed
settlement in the event that the plaintiffs recovered nothing from
the investment banks would have been approximately $3.9 million.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed Amended Master
Allegations.  On September 27, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Class Certification, which was subsequently withdrawn without
prejudice by the plaintiffs.  Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the focus cases on November 9, 2007.  On March 26, 2008, the Court
ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had
adequately pleaded their Section 10(b) claims against the Issuer
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants in the focus cases.  As
to the Section 11 claim, the Court dismissed the claims brought by
those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess
of the initial offering price, on the grounds that they could not
show cognizable damages, and by those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period, on the grounds that those
claims were time barred.  This ruling, while not binding on the
Company's case, provides guidance to all of the parties involved
in this litigation.

On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with the Court a motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between all parties
to the consolidated action, including the Company and its former
officers and directors, as well as numerous other companies and
their officers and directors.  The proposed settlement provides
the plaintiffs with $586 million in recoveries from all
defendants, with $100 million being paid on behalf of the Issuer
Defendants and their officers and directors by the Issuers'
insurers.  Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the
proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's
insurers.  The proposed settlement also provides for full releases
for the defendants, including the Company and its former officers
and directors.  On June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  On
September 10, 2009, the Federal District Court held the fairness
hearing for final approval of the settlement.  On October 6, 2009,
the District Court issued an order granting class certification
and final approval of the settlement.  Several individuals or
groups of individuals have filed petitions to appeal and/or
notices of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet
addressed any of the pending petitions to appeal or notices of
appeal.  Therefore, the District Court's order granting class
certification and final approval of the settlement may still be
subject to appellate review by the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the District
Court's approval will not be overturned by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The Company may incur expenses in connection
with this litigation that may become material in the future.  No
loss is considered probable or estimable at this time.


TORO CO: Appeals on Lawnmower Suit Settlement Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from a court order approving an agreement entered into
by The Toro Company to settle a consolidated consumer fraud class
action over its lawnmower engine horsepower marketing and sales
practices were dismissed in February 2011, according to the
Company's June 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 29, 2011.

Beginning in June 2004, various plaintiffs filed class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts throughout the country
against the Company and other defendants alleging that the
horsepower labels on the products the plaintiffs purchased were
inaccurate.  The plaintiffs (i) asserted statutory and common law
claims, and (ii) sought an injunction, unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees.  In
December 2008, all lawsuits were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

In February 2010, the Company and certain other defendants entered
into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs and, ultimately, all
defendants entered into various settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs.  The Company's settlement agreement provides for,
among other things, (i) a monetary settlement, (ii) an additional
warranty period for some engines that are subject to the
litigation, and (iii) injunctive relief relating to power rating
labeling practices.

In August 2010, the Court entered an order and judgment in which
it determined that the company's settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate, and approved the settlement.  The Court also entered
an order certifying a settlement class consisting of all persons
in the United States who, beginning January 1, 1994, and through
April 12, 2010, purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or
four-stroke gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was
manufactured or sold by the defendants.  The Court entered similar
orders and judgments approving the settlements entered into by
other defendants.  Also in August 2010, certain objectors filed
notices with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit to appeal the order and judgment approving the Company's
settlement and the other orders and judgments approving the
settlements with the other defendants.

In February 2011, all objectors to the Company's settlement
dismissed their appeals.  Accordingly, the company's settlement
agreement became final.  The expected costs of the Company's
performance of its settlement obligations are consistent with
accruals established in prior periods and, as such, management
does not currently expect that the settlement will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated operating results or
financial condition.


TORO CO: Lawnmower Class Suit in Canada Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action litigation in Canada against The Toro Company
remains pending, according to the Company's June 3, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 29, 2011.

In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against the Company and
other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that are similar to allegations made by the United
States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a class of all
persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994, purchased a
lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower
that was manufactured or sold by the defendants, and (iii) seeks
under applicable Canadian law unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' costs and fees, and equitable relief.

The Company's management continues to evaluate this Canadian
litigation.  In the event the Company is unable to favorably
resolve this litigation, management is unable to assess at this
time whether this litigation would have a material adverse effect
on the Company's annual consolidated operating results or
financial condition, although an unfavorable resolution or outcome
could be material to the Company's consolidated operating results
for a particular period.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc., along with several other global logistics
providers, have been named as a defendant in a federal antitrust
class action lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of New York (Precision
Associates, Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding)
Ltd., et. al.).  This lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged
in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company says it has incurred, and expects to continue to
incur, significant legal fees and other costs in connection with
the lawsuit.


