CAR_Public/110616.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 16, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 118

                             Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Bid for Reconsideration in "Bucio" Suit Pending
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Khadera" Suit Still Pending in Washington
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Diaz" Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court Ruling
ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles "Batiz/Heine" Suit for $300,000
ABM INDUSTRIES: Trial Set for Sep. 12 in "Augustus" Suit

ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Court OKs Consolidated Suit Settlement
ALVARION LTD: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
APPLE BANK: Sued in New York Over Overdraft Charges
ASCENA RETAIL: Consolidated Suit Settlement Approved in Dec. 2010
ASCENA RETAIL: Unit Awaits Final Okay of FLSA-Violation Suit Deal

AVIAT NETWORKS: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Securities Suit
CIENA CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Settlement Remains Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in "Verzani" Suit Remains Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Approval of Revised Fuel MDL Deal
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Ellis" Suit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Robles" Suit Still Pending in Illinois
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Suit Over Organic Milk Sale
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification Bid in "Kilano" Suit Denied
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Justice" Suit for Labor Code Violations
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Khang" Suit Dismissed in April

COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Medrano" Suit Still Pending in California
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Trial Set for Feb. 2012 in "Raven Hawk" Suit
DIRECT ENERGY: Accused of Deceiving Customers in Illinois
EICHOLZ LAW FIRM: Accused of Gouging Clients in Vioxx Suit
ERWIN'S NUCLEAR FUEL: Sued Over Radioactive Emissions

FAIRBRIDGE FOUNDATION: Child Migrants Files Class Action
FEN-PHEN: Class Action Lawyer Stan Chesley Awaits Fate
GENESCO INC: Defends Song-Beverly Act-Violations Suits in Calif.
LABARGE INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
LTX-CREDENCE CORP: Seven Class Action Suits Dismissed

LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Removes "Stagner" Suit to N.D. Calif.
MAKHTESHIM AGAN: Reaches Compromise Agreement in ChemChina Suit
MANPOWER INC: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Vacation Policy
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Awaits Ruling on Material Yard Suit Dismissal Bid
NEVADA ASSOCIATION: Faces Another Suit Over HOA Debt Collection

OAKLAND, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Arrest
PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Lights Class Action Certified
RESEARCH IN MOTION: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
RESURGENCE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Interest Collection Practice
RICHMOND SCHOOL: Accused in D.C. Suit of Defrauding Students

SERGEANT'S SILVER FLEA: Faces Class Action Over Tick Medication
SYNGENTA CROP: June 22 Motion Hearing Set for Atrazine Suit
VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE: Faces Class Action Over Booking Fee
WALMART: Sup. Court Set to Rule on Discrimination Class Action
WARNER MUSIC: Selling Biz for Too Little, N.Y. Suit Claims

WELLS FARGO: Accused of Violating FLSA in Nevada




                             *********

ABM INDUSTRIES: Bid for Reconsideration in "Bucio" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of certain evidentiary
rulings made in April 2011 in the consolidated cases of Bucio and
Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services is pending, according to ABM
Industries Incorporated's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated
cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on
April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco.  The Bucio case is a purported class action and
involves allegations that the Company failed to track work time
and provide breaks.  On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a
hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.  At the
conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class and requested that the parties submit
a proposed order denying class certification, which has been
submitted to the court by the Company.

On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief which
requested that the trial court reconsider certain evidentiary
rulings it made in the April 19, 2011 hearing.


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Khadera" Suit Still Pending in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned Khadera v. American Building
Maintenance Co.-West and ABM Industries is still pending in
Washington, according to ABM Industries Incorporated's June 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of
Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co.-West and ABM
Industries filed on March 24, 2008, in U.S. District Court of
Washington, Western District.  The Khadera case is a class action
and involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime and meal and
rest claims.  Class certification has been granted only with
respect to certain overtime claims under federal law.  The Company
is also a defendant in the previously reported case of Simpson v.
ABM Janitorial Services-Northwest, Inc., and ABM Industries
Incorporated filed on September 24, 2010, in the Superior Court
for the State of Washington in and for King County.  The Simpson
case involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime, off-the-
clock work, and failure to provide meal and rest periods under
Washington law.  On April 13, 2011, the parties mediated the
Khadera and Simpson cases, but did not reach a settlement.  A
trial date has not been set.


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Diaz" Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court stayed the consolidated case
captioned Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking pending the
California Supreme Court's decision on a similar lawsuit,
according to ABM Industries Incorporated's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of
Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking filed on December 5,
2006, in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The plaintiffs are current
or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other
things, that they were required to work "off the clock," were not
paid for all overtime, were not provided work breaks or other
benefits, and received pay stubs not conforming to California law.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive
relief or both.

On January 19, 2011, a mediation between the parties took place,
which concluded without the parties reaching agreement.  On
April 21, 2011, the court granted a stay of the case pending the
decision of the California Supreme Court in Brinker v. Hohnbaum.
The Brinker case involves issues similar to those involved in the
Diaz case.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself.  The Company has accrued its best estimate of the probable
liability.  The Company notes that there can be no assurance that
any judgment or settlement relating to the Diaz case will not be
material to the Company.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles "Batiz/Heine" Suit for $300,000
-------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated paid approximately $0.3 million to
settle the consolidated cases of Batiz/Heine v. ACSS, according to
the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2011.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated
cases of Batiz/Heine v. ACSS filed on June 7, 2006, in the U.S.
District Court of California, Central District.  The Batiz case
involves allegations relating to unpaid overtime.  On
September 29, 2010, the Batiz case was de-certified as a class
action by the United States District Court of California, Central
District, and all opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without
prejudice.  During the three months ended April 30, 2011, the
Company settled this case and paid an aggregate amount of
approximately $0.3 million in connection with the settlement.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Trial Set for Sep. 12 in "Augustus" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A trial has been set for September 12, 2011, in the consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services, according to ABM Industries Incorporated's June 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County.  The Augustus case involves allegations that
the Company violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest
breaks.  On January 8, 2009, the Augustus case was certified as a
class action by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County.  On October 6, 2010, the Company moved to de-certify the
class and for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs also moved for summary
judgment on the rest break claim.  On December 28, 2010, the
Superior Court de-certified the portion of the class related to
the meal break claims and granted summary judgment for the
plaintiffs with respect to the rest break claim.  On January 21,
2011, the Company filed a writ challenging the Court's decision on
the rest breaks, which writ was denied.  A trial date of
September 12, 2011, has been set.


ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Court OKs Consolidated Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted final approval of Allot Communications Ltd.'s
agreement to settle a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On May 1, 2007, a securities class action complaint, Brickman
Investment Inc. v. Allot Communications Ltd. et al., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  At least three substantially similar complaints were filed
in the same court after the original action was filed.  The
Company and certain of its directors and officers are named as
defendants.  The securities class action complaints allege that
the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 by making false and misleading statements and omissions in
the Company's registration statement for its initial public
offering in November 2006.  The claims are purportedly brought on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock pursuant to
and/or traceable to the initial public offering on or about
November 15, 2006, through April 2, 2007.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages against the defendants, as well
as attorney's fees and costs.  Motions for consolidation and for
appointment of lead plaintiff were filed on July 2, 2007, and were
decided on March 27, 2008, with an order granting consolidation
and appointing co-lead plaintiffs.  The Consolidated Amended
Compliant was served on June 9, 2008.  The defendants moved to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Compliant on August 8, 2008.
While the defendants' motion to dismiss was still pending, the
parties reached on March 31, 2010, an agreement in principle to
settle this litigation.  Pursuant to the terms of the agreement,
the Company will pay to the plaintiffs, for the benefit of the
class members, $1.3 million in cash, which amount is to be funded
by the Company's insurance carrier.  The Court held the final
approval hearing on April 29, 2011.  At the hearing, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement.  Under the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement, the agreement's Effective Date was
May 31, 2011.  The Company has recorded a liability in its
financial statements for the proposed amount of the settlement.
In addition, because the insurance carrier has agreed to pay the
entire settlement amount and recovery from the insurance carrier
is probable, a receivable has also been recorded for the same
amount.  Accordingly, the Company says there is no impact to its
statements of operations or cash flows because the amounts of the
settlement and the insurance recovery fully offset each other.


ALVARION LTD: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a global settlement of a
coordinated litigation involving a company merged into Alvarion
Ltd. in 2003 -- interWAVE Communications International Ltd. --
remain pending, according to Alvarion's June 9, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 21, 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against interWAVE Communications, certain of its former officers
and directors, and certain of the underwriters for interWAVE's
initial public offering.  On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint.  The amended complaint alleged that the
prospectus from interWAVE's IPO failed to disclose certain alleged
improper actions by various underwriters for the offering, in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  Similar complaints
have been filed concerning more than 300 other IPOs; all of these
cases have been coordinated as In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  On October 8, 2002, the Court
entered an Order of Dismissal as to all of the individual
defendants in the IPO litigation, without prejudice.  In 2007, a
settlement that had been pending with the Court since 2004, was
terminated by stipulation.  After a ruling by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in six "focus" cases in the coordinated
proceedings (interWAVE is not one of the six test cases) made it
unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval
plaintiffs filed amended master allegations and amended complaints
in the six test cases.  In 2008, the Court largely denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaints.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of the settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  InterWAVE, as well as
the officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed
from the Action pursuant to tolling agreements, will receive
complete dismissals from the case.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.
Certain objectors have appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 final
order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Briefing on the
appeal is not yet complete and no hearing date has been set.
Management, based on its legal advisors opinion, cannot predict
the outcome of the appeal nor can they make any estimate of the
amount of damages; therefore, no provision has been made for this
litigation.


