CAR_Public/110614.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 116

                             Headlines

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From Kasin Suit Settlement Pending
BIG LOTS: Awaits Dismissal of FLSA-Violation Suit in New York
BIG LOTS: Awaits Case Mgmt. Conference Scheduling in "Sample" Suit
BIG LOTS: Continues to Face Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit
BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend "Seals" Class Action Suit

BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend "Avitia" Wage & Hour-Violation Suit
BP: Investors' Lawyers Redact Parts of Amended Class Action Suit
CATHAY FOREST: Faces Securities Class Action in Canada
CKX Inc: Settles Acquisition-Related Consolidated Suit
DOW CHEMICAL: June 27 Hearing Set for Dioxin Class Action

EQT PRODUCTION: Questioned Over Natural Gas Royalties
FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Assigned to District Judge Murphy
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in Kansas
FORD MOTOR: Sued for Misrepresenting Sync Navigation System
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action Over Avandia Diabetes Drug

GREG MORTENSON: Sued Over "Three Cups of Tea" Book
HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Recalls 1,600 TuffTorq Yard Tractors
KELLOGG'S: Nov. 16 Class Action Claims Filing Deadline Set
KINGSTON, AUSTRALIA: Residents Mull Class Action Over Toxic Odor
KRAFT FOODS: Douglas Phebus Joins Plaintiff's Team in Class Suit

LA FITNESS: Settles Class Action Over Membership Termination Fee
NAVISTAR INT'L: Unit Dismissed From 6.0L Diesel Engine Litigation
NAVISTAR INT'L: Units Face Suit in Canada Over Ford Vehicles
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Coordinate 3 Suits
PROLOGISTIX: Warehouse Employees File Wage Class Action

ULTA SALON: Awaits Final Approval of California Suit Settlement
WILLIAM FRY: Thema Investors File Class Action




                             *********

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From Kasin Suit Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of a settlement in the
securities class action lawsuit against Agilent Technologies,
Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's June 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain investment bank underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering, Agilent and various of its
officers and directors at the time of the IPO.  In 2003, the Court
granted Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims against Agilent
based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act, but denied
Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing a settlement
among the plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer
defendants and insurers were presented to the Court.  Under the
proposed settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its
directors and officers would be released, in exchange for a
contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's
insurer) and an assignment of certain potential claims.  However,
class certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the
underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several
"test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants
and plaintiffs.  On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition
for rehearing to the full bench of the Second Circuit.  On April
6, 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order denying rehearing but
noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek certification of a more
modest class."  On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order
terminating the proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the
issuer defendants based on a stipulation among the parties.
Plaintiffs have amended their allegations and filed amended
complaints in six "test cases" (none of which involve Agilent).
Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the amended
complaints.  On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The parties have again reached a global
settlement of the litigation and filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement on April 2, 2009.  Under the
settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement
share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent would bear no financial
liability.  Agilent, as well as the officer and director
defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant
to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the
case.  On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order granting
final approval of the settlement.  Certain objectors have appealed
the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.  That appeal remains pending.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Dismissal of FLSA-Violation Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is awaiting the dismissal of a lawsuit in New York
pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, according to the
Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, alleging that it violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store managers as
exempt employees ("New York matter").  In addition, the plaintiff
seeks class action treatment under New York law relating to those
assistant store managers working in the state of New York.  The
plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of himself and all other
individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  On January 21, 2010, a stipulation was filed and order
rendered limiting this action to current and former assistant
store managers working in the Company's New York stores.  On
March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for conditional class
certification under federal law, class certification under state
law and class notice.  On May 14, 2010, the Company filed a
memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's motion.  On
January 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the Court deny the plaintiff's motion.  On March 17, 2011,
the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied
the plaintiff's motion.

On May 31, 2011, the Company entered into a confidential
settlement agreement with the plaintiff to resolve the New York
matter.  The Company currently awaits the Court's dismissal of the
New York matter.  The Company says the New York matter will be
resolved without a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations, or liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Case Mgmt. Conference Scheduling in "Sample" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is awaiting the scheduling of the initial case
management conference in the "Sample" lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage
and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and
hour claims ("Sample matter").  The plaintiff seeks to recover, on
her behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class
consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated,
damages resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business
expenses, non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment of
wages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating,
and attorneys' fees and costs.  In July 2010, the Company answered
the plaintiff's complaint and filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court, Northern District of California.  On
August 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the
United States District Court, Northern District of California
remand this lawsuit to the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County.  On November 30, 2010, the United States District Court,
Northern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the Sample matter to the Superior Court of California,
Alameda County.  The Company is awaiting the scheduling of the
initial case management conference.  The Sample matter is similar
in nature to the actions comprising the Caron matters.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Sample matter
or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company adds
that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate
resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Continues to Face Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend itself against remaining
claims in the class action suits filed by a California resident,
according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed
against the Company by a California resident (the "Caron
matters").  The first was filed in the Superior Court of
California, Orange County.  This action is similar in nature to
the Seals matter, which enabled the Company to successfully
coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County.  The second and third matters,
filed in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside
County, respectively, allege that the Company violated certain
California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and
other wage and hour claims.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on
their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class
consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated,
damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest
breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination,
reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believed these two matters
overlapped and the Company successfully consolidated the two cases
before the United States District Court, Central District of
California.  The Company believes the remaining allegations also
overlap some portion of the claims released through the class
action settlement in another lawsuit known as the Espinosa matter,
which was settled in 2008.  On August 25, 2009, the Court denied,
without prejudice, the plaintiffs' class certification motion.  On
April 21, 2010, the Court granted, with prejudice, the Company's
motion to deny class certification.  Accordingly, the claims of
one plaintiff remain before the Court.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Caron matters
or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company adds
that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations levied in these lawsuits; however, the ultimate
resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend "Seals" Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against Big
Lots, Inc., in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage
and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as
exempt employees ("Seals matter").  The plaintiffs seek to
recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination,
improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods,
reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  On October 29, 2009, the Court denied,
with prejudice, plaintiffs' class certification motion.  On
January 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.  On
December 2, 2010, the California Court of Appeals notified the
parties that the case was fully briefed and that a hearing for
oral argument will be scheduled.  On April 18, 2011, the
California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial Court's decision
denying class certification.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit or
the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company adds
that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the ultimate
resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Continues to Defend "Avitia" Wage & Hour-Violation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit, known as the Avitia matter, alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws, according to the Company's June 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and
hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt
employees ("Avitia matter").  The plaintiffs seek to recover
damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages
at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original
complaint, which sought to recover damages on their own behalf and
on behalf of all other individuals who were similarly situated,
filed an amended complaint that removed the class and
representative allegations and asserted only individual actions.
The Company has answered the amended complaint and are engaged in
discovery.  The Avitia matter is related to and overlaps the Seals
matter.  The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Avitia matter
or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company adds
that it intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations levied in this lawsuit; however, the Company currently
believes the Avitia matter will be resolved without a material
adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations,
and liquidity.