WAL-MART STORES: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Braun/Hummel Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is awaiting a decision on its appeal from a
court ruling granting a $188 million final judgment in the
Braun/Hummel class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
June 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. WM, Ct. of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia County, PA, 3/20/02 & 8/30/04; Superior Ct. of
PA, Eastern Dist., Philadelphia, PA, 12/07/07, a class action
lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs allege that the
Company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and
prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks.  On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages to
the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for
off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks.  The jury found in
favor of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.  On
November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in the
approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees.  By operation of law, post-judgment interest
accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per
annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was
November 14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment
is set aside on appeal.

The Company believes it has substantial factual and legal defenses
to the claims at issue, and on December 7, 2007, the Company filed
its Notice of Appeal.  The Company filed its opening appellate
brief on February 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed their response brief
on April 20, 2009, and the Company filed its reply brief on
June 5, 2009.  Oral argument was held before the Superior Court of
Appeals on August 19, 2009.  The parties are currently awaiting a
decision from the appellate court.


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal in "Dukes" Case Pending in Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to the United States Supreme Court
from the class certification order in "Dukes" case remains
pending, according to the Company's June 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2011.

petition to the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision
affirming and reversing certain portions of the district court's
ruling on the class certification motion in the "Dukes" gender
discrimination lawsuit

The Company is a defendant in Dukes v. WM, USDC, Northern Dist. of
CA, San Francisco Div., 6/19/01; 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, San
Francisco, CA, 8/26/04; US Supreme Court, Washington DC, 8/25/10,
a class-action lawsuit commenced in June 2001 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaint alleges that the Company has engaged in a pattern and
practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training and job assignments.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.  On June 21, 2004, the district court issued
an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class, which was certified by
the district court for purposes of liability, injunctive and
declaratory relief, punitive damages and lost pay, subject to
certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart
domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who
have been or may be subjected to the pay and management track
promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

On August 31, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit granted the Company's petition for discretionary
review of the ruling.  On February 6, 2007, a divided three-judge
panel of the court of appeals issued a decision affirming the
district court's certification order.  On February 20, 2007, the
Company filed a petition asking that the decision be reconsidered
by a larger panel of the court.  On December 11, 2007, the three-
judge panel withdrew its opinion of February 6, 2007, and issued a
revised opinion.  As a result, the Company's Petition for
Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.  The Company filed a new
Petition for Rehearing En Banc on January 8, 2008.  On
February 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting
the Petition.  On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued a
divided (6-5) opinion affirming certain portions of the district
court's ruling and reversing other portions.  On August 25, 2010,
the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit's
decision.  On December 6, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition for writ of certiorari.  The Company filed its
Brief for Petitioner on January 20, 2011; the Brief for
Respondents was filed on February 22, 2011; and oral argument was
held on March 29, 2011.

The Company says that if it is not successful in its appeal of
class certification, or an appellate court issues a ruling that
allows for the certification of a class or classes with a
different size or scope, and if there is a subsequent adverse
verdict on the merits from which there is no successful appeal, or
in the event of a negotiated settlement of the litigation, the
resulting liability could be material to the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.  The plaintiffs also seek
punitive damages which, if awarded, could result in the payment of
additional amounts material to the Company's financial condition
or results of operations.  However, because of the uncertainty of
the outcome of the appeal, because of the uncertainty of the
balance of the proceedings contemplated by the district court, and
because the Company's liability, if any, arising from the
litigation, including the size of any damages awarded if
plaintiffs are successful in the litigation or any negotiated
settlement, could vary widely, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
the litigation.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $32 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Schoenberg, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Wells
Fargo & Co. agreed to pay $32 million to settle a lawsuit alleging
its subsidiary, Wachovia Securities LLC, discriminated against
female financial advisers by blocking career advancement and
paying them less than men.

Wells Fargo and lawyers for a class of about 1,200 plaintiffs
asked a federal judge in Washington to approve the terms of the
settlement, which calls for internal changes aimed at promoting
female advisers and four years of monitoring by outside counsel.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly said that she had no
problems with the core terms of the settlement agreement and would
issue a ruling "as fast as I can."

The lawsuit was filed two years ago by three employees of Wachovia
Securities alleging the company had since 2003 systemically denied
equal employment opportunities to its female financial advisers,
keeping women from moving into more "prestigious roles" or
management positions.

"While Wells Fargo Advisors has consistently denied the
allegations of discrimination, the firm believes resolving this
matter is in the best interests of the company," Tony Mattera, a
Wells Fargo Advisors spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement.

The settlement, which was initially reached in December, covers
female financial advisers of Wells Fargo Advisors, A.G. Edwards
and Prudential Securities as of the date they joined the firm, as
well as female financial advisers at Wells Fargo Investments as of
the date of the merger between San Francisco-based Wells Fargo and
Wachovia in 2008, Mr. Mattera said.

Wachovia bought A.G. Edwards Inc. in 2007 and acquired Prudential
Financial Inc.'s brokerage unit in 2003.