APPLE BANK: Sued in New York Over Overdraft Charges
---------------------------------------------------
Dovid Feld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Apple Bank For Savings, Case No. 651565/2011 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. June 6, 2011), is a class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all Apple Bank deposit customers on whom the bank
imposed an overdraft charge from June 6, 2005, to the present.
The action challenges the practices of Apple Bank concerning its
imposition of overdraft fees -- termed "Overdraft Charges," "ACH
Uncollected Funds Charge" or "ACH Return Charges" in its customer
account statements -- on its deposit customers.

Mr. Feld accuses Apple Bank of engaging in these unlawful methods,
acts, practices and conduct:

   (1) applying "courtesy overdraft" payments and loans to its
       deposit customers without prior customer approval;

   (2) imposing Overdraft Charges when Apple Bank's customer
       account statements indicate that sufficient funds are
       available to cover the debit;

   (3) charging usurious rates of interest by imposition of its
       Overdraft Charges;

   (4) failing to clear deposited checks when legally required or
       when represented, which results in the imposition of its
       Overdraft Charge; and

   (5) re-ordering of deposits and withdrawals or types of
       deposits and withdrawals to manufacture Overdraft Charges,
       or more Overdraft Charges than would have been imposed
       but-for Apple Bank's re-ordering of deposits and
       withdrawals.

Mr. Feld is a resident of New Jersey, and has been an Apple Bank
deposit customer during the entire Class Period, who has
maintained accounts with Apple Bank in New York during the Class
Period, including an Apple Bank Apple Edge NOW Checking account.

Apple Bank is a New York-chartered savings bank that maintains its
principle offices at 122 East 42nd Street, New York and 1395
Northern Boulevard, Manhasset, New York.  Apple Bank engages in
the business of consumer and commercial banking within New York
and currently operates 50 full-time branches, all within New York
City and Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.,
          TUSA P.C.
          1979 Marcus Avenue, Ste. 210
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 622-2212
          Facsimile: (516) 706-1373
          E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com


ASCENA RETAIL: Consolidated Suit Settlement Approved in Dec. 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California state court, in December 2010, granted final approval
of a settlement agreement resolving a consolidated class action
lawsuit filed against a unit of Ascena Retail Group, Inc.,
alleging violations of the California Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act, according to the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2011.

Between November 2008 and October 2009, Ascena Retail Group's
subsidiary, Tween Brands Inc., was sued in three purported class
action lawsuits alleging that Tween Brands' telephone capture
practice in California violated the California Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act, which protects consumers from having to provide personal
information as a condition to a credit card transaction.  All
three cases were consolidated in California state court.  The
parties settled this lawsuit in the spring of 2010.  The court
granted final approval of the settlement on December 10, 2010, and
the Company has accrued for this settlement.


ASCENA RETAIL: Unit Awaits Final Okay of FLSA-Violation Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group Inc.'s subsidiary, Tween Brands Inc., is
awaiting final approval of its settlement of a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

On January 21, 2010, Tween Brands Inc. was sued in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.  This
purported class action alleges, among other things, that Tween
Brands violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not properly
paying its employees for overtime and missed rest breaks.  The
parties have agreed to a settlement of this wage and hour lawsuit.
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
March 29, 2011, and the Company has accrued for this settlement.
The settlement is subject to notice to the purported class members
and final court approval.

The result of this lawsuit cannot be predicted with certainty.
However, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of the
matter will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial statements.


AVIAT NETWORKS: Awaits Court OK of Settlement in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement
of a consolidated securities class action litigation, according to
the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Aviat Networks, Inc., has reached a settlement in the consolidated
securities class action litigation, which arose from its
restatement of its publicly stated financials for fiscal year 2005
through the first three quarters of fiscal year 2008.  The
monetary amount of the settlement is covered by insurance, and,
accordingly, the Company says the settlement is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
condition or results of operations.  The settlement is subject to
court approval and certain other conditions.

                          Class Action

As previously disclosed, on October 6, 2008, three actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware as securities class actions against the Company, certain
of its former officers and directors, and Harris Corporation.  On
June 5, 2009, the Court consolidated the related cases as Dutton
v. Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:08-cv-00755-
JJF, now 1:08-cv-00755-LPS.  On July 29, 2009, the Class Action
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.
The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons or entities that acquired the Company's
common stock between January 29, 2007, and July 30, 2008,
inclusive, including former shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc.
who acquired shares of the Company's stock pursuant or traceable
to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus that became
effective on January 8, 2007.  The Complaint asserts claims
pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On May 31, 2011, the Company and the other named defendants
entered into a stipulation of settlement with respect to the Class
Action.  The Stipulation provides for payment of a total
settlement amount of $8.9 million by the Company and Harris
Corporation.  The entire settlement amount is covered by
insurance, and the Company does not expect to record a liability
or any expense with respect to the payment of the settlement
amount.  The Company, and the other named defendants, entered into
the Stipulation to fully and finally resolve the litigation and
avoid any further expense and distraction caused by the
litigation.  The Company and the other named defendants have
denied and continue to deny all charges of wrongdoing or liability
arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions
alleged in the Class Action.

The Class Action settlement remains subject to preliminary and
final approval by the Court.  A motion for preliminary approval of
the Class Action settlement was filed with the Court on June 1,
2011.  Preliminary approval has not yet been granted and no date
has been set for the Court's final settlement hearing.

                       Additional Matters

Following receipt of preliminary approval of the Class Action
settlement by the Court (if received), the Company is required to
serve upon the appropriate State official of each State in which a
class member resides, and the Attorney General of the United
States, a notice of the proposed settlement in compliance with the
requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1711 et seq.  If the settlement is given final approval by the
Court, the Class Action will be dismissed with prejudice.  The
settlement will not resolve the derivative claim purportedly filed
on behalf of the Company on March 17, 2011, in the action entitled
Sandra J. Cutler Living Trust v. Guy M. Campbell et al, Case No.
1:11-cv-00230 in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware.

The effectiveness of the Stipulation and the settlement
incorporated therein depends on a number of conditions, including,
the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement and its
approval of notice to the class and other documents necessary to
effectuate the settlement, funding of the settlement fund,
compliance with the terms of the Stipulation, entry of judgment
granting final approval of the settlement and the judgment
becoming final.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the settlement
will be approved or become effective.  Details regarding any
proposed settlement will be communicated to potential class
members prior to final court approval.


CIENA CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Settlement Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the final approval of a settlement in the
securities class action lawsuit commenced in connection with Ciena
Corporation's June 2002 merger with ONI Systems Corp. remains
pending, according to the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2011.

As a result of its June 2002 merger with ONI Systems Corp., Ciena
became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in August 2001.  The complaint named ONI, certain former ONI
officers, and certain underwriters of ONI's initial public
offering as defendants, and alleges, among other things, that the
underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by failing to
disclose alleged compensation arrangements in ONI's registration
statement and by engaging in manipulative practices to
artificially inflate ONI's stock price after the IPO.  The
complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former officers
violated the securities laws by failing to disclose the
underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices.  The former ONI officers have been dismissed from the
action without prejudice.  Similar complaints have been filed
against more than 300 other issuers that have had initial public
offerings since 1998, and all of these actions have been included
in a single coordinated proceeding.

On October 6, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final
approval to a settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants
and underwriter defendants, and directing that the Clerk of the
Court close these actions.  Notices of appeal of the opinion
granting final approval have been filed, all of which have been
either resolved or dismissed, except one.  No specific amount of
damages has been claimed in this action.  Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation and because the settlement remains
subject to appeal, the Company says the ultimate outcome of the
matter is uncertain.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in "Verzani" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court ruling denying a plaintiff's motion to file
an amended complaint in the "Verzani" suit remains pending,
according to Costco Wholesale Corporation's June 9, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 8, 2011.

In Verzani, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 09 CV 2117
(United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York), a purported nationwide class action, the plaintiffs allege
claims for breach of contract and violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, based on the failure of the Company to
disclose on the label of its "Shrimp Tray with Cocktail Sauce" the
weight of the shrimp in the item as distinct from the accompanying
cocktail sauce, lettuce, and lemon wedges.  The complaint seeks
various forms of damages (including compensatory and treble
damages and disgorgement and restitution), injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and prejudgment
interest.  On April 21, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the Company from
selling the shrimp tray unless the Company separately discloses
the weight of the shrimp and provides shrimp consistent with the
disclosed weight.  By orders dated July 29 and August 6, 2009, the
court denied the preliminary injunction motion and dismissed the
claim for breach of contract, and on July 21, 2010, the court of
appeals summarily affirmed these rulings.  On September 28, 2010,
the district court denied the motion of one plaintiff to file an
amended complaint.  On December 1, this plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal of this and other rulings.

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


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Approval of Revised Fuel MDL Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is awaiting court approval of a
revised settlement agreement in the multidistrict litigation over
motor fuel temperature sales practices, according to the Company's
June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 8, 2011.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States of America against motor fuel retailers, including
the Company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers
by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees
without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related
expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.  The Company is named in
these actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda
A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A.
Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon
USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt,
et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North
America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.);
Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-
20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products
LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan
Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07
0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et
al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP
Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D.
Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil
Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt,
et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
On February 21, 2008, the court denied a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 12, 2009, the Company
agreed to a settlement involving the actions in which it is named
as a defendant.  Under the settlement, which is subject to final
approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the extent allowed
by law, to install over five years from the effective date of the
settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of
Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, and Virginia.  Other than payments to class representatives,
the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class
members.  On August 18, 2009, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  On August 13, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement.  On February 3, 2011,
a revised settlement agreement was submitted for court approval.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter
described.  The Company does not believe that the pending
litigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position; however, it is possible that an unfavorable
outcome, however unlikely, could result in a charge that
might be material to the results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Awaits Decision on Appeal in "Ellis" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is still awaiting a decision on its
appeal of the class certification ruling in the lawsuit commenced
by Shirley "Rae" Ellis, according to the Company's June 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 8, 2011.