BP: Investors' Lawyers Redact Parts of  Amended Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
retired investors suing BP over the Deepwater Horizon explosion
claim to know what caused it, but the keys to their theory remain
secret.

Their lawyers redacted 13 paragraphs from an amended class action
complaint they filed on May 27, in multi district litigation
before U.S. Judge Keith Ellison.

The redactions interrupted their narrative at pivotal moments.

In paragraph 260, they described metal rams in a blowout
prevention device that should have cut through pipe inside the
device to seal the well.

They redacted paragraph 261, five lines long, plus a paragraph of
three lines without a paragraph number, indicating the quote came
from a separate source.

They redacted paragraph 262, ten lines long.

The next paragraph started a new section alleging BP skimped on
industry standards with "long string" casing rather than a safer
liner that BP's peers used.

Paragraph 271 argued that BP installed six components to
centralize the flow of cement into clean columns when it should
have installed 21.

Paragraph 272 stated that a report to President Obama found the
decision to use six centralizing components illuminated flaws in
management and design procedures.

They redacted paragraph 273, seven lines long.

Paragraph 274 stated, "The centralizers were vital to the proper
installation of the long string casing, the proper installation of
which itself is vital to properly temporarily abandoning the
well."

It continued, "Despite this, BP used only six centralizers with
the hope that gravity would complete the job."

They redacted paragraph 275, eight lines long, and paragraph 276,
three lines long, plus nine lines from a separate source.

Their narrative resumed with installation of the casing a day
before the explosion.

Near the end, their complaint provided a table of nine decisions
that increased risk while potentially saving time.

They redacted the next paragraph, nine lines long.

The paragraph after that declared the disaster happened due to a
chain of errors resulting from a culture that failed to prioritize
safety and risk management.

Advancing from secrecy to rumor, they wrote "it was reported" that
a broker advised clients to sell BP due to concerns over its deal
with Russia's Roseneft.

They wrote "it was reported" that U.S. investigators were
considering manslaughter charges against BP.

"These serious charges could extend to BP's management and further
increase the company's existing liabilities," they wrote.

They alleged BP withheld material facts from shareholders and
provided inaccurate and incomplete information to them.

"As a consequence, the participants did not exercise independent
control over their investments in the BP Stock Fund," they wrote.

They redacted the next paragraph, seven lines long.

They redacted three paragraphs, 16 lines in all, about BP's
savings plan investment oversight committee.

Their complaint asserted claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act against BP entities, 17 directors and
executives, and the oversight committee.

Three investors from Florida, two from Illinois, two from Texas,
one from California, and one from Maryland filed the complaint.

In 2007, they allege, BP Stock Fund comprised about $3.1 billion
of about $9.5 billion in assets held by their combined plans.

"By the end of the class period, these amounts had fallen to
approximately $1.25 billion of $7 billion in combined plan
holdings," their lawyers wrote.

They wrote that prudent fiduciaries would have considered
themselves bound to liquidate the fund and remove or restrict it
from the plans they offered.

"This case is not about requiring fiduciaries to make unreasonable
predictions based on speculation, but rather it is about requiring
fiduciaries to make an objective analysis based on the actual
state of company affairs," they wrote.

They proposed a class action and wrote that they believe there are
tens of thousands of class members.

"Since the damages suffered by individual class members may be
relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation
make it virtually impossible for individual class members to seek
redress for the wrongful conduct alleged," they wrote.

Thomas Ajamie, Esq., and Mark Lanier, Esq., both of Houston,
signed the complaint and added names of 17 other lawyers.

Mr. Ajamie may be reached at:

          AJAMIE LLP
          Pennzoil Place - South Tower
          711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713.860.1600
          E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com

Mr. Lanier may be reached at:

          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          6810 FM 1960 West
          Houston, Texas 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200

Judge Ellison presides over shareholder suits by appointment of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation.

