CAR_Public/110615.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 15, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 117

                             Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Disputes Class Cert. Order in "Cruz" Suit
AGRIA CORP: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Class Action
BLUE COAT SYSTEMS: 2nd Cir. Remands Appeals in Securities Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Hagens Berman Files Class Action
EXCITE USA: Recalls 24T Toy Helicopters Due to Laceration Hazard

FOOT LOCKER: Engaged in Mediation to Resolve Wage and Hour Suits
FORD MOTOR: Accused of Deceptive and Unfair Marketing of Vehicles
FORD MOTOR: Ordered to Pay $2 Billion to Truck Dealers
GAP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuits
GRUMA S.A.B.: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Arevalo" Suit

GRUMA S.A.B.: Appeal in "Garza" Suit Dismissed in July 2010
GRUMA S.A.B.: Parties to "Henderson" Suit Asked to Mediate
GRUMA S.A.B.: Final Award in "Rosenfeld" Suit Affirmed in Aug 2010
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Inkjet Printer Suit Deal Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Two Inkjet Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Awaits Final Okay of "Baggett" Suit Deal
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Hearing in "Skold" Suit Appeal Set for June 14
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Continues to Negotiate Deal in Sewell Suit
HSBC FINANCE: Faces Class Action Over Life Insurance Policy

JACKSON HEWITT: Bankruptcy Petition Hampers Class Action
LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in N.Y.
LOUIS VUITTON: Suit Questions Authenticity of Fine Prints
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Appeals in IPO Suit Remanded to District Court
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Suit Against Unit Set for Sept. 26

MEAT AND LIVESTOCK: Cattle Farmers Mull Class Action
MONROE COUNTY, PA: Attorney Challenges Property Assessments
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Court Certifies Workers' Wage Class Action
MOVISTAR: Class Action Seeks Fire Compensation
NCO PORTFOLIO: Sued Over Alleged Unlicensed Collection Activities

NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Defend Calif. Law Violation Suits
NWC WARRANTY: Sued Over "Tire & Wheel Protection" Policy
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Agrees to Settle Pampers Class Action
QUEBEC: Status Indians' Suit Over Fuel Taxes Not Yet Filed
RESEARCH IN MOTION: Securities Class Action Dismissed

ROSS STORES: Suits Asserting Wage and Hour Claims Still Pending
TALBOTS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Massachusetts
TARGET CORP: Accused of Violating California's Song Beverly Act
THOR INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Formaldehyde Exposure Suits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Ruling Reduces Calif. Sudden Acceleration Claims

TOYOTA MOTOR: First Acceleration Suit Scheduled for Trial
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Bid to Appeal Still Pending in Israeli Court
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Awaits OK of Deal in Merger-Related Suits
VERINT SYSTEMS: Awaits October 11 Hearing in "Deutsch" Suit

VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Retirement-Benefit Plans
WAL-MART STORES: Pennsylvania Court Affirms Class Action Judgment
ZALE CORP: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Securities Suit




                             *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Disputes Class Cert. Order in "Cruz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and other parties continue to litigate
questions relating to the Court's class certification order and
the merits of plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit commenced by
Spencer de la Cruz, according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On December 21, 2007, Spencer de la Cruz, a former employee, filed
an action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of Orange County, California.
He sought to allege, on behalf of himself and a putative class of
past and present employees in the period beginning on December 19,
2003, claims for failure to provide meal breaks, for waiting time
penalties, for failure to keep accurate employment records, and
for unfair business practices.  By successive amendments,
plaintiff added 10 additional plaintiffs and additional claims
seeking injunctive relief, unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and
attorney's fees and costs.  Defendants have denied the material
allegations of plaintiffs' complaints throughout the litigation
and have asserted numerous affirmative defenses.  On July 23,
2010, plaintiffs moved for class certification in the action.  On
December 9, 2010, after briefing and argument, the trial court
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion, certifying
sub-classes to pursue meal break claims, meal premium pay claims,
work related travel claims, travel expense claims, termination pay
claims, reporting time claims, bag check claims, pay record
claims, and minimum wage claims.  The parties are continuing to
litigate questions relating to the Court's certification order and
to the merits of plaintiffs' claims.

The Company says it intends to defend the pending matter
vigorously, as appropriate.  The Company notes that it is unable
to quantify the potential exposure of the matter.  However, the
Company's assessment of the current exposure could change in the
event of the discovery of additional facts with respect to legal
matters pending against the Company or determinations by judges,
juries, administrative agencies or other finders of fact that are
not in accordance with the Company's evaluation of the claims.


AGRIA CORP: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agria Corporation, a China-based company with investments in the
agriculture sector, on June 10 disclosed that all claims asserted
by the lead plaintiff and the class in the consolidated securities
class action have been dismissed with prejudice by the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York.  By entering
into an agreement, neither Agria nor the other defendants admit
wrongdoing or liability.

The final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice approve
the previously announced memorandum of understanding with the lead
plaintiff, which provided for the settlement and release and
dismisses with prejudice any and all claims that were asserted, or
could have been asserted, against all defendants in or relating to
"In re Agria Corporation Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case
No. 1:08-cv-3536 (WHP)," including all of the underwriter
defendants and all served and un-served defendants named in the
consolidated complaint dated Feb. 3, 2009.

Under the final agreement, the amount to be paid on behalf of all
defendants to the lead plaintiff for the benefit of the class in
settlement of the mentioned class action is $3.75 million. There
will be no impact to the Company's financials from this settlement
since Agria's insurance companies will pay the settlement in its
entirety.

Xie Tao, Agria's Chief Executive Officer, commented, "We are
pleased to have this matter formally closed, with no impact to
Agria's financials in the settlement.  We thank our internal and
external legal counsel, which have been instrumental in helping us
secure this result.  Our entire team remains focused on increasing
shareholder value through the ongoing development of Agria's
business, anchored by our majority ownership of New Zealand's PGG
Wrightson Limited."

Agria Corporation (NYSE: GRO) -- http://www.agriacorp.com-- is a
China-based company with investments in the agricultural sector.


BLUE COAT SYSTEMS: 2nd Cir. Remands Appeals in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted plaintiffs'
motion to dismiss as to one set of appeals and remanded the
remaining set of appeals to the district court for further action
in the coordinated securities class action lawsuit against Blue
Coat Systems, Inc., and other companies, according to the
Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2011.

Beginning on May 16, 2001, a series of putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the firms that underwrote
the Company's initial public offering, the Company, and some of
its officers and directors.  These cases have been consolidated
under the case captioned In re CacheFlow, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1-01-CV-5143.  In
November 2001, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the firms that underwrote Packeteer's initial public
offering, Packeteer, and some of its officers and directors.  An
amended complaint, captioned In re Packeteer, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-CV-10185, was
filed on April 20, 2002.

These are two of a number of actions coordinated for pretrial
purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92, with the first action filed on January 12, 2001.
Plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding are bringing claims under
the federal securities laws against numerous underwriters,
companies, and individuals, alleging generally that defendant
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
concerning the allocation of shares in the IPOs of more than 300
companies during late 1998 through 2000.  Among other things, the
plaintiffs allege that the underwriters' customers had to pay
excessive brokerage commissions and purchase additional shares of
stock in the aftermarket in order to receive favorable allocations
of shares in an IPO.

The consolidated amended complaint in the Company's case seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between December 9, 1999, and
December 6, 2000.  Pursuant to a tolling agreement, the individual
defendants were dismissed without prejudice.  On February 19,
2003, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the claims
against it.

The amended complaint in the Packeteer case seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Packeteer's common stock between July 27, 1999, and December 6,
2000.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the Company and
Packeteer, was submitted to the Court for approval.  On August 31,
2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement.  In
December 2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of
classes in six test cases that were selected by the underwriter
defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings.  Because
class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was
deemed unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court
approval.  On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order
terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among
the parties to the settlement.  Plaintiffs have filed amended
master allegations and amended complaints in the six focus cases.
On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaints.

The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation and the
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary settlement approval with
the Court on April 2, 2009.  Under the settlement, the insurers
will pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to the
Company and Packeteer, and the Company and Packeteer would not
bear any financial liability.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.
Certain objectors have appealed that order to the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit and submitted their opening briefs in fall
2010.  In December 2010, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss certain
appeals, and in May 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order
granting the motion to dismiss as to one set of appeals and
remanding the remaining set of appeals to the district court for
further action.

The Company does not believe that this legal matter will have a
materially adverse effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


CAPITAL ONE: Hagens Berman Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman on June 10 disclosed that it has filed a lawsuit
alleging Capital One misrepresented its "transfer balance"
program, resulting in higher-than-expected interest rates for
consumers.

The case, filed June 9, 2011, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleges that Capital One
deceived cardholders by claiming that a cash advance obtained
through the company's transfer balance program would include a 0
percent Annual Percentage Rate for one year.  The company also
allegedly promised that credit balances on regular monthly
purchases would incur no interest as long as the balance was paid
within 25 days.

However, according to the complaint, cardholders who took
advantage of the transfer balance program were charged interest
rates exceeding 13% on their purchase balances, even if the
balance was paid on time, because payments were applied to the
transfer balance rather than to the purchase balance.