A case, captioned Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
United States District Court (San Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-
MHP, is brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by
the district court on January 11, 2007.  On May 11, 2007, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a
petition to hear the Company's appeal of the certification.  The
appeal was argued on April 14, 2008.  The Company continues to
await a decision.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Robles" Suit Still Pending in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all disabled
persons with ambulatory impairments and who are allegedly unable
to obtain optometry services and care at Costco is still pending
in Illinois, according to Costco Wholesale Corporation's June 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 8, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, the lawsuit captioned Robles, et al., v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation was filed as a purported class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Case No. 11-cv-1785.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class composed of all disabled persons with ambulatory
impairments, who depend upon the use of a wheelchair and are
allegedly unable to obtain optometry services and care at Costco.
Plaintiffs allege that Costco has failed to remove architectural
barriers that prevent full and equal enjoyment of and access to
its eye examination services.  They allege violations of Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973.  They seek injunctive relief and compensatory damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Suit Over Organic Milk Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation has been named as a defendant in two
purported class actions relating to sales of organic milk: Hesse
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); and Snell v.
Aurora Dairy Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.).  Both
actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier
Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly labeled "organic."  Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008.  With respect to
the Company, plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of people who
purchased Costco organic milk.  Aurora has maintained that it has
held and continues to hold valid organic certifications.  The
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, actual,
compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.  On
June 3, 2009, the district court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice, among others, all claims against the Company.  As a
result of an appeal by the plaintiffs, on September 15, 2010, the
court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the rulings
of the district court and remanded the matter for further
proceedings.  Plaintiffs have filed amended complaints.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 8, 2011.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter
described.  The Company does not believe that the pending case
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position;
however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome, however
unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the
results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Certification Bid in "Kilano" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan denied a motion for class certification in Kilano, et.
ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp. in April, according to the
Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 8, 2011.

In Kilano, et. ano, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:10-cv-11456-
VAR-DAS (United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan), filed on April 12, 2010, a purported class action, was
filed on behalf of certain Michigan Executive level-members who
received 2% rewards.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company
"guarantees" that the member will receive rewards of no less than
the fifty dollar difference between Executive and Gold Star
membership and that the Company is required to but has failed to
automatically reimburse members whose rewards are less than this
difference.  Plaintiffs allege violations of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.  They
seek compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs,
and attorneys' fees.  The Company filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  On April 5, 2011, the
court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter
described.  The Company does not believe that the pending case
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position;
however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome, however
unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the
results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "Justice" Suit for Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is accused of violating the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code by failing to provide its cashiers with seats, according to
the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 8,
2011.

On May 12, 2011, a putative class action was filed on behalf of
California employees alleging that the Company failed to provide
its cashiers with seats, in violation of California law.  The
complaint also alludes to purported overtime violations and missed
meal periods and rest breaks.  The action is captioned Suzanne
Justice v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court of California
(Los Angeles), Case No. BC 461606.

Claims in the action are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.  Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter
described.  The Company does not believe that the pending case
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position;
however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome, however
unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the
results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Khang" Suit Dismissed in April
-------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned Khang v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation dismissed the complaint without
prejudice on April 1, 2011, according to the Company's June 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 8, 2011.

In Khang v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. SACV11-00311-JST
(CWX) (United States District Court for the Central District Of
California), filed February 23, 2011, plaintiff sought to
represent a nationwide class of all Costco Executive members in
the United States who "were harmed by Defendant Costco's failure
to properly issue the promised rewards and benefits to its
members."  He also sought to represent a similar subclass of
California-resident Executive members.  Plaintiff asserted a
breach of contract action on behalf of the nationwide class and
California sub-class, and claims under Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code and Section 1750 of the
California Civil Code on behalf of the California subclass.  On
April 1, 2011, plaintiff dismissed the complaint without
prejudice.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Medrano" Suit Still Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed by Manuel Medrano against
Costco Wholesale Corporation remains pending in California,
according to the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 8, 2011.

On July 14, 2010, a putative class action was filed alleging that
the Company unlawfully failed to pay overtime compensation, denied
meal and rest breaks, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to
provide accurate wage-itemization statements, and willfully failed
to pay termination wages allegedly resulting from
misclassification of certain California department managers as
exempt employees.  On September 3, 2010, the Company removed the
case to federal court.  The court remanded the action, and the
Company's petition to the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal
the remand order was denied.  The case is now proceeding in state
court as Manuel Medrano v. Costco Wholesale Corp., and Costco
Wholesale Membership, Inc., Superior Court of California (Los
Angeles), Case No. BC441597.

Claims in the action are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.  Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement, compensatory
damages, various statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter
described.  The Company does not believe that the pending case
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position;
however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome, however
unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the
results of an individual fiscal quarter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Trial Set for Feb. 2012 in "Raven Hawk" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is set for February 13, 2012, in the class action lawsuit
captioned Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., King County
Superior Court, Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA over Costco's routine
closing procedures and security checks in Washington, according to
the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 8,
2011.

A class action was filed on May 15, 2009, on behalf of present and
former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff
principally alleges that the Company's routine closing procedures
and security checks cause employees to incur delays that qualify
as uncompensated working time.  The case is captioned Mary
Pytelewski v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the
County of San Diego, Case No. 37-2009-00089654.  On December 14,
2010, the court certified two classes of hourly non-exempt
employees subject to the Company's closing lockdown procedures:
one under California law for California non-union employees who
were subject to the closing procedures between May 15, 2005, and
October 1, 2009; and a nationwide class under federal law for
full-time employees who were subject to the closing procedures
between March 1, 2008, and October 1, 2009.  Claims in the action
are made under various provisions of the California Labor Code and
the California Business and Professions Code.  Plaintiffs seek
restitution/disgorgement, compensatory damages, various statutory
penalties, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.

A similar class action was filed on November 20, 2009, in the
State of Washington, Raven Hawk v. Costco Wholesale Corp., King
County Superior Court, Case No. 09-242196-0-SEA.  On December 3,
2010, the court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class
certification; the class certified consists of people employed in
Washington state warehouses from November 2006 through November
2009 who had clocked out and were detained during closing
procedures without compensation.  Trial has been scheduled for
February 13, 2012.

The Company says a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss cannot be made at this time for the matter
described.  The Company does not believe that the pending case
will have a material adverse effect on its financial position;
however, it is possible that an unfavorable outcome, however
unlikely, could result in a charge that might be material to the
results of an individual fiscal quarter.


DIRECT ENERGY: Accused of Deceiving Customers in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
SRT Enterprises, Inc., for itself individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Direct Energy Business, LLC, Case No.
2011-CH-21090 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. June 13, 2011), sues for
breach of contract and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

SRT alleges that Direct Energy represents to customers that
purchasing electricity through it will be cheaper than their
current provider, but then, bills them for charges that were not
disclosed or included in the parties' contract, making the
promised savings illusory.  SRT adds that when a customer cancels
its contract with Direct Energy, the Company charges a previously
undisclosed early termination or cancellation charge.

The Plaintiff is an Illinois corporation, with its principal place
of business at 659 W. 31st Street, in Chicago, Illinois.

Direct Energy is a limited liability corporation, based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
          MCLAWHORN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          30 N. LaSalle, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1941
          E-mail: todd@mcllegal.com

               - and -

          Law Offices of Jonathan P. Remijas
          30 West Monroe Street, Suite 710
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-5250


EICHOLZ LAW FIRM: Accused of Gouging Clients in Vioxx Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a law firm
persuaded more than 200 plaintiffs it represented in the Vioxx
class action to take out high-interest loans from a company run by
the firm's lawyers and/or relatives, a former client claims in a
RICO class action.

Verie Poole filed the federal complaint against the Eichholz Law
Firm and its lending arm, Pacific Legal Funding LLC.  Ms. Poole
estimates the class contains about 200 former clients of the
Eichholz Law Firm.

Ms. Poole was a claimant in the multidistrict litigation arising
from injuries or death from Vioxx (Rofecoxib), a non-steroid anti-
inflammatory drug that was withdrawn after concerns arose that it
increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.  Merck paid $4.85
billion in settlements to the families of 3,468 people who died
after taking the drug, according to press reports in the summer of
2010.

Ms. Poole claims that the Eichholz Law Firm, while representing
her in the Vioxx lawsuit, persuaded her to take a loan toward her
settlement.  She says the loan was disbursed by Pacific Legal
Funding, a Colorado company owned and operated by members of the
Eichholz family.

Ms. Poole claims the Eichholzes created Pacific Legal in 2008 "for
purposes of providing high-interest loans to clients of Eichholz
Law."

The complaint states: "David Eichholz [registered agent for the
law firm] obtained the funds necessary to create and operate
Pacific Legal by misrepresenting to the bank that he needed a
personal line of credit.

"In fact, David Eichholz always intended to provide these funds to
his brother, who was uncreditworthy, to operate Pacific Legal."

The complaint states that the Eichholz Law Firm "employed Benjamin
S. Eichholz, Esq., as well as his two sons, David Eichholz, Esq.,
and Daniel Eichholz."