In addition to the ERISA action, he presides over claims under
securities laws.


CATHAY FOREST: Faces Securities Class Action in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on June 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced against Cathay Forest Products Corp. and certain of
its current and former officers and directors.  The action is
brought on behalf of persons who acquired the securities of Cathay
Forest Products Corp. between November 9, 2009, and February 1,
2011.  At that time, the Ontario and British Columbia Securities
Commissions ordered a halt to trading in Cathay Forest Products
Corp.'s shares.  On February 4, 2011, Cathay Forest Products Corp.
issued restated financial statements and MD&A for the third
quarter of 2009, the 2009 fiscal year, and the first two quarters
of 2010.  Trading in Cathay Forest Products Corp.'s shares has not
yet resumed.

Cathay Forest Products Corp.  is a Canadian company whose business
involves the development of tree plantations, sub-concession of
harvesting rights, and log trading in the People's Republic of
China as well as forest harvesting operations in Russia.  It has
been listed on the TSX Venture exchange since 2004 as the product
of a reverse take over.  Since then, it has raised capital in
Canada by way of private placement on a number of occasions, and
by way of a $15.25 million dollar public offering completed in
December of 2009.

Persons who purchased the shares of Cathay Forest Products Corp.'s
securities between November 9, 2009, and February 1, 2011, are
encouraged to contact Nicole Young of Siskinds LLP by phone at 1-
800-461-6166 x 2380 or by e-mail at nicole.young@siskinds.com

For media enquiries, please contact Michael Robb by phone at 519-
660-7872 or by e-mail at michael.robb@siskinds.com


CKX Inc: Settles Acquisition-Related Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------
CKx, Inc., has entered into an agreement in principle to settle a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to the proposed
acquisition of CKx by affiliates of Apollo Management, L.P.,
according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company announced on June 7, 2011, that it has agreed in
principle, subject to documentation, to resolve the lawsuit
brought against it and each of its directors in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County.
The class action is a consolidation of four lawsuits related to
the pending acquisition of CKx by Colonel Holdings, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of certain equity funds managed by Apollo
Management VII, L.P.  Upon approval of the settlement by the
Court, all claims asserted in the litigation in Delaware and one
additional claim asserted in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York will be dismissed with prejudice.

Under the proposed settlement, among other things, the plaintiffs'
claims will be extinguished and Parent will agree voluntarily (i)
that the amount due in the event the termination fee is payable to
Parent under the merger agreement will be $17.5 million, (ii) that
the reference to "80%" in the definition of "Superior Proposal" in
the merger agreement will be deemed to be "75%"; and (iii) to
extend the expiration of the tender offer to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of CKx common stock at an offer price of $5.50
per share launched by an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent ("Offeror") on May 17, 2011, by one day to 12:00 a.m. New
York City Time on June 15, 2011.  As part of the proposed
settlement, CKx has amended its solicitation/recommendation
statement on Schedule 14D-9 to include additional disclosures
sought by the plaintiffs in the litigation.  CKx continues to deny
that it has engaged in any wrongful acts.

The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, final
approval of the Court and consummation of the pending acquisition.
Upon approval of the proposed settlement by the Court, plaintiff's
attorneys are expected to apply for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by CKx.

Offeror and certain other persons have filed with the SEC a
combined Tender Offer Statement and Rule 13e-3 Transaction
Statement filed under cover of Schedule TO that provides the terms
of the tender offer.  CKx has filed with the SEC a
solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9 that
includes the recommendation of CKx's board of directors that CKx's
stockholders accept the tender offer and tender their Common
Shares to Offeror.  The offer to purchase and related documents in
connection with the tender offer contain other important terms and
conditions with respect to the tender offer and should be
carefully reviewed by stockholders.

CKx is engaged in the ownership, development and commercial
utilization of globally recognized entertainment content.  CKx's
current properties include the rights to the name, image and
likeness of Elvis Presley and Muhammad Ali, the operations of
Graceland, and proprietary rights to the IDOLS and So You Think
You Can Dance television brands, including the American Idol
series in the United States and local adaptations of the IDOLS and
So You Think You Can Dance television show formats which,
collectively, air in more than 100 countries.  For more
information about CKx, visit its corporate Web site at
http://www.CKx.com


DOW CHEMICAL: June 27 Hearing Set for Dioxin Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Knake, writing for The Saginaw News, reports that
residents involved in a lawsuit against Dow Chemical Co. have to
wait about three weeks to learn whether the suit will retain class
action status.

Retired Saginaw County Judge Leopold Borrello ordered both parties
in Henry V. Dow Chemical to issue a draft order due by June 27.
The order requires each party to submit proposed findings, facts
and a conclusion to whether the case should have class action
status.

Judge Borrello said he will adopt one of those orders within the
week.

Plaintiff Attorney Bruce Trogan said the order will allow the
parties to present the judge with all the necessary facts for him
to make a well-informed decision.

"We'll attempt to lay it all out," he said.

Dow Attorney, Kathleen Lang, Esq., said the company continues to
believe the lawsuit is not a class action.  The properties are too
diverse to put together in one lawsuit because of the difference
in land uses and dioxin levels, she said.

More than 150 Saginaw County homeowners along the Tittabawassee
River filed a lawsuit in March 2003.  They claim Dow contaminated
their properties with dioxin, and the pollution diminished
property values downstream from its Midland plant.

The Michigan Supreme Court in 2009 ordered Judge Borrello to
revisit the lawsuit to further clarify his earlier ruling that
granted class-action status for plaintiffs.