"If proven, these gimmicks would make it impossible for consumers
to predict what they will owe when using their card," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "They made their
payments on time and did everything right, but they were charged
extremely high rates regardless."

Hagens Berman is interested in talking to other consumers who took
advantage of Capital One's transfer balance program, and as a
result, were forced to pay high interest rates on a balance paid
back on time.

Consumers can contact the Hagens Berman legal team via e-mail at
CapitalOneTB@hbsslaw.com

Consumers can also contact the firm by calling 206-623-7292.
Additional information is available at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/capitalonetb

The lawsuit alleges that Capital One's actions constitute a breach
of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, in
addition to violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and
the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.  The case also argues that
Capital One received unjust enrichment through the alleged scheme.

The case asks the court to declare Capital One's acts a breach of
contract and award plaintiffs damages.

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm with 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.


EXCITE USA: Recalls 24T Toy Helicopters Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Excite USA, of Carrollton, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of
about 24,000 toy military copters.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The plastic blades of the helicopter can detach during operation,
posing a laceration hazard.

Three incidents were reported, two to Excite and one to CPSC.  Two
of these included laceration injuries.

The recalled toy Military Copters are operated by manual rotary
starters and sold as a unit with two sizes, 7 and 11 inches in
length, of tan and black helicopters.  The product comes in a
blister pack with "Military Copter with 2 Launchers" marked on the
package and "Military Copter" marked on both sides of the manual
starter.  The model number, #9009935 and UPC 680108044474 number
are printed on the back of the package near the bar code.

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11243.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Rite Aid Corporation stores nationwide from January
2011 through May 2011 for about $7.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled helicopters away
from children and return the product to any Rite Aid store for a
full refund.  For additional information, contact Excite USA toll
free at (866) 791-4754 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.Excite-Limited.com/


FOOT LOCKER: Engaged in Mediation to Resolve Wage and Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., is currently engaged in mediation with the
plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Pereira v. Foot Locker Inc.,
according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

Legal proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries consist of ordinary, routine litigation, including
administrative proceedings, incidental to the business of the
Company or businesses that have been sold or disposed of by the
Company in past years.  These legal proceedings include
commercial, intellectual property, customer, and labor-and-
employment-related claims.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under federal or state wage and hour
laws, including allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal and
rest breaks, and uniforms.

The Company is a defendant in one such case in which plaintiff
alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.
The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007.  In his
complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations,
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  In September 2009, the
Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.
During the course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately
81,888 current and former employees of the Company offering them
the opportunity to participate in the class action, and
approximately 5,027 have opted in.

The Company was a defendant in an additional seven purported wage
and hour class actions that assert claims similar to those
asserted in Pereira and seek similar remedies.  With the exception
of Hill v. Foot Locker, in state court in Illinois, all of these
actions were either commenced in federal district court or the
Company has subsequently removed them to federal district court.
On February 25, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate
those cases pending in federal court and any similar case
hereafter filed to a single case under the United States district
court and otherwise consolidating these actions for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.

On May 26, 2011, the Panel granted the Company's motion to
consolidate those cases with Pereira.  During the first quarter,
one of these cases was settled for an amount that was not material
to the Company; three of them are in the discovery stage; and the
remaining four are in preliminary stages of proceedings.  In Hill
v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
for certification of an opt-out class covering certain Illinois
employees only.  The Company is filing a motion for leave to
appeal.  The Company is currently engaged in mediation with
plaintiff in Pereira and his counsel in an attempt to determine
whether it will be possible to resolve these cases.  Meanwhile,
the Company is vigorously defending them.  Because of the inherent
uncertainties of such matters, including the early stages of
certain of the matters, the Company is currently unable to make an
estimate of loss or range of loss for these cases.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including Pereira and related cases, would have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, liquidity, or results of operations, taken as a whole.


FORD MOTOR: Accused of Deceptive and Unfair Marketing of Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Rouse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2011-CH-20581 (Ill. Cir.
Ct. Cook Cty. June 8, 2011), alleges breach of warranty and
deceptive and unfair marketing of certain motor vehicles.  The
action is brought on behalf of a class, which consists of all
persons (a) who purchased or leased a vehicle in the state of
Illinois, (b) which vehicle was manufactured by Ford, (c) which
vehicle was equipped with a SYNC(R) navigation system, and (d)
whose vehicle's SYNC(R) system did not include, and could not be
updated to accommodate, the Directions and Information package.

Mr. Rouse alleges that Ford did not tell the public, including
buyers of new Ford vehicles equipped with the SYNC(R) system, that
buyers were paying for systems that were not as advertised or
represented, and that the Ford vehicles lacked numerous SYNC(R)
features.  He contends that Ford's misrepresentations and
omissions would have affected and are material to a reasonable
consumer's purchase or lease decision.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Ford conducts business, including the marketing and sale of Ford
vehicles, in the state of Illinois, including Cook County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jonathan Nachsin, Esq.
          JONATHAN NACHSIN, P.C.
          105 West Adams Street, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 327-1777
          E-mail: nachsin@att.net


FORD MOTOR: Ordered to Pay $2 Billion to Truck Dealers
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Schoenberger, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that a
Cuyahoga County judge has ordered Ford Motor Co. to pay nearly $2
billion to more than 3,000 truck dealers, saying the company
violated terms of franchise agreements.

The 10-year-old case centers on large commercial vehicles sold
between 1987 and 1997.  Dealers accused Ford of hiding some
discounts from dealers, forcing some stores to pay more for
commercial trucks.

"That is the relief the class was entitled to," said James Lowe,
Esq., a Cleveland attorney for the dealers.  "This has been the
result of a long-contested feud between the Ford truck dealers and
the Ford Motor Co."

Ford said it would appeal the ruling.

"We believe that the trial court committed significant legal
errors," the automaker said in a written statement.  "We are
confident that [the ruling] will be reversed."

Mr. Lowe said plaintiffs had expected Ford to appeal.

"It's not over.  There's no question," Mr. Lowe said.  "I'm
anticipating that they will appeal and make all of the same
arguments that they have been making."

The automaker had warned investors of the possibility of a big
ruling.  In its annual report, the company listed the suit as one
of its legal challenges.  Ford noted that in February, a jury
issued a $4.5 million judgment to Westgate Ford Truck Sales of
Youngstown, the lead plaintiff in the case.

"If similarly calculated amounts are awarded to other class
members, total damages could be substantial," Ford said in its
filing.

In his ruling, Judge Peter J. Corrigan awarded dealers nearly $800
million in damages and about $1.2 billion in interest.  Mr. Lowe
said the interest levels were so high because some of the sales
involved took place 24 years ago.

In his ruling, Judge Corrigan said, "Ford breached the unambiguous
terms of the contract, read as a whole, when it failed to publish
prices to all dealers."

Judge Corrigan also increased the award to Westgate to $11.1
million, $4.5 million for damages that the jury awarded and $6.6
million in interest.

In their suit, dealers said Ford's contract agreement called for
all truck dealers to pay the same wholesale price for commercial
trucks.  But the automaker started using a discounting system that
required dealers to submit large amounts of customer information
to the company before getting the discount rate.

The dealers said that system allowed Ford to set different
discounts for different stores and customers, effectively
overcharging some stores for trucks while offering breaks to
others.

In its statement, Ford said that it believes its discounting
program helped dealers.

The large judgment stems from both the large number of plaintiffs
and the fact that damages were based on the number of commercial
vehicles sold.  Ford sold 474,289 commercial vehicles during the
decade covered by the suit.

Judge Corrigan's ruling comes out to about $1,650 per truck sold.
The back interest on that lost revenue made up the bulk of the
judgment.  The commercial trucks in the suit were Ford's biggest
products -- vehicles used as dump trucks, utility company vehicles
and construction vehicles.

Linda Mullenix, a law professor at the University of Texas, said
most appeals of large class action lawsuit verdicts in recent
years have focused on punitive damages, not actual damages and
interest awards.

"Over the past decade, there have been four or five cases that
have gone to the Supreme Court" that have challenged multibillion-
dollar verdicts because of excessive punitive awards, Ms. Mullenix
said.

The lack of punitive damages in the Ford case will make the
company's appeal more interesting because it's not arguing many of
the hot-button issues facing the court, she added.


GAP INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------
As a multinational company, The Gap, Inc., is subject to various
proceedings, lawsuits, disputes, and claims arising in the
ordinary course of its business.  Many of these Actions raise
complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties.
As of April 30, 2011, actions filed against the Company included
commercial, intellectual property, customer, employment, and data
privacy claims, including class action lawsuits.  The plaintiffs
in some Actions seek unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or
both.  Actions are in various procedural stages, and some are
covered in part by insurance.  As of April 30, 2011, January 29,
2011, and May 1, 2010, the Company recorded a liability for the
estimated loss if the outcome of an Action is expected to result
in a loss that is considered probable and reasonably estimable.
The amount of liability as of April 30, 2011, January 29, 2011,
and May 1, 2010, was not material for any individual Action or in
total.  Subsequent to April 30, 2011, no information has become
available that indicates a material change to the Company's
estimate is required.

The Company says it cannot predict with assurance the outcome of
Actions brought against it.  Accordingly, adverse developments,
settlements, or resolutions may occur and negatively impact income
in the quarter of such development, settlement, or resolution.
However, the Company does not believe that the outcome of any
current Action would have a material adverse effect on its results
of operations, cash flows, or financial position taken as a whole.