                           Average Payout

Cyrus Mehri, Esq., a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in court that
the average payout from the settlement will be about $18,000 a
plaintiff.  Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs'
lawyers will receive about $10.5 million in fees and monitoring
costs.

The case is Carter v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, 09-cv- 01752, U.S.
District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).


XE SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Employee Benefits
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sizemore, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that
Xe Services, the security and training company formerly known as
Blackwater, faces a $60 million class-action lawsuit for allegedly
depriving its workers of employee benefits to which they are
entitled.

The lawsuit was filed last week in federal court in Washington on
behalf of more than 3,000 people who have done security work for
the company in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere since 2001.

It alleges that the Moyock, N.C.-based company improperly
classified the workers as independent contractors rather than
employees and failed to pay Social Security taxes, contribute to
state unemployment funds or provide health, disability or pension
plans.

"Billions of dollars are lost each year to the federal treasury as
well as to individuals due to misclassification of employees as
independent contractors in order to avoid paying lawful taxes,
withholding, and plan benefits," the lawsuit says.

Many workers have come home from war zones physically or
psychologically wounded and have been denied health care because
of the alleged misclassification, the lawsuit says.

There are four named plaintiffs in the case.  One of them, C.J.
Mercadante of Miami, has received a determination from the
Internal Revenue Service that he was an employee, not an
independent contractor, for purposes of tax status, according to
the lawsuit.

If that ruling is applied across the board, thousands of people
will have to file amended tax returns, said Scott Bloch, Esq., the
Washington attorney who filed the lawsuit.

"These brave individuals . . . deserve better than to be turned
away without health insurance, pension benefits, unemployment
benefits, and other withholding afforded to Blackwater's other
employees," Mr. Bloch said in a statement.

A company spokesman had no comment on the lawsuit.

This is not the first time the issue has arisen.  A congressional
committee chairman accused Blackwater of tax evasion in 2007 for
not classifying its security workers as employees.


YAHOO: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that on
June 7, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd filed a San Francisco federal
district court securities fraud class action against Yahoo, its
CEO, Carol Bartz, and board member (and co-founder), Jerry Yang.
The 14-page complaint alleges that Yahoo knew by March 31 that its
Chinese partner, Alibaba, had transferred Alibaba's most valuable
asset, the e-commerce system Alipay, to another company controlled
by Alibaba's chairman.  Alibaba and Yahoo received only $46
million for an asset that the shareholder complaint asserts is
worth as much as $5 billion, yet according to the complaint, Yahoo
waited until May to disclose the loss of Alipay to its own
shareholders.  When it did, the complaint says, Yahoo's share
price fell by 15%.

The Robbins Geller complaint is on behalf of an individual
shareholder, so we're sure to see a tussle down the road for a
lead counsel appointment if institutional investors pile in with
different lawyers, Thomson Reuters' Ms. Frankel said.  There's
also a California superior court derivative complaint pending
against Yahoo's directors and officers.  Assuming there's merit to
the Robbins Geller suit, it's hard to see why institutional
investors and their lawyers wouldn't want a piece of this action.
Yahoo's 40% stake in Alibaba, purchased for $1 billion in 2004,
was allegedly the company's biggest asset, and the company waited
at least a month to tell shareholders that Alibaba had been
stripped of its core business. The complaint also claims that
Yahoo had plenty of warning of China's intention to revamp
regulations on foreign ownership of Chinese companies and failed
to take action.

Yahoo, of course, disputes the allegations.  In a boilerplate
e-mail statement to OTC, the company said it is aware of the suit.
"Yahoo believes that the allegations are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action."

But reading the suit against Yahoo, with its allegations of
Chinese disregard for the rule of corporate law, made us think
that Yahoo shareholders are lucky in at least one regard: They're
bringing their securities fraud class action claims against a U.S.
company that has to take them seriously.

That's in contrast, at least in this early stage, to shareholders
who've sued Chinese-based companies with shares listed on U.S.
exchanges.  Most obtained those listings via reverse mergers with
U.S. shell companies, although others had U.S. IPOs.  Kevin
LaCroix, who tracks securities class actions brought against
Chinese companies at D&O Diary told OTC that most of the cases
haven't gotten very far yet; plaintiffs' lawyer, Laurence Rosen,
Esq., of The Rosen Law Firm, who's been at the forefront of the
recent spate of filings, pointed to three settlements with Chinese
companies, but agreed that the cases have their challenges.

Nevertheless, the litigation against alleged Chinese securities
fraudsters is beginning to attract some of the big players in the
securities class action bar.  At least six class actions filed in
the last three weeks raise accounting fraud claims against
Longtop, a Chinese company whose ADRs trade on the New York Stock
Exchange; the firms involved include not just Rosen's shop, but
also Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer; Robbins Geller; Bernstein Liebhard;
Saxena White; and Rigrodsky & Long.


                             *********

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  * * *