If the lawsuit has class action status, Mr. Trogan said, it will
involve about 2,500 Saginaw County residents.


EQT PRODUCTION: Questioned Over Natural Gas Royalties
------------------------------------------------------
Claire Galofaro, writing for TriCities.com, reports that in just
under two hours on June 7, U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade
Sargent asked the attorney for EQT Production Co. the same
question no less than four times: If the company gains nothing
from encouraging land owners to split their natural gas royalties
with coal companies, how could it be harmed if banned from doing
so?

The question, presented during a hearing in one of the half dozen
class action suits pending against the state's two most powerful
energy companies, is among the most contentious debates in the
ongoing fight over coalbed methane royalties.  For decades, EQT
has encouraged landowners to sign contracts dividing their current
royalties -- and often all future earnings -- with the coal owner.

The plaintiffs argued that, in a last-ditch effort to cut down
potential liability in the suits, the company has been scrambling
to trick landowners into surrendering up to half of what they're
owed.  Once landowners sign an agreement -- based on half-truths
and omissions, the plaintiffs contend -- the landowner would
likely be exempt from joining the suit.

But Wade Massie,Esq., attorney for EQT Production, maintained on
June 7 that the company has no nefarious motivations for
encouraging the agreements.  It is simply trying to expedite the
process and help people get their money from escrow.  A court
order banning solicitation of the agreements would interfere
unnecessarily with the process, he claimed.

"But what harm is caused?" Judge Sargent asked again of why EQT
resists stopping the practice until the suits are resolved.

Mr. Massie said a court order would infringe on the company's
First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

"False information has never been protected by the first
amendment," Judge Sargent said.

In a motion filed in May, the plaintiffs asked the court to
restrict the company from goading landowners into split
agreements.  They attached five affidavits they consider prime
examples of how EQT has distorted the law to make split agreements
sound favorable to landowners.

In one, a Dickenson County landowner described her interactions
with the company and its agents.  In October 2005, EQT sent her a
letter that said ownership of coalbed methane "had not been
judiciously determined in the Commonwealth of Virginia," adding
that "although several cases are currently in the Circuit Court of
Virginia, which should eventually address this question, it is
uncertain when this matter will be resolved."

The letter did not mention that the year before, the Virginia
Supreme Court had, in fact, addressed the very matter and ruled in
her favor.  The court determined that the landowner retained sole
right to the gas so long as they leased only their coal.

Mr. Massie argued on June 7 that the omission was likely a mistake
-- that it was an outdated form letter someone inadvertently sent
to the landowner.

"I don't think that's the current practice," he said.

None of the five affidavits involved people actually eligible for
the class action in question, Mr. Massie argued.  Four of the five
were written after the 2004 decision but before the pending
litigation was filed.  The fifth involved a woman exempt from the
class action based on her leasing arrangement.  Thus, he argued,
the plaintiffs were unable to present a single piece of evidence
suggesting the company has sent similar correspondence to anyone
in the pool of potential class members, which could be hundreds --
maybe thousands -- of litigants.

But the plaintiffs used the letter as an example of EQT's
deceptive practices -- they tell landowners that the only way
they'll ever get their money is to sign part of it away, the
plaintiffs argue, and they never mention the litigation pending in
federal court.  If they sent them to those people, the plaintiffs
reasoned, they're just as likely to send them to those who might
be a part of the class action.

"If this is being done, it is at best misleading," Judge Sargent
said.  "And at worst fraudulent."

"I disagree," Mr. Massie said.

Judge Sargent asked him why the company would not "look this court
in the eye and say we are not doing this."

He said it was a matter of what "this" meant -- the company simply
informs people whose gas royalties have been escrowed that they
have two options: hire an attorney or sign a split agreement.

"That's 100 percent true," he said.

Mr. Massie described the motion as "ironic."  The pack of
attorneys for the plaintiffs allege that their main goal is to
release their clients' money from escrow, Mr. Massie said.  With
split agreements, the gas company is giving them an option to do
just that and the plaintiffs are trying to prevent it.  He
speculated that the lawyers were simply looking out for their fee
-- typically one-third of the settlement or damages paid.

David Stellings, Esq., a New York-based attorney who argued the
case for the plaintiffs, contested his remarks.  They do not have
an issue with people signing split agreements so long as it's a
reasoned decision based on complete information and an accurate
representation of Virginia law, he said.

"There is one thing I simply do no understand," Judge Sargent said
near the end of the hearing.  "Why does EQT have to be in the
process at all?"

She asked Mr. Massie if the company profited from the agreements
and if they had business associations with Range Resources, one of
the coal companies included in the dispute.

Mr. Massie said the two companies had an operational agreement,
but no corporate or ownership ties.

"I don't know anything about that," he said.  "These royalties do
not go to us."

Judge Sargent said she would take the issue under advisement.


FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Assigned to District Judge Murphy
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that class action lawyer Stephen Tillery, Esq., of St. Louis rises
to guard the privacy of adolescent Facebook friends whose parents
didn't guard it.

Aaron Zigler, Esq., of Tillery's firm sued Facebook on behalf of
two minors in federal court on June 1, claiming it makes money on
advertising that shows names and faces of children.

"Defendants used and continues to use plaintiffs' names and
photographs for the purpose of marketing, advertising, selling and
soliciting the purchase of goods and services knowing that
plaintiffs, as minors, lack the capacity to consent to such use,"
Mr. Zigler wrote.