No details or further updates of the class action lawsuits were
reported in the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.


GRUMA S.A.B.: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Arevalo" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V., is awaiting court approval of its
preliminary settlement in the class action lawsuit commenced by
Guadalupe Arevalo in California, according to the Company's
June 8, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 24, 2009, Guadalupe Arevalo, a former employee, filed a
class action complaint for damages and equitable relief for: (1)
failure to pay minimum or contractual wages in violation of
Sections 1194 and 1197 et seq. of the California Labor Code; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Sections 1194 and
510 of the California Labor Code; (3) failure to provide accurate
wage statements in violation of Section 226 of the California
Labor Code; (4) violation of Sections 201 and 202 of the
California Labor Code resulting in Section 203 wages and penalties
for failure to pay wages due former employees at the time of
resignation and/or discharge; and (5) unfair competition
violations in connection with Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code et seq.  In August 2009, the case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The federal district court remanded sua
sponte on the ground that the appeal was dismissed for lack of
appellate jurisdiction.  The Company has filed a petition with the
federal appellate court seeking a rehearing.  The court has not
yet acted on that petition.  On June 8, 2010, the state court
ordered the parties to proceed with discovery and prepare for
trial.  The court set these dates to govern the litigation.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification was scheduled to be
heard on November 18, 2010.  On June 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint adding a sixth cause of action for
failure to provide meal periods as required by law.  The Company
completed Plaintiff's deposition on September 8, 2010.  Gruma
served and filed a motion for summary judgment against the named
plaintiff on October 8, 2010, which was dismissed on January 14,
2011.  Plaintiff has asked to depose the manager of the plant
where he worked, the company's person most knowledgeable regarding
its policies and practices for computing time worked and wages, as
well for providing meal periods, and the two outside experts,
Gruma has retained to provide testimony in the case.  Plaintiff
has also submitted additional requests for documents and written
interrogatories.  Plaintiff's motion for class certification was
filed on February 18, 2011.  The parties reached a preliminary
settlement, which is pending court approval.


GRUMA S.A.B.: Appeal in "Garza" Suit Dismissed in July 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling granting summary judgment and
denying class certification in the lawsuit captioned Enrique
Garza, et al. v. Gruma Corporation, doing business as Mission
Foods, was dismissed in July 2010, according to Gruma, S.A.B. de
C.V.'s June 8, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2007, GRUMA was named in a class action suit, Enrique
Garza, et al. v. Gruma Corporation, doing business as Mission
Foods, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.  The plaintiffs assert
that they were induced to enter into distributor agreements and to
pay for routes by false statements and that GRUMA breached the
distributor agreements by arbitrarily taking their routes,
shuffling around the routes, reselling the routes to others, and
failing to adequately compensate the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs
also asserted a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
violation under Sections 1962 et seq. of the Crimes and Criminal
Procedure Code.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages
and injunctive relief.  On July 24, 2008, the Court dismissed the
RICO claims with prejudice.  In July 2009, the district court
granted GRUMA's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The Plaintiff's appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was dismissed on July 29, 2010, for
failure to perfect the appeal.

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


GRUMA S.A.B.: Parties to "Henderson" Suit Asked to Mediate
----------------------------------------------------------
A court has requested parties to the lawsuit filed by Mary
Henderson alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act to
mediate, according to Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V.'s June 8, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Mary Henderson brought a class action lawsuit against the
Company's subsidiary, Gruma Corporation, for (1) false advertising
under the Lanham Act, (2) violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, (3) violations of California's False Advertising
Law, and (4) violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The complaint alleges that Gruma Corporation's labeling of
its guacamole flavored dip and spicy bean dip products is false
and misleading.  The complaint was subsequently amended to dismiss
the Company under the Lanham Act claim.  In response to the
complaint, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to
strike.  On April 11, 2011, the court granted Gruma's motions in
part and denied them in part.  In addition, the court struck
Plaintiff's cause for disgorgement.  The Plaintiff's depositions
were taken on May 3, 2011, and Gruma intends to file a motion for
summary judgment.  Discovery continues in this lawsuit and the
court has requested that the parties submit to mediation.  No date
has been set for any mediation.


GRUMA S.A.B.: Final Award in "Rosenfeld" Suit Affirmed in Aug 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld on August 13,
2010, a district court opinion affirming an arbitrator's final
award in a putative class action lawsuit commenced by Dennis
Johnson and Arnold Rosenfeld against a unit of Gruma, S.A.B. de
C.V., according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2001, one of GRUMA's distributors filed a putative
class action lawsuit against Gruma, S.A.B. 's subsidiary, Gruma
Corporation (Dennis Johnson and Arnold Rosenfeld et al v. Gruma
Corporation).  The case was removed from California state court to
federal court.  In April 2005, the United States District Court,
based upon a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, ordered that the
claims be referred to arbitration in Los Angeles and that the
arbitrator decide whether the matter should proceed as a class
action.  An additional distributor subsequently joined the
arbitration as a claimant.  The arbitrator has made a preliminary
ruling that a class of approximately 1,120 California distributors
will be certified, but a final certification order has not yet
been entered.  The claims, as amended, allege that: (i) Gruma
Corporation breached its agreements with its distributors; (ii)
Gruma Corporation's distributors are actually employees; (iii)
Gruma Corporation has failed to make wage and other payments
required for employees; (iv) Gruma Corporation has violated
California's labor, antitrust, and unfair competition statutes;
and (v) Gruma Corporation has otherwise committed fraud and
negligent misrepresentations.  The arbitrator subsequently
dismissed the antitrust claims.  The plaintiffs seek damages and
equitable relief, but have not yet specified the total amount of
damages sought.  The arbitrator has indicated that trial will be
held in two phases.  The first phase to determine the existence of
any liability began on April 28, 2008, and finished on May 21,
2008.  On August 12, 2008, the arbitrator issued his final award
in writing finding that the distributors are properly classified
as independent contractors and denying all relief.  In November
2008, the District Court affirmed the award on all grounds and
plaintiffs appealed the confirmation to the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on
March 4, 2010, and the opinion of the District Court was upheld by
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 13, 2010.

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


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Inkjet Printer Suit Deal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of a settlement resolving
lawsuits over Hewlett-Packard Company's inkjet printing products
remains pending, according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

HP is involved in several lawsuits claiming breach of express and
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and
unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among
other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet
printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely
and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration
date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart
chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its
full capacity or to choose competitive products.

The lawsuit in the Inkjet Printer Litigation are:

   -- A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
      Litigation is pending in the United States District Court
      for the Northern District of California where the
      plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution,
      damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief,
      interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On January 4, 2008,
      the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification
      and to add a class representative and HP's motion for
      summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court denied all
      three motions.  On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
      renewed motion for class certification.  A hearing on the
      plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for
      April 9, 2010, was postponed;

   -- A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17,
      2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern
      District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking
      class certification, restitution, damages (including
      enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
      attorneys' fees.  A class certification hearing was
      scheduled for May 21, 2010, but was taken off the calendar;
      and

   -- A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on
      May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the
      Northern District of California.  The suit alleges that HP
      designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use
      color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and
      white images and text.  The plaintiffs are seeking to
      certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only
      damages class.  A class certification hearing was scheduled
      for May 7, 2010, but was taken off the calendar.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an
agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed
classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court
before it becomes final.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's Web site.  As part of the proposed
settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with
additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality
and to change the content of certain software and user guide
messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer
cartridges.  In addition, class counsel and the class
representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and
stipends.  On March 29, 2011, the court granted final approval to
the settlement.  On April 27, 2011, certain class members who
objected to the settlement filed an appeal of the court's order
granting final approval to the settlement.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Two Inkjet Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is involved in several lawsuits claiming
breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the
plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.  The
plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

Four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard
(Canada) Co., were filed in Canada, one commenced in British
Columbia in February 2006, two commenced in Quebec in April 2006
and May 2006, respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June
2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification,
restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified
statutory, compensatory and punitive damages.  In March 2010, one
of the Quebec cases was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.
In February 2011, the other Quebec case was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Awaits Final Okay of "Baggett" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is still awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a consumer class action lawsuit captioned Baggett v.
HP, according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

Baggett v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on June
6, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging that HP employs a technology in
its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts
down prematurely, thus, preventing customers from using the toner
that is allegedly left in the cartridge.  The plaintiffs also
allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be
unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the
printer shuts down.  The complaint seeks certification of a
nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers
and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  On September 29,
2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary judgment against
the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification as moot.  On November 3, 2009, the court entered
judgment against the named plaintiff.  On November 17, 2009,
plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiff entered into an agreement
to settle the lawsuit on behalf of the proposed class, which
agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes
final.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's Web site.  In addition, class
counsel and the class representative will be paid attorneys' fees
and expenses and stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved
by the court.  On October 13, 2010, the court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.  The court held a fairness
hearing on February 14, 2011, to determine whether to grant final
approval of the proposed settlement.  The court has not yet issued
a decision.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2011.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other
state laws.  Those matters include:

   -- Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed
      on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
      Southern District of New York claiming that current and
      former EDS employees involved in installing and/or
      maintaining computer software and hardware were
      misclassified as exempt employees.  Another purported
      collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007,
      is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
      facts.  The Steavens case has been consolidated for
      pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case.  On December
      15, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of
      the class in the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens
      matter; and

   -- Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation
      is a class action filed in November 2006 in California
      Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information
      technology workers in California were misclassified as
      exempt employees.  The case was subsequently transferred to
      the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
      California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of
      information technology workers in California.  On June 6,
      2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary
      judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with
      the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is
      pending.  Two other purported class actions originally
      filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v.
      Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on
      March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009,
      allege similar facts.  The Karlbom case is pending in San
      Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed
      based on the pending motions in the Steavens consolidated
      matter.  The George case is pending in the U.S. District
      Court for the Southern District of New York and has been
      consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham and
      Steavens cases.