It adds that "Pacific Legal primarily operated out of the offices
of Eichholz Law and utilized employees of Eichholz Law."

Ms. Poole says Eichholz Law represented about 400 Vioxx claimants,
whose claims were consolidated with others in a multidistrict
litigation in Louisiana Federal Court.

She says the firm settled the claims of its Vioxx clients.

The complaint states: "In connection with this settlement,
Eichholz Law was made aware of the time frame in which Eichholz
Law's Vioxx clients' settlement funds would be received.

"Eichholz Law intentionally did not inform its Vioxx clients of
this anticipated time frame.

"Eichholz Law affirmatively contacted its Vioxx clients, including
plaintiff, and informed them of the ability to obtain a loan from
Pacific Legal until their settlement funds arrived.

"At the time such communications occurred, Eichholz Law knew that
payment of the settlement funds was a certainty that would occur
in the near future.

"During these communications, Eichholz Law stated to plaintiff and
the putative class that it had no affiliation with Pacific Legal.

"Such statements were false.

"During these communications, Eichholz Law stated to plaintiff and
the putative class that it would receive no money or other
benefits from any loans made by Pacific Legal.

"Such statements were false."

"In reliance upon the misrepresentations and omissions from
Eichholz Law, plaintiff and the putative class did obtain high
interest loans from Pacific Legal.

"Shortly after these loans were provided, plaintiff's and the
putative class' Vioxx settlement funds were received by Eichholz
Law.

"Eichholz Law caused a portion of these funds to pay all
principal, interest, and fees purportedly owed by plaintiff and
the putative class to Pacific Legal."

Ms. Poole says the scheme amounts to "an ongoing, open-ended
pattern of racketeering activity."

"Using this special relationship and the trust arising therefrom,
Eichholz Law misrepresented to plaintiff and the putative class
that settlement of their Vioxx claims remained uncertain.  In
reality, these Vioxx claims had been settled and Eichholz Law and
Pacific Legal were aware of the date or time frame in which these
funds would be received," the complaint states.

It adds: "The high interest rates charged by Pacific Legal on the
loans to plaintiff and the putative class were in violation of
Georgia's usury and lending laws and regulations."

Ms. Poole seeks compensatory and punitive damages for fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, usury and RICO violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Poole v. Eichholz Law Firm, P.C., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00136 (S.D. Ga.), is available at:

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Tate, Esq.
          C. Dorian Britt, Esq.
          TATE LAW GROUP, LLC
          2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600
          Post Office Box 9060
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: (912) 234-3030


ERWIN'S NUCLEAR FUEL: Sued Over Radioactive Emissions
-----------------------------------------------------
Lizz Marrs, writing for TriCities.com, reports that attorneys from
three states filed a class action lawsuit on June 13 against
Erwin's Nuclear Fuel Services.

Law firms from Greeneville, New York and Rhode Island claim
emissions from NFS are to blame for high rates of cancer.

Attorneys are fighting for their clients to get compensation for
personal injury and property damage.

"No one wants to face the truth here and the truth is, I have
highly enriched uranium on my property and I am 21 river miles
downstream," says Park Overall who's one of the main advocates of
the lawsuit against Nuclear Fuel Services.  "I began to hear about
all this cancer here, and we started to look into it.  These
chemicals and radioactive isotopes are related to particular
cancers that we have too much of in the area."

Mr. Overall says the June 13 filing of the class action lawsuit is
the biggest step so far for the Erwin Citizens Awareness Network.
ECAN is a group that's researched NFS's emissions dating back to
1954.

"The paperwork tells the true story, the lack of public regard for
health and safety," explains Mr. Overall.  "How much was spilled.
how much went in the air."

Attorney John Rogers is with the Greeneville firm who agreed to
take on this case, and on June 13 he filed the 40 page suit with
the Federal Courthouse in Greeneville.

"[We} filed in United States District Court seeking compensatory
and punitive damages for those personal injuries and also property
damages."

He says there's proof that NFS's chemicals have caused harm to
it's neighbors.

"You don't have to go very far away from the nuclear facility
itself to run smack dab into the pattern of significant cancers
that greatly exceed the national average," says Mr. Rogers.
"There are about 20 cancers that science can trace to exposure to
materials such as those being emitted into the environment."
Those radioactive materials linked to cancer he says are like
those manufactured at companies like NFS.

Right now, there are about 20 names on this class action law suit.

Once attorneys review more medical records and backgrounds, the
number of people suing NFS has the potential to reach the
hundreds.

NFS issued this statement on the lawsuit.

"Although the company can not respond to the specific allegations.
We take our environmental health and safety obligations seriously
and we routinely monitor the work place and our employees to
ensure we maintain a safe work place.  We also monitor our
emissions and the surrounding environment to ensure our operations
are not adversely impacting the environment.  NFS firmly believes
that it's operations have not harmed anyone in the community and
the company will vigorously defend itself against any lawsuit
alleging otherwise."


FAIRBRIDGE FOUNDATION: Child Migrants Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Hayes, writing or 9News, reports that child migrants sent
to a central west New South Wales farm school were subjected to
physical and sexual abuse over several decades, the NSW Supreme
Court has heard.

Sixty-nine former residents are supporting a class action seeking
compensation for physical and sexual abuse they allegedly suffered
at Fairbridge Farm School at Molong between 1938 and 1974.

The former residents are claiming the Fairbridge Foundation, which
ran the school, and the NSW and federal governments allowed a
system of institutional abuse to develop and persist at the school
over many decades.

The Supreme Court in Sydney on June 14 heard the class action
covered all residents of the school who were allegedly abused
during those 36 years and that more complainants may come forward.

During those years, about 890 children were sent from their homes
in the UK to the Fairbridge Farm School, the court heard.

Both the commonwealth and NSW governments had legal guardianship
of the children at the school under various laws, Peter Semmler
QC, for the plaintiffs, told a directions hearing.

The governments and the Fairbridge Foundation were in breach of
their duty of care to the children, who were "vulnerable and
dependent" on them, he said.

The case, being conducted by law firm Slater & Gordon, is believed
to be the first class action against an Australian government
connected with child migration.

It is alleged many children suffered physical and sexual abuse at
the farm school and suffered lifelong psychiatric and physical
injuries as a result.

Mr. Semmler said the children were subjected to abuse because of
"systemic defects" in the school.

The whole system of running the school, employing the people who
worked there, monitoring and supervising it and taking care of the
health and safety of the children was defective, he said.

Mr. Semmler outlined a number of inquiries and reports from
governmental bodies throughout the decades regarding allegations
of abuse at the school.

These included allegations one of its principals was a "sexual
pervert", who used a hockey stick to beat the children and who
beat a boy until his eyes bled.

There was evidence British authorities blacklisted Fairbridge Farm
School for a short time and recommended no more children should be
sent there, Mr. Semmler said.

Mr. Semmler applied in court for the discovery of documents from
the defendants relating to the running of the school, saying he
needed these before he could outline the particulars of the case.

Richard Stanley QC for the Commonwealth argued particulars needed
to be put forward before discovery of documents could be made,
including exactly when the alleged situation in the school became
"toxic and abusive" and what individuals were allegedly
responsible for creating that environment.

Justice Clifton Hoeben said it was a "chicken and egg" situation
as to whether the document discovery or particulars should come
first.

He adjourned the matter until June 17, saying he would make a
judgment on the issue then.


FEN-PHEN: Class Action Lawyer Stan Chesley Awaits Fate
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press, citing the Kentucky Enquirer, reports that
the Kentucky Bar Association Board of Governors was preparing to
decide the fate of class-action legal specialist Stan Chesley,
Esq., the Cincinnati attorney known as the "Master of Disaster."

The board was scheduled to hear arguments on June 14 at a
Lexington hotel.  A trial commissioner who recommended disbarment
also wants Mr. Chesley to return $7.6 million of the $20 million
he was paid in fees from a Boone County settlement for people
sickened by the diet drug fen-phen.

The trial commissioner wrote that Mr. Chesley was fully aware that
more than half of the $200 million fen-phen settlement was not
going to the 431 people he helped negotiate it for.

"It is a sordid tale worthy of the pen of Charles Dickens, were he
alive and well," the commissioner wrote.  "Alas, this tale is not
fiction."

Mr. Chesley could appeal any disbarment to the Kentucky Supreme
Court.  Kentucky has a reciprocal agreement with Ohio -- meaning
Mr. Chesley could also lose his law license in that state if he is
disbarred in Kentucky, the Kentucky Enquirer reports.

Mr. Chesley is considered in legal circles to be the godfather of
the modern class-action lawsuit.  More than 30 years ago he won
$50 million for victims of the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire, a
May 1977 blaze that killed 165 and injured 116 in northern
Kentucky.

In recent years, Mr. Chesley, 75, has had his hands in class-
action lawsuits across the country, including Ohio's case against
Fannie Mae.  He came under fire when it was revealed that
Mr. Chesley applied to appear in the securities fraud case without
disclosing that he was licensed to practice law in Kentucky, where
the fen-phen litigation was already being investigated.  That's a
violation of federal court rules in Washington.

The bar association has already disbarred the three lawyers
Mr. Chesley worked with in the fen-phen class-action case:
William Gallion and Shirley Cunningham Jr., who were sentenced to
federal prison for their actions in the settlement, and Melbourne
Mills Jr., who was acquitted in the criminal case.

In his battle against disbarment, Mr. Chesley decided not to call
federal prosecutors and FBI agents to talk about how he cooperated
in the criminal investigation against Mr. Gallion, Ms. Cunningham
and Mr. Mills after the bar association's lawyer threatened to
cross examine the federal officials as to the details surrounding
the decision to not criminally charge Mr. Chesley.