He proposed to certify Illinois residents Melissa Dawes and
Jennifer DeYong, "next friends" of the minors, to lead a national
class action.

He wrote that hundreds of thousands of minors belong to the class.

In the alternative, he proposed a class action in Illinois,
California, Ohio, Indiana and Nevada.

Mr. Zigler estimated that more than 14 million U.S. residents
under age 18 use Facebook.

"One way in which Facebook works to increase its user base and
response rate and thus its advertising revenues is by using the
names and likenesses of its users to advertise its services and
other products and services which it is paid to promote," he
wrote.

Mr. Zigler wrote that plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm and
damages that include "lessening the value of plaintiffs' personal
information, identity and likeness."

He discounted the value of those items, however, arguing for class
action due to "the relatively small size of the claims of many
individual members of the class."

Steven Katz, Esq., of Mr. Tillery's firm worked with Mr. Zigler on
the complaint.

By random draw, the district court clerk assigned the case to
District Judge Patrick Murphy.

His wife, Patricia Murphy of Energy, teams with Mr. Tillery in a
federal suit alleging weed killer atrazine contaminates water
supplies.

Mr. Tillery and Patricia Murphy jointly appeared for plaintiffs in
the most recent hearing before District Judge Phil Gilbert in that
case, on May 12.

As of June 9, the docket on the Facebook case showed nothing but
the complaint.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against a class action lawsuit pending in Kansas,
according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court in Kansas.  The
complaint alleges that Ferrellgas violates consumer protection
laws in the manner Ferrellgas sets prices and fees for its
customers.  Based on Ferrellgas' business practices, Ferrellgas
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend
the claims vigorously.


FORD MOTOR: Sued for Misrepresenting Sync Navigation System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ford exaggerated and misrepresented the features in its factory-
installed Sync navigation system, which can't be upgraded to get
the advertised features, a class action claims in Cook County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rouse v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
11CH20581 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/09/FordCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Rouse, Esq.
          Jonathan Nachsin, Esq.
          JONATHAN NACHSIN, P.C.
          105 West Adams Street, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 327-1777

               - and -

          Lance A. Raphael, Esq.
          Stacy M. Bardo, Esq.
          Allison M. Kurmhorn, Esq.
          CONSUMER ADVOCACY CENTER, P.C.
          180 West Washington  Street, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5808


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Class Action Over Avandia Diabetes Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a St. Clair County man, along with dozens of others, is suing
the makers of a diabetes drug alleging it causes heart problems.

Melvin Reagan filed a class-action claim May 4 in St. Clair County
Circuit Court against GlaxoSmithKline, SmithKline Beecham
Corporation, McKesson Corporation and five unnamed defendants.

According to the complaint filed on behalf of 43 patients, GSK
began marketing the Type-2 diabetes medication Avandia in 1999
after receiving approval from the federal Food and Drug
Administration.  The drug has reportedly been prescribed to nearly
six million people in the United States since then.

Mr. Reagan and the other patients claim GSK knew the consumption
of Avandia increased the risk of heart problems, including heart
attacks and congestive heart failure, but did not warn its
patients.  They allege the company's own tests, performed in 2005,
showed this to be true yet GSK did not put a warning label on
Avandia until 2007.

The class accuses GSK and McKesson of negligence, fraud, breach of
warranty and misrepresentation.  It asks for a judgment of more
than $650,000 in damages for medical expenses, loss of income and
court costs.

Mr. Reagan and the class are represented by attorneys Robert G.
Jones of Belleville and David R. Jones of Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 11-L-228.


GREG MORTENSON: Sued Over "Three Cups of Tea" Book
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News reports that a federal class action claims
Greg Mortenson and Penguin Group defrauded customers by selling
them Mr. Mortenson's purportedly nonfiction book, "Three Cups of
Tea," and its sequel, key parts of which allegedly were
fabricated.

A copy of the Complaint in Netter v. Mortenson et al., Case No.
11-cv-03915 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/09/Tea.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950
          E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Langendorf, Esq.
          ROBERT A. LANGENDORF, P.C.
          134 N La Salle St., Ste. 1515
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5933
          E-mail: rlangendorf@comcast.net


HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Recalls 1,600 TuffTorq Yard Tractors
------------------------------------------------------------
About 1,600 Husqvarna yard tractors with TuffTorq K46LD Transaxle
were voluntarily recalled by Husqvarna Professional Products Inc.,
of Charlotte, North Carolina, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop using
the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The yard tractor's transaxle can experience intermittent drive
failure, posing a risk of reduced or lost braking ability.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves orange, Husqvarna yard tractors with TuffTorq
K46LD transaxle.  Yard tractors included in the recall have model
numbers YTH23V42LS and YTH24V48LS and serial numbers ranging from
050110A001000 to 123110D999999.  The first six digits of the
serial number is a date code.  Tractors included in the recall
have a serial date range of May 1, 2010, through December 31,
2010.  Model and serial information is located on an
identification plate attached to the underside of the seat.

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11742.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Husqvarna authorized dealers nationwide from
May 2010 through December 2010 for between $2,300 and $2,800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled yard tractors
and contact Husqvarna to schedule a free repair at an authorized
Husqvarna dealer.  For more information, contact Husqvarna toll-
free at (877) 257-6921 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday.  Consumers can also visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.husqvarna.us/


KELLOGG'S: Nov. 16 Class Action Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Milstein Adelman, LLP; Jenner & Block, LLP disclosed that a
proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
about Kellogg's advertising for its Rice Krispies cereal and Cocoa
Krispies cereal.  The lawsuit claims the advertising was not true.
Kellogg stands by its advertising and denies it did anything
wrong.  The Court did not decide who was right.  If you are a
Class Member, you may send in a claim form by mail or on line to
receive up to $15. Please see
http://www.CerealAdvertisingSettlement.com for more details.