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


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Hearing in "Skold" Suit Appeal Set for June 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on an appeal from a court ruling denying nationwide
class certification in the lawsuit captioned Skold, et al. v.
Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is scheduled for
June 14, 2011, according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is
a lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004, that is pending
in state court in Santa Clara County, California.  The lawsuit
alleges that HP (along with Intel) misled the public by
suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems
that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and
slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor and
processors made by a competitor of Intel.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and
certification of a nationwide class.  On February 27, 2009, the
court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for nationwide
class certification for a third time.  The plaintiffs have
appealed the court's decision, and a hearing on that appeal is
scheduled for June 14, 2011.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Continues to Negotiate Deal in Sewell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., has been named as a
defendant in a purported class action suit filed on May 30, 2007,
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Randolph Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et
al., alleging violations of the federal securities acts, among
other allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on October 19, 2007.  Plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of certain home purchasers in southwestern
Florida and sought damages, rescission of certain purchase
agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and attorneys'
fees and costs.  The Company's subsidiary filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on December 14, 2007.  Following
oral argument on the motion in September 2008, the court dismissed
the amended complaint with leave for plaintiffs to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2008.
The Company's subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss this second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed portions of the second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed additional portions of the
second amended complaint on April 28, 2010.

The Company has had negotiations with the plaintiffs recently to
settle this case.  Based on these negotiations the Company has
accrued an immaterial amount for the potential settlement based on
its assessment of the outcome.  However, the Company says its
assessment of the potential outcome may differ from the ultimate
resolution of this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.


HSBC FINANCE: Faces Class Action Over Life Insurance Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
HSBC Finance canceled a couple's joint life credit insurance
because the husband turned 66.

A copy of the Complaint in Bermo, et ux. v. HSBC Finance
Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-03792 (S.D.N.Y.) (Seibel, J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/10/HSBC.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin D. Bloom, Esq.
          BLOOM & BLOOM, P.C.
          530 Blooming Grove Turnpike
          New Windsor, NY 12553
          Telephone: (845) 561-6920

               - and -

          Robert N. Isseks, Esq.
          6 North Street
          Middletown, NY 10940
          Telephone: (845) 344-4322


JACKSON HEWITT: Bankruptcy Petition Hampers Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
if tax preparer Jackson Hewitt cheated customers as a suit in
federal court alleges, it didn't cheat them sufficiently to remain
solvent.

On May 25, Charles Woody of Charleston notified U.S. District
Judge Robert Chambers that Jackson Hewitt filed a bankruptcy
petition in Delaware a day earlier.

Judge Chambers presides over a suit alleging Jackson Hewitt
charged too much interest on loans it arranged for West Virginia
customers who anticipated refunds.

Mr. Woody advised Judge Chambers that the bankruptcy petition
prevents commencement or continuance of any action against Jackson
Hewitt.

"Accordingly, this action has been stayed," Mr. Woody wrote.

Plaintiffs Christian and Elizabeth Harper wanted Judge Chambers to
certify a class action and define Jackson Hewitt as their agent in
arranging a refund anticipation loan.

They wanted him to treat Jackson Hewitt as a credit services
organization under West Virginia law, but he certified the
question to the Supreme Court of Appeals.

Last year, the Justices told him to apply the law on credit
services organizations.

Lawyers for the Harpers read the decision as an endorsement of
class action.

"Now that the Supreme Court has determined that Jackson Hewitt is
a CSO, there are no individualized issues or any other impediments
to class certification," wrote John Barrett, Esq., Brian Glasser,
Esq., and Eric Snyder, Esq., all of Bailey and Glasser in
Charleston.

"Jackson Hewitt's liability has been determined conclusively,"
they wrote.

They wrote that Jackson Hewitt arranged 40,325 refund anticipation
loans in West Virginia through 2008.

For Jackson Hewitt, Mr. Woody answered that if the Supreme Court
of Appeals interpreted the credit services organization law
correctly, the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

In any event, he wrote, the Harpers suffered no actual damages.

Judge Chambers set trial for Nov. 8, but apparently he can scratch
it from his calendar.


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on June 10 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased
Longtop Financial Technologies Limited American Depository Shares.
The operative class period is October 25, 2007, through May 17,
2011, inclusive.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact:

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          Toll-Free: (877) 316-3218
          Web site: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/lft
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

Longtop together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, and
delivers software solutions and information technology (IT)
services to the financial services industry in the Peoples
Republic of China.

On May 23, 2011, the Company disclosed that its Chief Financial
Officer, Derek Palaschuk, had resigned.  In addition, investors
were shocked to learn that the Company's outside auditor, Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu Ltd., had also resigned after identifying matters
that may impact the fairness and reliability of Longtop's
financial statements for 2010 and 2011.  According to Deloitte,
financial records relating to cash and loan balances were
falsified, and that certain members of management deliberately
interfered in the audit process.  These revelations have led to
the commencement of an SEC investigation.

Trading in the Longtop ADS on the New York Stock Exchange was
halted on May 17, 2011.  Subsequently, the Company announced that
it was postponing the announcement of its quarterly and annual
financial results that had been scheduled for release on May 23,
2011.  The last closing price of Longtop on May 16 prior to the
trading halt was $18.93 per share, and trading has not resumed.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 22,
2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.


LOUIS VUITTON: Suit Questions Authenticity of Fine Prints
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that Louis Vuitton sold purported limited
edition fine prints for $6,000 to $10,000 apiece at its boutique
in the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, but they had
"defective" certificates of authenticity and were worth no more
than $100 apiece.

The two named plaintiffs say Vuitton built and stocked its
boutique at MOCA for a 2007-2008 exhibit of Japanese pop artist
Takashi Murakami.  Mr. Murakami had collaborated with Vuitton
since 2002 to create textile patterns based on the Louis Vuitton
monogram, which the company sold in handbags, purses, belts and
wallets, according to the federal class action in Los Angeles.

"Defendant LVNA [Louis Vuitton North America] also acted as an art
dealer for five series of what purported to be genuine limited
edition Murakami fine art prints based on the textile patterns
Murakami created for defendant LVM," named plaintiffs Charles
Doell and Jeffrey Kaplan say.

"Although each of the prints was sold for $6,000 or $10,000, the
LV defendants now claim that the canvas material used in the
prints has never been sold or offered for sale before for $100 or
more," the complaint states.

Messrs. Doell and Kaplan say they each paid $6,000 for one print,
each of which came with a certificate of authenticity.  If Vuitton
sold them all, the men say, it would have reaped about $4 million.

But Messrs. Doell and Kaplan say, "The certificates of
authenticity in various respects do not comply with the strict
requirements of the FPA [California Sale of Fine Prints Act], and
are defective and incomplete.  The certificates lacked
informational detail, disclaimers and/or disclaimers mandated by
the FPA.

"The LV boutique manager at MOCA confirmed that the certificates
of authenticity were defective.  Shortly after the conclusion of
the Murakami exhibition at MOCA, on Feb. 15, 2008, defendant
LVNA's General Counsel Kathryn Kolanda also admitted there were
errors in the certificates of authenticity."

The five prints at issue are called Monogram Mini Multicolore --
black, Monogram Mini Multicolore -- white, Monogram Multicolore --
black, Monogram Multicolore -- white, and Monogram Cherry.

Neither Mr. Murakami nor the museum are named as defendants, nor
as parties to the complaint, which seeks restitution, class
certification and damages for violations of the FPA and violations
of the California Business and Professions Code.

Messrs. Doell and Kaplan estimate that the class contains more
than 100 people.