GENESCO INC: Defends Song-Beverly Act-Violations Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. continues to defend two putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the California Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act, according to the Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On March 3, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California styled
Fraser v. Genesco Inc.  On March 4, 2011, another putative class
action was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Francisco styled Pabst v. Genesco Inc. et al.  Both
complaints allege that the Company's retail stores in California
violated the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 and
other California law through customer information collection
practices, and both seek civil penalties, damages, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, and other
relief.  The Company disputes the material allegations in both
complaints and intends to defend the actions vigorously.


LABARGE INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
LaBarge, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding on
June 8, 2011, to settle class action lawsuits filed over its
proposed merger with Ducommun Incorporated, according to the
Company's June 9, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The proposed merger is pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated April 3, 2011, by and among LaBarge, Inc., Ducommun
Incorporated("Parent") and DLBMS, Inc. ("Merger Subsidiary"),
which provides for the merger of Merger Subsidiary with and into
the Company with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

LaBarge is aware of five purported class actions against LaBarge,
LaBarge's directors and Ducommun filed by purported stockholders
of LaBarge and relating to the merger.  The complaints allege,
among other things, that LaBarge's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the LaBarge stockholders, and that LaBarge and
Ducommun aided and abetted LaBarge's directors in such alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties.  Each plaintiff purports to
bring his claims on behalf of himself and a class of LaBarge
stockholders.  The actions seek judicial declarations that the
merger agreement was entered into in breach of the directors'
fiduciary duties, rescission of the transactions contemplated by
the merger agreement, and the award of attorneys' fees and
expenses for the plaintiffs.

Three of the lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction have
been filed in Missouri state court, all in the Circuit Court of
St. Louis County.  All seek declaratory, rescissory and other,
unspecified, equitable relief against the directors and officers
on a theory of breach of fiduciary duty to the stockholders and
against LaBarge and Ducommun on a theory of "aiding and abetting"
the individual defendants.  Two of the three also seek injunctive
relief prohibiting the merger.  No money damages are sought,
except for attorneys' fees and costs.  The court has consolidated
the Missouri actions for further handling and disposition.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to
stay the cases based on the pendency of the Delaware cases.  This
motion was granted on May 27, 2011.  The Missouri court has
scheduled a status conference for June 7, 2011.

The three Missouri cases are:

   1. John M. Foley, Jr. v. LaBarge, Inc., et al., St. Louis
      County Circuit Court Cause No. 11SL-CC01391, filed April 6,
      2011;

   2. William W. Wheeler v. LaBarge, Inc., et al., St. Louis
      County Circuit Court Cause No. 11SL-CC01392, filed April 6,
      2011; and

   3. Gastineau v. LaBarge, Inc. et al., St. Louis County Circuit
      Court Cause No. 11SL-CC-01592, filed April 19, 2011.

Two nearly identical lawsuits have been filed in the Chancery
Court of the State of Delaware: Barry P. Borodkin v. Craig E.
LaBarge, et al., transaction ID 36985939, Case No. 6368 (filed on
April 12, 2011) and Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 14
v. Craig LaBarge, et al. (filed on April 15, 2011).  The two
lawsuits are putative class actions that allege, among other
things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders, and that the Company and
Parent aided and abetted the Company's directors in such alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties.  Each plaintiff purports to
bring his claims on behalf of himself and a class of the Company's
stockholders.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to prevent
the proposed transaction with Parent in addition to an accounting
and attorneys' fees and costs.  On May 12, 2011, the parties
submitted a proposed schedule to the Delaware court, under which
deposition discovery would be completed by June 1, 2011, and
briefing on plaintiff's anticipated motion for preliminary
injunction would be completed by June 13, 2011.  The Chancery
Court has scheduled a hearing on June 17, 2011.

After arm's-length negotiations, the parties agreed to settle the
litigation.  On June 8, 2011, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding outlining the terms of the proposed settlement.  As
described in the MOU, LaBarge agreed to make revised and
supplemental disclosures to shareholders relating to the merger
and not to oppose certification of a class (for settlement
purposes only) of all holders of common stock of LaBarge (except
Defendants and certain family members and affiliates) from
April 4, 2011, though the closing of the merger.  Plaintiffs, in
turn, agreed to stay the actions pending court approval and, upon
court approval, to release all claims against Defendants (other
than the shareholders' statutory rights to appraisal under
Delaware law) and dismiss the actions.  The MOU further provides
that the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the
Plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, subject to
court approval.

                    Company Amends Disclosure

On June 9, 2011, the Company filed with the SEC a Form 8-K/A that
amended the earlier filed Form 8-K.  The Amendment corrects the
original filing, which erroneously reported and reflected that the
settlement is subject to completion of certain confirmatory
discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs.  The Company says that no
such requirement is included in the Memorandum of Understanding.


LTX-CREDENCE CORP: Seven Class Action Suits Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Seven putative class action lawsuits against LTX-Credence
Corporation have been dismissed, according to the Company's
June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

As previously disclosed by LTX-Credence, the Company, its
directors, Lobster-1 Merger Corporation, and Lobster-2
Corporation, were named as defendants in these putative class
action complaints:

   * Carneau v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., 110-cv-188153, filed
     on November 22, 2010, in the Superior Court of the State of
     California;

   * Khan v. LTX-Credence Corp., et.al,, 1-10-cv188773 filed
     December 1, 2010, in Santa Clara Superior Court;

   * Snitily v.Tacelli, et.al., No 1-10-cv-188922 filed on
     December 6, 2010, in Santa Clara Superior Court;

   * Shah v. Tacelli, et. al., No. 10- 4580, filed on November
     23, 2010, in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
     Massachusetts;

   * Krieger v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., No. 10-04713, filed
     on December 3, 2010, in the Superior Court for the
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

   * Keuler v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al., 1:10-cv-12058, filed
     on November 30, 2010, in the United States District Court
     for the District of Massachusetts; and

   * Brookshire v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al.,CV 10 5773 filed
     on December 17, 2010, in the United States District Court
     for the Northern District of California.

As of April 30, 2011, all of these actions have been dismissed.

On April 19, 2011, the Company received a demand letter pursuant
to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156D, Section 7.42 sent on behalf of Joel
Krieger, a purported LTX-Credence shareholder, whose putative
class action complaint, Krieger v. LTX-Credence Corp., et. al.,
No. 10-04713, filed on December 3, 2010, in the Superior Court for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was recently dismissed.  The
letter demands the Company commence legal proceedings against its
directors and senior officers for breaches of their fiduciary
duties, gross negligence and mismanagement, waste of corporate
assets, and abuse of control, all arising out of the Company's
pursuit of a merger transaction with Verigy Ltd.  Independent
members of the Board of Directors are in the process of conducting
an inquiry into the letter and matters raised therein.


LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Removes "Stagner" Suit to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Stagner, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Luxottica Retail North America Inc.,
LensCrafters Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. CGC-11-510945
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on May 12,
2011, on behalf of herself and as member and representative for
these sub-classes:

   (a) The "Hourly Subclass": All non-exempt hourly employees,
       who worked as Eyewear Consultants, Eye Care Associates, In
       Store Sales Associates, or In Store Sales Specialists in
       California from May 12, 2007, to May 12, 2011; and

   (b) The "Misclassification Subclass": All exempt employees,
       who worked as Sales Supervisors in California from May 12,
       2007, to May 12, 2011.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, among other things,
failed to provide meal and rest breaks, furnish wage and hour
statements, maintain employee time records and compensate
employees for all hours worked.

Ms. Stagner is a resident of the city of San Francisco and the
state of California.  She was employed by the Defendants from
April 16, 2010, to April 18, 2011, as an Eye Care Associate and
Eye Care Supervisor.

Luxottica and LensCrafters are Ohio corporations doing business in
California.  Luxottica designs, manufactures and distributes
prescription frames and glasses.  LensCrafters is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Luxottica.

Luxottica, doing business as LensCrafters and improperly sued as
Lenscrafters, Inc., removed the lawsuit on June 13, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Luxottica argues that the removal is
proper because diversity of citizenship exists, the class size
exceeds 100 members, and the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-
02889 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Alex Segarich, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1550
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362-1111
          Facsimile: (415) 362-1112
          E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com
                  asegarich@employment-lawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: 650-614-7400
          Facsimile: 650-614-7401
          E-mail: lchermle@orrick.com

               - and -

          Julie A. Totten, Esq.
          David A. Prahl, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
          Telephone: 916-447-9200
          Facsimile: 916-329-4900
          E-mail: jatotten@orrick.com
                  dprahl@orrick.com


MAKHTESHIM AGAN: Reaches Compromise Agreement in ChemChina Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Makhteshim Agan Group on June 13 disclosed that an agreement
in principle has been reached for compromise concerning class
action regarding the ChemChina transaction.

Pursuant to the Immediate Reports dated January 16, 2011, May 16,
2011, May 24, 2011, June 5, 2011 and June 6, 2011, the Company
announced that Koor Industries Ltd has informed the Company that:

Pursuant to the Immediate Reports of Koor in respect of the Class
Action, that was served against Koor and the Company in respect of
the transaction with ChemChina, and in respect of the interim
ruling handed down by the Tel-Aviv District Court on May 15, 2011,
the parties to the Action have reached an agreement in principle
on a compromise concerning the Action, whereby Koor shall pay the
Company's public shareholders that are entitled to consideration
as part of the ChemChina transaction, compensation in the
inclusive amount of US$45 million, subject inter alia, to closure
of the ChemChina transaction and receipt by Koor of the non-
recourse loan as part thereof.  Thus Koor will be responsible for
an additional payment to the party bringing the class action and
its representative (subject to approval of the court).  The
compromise arrangement is subject to signature of the compromise
agreement between the parties, and the procedures in this matter
as stipulated in the Class Action Law, 2006, including the court's
approval to the agreement.  There can be no certainty that the
compromise will become effective.