Who are the Class Members?  Class Members are those who purchased,
not for resale purposes, Kellogg's Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies
in the United States between June 1, 2009, and March 1, 2010.

What does the settlement provide? A cash fund of $2.5 million will
be created to pay Class Counsel's fees and expenses, to pay a
$5,000 class representative incentive award to each of three named
Plaintiffs, and to reimburse Class Members for boxes of Rice
Krispies or Cocoa Krispies they purchased, up to three boxes.
Details about how much you may receive are available at
http://www.CerealAdvertisingSettlement.com

Kellogg also has agreed to distribute to charities that provide
food to the indigent certain Kellogg branded food items that have
a retail value of $2.5 million.

What are Class Members' Options? To ask for cash and remain in the
Class, Class Members must mail or submit a claim form online by
November 16, 2011.  If a Class Member does not wish to participate
in the settlement, the Class Member may request exclusion from the
Class by July 30, 2011.  Class Members may stay in the Class and
object to the settlement by July 25, 2011.  Visit the Web site for
important information about these options.

On or before July 18, 2011, Class Counsel will submit their motion
for final approval and request for attorney fees which will be
available at http://www.CerealAdvertisingSettlement.comor by
calling 1-888-404-8013.  The Court will hold a hearing on
August 29, 2011, to consider the settlement and Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and expenses.


KINGSTON, AUSTRALIA: Residents Mull Class Action Over Toxic Odor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Benett, writing for Moorabbin Leader, reports that a class
action against offending tip and landfill sites in Kingston would
be legally complex, but should not deter residents from fighting
the odours, according to a top law firm.

Residents have long been calling for action against the stinky
tips.  A local real estate agent and the Toxic Odour Action Group
are now seeking community support for a class action.

Slater & Gordon senior associate, Manisha Blencowe, Esq., said the
basic criteria for a class action were that a claim had to be made
on behalf of at least seven people against the same operator; that
their claims arose from the same or similar circumstances; and
that all those claims gave rise to a substantial common question
of law or fact.

"From a class-action perspective, a legal difficulty with the
problems suffered by residents in the Kingston area is that the
odor and dust problems appear to be caused by a number of
different sites and operators," Ms. Blencowe said.  "(This makes)
it difficult to prove that responsibility lies with one particular
operator, or to prove the portion of odor or property value impact
caused by any of the various operators."

Ms. Blencowe said residents should continue reporting odor
concerns to the EPA.

"In practical terms, the closure of poorly managed waste
processing sites is likely to provide the best remedy for
residents," she said.

Clayton real estate agent, Damian Coad, and the newly formed Toxic
Odour Action Group previously held a meeting at Westall Secondary
College, where the goal was set to have 1500 people register their
support with the group.


KRAFT FOODS: Douglas Phebus Joins Plaintiff's Team in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a second attorney named Phebus has joined the plaintiff's
table in a proposed class action brought against Kraft Foods
Global, Inc.

Wisconsin attorney, Douglas Phebus, Esq., was granted pro hac vice
status in the 2011 case brought by lead plaintiff Joan Jones
June 3 in an order signed by Madison County Chief Judge Ann
Callis.

Douglas Phebus, Esq., joins Joseph Phebus, Esq., of Urbana for the
plaintiff.

It is unclear from the case's record what familial relationship,
if any, exists between the pair.

It is the third case involving Kraft that Douglas Phebus has
appeared pro hac vice in since February 2010.

Pro hac vice standing is granted to an attorney on a case by case
basis when that attorney is not licensed to practice law in a
particular state or area.

The attorneys represent Jones who proposes to lead a class of up
to 500 workers at Kraft's Granite City plant over allegedly unpaid
wages and violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Act.

Kraft denies the plaintiff's claims and has asked that the case be
dismissed.

The class has not been certified to date.

Douglas Phebus also appeared pro hac vice in a case against Kraft
filed in Champaign County.  That case, Porter vs. Kraft Foods
Global, Inc., was filed in 2010.

He also appeared in a Cook County chancery case involving Kraft
the same year.

Ms. Jones recently won a motion to strike seven of Kraft's
affirmative defenses from Judge Callis.

Douglas Phebus, Esq., may be reached at:

          ARELLANO & PHEBUS, S.C.
          1468 N. High Point Road, Suite 202
          Middleton, WI 53562
          Telephone: 608-827-7680
          E-mail: dphebus@aplawoffice.com

Joseph Phebus, Esq., may be reached at:

          PHEBUS & KOESTER LLP
          136 West Main Street
          Urbana, Illinois 61801
          Telephone: (217) 337-1400
          E-mail: jwphebus@phebuslaw.com

Kraft is represented by:

          Jonathan W. (Jon) Garlough, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60654-5313
          Telephone: 312-832-5702
          E-mail: jgarlough@foley.com

The case is Madison case number 11-L-082.


LA FITNESS: Settles Class Action Over Membership Termination Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Consumerist reports that gyms are notorious for not letting
people get out of their membership contract and making it
difficult to cancel.  Now a settlement has been proposed in the
class action lawsuit against LA Fitness for making customers pay a
fee to end their contracts before the contract term was up.