A copy of the Complaint in Doell, et al. v. Louis Vuitton North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-04914 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/10/BogusArt.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
          Maryann R. Marzano, Esq.
          Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
          BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C.
          515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
          Telephone: (213) 622-4222
          E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com
                  mmarzano@blechercollins.com
                  dpepperman@blechercollins.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Engel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL E. ENGEL
          18034 Ventura Blvd.
          Encino, CA 91316-3516
          Telephone: (818) 345-2634
          E-mail: dan@engellawfirm.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Appeals in IPO Suit Remanded to District Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining appeals from a court ruling approving a settlement of a
coordinated litigation relating to initial public offerings, under
which Marvell Technology Group Ltd. is a party, has been remanded
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In 2001, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
concerning certain alleged underwriting practices related to the
Company's initial public offering on June 29, 2000.  The actions
were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was filed, naming
as defendants certain investment banks that participated in the
IPO, the Company, and two of its officers, one of whom is also a
director.  Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated certain
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by allegedly failing
to disclose that the underwriters received "excessive" and
undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful "tie-in"
agreements with certain of their clients.  The consolidated
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest and fees.  In
addition, this case has been coordinated with hundreds of other
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against underwriters and issuers for
approximately 300 other IPOs.  Defendants in the coordinated
proceedings moved to dismiss the actions.  In February 2003, the
trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part,
allowing certain claims to proceed.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  The Company and other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.  In
2009, the Court issued an order of final approval of the
settlement.  Certain objectors filed appeals.  A number of those
appeals have been dismissed.  In May 2011, the appellate court
issued an order remanding the remaining appeals to district court
for determination of certain matters.  If for any reason the
settlement does not become effective, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims against it and intends to
defend the action vigorously.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Suit Against Unit Set for Sept. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against a subsidiary of Marvell
Technology Group Ltd. has been set for trial on September 26,
2011, according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2011.

On October 18, 2006, Dan Holton, a former employee of the
Company's subsidiary, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., filed a civil
complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court.  Mr. Holton
alleges that MSI misclassified him as an exempt employee.
Mr. Holton claims that due to its misclassification, MSI owes him
unpaid wages for overtime, penalties for missed meal periods, and
various other penalties under the California Labor Code, as well
as interest.  Mr. Holton also pursues a cause of action for unfair
business practices under the California Business & Profession
Code.  Mr. Holton brought his complaint as a class action.  On
July 8, 2009, the Court granted certification of this class: "All
Individual Contributor Engineers who held the title of PCB
Designer, Associate Engineer, Engineer, Staff Engineer and Senior
Engineers, who at any time during the class period while holding
these positions did not have a degree above a baccalaureate degree
nor a degree above a baccalaureate degree in a field of science
related to the work performed, and worked for MSI in California,
at any time from October 19, 2002 through the present."  MSI
disputes all of plaintiff's class claims, and intends to defend
this matter vigorously.  The matter has been set for trial on
September 26, 2011.


MEAT AND LIVESTOCK: Cattle Farmers Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Kelly Burke, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
cattle farmers may take legal action against Meat and Livestock
Australia, to claim for damages over the Indonesian export ban.

Lawyers preparing a class action say that the directors of MLA and
LiveCorp may have breached their fiduciary duties to their members
by not disclosing to their members and levy payers the
slaughtering conditions in some Indonesian abattoirs.

The case would have to prove that MLA directors had prior
knowledge of the inhumane conditions under which Australian cattle
were killed.

Farmers would also need to prove they would not have exported
their cattle to Indonesia in the first place, had they been
informed of the conditions.

Norman Hunt, from Hunt Partners Solicitors, said preliminary
advice from a senior counsel yesterday indicated that the
directors of MLA and LiveCorp may have a case to answer.

"The case would not be without its difficulties but I am now
advising my clients of the possibility of bringing a class action
for recovery," Mr. Hunt said.

Cattle farmers paid more than $60 million in the form of levies to
MLA last year.

MLA has repeatedly said that while it was aware of some "poor
animal handling practices" in Indonesia, it was not aware of the
inhumane slaughtering conditions exposed in video footage taken by
Animals Australia.

The meat industry is also about to be brought to the attention of
the corporate watchdog.  A group of meat processors confirmed
yesterday they had instructed their lawyers to turn over their
files to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

Led by Southern Meats in Goulburn and the Junee abattoir, the
processors claim the files will prove that the Australian Meat
Processors Corporation misled its members and collected millions
of dollars in levies without having a proper basis between 2004
and 2007.

They claim the production contribution agreements became invalid
in 2004 because they were contingent on all major processors
signing up.

Two major processors had refused, yet the corporation continued to
collect an estimated $42 million in levies over the ensuing three
years.

Southern Meats and Junee abattoir are now seeking a return of
levies totaling $1.8 million and $700,000, respectively.

A meat industry consultant, Frank McMahon, who is acting for the
disgruntled processors, said after 15 months of legal advice it
was decided to hand the matter over to ASIC.

Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,
on June 10 ordered a government investigation into the meat
industry.

"We have to respect animal welfare.  The agriculture minister and
the health minister must visit the abattoirs," Dr. Yudhoyono told
reporters at a news conference.

"What we need to do is find a solution for the short and long
term."


MONROE COUNTY, PA: Attorney Challenges Property Assessments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Frank, writing for Pocono Record, reports that in an action
that could help 6,000 A Pocono Country Place property owners, a
local attorney is challenging the property assessments of owners
whom he believes have been over-taxed.

Ira Weiner filed two class-action appeals with the Monroe County
Tax Assessor's Office.

A Pocono Country Place property owners aren't the only ones crying
foul over property assessments.

"When taxes aren't being fairly assessed, it gets personal,"
Middle Smithfield Township homeowner, Elizabeth Small, said.

The Great Bear homeowner's property taxes jumped from $9,000 in
2005, to $18,000 as of June 13, 2011.

"My house lost value by 50 percent, as has other houses in our
community, but my taxes have increased by 100 percent."

Ms. Small thought it unfair that older homes are assessed at 1989
values while newer homes are assessed at much higher amounts.

The practice, according to Ms. Small, is unfair, unlawful and
places a discriminatory burden on a new home, especially during a
period when so many new schools were being built.

She wants every home built after 1989 to be reassessed at 1989
values.

"Real estate prices have dropped through the floor.  In some
communities, it's been devastating," Mr. Weiner said.  "The
property taxes people pay are supposed to reflect the market value
of the property.  What the county does is they take an old value
and instead of reappraising the houses they simply use a fudge
factor and adjust the value each year to determine what the
property is really worth."

Mr. Weiner said the lot values in the Coolbaugh Township mega-
community A Pocono Country Place are "grossly over-assessed."

Mr. Weiner's appeal -- one for vacant land and one for lots with a
building -- only challenges the assessed value of the land.  Each
challenge has just two applicants.  But Mr. Weiner hopes other
property owners will join the appeal.

Each of the lots is appraised at $5,250.

Monroe County Chief Assessor Tom Hill said the matter must be
brought before the assessment appeals board to determine whether
his appeal can be heard as a class or as individual appeals.

"Every part of the appeal has to be the same units, acres. There's
a legal issue that the board has to discern," Mr. Hill said.

The last countywide reassessment was done in 1989.  Unless a
person files a claim, that property's assessment stays the same
until another assessment takes place.

The procedure Mr. Weiner's challenges will follow is simple.  The
assessment board will hold an initial hearing sometime in July,
when it will hear evidence on why each of the appeals should be
considered class actions, according to board attorney Mark Love,
Esq.

If the board determines there is no legal basis for certifying the
class, the appeals will proceed for only those individual property
owners.  If the board decides one or more of those appeals deserve
class status, the next step will be to identify and notify the
members of the class.

Mr. Weiner has given the assessment board a list of property
owners he believes should be members of the two classes, should
they be certified.

Once the board gives notice to all the property owners in a class,
they will have 10 days to decide if they want to participate in
the appeal.

A further hearing on the merits of the case must be concluded by
Oct. 30.

There could be a great deal of variation of lot sale prices in the
assessment appeal, depending on whether the sales used for
valuations were distressed.

But history doesn't bode well for Mr. Weiner.

"From prior litigation, there is law which indicates that
distressed sale prices are not competent evidence used to
determine the fair market value of real estate," Mr. Love said.

And the appeals are also a gamble.

"In any assessment the appeal board or court has to determine the
fair market value or assessment. It can go down, stay the same, or
go up. So assessment appeals should not be entered into lightly."


MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Court Certifies Workers' Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal Court in North Carolina has certified an action under
both federal and state wage and hour laws against Mountaire Farms,
Inc., the state's largest chicken processing company.  Pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, the lawsuit asserts that Mountaire violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The lawsuit, entitled Romero, et al. v. Mountaire Farms, Inc.
(7:09-cv-00190), asserts that Mountaire violates FLSA and NCWHA
regulations by requiring employees to arrive at work before their
"line" time begins to obtain and put on protective and sanitary
equipment and to walk to their place on the chicken processing
line.  Plaintiffs allege that Mountaire failed to compensate
plaintiffs and members of the proposed class for the time they
spent donning and doffing, cleaning, and the line begin, and
walking to and from the worksite on or near the processing floor.
Plaintiffs further allege Mountaire has a custom or policy of
deducting the costs of personal protective equipment and other
items of clothing made available to Mountaire employees from the
employees' wages.  Plaintiffs contend that Mountaire's deduction
policy violates state wage and hour laws.

The court held certification and notice were appropriate because
the named plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class were
or are employed by Mountaire, and they complain that Mountaire's
line time compensation system along with Mountaire's PPE deduction
policy have deprived them of wages to which they were or are
entitled to under the FLSA and the NCWHA.  With collective and
class action certification, Mountaire's current and former chicken
processing workers will receive written notification of their
right to participate in the lawsuit.  The FLSA prevents employers
from retaliating against any employee who chooses to exercise his
or her right and participate in this action.

"This ruling is a victory for the hardworking men and women at the
Mountaire plant who are not being paid for all hours they are
required to work.  All these workers want is an honest day's wage
for an honest day worked," said Jill Hernandez who worked for more
than ten years as a wage and hour investigator with the United
States Department of Labor prior to joining to Martin & Jones.
Jill utilizes her experience to exclusively represent employees
for violations under both federal and state wage and hour law.