MANPOWER INC: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Vacation Policy
-------------------------------------------------------
Vera Willner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Manpower Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. RG11566221 (Calif. Sup. Ct. Alameda Cty. March 17, 2011),
alleges that the defendants violated the California Labor Code
because of their illegal vacation policy and failure to pay all
wages due at termination of employment.

The Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all
other current and former hourly employees of the Defendants,
seeking, among other things, unpaid vacation wages, penalties,
attorney's fees, costs, interest and expenses pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

Ms. Willner is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

The Defendants own and operate a temporary employment agency
and conduct business throughout the United States of America,
including the state of California and Alameda County.  Plaintiff
was an hourly employee of the Defendants and was paid on a weekly
basis, when work was assigned.

Manpower Inc. removed the lawsuit on June 9, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California because the District Court has original
jurisdiction over this civil action.  The Clerk assigned Case No.
4:11-cv-02846 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Jackson, Esq.
          Kirk D. Hanson, Esq.
          JACKSON HANSON, LLP
          2790 Truxtun Rd., Suite 140
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 523-9001
          Facsimile: (619) 523-9002
          E-mail: atty@JacksonHanson.com

               - and -

          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Joseph E. Jaramillo, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: lho@gdblegal.com
                  jjaramillo@gdbIegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcquirewoods.com
                  skim@mcguirewoods.com


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Awaits Ruling on Material Yard Suit Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by the Material
Yard Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds, et al., according to the
Company's June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On October 8, 2009, the Company was named in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The case is
styled Material Yard Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds, et al. v.
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., Case No. 4:09-cv-03265.  The class
period alleged in the complaint runs from March 7, 2007, to
January 9, 2008.  The primary allegations are that the Company
issued false and misleading press releases regarding its guidance
for fiscal year 2007 on various occasions during the alleged class
period.  The complaint seeks damages based on the decline in the
Company's stock price following the announcement of lowered
guidance on Oct. 10, 2007, Nov. 28, 2007, and Jan. 9, 2008.  The
case is in its early stages and discovery has not begun.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12, 2010,
and it is awaiting a decision from the Court.  The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to mount a
vigorous defense.  The Company, however, is unable to determine
the likely outcome at this time.


NEVADA ASSOCIATION: Faces Another Suit Over HOA Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for VegasInc, reports that legal headaches
seem to be intensifying for Nevada homeowner associations and
their collection agencies, with the filing of another class-action
lawsuit on June 13 over HOA debt-collection practices.

Attorneys for Benita Jones Ebel filed suit in U.S. District Court
in Las Vegas against Nevada Association Services Inc., claiming
it's been violating the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
by sending "dunning letters" that are "unfair and unconscionable"
and invaded her privacy.

Mr. Ebel in the lawsuit seeks to represent a class of people who
received such letters over alleged debts resulting from unpaid HOA
assessments.

The suit specifically charges that in a Dec. 17 collection letter
regarding an alleged debt to the Rancho Viejo HOA, NAS threatened
to file a lien against Mr. Ebel's home if the debt wasn't paid
within 10 days.

This violated the law in that consumers have 30 days to dispute
such debts, the lawsuit suggests.

"As a result of defendant's threat to record a notice of
delinquent assessment lien, defendant threatened to take non-
judicial action to effect . . . disablement of plaintiff's
property without the present right to do so," charged the suit,
which was filed by attorneys with Cogburn Law Offices.

David Stone, president of Nevada Association Services, on June 13
said his company complies with the debt collection law.

"We will file the appropriate responsive pleading, and if this is
found to be a frivolous lawsuit we will be seeking attorney's
fees.  We expect this claim to be adjudicated in our favor, as
similar claims have been.  We have been sued before and I expect
more lawsuits.  Plaintiffs are looking for a quick payday and this
is not going to happen," Mr. Stone said.

With the recession causing many homeowners to fall behind on
paying HOA assessments, and vacant and foreclosed homes sometimes
producing no revenue for HOAs, collection activity has picked up
in recent years and controversies and lawsuits have followed.

Numerous collection lawsuits are pending in state and federal
court in Las Vegas and a massive complaint was filed last month
with the state Real Estate Division against more than 500 Nevada
homeowner associations.

Yet another pending lawsuit, filed by a Bank of America
subsidiary, claims HOAs have been trying to get the bank to pay
for unauthorized attorney's fees and collection costs related to
assessments against foreclosed homes.


OAKLAND, CA: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Arrest
-----------------------------------------------------
KTVU.com reports that a class action lawsuit filed on June 13
alleges that the Oakland Police Department and the Alameda County
Sheriff's Office violated the rights of 150 people who were
arrested after former BART police officer, Johannes Mehserle, was
sentenced last Nov. 5.

The suit, filed in federal court in Oakland, claims that Oakland
police unconstitutionally and unlawfully arrested the protesters
without probable cause and sheriff's deputies caused them pain,
discomfort, embarrassment and humiliation by holding them for up
to 24 hours with little access to restrooms or food.

The lawsuit, filed by attorneys affiliated with the National
Lawyers Guild, also alleges that deputies forced some of those
arrested to provide DNA samples even though the arrests were only
based on the allegation of participating in an unlawful assembly,
which is a non-violent misdemeanor.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages for the protesters who
were arrested as well as an injunction that would force the
Oakland Police Department to comply with its crowd control
policies.

The lawsuit was filed only hours after Mesherle, 29, was released
from the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail at about 12:30 a.m.
on June 13.

Mr. Mehserle shot and killed Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old Hayward
man who was unarmed, after Mr. Mehserle and other officers
responded to reports that there was a fight on a train.

Mr. Mehserle admitted in a highly-publicized trial last year that
he shot and killed Mr. Grant but claimed he had meant to use his
stun gun on Mr. Grant and fired his service gun by mistake.

Alameda County prosecutors sought to have Mr. Mehserle convicted
of murder, but in a verdict on July 8 jurors only convicted him of
the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter.

On Nov. 5, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Perry
sentenced Mr. Mehserle to two years.  Mr. Mehserle was released
from custody on June 13 because he was given credit for time he
served in jail before and after his conviction.

A rally was held in downtown Oakland that evening, after which
some demonstrators marched toward the Fruitvale BART station.

Michael Flynn of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers
Guild said at a news conference in downtown Oakland on June 13
that Oakland police funneled the protesters to the 1700 block of
Sixth Avenue but then refused to give them an opportunity to leave
and ultimately arrested them.

Daniel Spalding said he was among those who were arrested even
though he identified himself as an observer for the National
Lawyers Guild.

The suit says there was no probable cause or legal basis to arrest
the protesters and none of the plaintiffs in the case was ever
charged with a crime.

Rachel Jackson of the Coalition for Justice for Oscar Grant said
she believes Oakland police created "an atmosphere of
intimidation" before and during the protest to discourage people
from participating in the demonstration.

Oakland City Attorney spokesman, Alex Katz, said he could not
comment on the lawsuit because his office had not yet seen it.

Alameda County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. J.D. Nelson said once
those who were arrested were taken to Glenn Dyer Jail in Oakland
they were placed in holding areas with bathroom facilities and
given bag lunches.

However, Nelson admitted, "I'm sure it was inconvenient" for those
who were arrested because of the crowded conditions.

Nelson said that because of funding cutbacks the Sheriff's
Department did not have the number of staff members it would have
liked to deal with the large number of people who were arrested.


PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Lights Class Action Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
Swedlow & Associates, Korein Tillery, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, and Newman Bronson & Wallisare on June 13 disclosed that
a class action lawsuit about whether Philip Morris USA Inc. misled
consumers about Marlboro Lights cigarettes has been certified to
proceed.  The lawsuit is called Craft v. Philip Morris Companies,
Inc. and it is pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-
Second Judicial Circuit.

You are a Class Member if you were a resident of Missouri between
February 14, 1995 and December 31, 2003; and purchased and
consumed Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Missouri during that time;
and have not filed a claim for personal injury resulting from the
purchase or consumption of cigarettes.

The lawsuit concerns two principal issues:

(1) Whether the Defendant misled people about the amount of tar
and nicotine they would receive from smoking Marlboro Lights
cigarettes and the dangers of smoking Marlboro Lights cigarettes
versus regular cigarettes; and

(2) Whether people overpaid for Marlboro Lights as a result of
these alleged misrepresentations.

Plaintiffs seek money damages related to the purchase of Marlboro
Lights cigarettes and punitive damages.  This case does not seek
to recover for personal injury or addiction.  Defendant denies
these claims and allegations and that Plaintiffs are entitled to
damages.  The Court has not decided whether the Class or Philip
Morris USA Inc. is right.  No money is available now.  The lawyers
for the Class will have to prove their claims at a trial currently
set to begin on September 6, 2011.

Lawyers from five law firms represent Class Members as "Class
Counsel."  Class Members don't have to pay Class Counsel, or
anyone else, to participate.  Class Members may hire their own
lawyer to appear in Court for them at their own expense.

Class Members do not have to do anything at this time to remain in
the Class.  By remaining in the Class, they will be bound by all
the Court's decisions in the case.  If the case later is resolved
in favor of the Class, they may be able to make a claim.  But they
cannot sue Philip Morris USA for any of the claims in this lawsuit
in the future.