To get the cash payout and not just a free 45-day pass, you will
have to fill out and return the claim form.

For more information on the settlement visit:

     http://fitnessservicesettlement.com/


NAVISTAR INT'L: Unit Dismissed From 6.0L Diesel Engine Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation's subsidiary, Navistar, Inc.,
has been dismissed as a defendant from the 6.0L Diesel Engine
Litigation, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In November 2010, Brandon Burns filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. and Ford Motor Company in federal
court for the Southern District of California.  The Burns Action
sought to certify a class of California owners and lessees of
model year 2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power
Stroke(R) engine that Navistar, Inc. previously supplied to Ford.
Burns alleges that the engines in question have design and
manufacturing defects.  Burns asserted claims against Navistar,
Inc. for negligent performance of contractual duty (related to
Navistar's former contract with Ford), unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.  For relief, the Burns Action sought dollar
damages sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the
alleged damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate
plaintiffs' counsel.  The Burns Action also asked the Court to
award punitive damages and restitution/disgorgement.

After the Burns Action was filed, nineteen additional putative
class action lawsuits making materially identical allegations
against Navistar, Inc. were filed in federal courts across the
country (the "Additional Actions" and, collectively with the Burns
Action, the "6.0 L Diesel Engine Litigation").  The Additional
Actions sought to certify in several different states classes
similar to the proposed California class in the Burns Action.  The
theories of liability and relief sought in the Additional Actions
were substantially similar to the Burns Action.

In December 2010, Navistar, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
Burns Action.  Burns filed a response on February 14, 2011, and
Navistar, Inc., filed a reply on February 22, 2011.  Navistar,
Inc. has filed answers and affirmative defenses in six of the
Additional Actions.

In April 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred fifteen of the matters to the Northern District of
Illinois for consolidated pre-trial proceedings, and "tag-along"
notices were filed for the remaining Additional Actions so that
they would likewise be transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois.

On May 18, 2011, all plaintiffs filed a voluntary Notice of
Dismissal dismissing Navistar, Inc. without prejudice, leaving
Ford as the only defendant in the 6.0L Diesel Engine Litigation.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Units Face Suit in Canada Over Ford Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation's subsidiaries, Navistar, Inc.
and Navistar Canada, Inc., are facing a class action lawsuit in
Canada over defects in certain Ford vehicles, according to the
Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On May 20, 2011, 9046-9478 Quebec Inc. filed a motion to authorize
the bringing of a class action against Navistar, Inc. and Navistar
Canada, Inc., as well as Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company
of Canada, Limited, in the Superior Court in Quebec, Canada.  The
Quebec Action seeks authorization to bring a claim on behalf of a
class of Canadian owners and lessees of model year 2003-07 Ford
vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine that Navistar,
Inc. previously supplied to Ford.  Quebec alleged that the engines
in question have design and manufacturing defects, and that
Navistar Defendants and Ford Defendants are solidarily liable for
those defects.  For relief, the Quebec Action sought dollar
damages sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the
alleged damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate
plaintiffs' counsel.  The Quebec Action also asked the Court to
order Navistar Defendants and Ford Defendants to recall, repair,
or replace the Ford vehicles at issue free of charge.  The motion
to authorize the bringing of the class action is noticed for
presentment on August 2, 2011.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Coordinate 3 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its
motion to coordinate three lawsuits in the Los Angeles Superior
Court, according to the Company's June 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2011.

The three lawsuits are:

   (1) Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other
       aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California,
       Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of
       California, County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, filed
       on January 13, 2011;

   (2) Phillip Gleason, on behalf of himself and others similarly
       situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Superior
       Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
       457654, filed on March 21, 2011; and

   (3) Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members
       of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific
       Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores
       Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of
       Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, filed on
       March 18, 2011.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Company violated California's wage
and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and
regulations, among other things.  The complaints, except for the
Pfeiffer Action, seek class certification and the appointment of
the plaintiff as class representative.  All of the complaints seek
an unspecified amount of damages and penalties.

The Company filed answers denying all allegations regarding the
plaintiffs' claims and asserting various defenses.  As the
ultimate outcome of these matters is uncertain, the Company says
no amounts have been accrued as of June 7, 2011.  Depending on the
actual outcome of these cases, provisions could be recorded in the
future which may have an adverse effect on the Company's operating
results and cash flows.

Since the allegations in all of the three cases are substantially
similar, the Company filed a motion to coordinate the cases in the
Los Angeles Superior Court on April 20, 2011.


PROLOGISTIX: Warehouse Employees File Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Wojdyla, writing for Sun-Times Media, reports that employees
of the Kraft/Cadbury warehouse in Joliet filed a class-action
lawsuit on June 6 in U.S. District Court that claims they were
cheated out of wages by Prologistix, the company that employs
them.

The employees were assisted by Warehouse Workers for Justice, the
Chicago-based organization that has been working to improve
conditions for Will County warehouse workers for almost two years.
This is the fourth class-action lawsuit and eighth legal action
taken by the organization.

In the latest lawsuit, workers allege that they are owed vacation
pay and they were never given written notices of their wage rates.

"We worked hard to make sure that Kraft got their products to
store shelves on time," said Chris Craig, who worked in the
warehouse for eight months.  "All we ask in return is that these
companies follow the law (and) pay us the wages and benefits they
owe us."

A spokesman for Columbia, S.C.-based Prologistix denied the
allegations.