The Mountaire employees are represented by H. Forest Horne, Jr.
and Gilda Hernandez of Martin & Jones, PLLC. Martin & Jones has
offices in Raleigh, Durham, and Wilmington, North Carolina as well
as Atlanta, Georgia.


MOVISTAR: Class Action Seeks Fire Compensation
----------------------------------------------
Euro Weekly News reports that a firm of lawyers in Marbella,
Lexland, are to bring a class action for compensation on behalf of
the thousands affected by the Movistar fire which left them
without service for several days.  On May 6, a fire at the
Movistar telephone exchange in Malaga affected around 90,000
people.

In total, the fire is thought to have affected 50,000 phone lines
and broadband connections and some mobile phone connections across
Malaga Province.

For almost a week, thousands of homes, ATMs, businesses and even
public utilities were without a telephone and internet line,
harming their businesses.

Some of those affected reportedly had to wait up to 12 days for
reconnection.

Movistar said they would be entitled to an average of EUR1 per day
compensation.

Consumer protection group FACUA described the compensation as
"ridiculous."


NCO PORTFOLIO: Sued Over Alleged Unlicensed Collection Activities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rocio Galvan and Joseph Hawthorne, individually and on behalf of
the class defined below, and People of the State of Illinois ex
rel. Rocio Galvan and Joseph Hawthorne, pursuant to 225 ILCS
425/14a v. NCO Portfolio Management, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-20646
(Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. June 8, 2011), sues over NCO Portfolio's
unlicensed collection activities in Illinois since June 8, 2006.

The Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to the Illinois Collection
Agency Act, 225 Illinois Compiled Statutes 425/1 et seq.,
including the vacation of all judgments entered in favor of NCO
Portfolio in the debt collection lawsuits it filed against
Illinois consumers and other monetary and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Cook County, Illinois.

NCO Portfolio is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Horsham, Pennsylvania.  NCO Portfolio regularly
does business in Illinois and has a registered agent, CT
Corporation System, located in Chicago, Illinois.  NCO Portfolio
is engaged in the business of purchasing or claiming to purchase
charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts against the
consumers, including by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Craig Shapiro, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          101 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 605
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092 (Office)
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: TSostrin@Keoghlaw.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Defend Calif. Law Violation Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging various violations of the California
Labor Code and Business and Professions Code, according to the
Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On April 30, 2010, a class action complaint for injunction and
equitable relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG
Capital, L.P., and Warburg Pincus, LLC.  On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.  This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company
has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation (1)
asking employees to work "off the clock," (2) failing to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and (4)
failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts.  The plaintiffs in these matters seek certification of
their cases as class actions, reimbursement for past wages and
temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing
defendant from allegedly continuing to violate the laws cited in
their complaints.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend its interests in
these matters.  Currently, the Company notes that it cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from these
matters.  However, the Company does not currently believe the
resolution of these matters will have a material adverse impact on
its financial position.  The Company will continue to evaluate
these matters based on subsequent events, new information and
future circumstances.


NWC WARRANTY: Sued Over "Tire & Wheel Protection" Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
NWC Warranty Corp. denies claims for its "Tire & Wheel Protection"
policy on bogus grounds, and that co-defendant Great American
Insurance Co. is "the ultimate guarantor" of the policies.

A copy of the Complaint in Deluca v. NWC Warranty Corporation, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-03768 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/10/InsureCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark B. Frost, Esq.
          Pier 5 at Penn's Landing
          7 North Columbus Boulevard
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 351-3333
          E-mail: mfrost@mfrostlaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
          Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 557-0099
          E-mail: jwilliams@wcblegal.com
                  mquirk@wcblegal.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Agrees to Settle Pampers Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
David Holthaus, writing for Green Bay Press Gazette, reports that
Procter & Gamble has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit over
its Pampers Dry Max diapers, which plaintiffs claimed caused
diaper rash and other skin problems.

Under the proposed settlement, which still needs a judge's
approval, P&G will pay up to $2.7 million in lawyers' fees and
spend $400,000 for training programs in pediatric skin health.

The Cincinnati-based consumer products manufacturer also has
agreed to pay $1,000 per child to the 59 plaintiffs in the class
action.  The payments, the proposal says, are compensation only
for their time and effort involved in the lawsuit, "not for
reimbursement or compensation for any damages, injury, or
reimbursement for medical bills."

The company says it will add a paragraph to the Pampers packaging
that includes a reference to the Pampers Web site and a toll-free
number to call for information on diapering and will add three
paragraphs to the Pampers Web site about diaper rash with links
for more information.

If approved, the settlement would end the major legal action over
a new diaper variety.

P&G introduced the new Pampers early last year, with a new
construction called Dry Max in two of its diaper varieties,
Swaddlers and Cruisers.  They were advertised as being thinner yet
more absorbent than regular Pampers.

Almost immediately, some moms reacted, saying they wanted the old
diapers back.

Claims spread quickly via the Internet that the new diapers caused
rashes and what some called "chemical burns."  Some called for the
product to be recalled.

P&G vigorously denied the claims, saying the materials have been
used in its diapers since the 1980s, but that Dry Max products
were assembled differently, with the pulp or fluffy material
removed, making them thinner and lighter.  The company said diaper
rash is a common condition.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reviewed consumer
complaints and scientific testing data that P&G provided and found
no link between the new Pampers and diaper rash.

"This agreement allows us another opportunity to educate our
consumers on important issues regarding their babies' health,"
said Fama Francisco, P&G North America's general manager for baby
care.


QUEBEC: Status Indians' Suit Over Fuel Taxes Not Yet Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and
Labrador has not yet filed its class action lawsuit regarding fuel
tax on purchases of fuel on a reserve in Quebec, according to
Quebec's June 8, 2011, Form 18-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

On June 30, 2003, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations
of Quebec and Labrador filed a motion in Quebec Superior Court for
authorization to file a class action on behalf of all status
Indians (except for James Bay Crees) who have paid Quebec fuel tax
since July 1, 1973, (the date on which this tax came into force)
on purchases of fuel on a reserve in Quebec.  The Court authorized
this class action in May 2007 but the class action has not been
filed yet.  Quebec fuel tax legislation requires status Indians to
pay the fuel tax embedded in the price of fuel at the pump but
allows them to claim a rebate of the tax paid from the Quebec
Ministry of Revenue.

The class action alleges that many status Indians failed to file a
rebate claim for the fuel tax they paid and that the rebate system
is not valid as the tax should not have been paid in the first
place in view of the federal Indian Act, which exempts from taxes
the property of a status Indian when it is located on a reserve.
The amounts the class action could potentially involve have not
yet been ascertained.  The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First
Nations of Quebec and Labrador and the Minister responsible for
Aboriginal Affairs have publicly indicated their preference for a
negotiated settlement of this issue.

No updates were provided in Qeubec's latest SEC filing.


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Securities Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit that targeted Research in Motion for
alleged securities violations has been quietly dismissed at the
request of the lead plaintiff.

Mary Stabile, who was lead plaintiff in the case, voluntarily
dismissed the action on May 31, 2011, according to a document
filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Court records show May Stabile of Plano, Texas, bought 2,000
shares through five purchases this year for a total cost of
$126,200.  She also sold 1,000 shares this year for total proceeds
of $60,108.

On May 23, a law firm from Atlanta announced that it was
"investigating" whether RIM and certain of its managers misled
shareholders about the company's business, prospects and
operations.  A suit was then filed in U.S. federal court on
May 26.  Among other things, the complaint alleged that:

"Specifically, the Company failed to inform investors that its
aging product line and inability to introduce new products to the
market was negatively impacting the Company's business and
margins."

RIM responded to news of the lawsuit with a statement a few days
later, describing the proposed lawsuit as being without merit and
promising to defend the action.

A search of U.S. federal court records shows the case was
voluntarily dismissed on May 31, 2011.


ROSS STORES: Suits Asserting Wage and Hour Claims Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits against Ross Stores, Inc., regarding wage
and hour claims remain pending, according to the Company's June 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

Like many California retailers, the Company has been named in
class action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.  Class
action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates
have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well as allegations
of unpaid overtime wages to store managers and assistant store
managers at Company stores under state law, remains pending as of
April 30, 2011.

The Company says that in the opinion of its management, the
resolution of pending class action litigation and other currently
pending legal proceedings is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.


TALBOTS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Talbots, Inc., continues to defend itself against a putative
class action lawsuit commenced by Washtenaw County Employees'
Retirement System in Massachusetts, according to the Company's
June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On February 3, 2011, a purported Talbots shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Washtenaw County Employees'
Retirement System v. The Talbots, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-
10186-NMG, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Talbots and certain of its officers.  The
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Talbots common stock from December 8, 2009, through and including
January 11, 2011, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Talbots, under
the authority and control of the individual defendants, made
certain false and misleading statements and allegedly omitted
certain material information.  The complaint alleges that these
actions artificially inflated the market price of Talbots common
stock during the class period, thus, purportedly harming
investors.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or an estimate of damages, if any.