Class Members who do not wish to remain in the Class must send a
letter requesting to be excluded.  The letter must be sent to
Litigation Administrator, c/o Rust Consulting, PO Box 2299,
Faribault, MN 55021-2434 and postmarked no later than August 23,
2011.  Class Members who exclude themselves can sue Defendant on
their own.  But, they will not be able to make a claim for money
in this case if it is resolved favorably for the Class in the
future.

This is only a summary.  For a detailed Notice or more
information, call toll-free 1-877-740-6998, visit
http://www.MOCigaretteCase.com or write to:

          Litigation Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting
          PO Box 2299
          Faribault, MN 55021-2434


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 13 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Research In Motion Limited common stock between December 16, 2010,
and April 28, 2011, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 26, 2011, on behalf of a different client, Robbins Geller
filed a similar class action against the Company.  That action was
voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, on May 31, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 13, 2011.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/rim/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges RIM and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act.  RIM is a designer,
manufacturer and marketer of wireless solutions for the worldwide
mobile communications market.  Through the development of
integrated hardware, software and services that support wireless
network standards, the Company provides platforms and solutions
for access to time-sensitive information, including e-mail, phone,
short message service, Internet and intranet-based applications.
RIM's primary revenue stream is generated by the BlackBerry
wireless solution, comprised of wireless devices, software and
services.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that: (a) 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; (b) due to execution issues,
product delays, and lackluster product launches, defendants knew
that shipments of Blackberry smart phones would be down and
inventory would be up; and (c) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and expected earnings were false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis when made.

On April 28, 2011, RIM issued a press release disclosing lowered
first quarter 2012 guidance for the three months ended May 28,
2011.  On this news, RIM's common stock plummeted 14%, or $7.94
per share, to close at $48.65 per share on April 29, 2011, on
heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
RIM common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a 180-lawyer firm
with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta.  The firm is active in
major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.


RESURGENCE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Interest Collection Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy L. Ward, and all others similarly situated v. Resurgence
Financial, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-21146 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.
June 13, 2011), challenges Resurgence's pattern and practice of
demanding post-judgment interest on consent judgments entered into
pursuant to settlements, when no interest is due.  Ms. Ward
alleges that the practice is particularly insidious where
Resurgence's in-house lawyers demand the interest from
unsophisticated consumers under the color of statute.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for herself and the class
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, actual and
punitive damages pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, for
funds improperly collected to be returned and for breach of
contract.  The Plaintiff also asks the Court to issue a
declaration that the 9% Illinois statutory post-judgment interest
rate does not accrue in the case of a consent judgment entered
into pursuant to settlement, and the attempt to collect that
violates the FDCPA and is an unfair practice pursuant to the ICFA.

Ms. Ward is a resident of Cook County, Illinois, and is a
"consumer" within the meaning of the FDCPA, and is a "debtor"
within the meaning of the ICAA.

Resurgence is a debt collection company that regularly collects
and attempts to collect consumer debts in Illinois.  Resurgence
also regularly purchases and sells consumer debts allegedly owed
by Illinois consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RICHMOND SCHOOL: Accused in D.C. Suit of Defrauding Students
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action accuses the profit-seeking Richmond School of Health
and Technology of targeting poor and black students and using
their student loans as its "source for cash."  The class calls the
school "a sham," which "exists to make money without any regard
for the education its students receive in exchange."

The allegations echo claims made against scads of profit-seeking
colleges across the country.  The class claims the Richmond School
of Health and Technology almost exclusively enrolls students who
get financial aid.  It claims the school plays "an extensive role
in the financial aid process, including filling out most or all
students' federal financial aid forms and gathering and submitting
the students' necessary paperwork to the United States Department
of Education," and says the school "has cut and pasted students'
signatures from other documents onto financial aid forms that are
submitted to the federal government."

The Richmond school got more than 86% of its income from financial
aid programs in the 2008-2009 academic year, according to the
complaint.  But students say the school does not provide the
education it promises, and leaves its students saddled with debt.

Named plaintiffs Mary Morgan and Amanda Smith say Richmond targets
the poor black people in Richmond through disproportionate
marketing, advertising on BET and hip-hop radio stations.

"RSHT's advertising emphasizes that RSHT is located 'on the bus
line.'  This is a euphemism that RSHT uses intentionally to
portray itself as a school for African Americans and to target
African American communities that rely disproportionately on
Richmond's public transportation system," according to the
complaint.

The school charges tuition of $10,000 to $20,000 for programs that
include massage therapy and surgical technician training.

"Targeting African Americans to take out loans on the basis of
deceptive and otherwise unfair practices constitutes 'reverse
redlining.'  Reverse redlining has repeatedly been held to violate
federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act," the students say.

Former students Ms. Morgan and Ms. Smith say they took out loans
for programs that left them unable to get jobs or to earn the
salaries they were promised.

Ms. Morgan, a black student, says she paid $10,000 to take the
school's community home health program, hoping to become eligible
for credentials higher than the certified nurse's aide license she
already had.

"The curriculum that RSHT used for Morgan's program did not
prepare her for any certification examination," the complaint
states.  "In addition, among other deficiencies, the school did
not even provide proper and sufficient books and laboratory
materials for the students to work with, such as hospital beds and
patient dummies."

She says the program was so inadequate that the school paid for
her to a take a 6-week certified nurse aide training program at
another for-profit school after she graduated.  Ms. Morgan passed
the class and was awarded the credentials that she started out
with.  The only difference, she says, is that now she has a
$10,000 debt.

Ms. Smith, a white student, paid for a $20,000 federal financial
aid loan to take the school's surgical technician training
program, but says the school failed to train her to pass the
written certification exam or offer her surgical experience
through externships.

"At one point, Smith even arranged on her own for an appropriate
externship with a surgical center, but RSHT needed to call the
center to formalize the externship and refused to do so,"
Ms. Smith says.

She claims the school's failure to educate her left her without
the ability to get a job in her field and a $20,000 debt.

Profit-seeking colleges enroll 12% of the country's higher-
education students, according to the complaint.  In the 2008-2009
academic year, those students received approximately $24 billion
in federal financial aid.  In that year, Richmond School of Health
and Technology pulled in $5.3 million in financial aid -- 86.4
percent of revenue that year, according to the complaint.

"RSHT commits fraudulent and dishonest acts in obtaining federal
student loans for its students," the class claims.  "It has cut
and pasted students' signatures from other documents onto
financial aid forms that are submitted to the federal government.
It has altered W-2 forms to misrepresent information regarding
students' income and instructed employees to destroy the documents
from which the signatures were cut."

The class says the school also leads students to believe they are
getting grants when they are actually getting loans.

It also falsifies student attendance records and grades and lies
about the employment status of graduates, the class claims.

Ms. Morgan and Ms. Smith seek punitive damages for the class for
violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Consumer
Protection Act, fraud and breach of contract.

A copy of the Complaint in Morgan, et al. v. Richmond School of
Health and Technology, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01066 (D.D.C.)
(Kessler, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/13/RichSchool.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John P. Relman, Esq.
          Glenn Schlactus, Esq.
          RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC
          1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 728-1888
          E-mail: jrelman@relmanlaw.com
                  gschlactus@relmanlaw.com


SERGEANT'S SILVER FLEA: Faces Class Action Over Tick Medication
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Eckhoff, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that
the Emmet County owners of a Yorkshire terrier that died and a
poodle that suffered seizures have sparked a nationwide class-
action lawsuit over the safety of a spray-on flea and tick
medication for dogs.

Documents filed in U.S. District Court in Sioux City allege that
Sergeant's Silver Flea and Tick Squeeze-On for Dogs was not
properly tested before it was sold to consumers in Iowa and around
the nation.

The lawsuit, brought by two women whose dogs had to be rushed for
veterinary treatment following a May 2009 play date, seeks a
refund and/or replacement goods for anyone who ever bought the
allegedly hazardous medication, as well as reimbursement for vet
bills, hospitalization costs and burials.

Becky Dodge said Sergeant's Pet Care Products Inc. rebuffed her
pursuit of compensation after her 9-month-old puppy, Daisy, died
in 2009.

"When a company has a bad product, it would be really nice if they
would fess up to it and take care of it right away," Ms. Dodge
said in an interview with The Des Moines Register.  "It's not like
my dog was a mutt.  It was a Yorkie.  They cost $500."

A Sergeant's spokeswoman declined to comment on pending
litigation.

Court papers filed by Roxanne Conlin, Esq., the attorney for
Ms. Dodge and her mother, Gladys Bruett, say the lawsuit
eventually could require compensation of more than $5 million.
Documents cite unspecified reports of complaints to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency about Sergeant's Silver Squeeze-on
from both dog owners and veterinarians.

The Iowa lawsuit says Ms. Bruett followed labeling instructions on
May 3, 2009, when she applied Sergeant's Silver Squeeze-on to her
3-year-old poodle, Willi.  Ms. Dodge estimates that it was roughly
a half-hour before Willi arrived at her home to play with Daisy,
and the puppy began jumping on its elder.

"Within about 15 minutes time, my dog was shaking, having a
seizure, and its bowels started to move," Ms. Dodge said.

Court papers say both dogs suffered seizures and were taken to a
veterinarian, where they were bathed repeatedly.  Willi, the
larger dog at 24.4 pounds, eventually was sent home.  Documents
say 2.2-pound Daisy "was unable to stand, had increased
respiration, increased heart rate, neurological quivers and
vomiting."