"We believe the allegations are inaccurate, as the company has
treated its workers consistent with its obligations under
applicable federal and state laws," said Gerald Maatman, Esq., of
Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, who is serving as defense attorney for
Prologistix.

A WWJ report released last year showed that 63% of workers in Will
County warehouses are temporary workers, earning poverty wages
with few benefits.

"It's the perma-temp issue," said WWJ coordinator Abraham Mwaura.
"That's really what it comes down to.  When you have that many
temps, it just opens it up for abuse."

Workers at the same warehouse filed complaints April 28 with the
U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  The complaints
alleged that DB Schenker, a German-owned company that runs the
warehouse, has not addressed discrimination, sexual harassment and
hostile work environment conditions that include Nazi graffiti in
the warehouse.

A DB Schenker spokeswoman said at the time that the company was
not aware of the complaints and that officials would conduct a
"thorough and complete' investigation of the allegations.

Other WWJ lawsuits all name temp agencies that have hired workers
for the Walmart warehouse in Elwood: Simos Insourcing Solutions,
Reliable Staffing Group and Select Remedy.

All of the companies involved in the complaints have denied
wrongdoing and say they abide by labor laws.


ULTA SALON: Awaits Final Approval of California Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., is awaiting final court
approval of their settlement of a putative employment class action
lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's June 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In May 2010, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed
against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., and certain
unnamed defendants in state court in California.  The plaintiff
and members of the proposed class are alleged to be (or have been)
non-exempt hourly employees.  The suit alleges that Ulta violated
various provisions of the California labor laws and failed to
provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and
penalties as a result of these alleged practices.  On June 21,
2010, the Company filed its answer to the lawsuit.  On January 12,
2011, the Company and plaintiffs engaged in a voluntary mediation.
Although the Company continues to deny plaintiffs' allegations, in
the interest of putting certain of the claims behind it, the
Company agreed in principle to settle all claims of the putative
class consisting of non-exempt hourly hair designers in the salon
department within the California retail stores.  The settlement,
which is not an admission of liability, is subject to final
documentation and Court approval.  Counsel for the plaintiffs has
agreed to dismiss without prejudice the claims of all other
putative class members.  The Company says the proposed settlement
amount is not material.

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


WILLIAM FRY: Thema Investors File Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Dearbhail McDonald, writing for Irish Independent, reports that
one of Ireland's "magic circle" law firms is fighting a US$700
million (EUR480 million) class action lawsuit by investors who
lost money with Ponzi scheme fraudster Bernie Madoff.

William Fry, one of the country's top five law firms, is being
sued in New York in its capacity as legal adviser to Thema
International, a Dublin-based hedge fund.

Thema was one of the leading "feeder funds" for Mr. Madoff who is
serving a 150-year jail sentence over the spectacular US$50
billion (EUR34 billion) fraud.

William Fry, which is separately representing Thema in an Irish
High Court action against banking giant HSBC, says the New York
claim is "without foundation" and will seek to have the US case
against it dismissed within weeks.

Earlier last week HSBC, which acted as custodian for Thema and
other funds that fed money to Mr. Madoff, made a US$62 million
(EUR42 million) settlement with Thema investors.

William Fry has been named, along with 'big four' auditor PwC
Ireland, in the massive class action lawsuit which is set to come
before a jury later this year.

Solicitor Daniel Morrissey, the head of William Fry's asset
management and investment funds practice, is also being sued in
his capacity as a director of Thema, according to the class action
complaint.

Mr. Morrissey is a former chairman of the Irish Funds Industry
Association.

The investors claim that Thema was one of the four largest feeder
funds for Mr. Madoff and collected over US$100 million (EUR68
million) in fees.

Frank Bottini, a San Diego, California-based attorney who is
representing investors, said he would oppose any bid by William
Fry for the claim against the firm to be dismissed.

Advisers

"They [William Fry] have liability as lawyers for the fund,"
Mr. Bottini told the Irish Independent.

"Thema had no real employees so the entire operation was handled
by the professional advisers.  Mr. Morrissey was one of the
directors of Thema and he was responsible for the overall
management of the fund.

"We believe that Mr. Morrissey, a partner in William Fry, is
conflicted because the law firm not only advised Thema but
continues to act for the fund."

Mr. Bottini said William Fry and PwC were being sued on a joint
and several liability basis, meaning they can be pursued for all
or part of the compensation sought if the case succeeds.

"This is a US$600 million (EUR410 million) to US$700 million
(EUR478 million) claim," he added.

The investors claim that Madoff's Ponzi scheme could not have
occurred without the knowledge and substantial assistance of
feeder funds like Thema which engaged William Fry and PwC Ireland
as its lawyers and auditors, respectively.

"Unbeknownst to plaintiff and the class, Thema became a portal
through which money was secretly sent to Mr. Madoff even though
Thema Management and Medici (Medici Bank) were represented to the
investment managers," say the investor's lawyers in a 190-page
class action complaint.

"But for the billions of dollars that Thema gave to Mr. Madoff,
the scheme would have unravelled substantially earlier and not
damaged thousands of US citizens."

On June 9, William Fry issued a statement confirming it was one of
about 20 defendants, including Thema and a number of global
financial institutions, seeking compensation for losses stemming
from the Madoff fraud.

"The inclusion of William Fry in the amendment to the suit is
without foundation and a motion to dismiss this US suit is
scheduled to be filed later this month," said the firm.

PwC refused to comment on the action.


                             *********

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  * * *