TARGET CORP: Accused of Violating California's Song Beverly Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Green, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, v. Target Corporation, a
Minnesota corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
111CV199677, (Calif. Sup. Ct. Santa Clara Cty. April 26, 2011),
was filed in California on April 26, 2011.  The Plaintiff relates
that he went to the Defendant's retail store in San Jose,
California, and paid for a purchase with a credit card.  He
alleges that as part of the credit card transaction, the
Defendant's employee requested, and he complied, that he provide
his ZIP code, in violation of the California's Song Beverly Credit
Card Act.

Mr. Green is a resident of California.

The Defendant is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place
of business in the state of Minnesota.

Target removed the lawsuit on June 7, 2011, from the Superior
Court of the state of California for the County of Santa Clara to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California because Target is, and at all relevant times was, a
citizen of Minnesota.  Target contends that assignment of the
action to the San Francisco Division of the District Court is
appropriate because it was originally filed in the Superior Court
of California, and because related actions are currently pending
in the San Francisco Division.  The Clerk assigned Case No. 5:11-
cv-02784 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
          David Cheng, Esq.
          Joshua Carlon, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310)556-5637
          Facsimile: (310)861-9051
          E-mail: MSchimmel@InitiativeLegal.com
                  DCheng@InitiativeLegal.com
                  JCarlon@InitiativeLegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David F. McDowell, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: DMcDowell@mofo.com

              - and -

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com


THOR INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Formaldehyde Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thor Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
lawsuits filed against manufacturers of travel trailers and
manufactured homes supplied to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to be used for emergency living accommodations in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina and Rita in 2005, according to the Company's
June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed against
numerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, including
complaints against the Company.  The complaints were filed in
various state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama,
Texas, and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who lived
in travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homes
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the late summer of 2005.  The
complaints generally alleged that Gulf Coast residents who
occupied FEMA supplied emergency housing units, such as travel
trailers, were exposed to formaldehyde emitted from the trailers.
The residents alleged various damages from exposure, including
health problems and emotional distress.  Most of the initial cases
were filed as class action suits.  Because of the number of suits,
the federal Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation (known as
the MDL panel) transferred the suits to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).  The
Court denied class certification in December 2008, and
consequently, the cases are now being administered as a mass
joinder of claims.  There are over 5,000 suits currently pending
in the MDL.  The number of cases currently pending against the
Company is approximately 745.  Many of these lawsuits involve
multiple plaintiffs, each of whom have brought claims against the
Company.  Due to the sheer size of the litigation, beginning in
September 2009, the Court began hearing both bellwether jury
trials and bellwether summary jury trials.  The summary jury trial
process is an alternative dispute resolution method which is non-
binding and confidential.  The Company has participated in one
confidential summary jury trial.  Settlements have been reached
with a few of the trailer manufacturers and a group of the
manufactured housing defendants.  The Company continues to
strongly dispute the allegations and continues to vigorously
defend the complaints.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Ruling Reduces Calif. Sudden Acceleration Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has dealt a major blow to the lead
plaintiffs' attorneys in the multidistrict litigation against
Toyota Motor Corp. over sudden acceleration claims, dramatically
reducing the size of a potential class action filed on behalf of
consumers.

U.S. District Judge James Selna ruled on June 8 that consumers who
relied upon Toyota's guarantees of reliability and safety should
not be allowed to pursue economic damages under California's state
law if they lived or purchased their vehicles in another state.

While applying California law would not impair Toyota's due
process rights, Judge Selna said, plaintiffs' attorneys who made
the "strategic" decision to file all the consumer claims as a
master consolidated complaint in California should not be allowed
to dictate which law is used.

Doing so, Judge Selna said, would run afoul of previous U.S.
Supreme Court decisions and "would undermine the purposes" of
multidistrict litigation.

Plaintiffs' attorneys, pressing about 200 consumer claims through
a master consolidated complaint in the multidistrict litigation,
had hoped to pursue economic damages for a proposed nationwide
class under the relatively more permissive California law.  With
the judge's ruling, the prospect of a large class action with huge
liabilities against Toyota was wiped out.

Toyota immediately praised the ruling.

"We're gratified the Court has recognized that allowing a few
handpicked plaintiffs to set the course for customers throughout
the United States through this kind of 'procedural engineering'
would go against established law, diminish Toyota's substantive
rights and undermine the purposes of these multidistrict
proceedings," Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore said in a
prepared statement.

Toyota said that more than 70% of the consumer cases in the MDL
were filed in other states.

Steve Berman, Esq., managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman
Sobol & Shapiro and co-lead counsel on the plaintiffs' steering
committee for the economic claims, did not respond to a request
for comment.

The "choice of law" argument did not pertain to the 100 personal
injury and wrongful death cases filed against Toyota in the MDL.

The issue became heated during a May 16 hearing in which
plaintiffs' attorneys asserted several California connections:
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., a division of Toyota, was based in
Torrance, Calif., and the master consolidated complaint had been
filed in federal court before Judge Selna, who sits in Santa Ana,
Calif.  Additionally, they argued, class members who didn't want
to pursue damages under California law could opt out.

Toyota lead counsel Cari Dawson, Esq., a partner at Atlanta's
Alston & Bird, argued that proceeding under California law would
violate Toyota's right to defend itself, particularly because it
would be unable to use substantive arguments that would apply
under other state laws.

Judge Selna appeared persuaded by that argument, noting that in
several states -- Alabama, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin -- Toyota stood a good chance of dismissing claims
brought by consumers whose vehicles had "manifested no defect."  A
nationwide class under California law would "drastically expand
the scope of relief" at Toyota's detriment.  The same goes for
claims of warranty of merchantability and statutes of limitations,
he said.

Judge Selna also appeared persuaded by the U.S. Supreme Court's
prior "choice of law" decisions, particularly its 1985 ruling in
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, which involved claims brought
across the country seeking interest on royalty payments for
natural gas extracted from land leased by an Oklahoma company.
The court rejected the application of Kansas state law, holding
that 97% of the plaintiffs had no connection to that state.

Judge Selna also distinguished a single consolidated complaint
filed in California from an MDL.

"Thus, an MDL proceeding like the present one is merely a
collection of individual cases, combined to achieve efficiencies
in pretrial proceedings," he said.  "MDL courts cannot lose sight
of the separate and distinct nature of those actions."

Judge Selna left open how the master consolidated complaint would
proceed, given his ruling, although he noted that he would have
the ability to oversee a class of California consumers.


TOYOTA MOTOR: First Acceleration Suit Scheduled for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that after years of legal wrangling,
the first of hundreds of lawsuits over acceleration problems
against Toyota Motor Corp. has been scheduled for trial.

A crash that killed two people in Utah will be the first lawsuit
to be weighed in court, a federal judge said on June 10.

U.S. District Judge James Selna told attorneys the case of 38-
year-old Charlene Jones Lloyd and 66-year-old Paul Van Alfen,
whose Toyota Camry slammed into a wall in Utah in 2010, is
scheduled to go to trial in February 2013.

The case -- Van Alfen v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. -- will
be the first of several bellwether lawsuits, intended to determine
how the rest of the litigation will proceed.

Judge Selna wrote in a tentative order that he hoped the selection
would "markedly advance these proceedings."

"The Court believes that selection of a personal injury/wrongful
death case is most likely the type of case to meet that goal,"
Judge Selna said.

Toyota said it welcomes the Utah case as the first suit to reach
court.

"We are pleased that the initial bellwether will address
plaintiffs' central allegation of an unnamed, unproven defect in
Toyota vehicles, as every claim in the multi-district litigation
rests upon this pivotal technical issue," the company said in a
statement.

Toyota has previously argued the plaintiffs have been unable to
prove that a design defect in its electronic throttle control
system is responsible for vehicles surging unexpectedly.  It has
instead blamed driver error, faulty floor mats and sticky
accelerator pedals.

The automaker's defense was buoyed earlier this year when U.S.
regulators said electronic flaws weren't to blame for unintended
acceleration.  Plaintiffs' attorneys, however, want to look at
Toyota's secretive source code that may provide more information
about the system.

Mr. Van Alfen was driving the Camry on Interstate 80 near
Wendover, Utah, on Nov. 5, 2010, when it suddenly accelerated,
investigators said.  Tire skid marks showed that Mr. Van Alfen
tried to stop the vehicle as it exited Interstate 80, police said.
The car went through a stop sign at the bottom of the ramp and
through an intersection before hitting the wall.

Mr. Van Alfen and Lloyd, his son's fiancee, were killed.  Mr. Van
Alfen's wife and son were injured.

The Utah Highway Patrol concluded based on statements from
witnesses and the crash survivors that the gas pedal was stuck.

The 2008 Camry Mr. Van Alfen was driving was subject to recalls
focusing on all-weather floor mats interfering with accelerator
pedals, unsecured mats entrapping the gas pedal and accelerators
getting stuck.

Judge Selna said a second bellwether case will be selected in
September with trial to start in May 2013.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Bid to Appeal Still Pending in Israeli Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for leave to appeal filed by plaintiffs in a securities
class action lawsuit in Israel on behalf of purchasers of Verifone
Systems, Inc.'s stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange is still
pending, according to the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2011.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports.  The Company filed a motion to stay
the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the
United States, on March 31, 2008.  A hearing on the motion was
held on May 25, 2008.  Further briefing in support of the stay
motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of
applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008.  On September 11,
2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the Company's favor,
holding that U.S. law would apply in determining the Company's
liability.  On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to appeal the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme
Court.  The Company's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was
filed on January 18, 2009.  The District Court has stayed its
proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion
for leave to appeal.  On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before
the Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the District Court.
The Supreme Court instructed the District Court to rule whether
the Israeli class action should be stayed, under the assumption
that the applicable law is U.S. law.  Plaintiffs subsequently
filed an application for reconsideration of the District Court's
ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law.  Following a hearing
on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed
to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities
class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the
District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the
Supreme Court.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the Israeli
Supreme Court for leave to appeal the District Court's decision.
No briefing schedule or hearing date has been set for plaintiffs'
motion.  At this time, the Company says it has not recorded any
liabilities for this action as it is unable to determine the
outcome or estimate the potential liability.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action against VeriFone Systems, Inc., is pending, according to
the Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2011.

On December 4, 2007, several securities class action claims were
filed against the Company and certain of its officers, former
officers, and a former director.  These lawsuits were consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, C 07-6140
MHP.  The original actions were: Eichenholtz v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; Lien v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management LLC v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et
al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., et al., C
08-0118 CW.  On August 22, 2008, the court appointed plaintiff
National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead
counsel.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action
complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims under the
Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities fraud
and control person liability against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that the Company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the Company's
business and operations during the putative class periods and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  The Company
filed its motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008.

The court granted the Company's motion on May 26, 2009, and
dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint with
leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were
stayed pending a mediation held in October 2009, at which time the
parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009,
followed by a second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
and the hearing on the Company's motion was held on May 17, 2010.
In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on the Company's motion,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that they have newly discovered evidence.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court, the Company
submitted its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and
plaintiffs filed their opposition, following which the court took
the matter under submission without further hearing.

On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in the Company's favor and
dismissed the consolidated securities class action without leave
to amend.  On April 5, 2011, plaintiffs filed its notice of appeal
of the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  Plaintiffs' opening brief presently is due on
July 14, 2011.  At this time, the Company has not recorded any
liabilities related to this action as it is unable to determine
the outcome or estimate the potential liability.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Awaits OK of Deal in Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc., is still awaiting court approval of its
agreement in principle to resolve the litigation relating to its
planned acquisition of Hypercom Corporation, according to the
Company's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On May 12, 2011, the United States Department of Justice filed a
civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia against VeriFone, Hypercom Corporation and
Ingenico S.A.  The DOJ's complaint alleges antitrust claims with
respect to the Company's planned acquisition of Hypercom and with
the April 1, 2011 Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement pursuant to
which Hypercom would have sold certain assets and liabilities of
its U.S. payment terminal business to Ingenico.  On May 19, 2011,
VeriFone, Hypercom and Ingenico terminated the April 1, 2011 Stock
and Asset Purchase Agreement, and VeriFone and Hypercom entered
into an agreement with the DOJ to suspend the civil antitrust
lawsuit filed against the parties by the DOJ, in order to explore
various options for the planned divestiture of Hypercom's U.S.
business, including the possibility of a divestiture to an
alternative buyer.  Ingenico has requested that the DOJ move to
remove Ingenico as a defendant in the litigation.

In connection with the Company's announced merger with Hypercom,
several purported class action lawsuits have been filed in Arizona
and Delaware state courts alleging variously, among other things,
that the board of directors of Hypercom breached its fiduciary
duties in not securing a higher price in the merger and that
VeriFone, Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco, LLC and Francisco Partners
II, L.P. aided and abetted that alleged breach.  The actions seek
injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  An agreement in
principle has been reached to resolve the litigation based on
confirmatory discovery, enhanced public disclosures, and,
contingent upon closing of the merger, reimbursement by Hypercom
of a portion of the plaintiffs' attorneys fees.  Settlement
between the parties is subject to court approval.

The Company believes it will successfully resolve the claims
raised in the DOJ's lawsuit but if the merger agreement with
Hypercom is terminated for reasons relating to certain antitrust
or competition law matters, VeriFone may be obligated to pay
Hypercom a fee equal to $28.4 million (or $30.4 million if
VeriFone elects to extend the termination date and the termination
occurs after August 31, 2011).  At this time, the Company has not
recorded any liabilities for this action as the Company believes
the payout is not probable.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Awaits October 11 Hearing in "Deutsch" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. is awaiting the October 11, 2011 preliminary
hearing in the class action lawsuit filed by Orit Deutsch in the
District Court in Tel Aviv, according to the Company's June 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class action lawsuit (the
"Labor Motion"), and the class action lawsuit itself (the "Labor
Class Action") (Labor Case No. 4186/09), were filed against the
Company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited, by a former employee
of VSL, Orit Deutsch, in the Tel Aviv Labor Court.  Ms. Deutsch
purports to represent a class of the Company's employees and ex-
employees, who were granted options to buy shares of Verint and to
whom allegedly damages were caused as a result of the blocking of
the ability to exercise Verint options by the Company's employees
or ex-employees.  The Labor Motion and the Labor Class Action both
claim that the Company is responsible for the alleged damages due
to the Company's status as employer and that the blocking of
Verint options from being exercised constitutes a default of the
employment agreements between the members of the class and VSL.
The Labor Class Action seeks compensatory damages for the entire
class in an unspecified amount.  On July 9, 2009, the Company
filed a motion for summary dismissal and alternatively for the
stay of the Labor Motion.  A preliminary session was held on
July 12, 2009.  Ms. Deutsch filed her response to the Company's
response on November 10, 2009.  On February 8, 2010, the Tel Aviv
Labor Court dismissed the case for lack of material jurisdiction
and ruled that it will be transferred to the District Court in Tel
Aviv.  The case has been scheduled for a preliminary hearing in
the District Court in Tel Aviv on October 11, 2011.  As of
April 30, 2011, no amount has been accrued for this matter as the
Company was not able to estimate the probability or amount of any
potential loss at that date.


VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Retirement-Benefit Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that foreign citizens accuse
Verizon of "systematically" subjecting them to "the reckless,
perhaps fraudulent, administration of their retirement benefits
and deferred compensation for years . . . and, among other things,
an attempt to aid and abet perjury."

A copy of the Complaint in Mejia, et al. v. Verizon Management
Pension Plan, et al., Case No. (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/10/Verizon.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP
          Two First National Plaza, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-3466
          E-mail: mheffner@shhllp.com
                  ghara@shhllp.com


WAL-MART STORES: Pennsylvania Court Affirms Class Action Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Searles & Axler, LLC on June 10 disclosed that the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania has issued a 211-page decision
largely affirming the multi-million dollar class action judgment
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in favor of Pennsylvania hourly
employees.

A three judge appeals panel has largely affirmed the multi-million
dollar award against retail giant Wal-Mart in a class action
alleging underpayment of Wal-Mart employees in Pennsylvania.  In
2006, a Philadelphia jury found that Wal-Mart employees were owed
$1,462,910.35 in damages for off-the-clock work and $27,715,964
for rest break violations between March 19, 1998, and Dec. 31,
2001, and $1,031,430 for off-the-clock work and $48,258,111 for
rest break violations between Jan. 1, 2002 and April 2006.

Subsequently, Trial Judge Mark I. Bernstein awarded an additional
$62.2 million in statutory liquidated damages, $10.2 million in
prejudgment interest, $33.8 million in statutory attorney fees and
$11.9 million in non-statutory attorney fees.

The class action trial in Braun v. Wal-Mart and Hummel v. Wal-Mart
was held in September 2006.

Wal-Mart argued on appeal that rest breaks and lunch breaks are
not fringe benefits, that the two class actions shouldn't have
been certified and that Philadelphia wasn't the proper venue for
the class action, among other arguments.

But the Superior Court rejected those arguments, saying the trial
evidence supported the trial court's decisions.  The jury awarded
$78.5 million in compensatory damages to 186,000 current and
former Wal-Mart associates.  A total of 124,506 current and former
Pennsylvania employees also qualified for the $62.3 million in
statutory damages levied under the state's wage payment and
collection law, which penalizes employers who fail to pay wages by
requiring them to pay liquidated damages of $500 or up to 25
percent of the total amount of wages due.

The Superior Court reversed and remanded the trial court's award
of over $33 million in attorney fees to the class lawyers, stating
that the lower court misapplied the rules for contingency
enhancements, and instructing the lower court to recalculate the
fee award.

Lead class counsel Michael Donovan of Donovan Searles & Axler said
he and his clients were very pleased with the Superior Court's
decision.  He said he's anxious to get Wal-Mart employees the
compensation they are owed.

Contact: Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
         DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 732-6067
         E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com


ZALE CORP: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit asserting
alleged violations of securities laws filed an amended complaint
in May, according to Zale Corporation's June 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

In November 2009, the Company and four former officers, Neal L.
Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  The suits alleged various violations of
securities laws arising from the financial statement errors that
led to the restatement completed by the Company as part of its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2009.  On August 9, 2010, the two lawsuits were consolidated into
one.  On April 7, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the lawsuits, without prejudice, and provided
plaintiffs with a 45-day period within which to file an amended
complaint.  On May 23, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

The Company says it intends to vigorously contest the complaint,
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit.


                             *********

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  * * *