Ms. Dodge's dog "continued to worsen" and died within a few hours,
according to the lawsuit.

Court papers argue that Sergeant's improperly benefited by
inducing people to buy a product that consumers incorrectly
believed to be safe.

In addition to other things, the plaintiffs also seek money for
ongoing monitoring of their pets' health "to ascertain the extent
of their damages."

"The thrust of the argument is, 'This is a defective product that
has insufficient warning for safe use and that they have failed
utterly,'" Ms. Conlin said.

The EPA's Web site shows federal regulators modified their stance
toward flea and tick pesticides in March 2010 to require more
clarity in labeling and more precise dosage instructions based on
pet weight.

The EPA now recommends that consumers keep pets separated after
applying the product until it is dry.


SYNGENTA CROP: June 22 Motion Hearing Set for Atrazine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge has allowed the
plaintiff in a series of proposed class actions involving the weed
killer atrazine to file exhibits under seal.

Lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District's exhibits are
related to a sanctions move against defendant Syngenta Crop
Protection.  A motion hearing is scheduled at 9: a.m., on June 22.

Judge Mudge gave the go ahead June 13, according to the case's
docket sheet.  But, a copy of the order allowing the sealed
filings is not yet available in the case file.

Holiday Shores filed six class action suits seven years ago
against Syngenta and other companies that make and/or distribute
atrazine.

Atrazine is an herbicide often used by farmers.  Plaintiffs claim
that they are forced to remediate water contamination caused when
atrazine runs off farm fields into their drinking water supplies.

If certified, Holiday Shores would lead a statewide class of water
providers against Syngenta and the other defendants in the suits.

The Madison County cases also sparked a nearly identical multi-
state class action last year.

Syngenta and its Swiss parent company are the defendants in the
suit filed by the City of Greenville in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The Holiday Shores sanctions moves relate largely to the date that
Syngenta retained a University of Chicago economist, Don Coursey,
as an expert witness.

While Syngenta initially claimed that Mr. Coursey began work for
it in 2006 and claimed privilege over his work from that time, the
company later admitted it did not hire Mr. Coursey until 2009.

The plaintiffs also take issue with atrazine distribution data
provided by Syngenta.

Although all of the Holiday Shores suits were filed in 2004, only
the Syngenta case has made any substantive progress.

It has been plagued by discovery disputes since the process began
in earnest two years ago.

Stephen Tillery, Christie Deaton, and others represent the
plaintiffs in the Madison County and federal atrazine cases.

Kurtis Reeg is lead defense counsel for Syngenta in both the
Madison County and federal suit.

None of the proposed atrazine class actions have been certified to
date.

The case is Madison case number 04-L-710.


VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE: Faces Class Action Over Booking Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Vogel, writing for Lisle Reporter, reports that a Downers
Grove man has filed a federal class action lawsuit against the
Village of Downers Grove, claiming his civil rights have been
violated.

The case, filed May 18 in U.S. District Court, revolves around the
village's $30 administrative booking fee, which the village
charges individuals who post bail or bond for any crime for which
Downers Grove police have arrested them.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff, Robert Bailiff, says he was
arrested May 31, 2009, on domestic battery charges.  Upon being
booked, the arresting officer took $30 from Mr. Bailiff for the
administrative booking fee, the lawsuit claims.

Then on Jan. 3, 2011, the case against Mr. Bailiff was dismissed
and the village did not return his $30.

The lawsuit has the potential to affect a large number of people,
since Mr. Bailiff is filing it on behalf of himself and "all
individuals who were deprived of their property pursuant to (the
village's administrative booking fee) without being provided the
constitutionally guaranteed due process of law," the suit says.

Mr. Bailiff believes the village's $30 administrative booking fee
violates the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states
that, among other things, no state shall enforce any law that
deprives "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law . . ."

Aside from requesting an unspecified amount of money for damages,
Mr. Bailiff wants the court to declare the administrative fee
unconstitutional and is seeking an injunction against further
collection of the fee.

Mr. Bailiff also aims to get all eligible co-plaintiffs "general
damages resulting directly and proximately from (Downers Grove's)
conduct."

Mr. Bailiff said he was not ready to comment on the lawsuit and
indicated he would need to speak with his attorney before speaking
with a reporter.  "You know the routine," he said.

Village spokesman Doug Kozlowski said the village does not comment
on pending litigation.


WALMART: Sup. Court Set to Rule on Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Mann, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the US Supreme Court is set to rule on whether female employees
can sue Walmart in a class action that could ultimately cost the
retailing behemoth billions of dollars, while landing it with a
public relations disaster.

The women say the company discriminated against them on pay and
promotions for years, with male colleagues often paid more for
doing the same work and winning promotions despite having less
experience.

If allowed to proceed, it would be the biggest civil rights class
action in US history, involving up to 1.5 million current and
former employees who have worked for Walmart since December 26,
1998.

The decision is one of several keenly anticipated judgments the
court is expected to hand down this month in its traditional last-
minute blitz ahead of the summer recess.  The court will also rule
on the availability of violent video games and whether a coalition
of states can force power companies to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions.

The Walmart case evolved out of a discrimination lawsuit filed in
2001 against the company (formerly Wal-Mart Stores, Inc) by a 54-
year-old Californian employee Betty Dukes, who claimed her
attempts to get ahead in the company were deliberately stymied.
Another six women later joined the action, with lawyers looking to
gather up other Walmart workers.

A federal appeals court approved certification of the class
action, but Walmart asked the Supreme Court to overturn the
decision because, it said, management policies had differed from
store to store and the named plaintiffs could not have enough in
common with the million-plus women who would be included.

In oral argument earlier this year, Walmart told the court that if
the plaintiffs had been discriminated against on the basis of
gender, they could seek redress through individual action.  At
least 20 companies put their name to submissions in support of
Walmart.

The long-running saga has been the subject of widespread legal
debate and spawned the 2004 book Selling Women Short: The Landmark
Battle for Workers' Rights at Wal-Mart, while forming part of a
documentary that investigated the retailer's labor practices and
work culture.

It will be the first time in more than a decade that the Supreme
Court has offered comment on the standards required for certifying
a class action.

Walmart, founded by the legendary businessman Sam Walton, is the
world's biggest retailer, operating more than 4400 stores across
America as well as a similar number overseas.  It employs 1.4
million people in the US alone.

"This has been a 10-year process," one of the plaintiffs, Edith
Arana, has lamented, insisting discrimination was widespread.  "I
know what happened to me and it's not just me.  The women of this
lawsuit are the poster children for the all the women who couldn't
do this and they each have families and names and faces."

The Supreme Court's nine justices are also weighing whether a
California law banning the sale of violent video games that depict
"maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human
being" to children contravenes the first amendment of the US
constitution protecting free speech.

The court is also set to rule on whether a group of six states can
sue five big power companies in a bid to force them to cut their
greenhouse gas emissions -- a move that would open a new front in
the battle to respond to climate change.


WARNER MUSIC: Selling Biz for Too Little, N.Y. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Vikas Dahivadkar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Warner Music Group Corp., Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Scott
M. Sperling, John P. Connaughton, Scott L. Jaeckel, Seth W. Lawry,
Thomas H. Lee, Ian Loring, Mark E. Nunnelly, Richard J. Bressler,
Michele J. Hooper, Shelby W. Bonnie, Phyllis E. Grann, Access
Industries, Inc., Airplanes Music LLC and Airplanes Merger Sub,
Inc., Case No. 651561/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 3, 2011), is a
stockholder class action on behalf of holders of common stock of
Warner Music Group Corp. against WMG and its Board of Directors.
The action arises out of the Board's efforts to sell WMG to Access
Industries in an all cash acquisition valued at roughly $3.3
billion.

The Plaintiff has called the sale process "unfair and self-
serving."  Mr. Dahivadkar alleges that the Individual Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell the
Company at the unfair and grossly inadequate price of $8.25 per
share.  He adds that they have further breached their fiduciary
duties by agreeing to preclusive deal protection devices in
connection with the merger agreement that the Defendants entered
into regarding the proposed acquisition.

The Plaintiff is a WMG shareholder.

WMG is a Delaware corporation and one of the world's major music
content companies.  Access Industries is a New York corporation
and privately-held industrial group with long-term holdings
worldwide.  Airplanes Music is a Delaware limited liability
company and affiliate of Access Industries that was formed solely
for the purpose of effecting the proposed acquisition.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
          250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316
          New York, NY 10107
          Telephone: (212) 810-2430
          Facsimile: (212) 810-2427
          E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: mumeda@robbinsumeda.com
                  soddo@robbinsumeda.com

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Violating FLSA in Nevada
------------------------------------------------
Eric Gilbert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 4:11-cv-
02856 (N.D. Calif. June 10, 2011), is filed pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act as a collective action under Section 216(b) of
the Labor Code as an "opt-in" collective action on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated business sales officers,
who are currently employed, or formerly have been employed by the
bank within the past three years.

Mr. Gilbert alleges that Wells Fargo's policies and practices,
including the failure to pay overtime wages, at all relevant times
have been substantially similar, if not identical, throughout the
different Wells Fargo locations in the United States of America.

Mr. Gilbert was employed by Wells Fargo as a Business Sales
Officer from December 27, 2007, to August 20, 2010, in Las Vegas,
Nevada, and is and was an "employee" as that term is defined in
Section 203(e)(1) of the FLSA and in Section 608.010 of the Nevada
Revised Statute.

Wells Fargo is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 420 Montgomery Street, in San Francisco, California.
The Defendant is engaged in the business of banking, insurance,
investments, mortgage, and diversified financial services with
more than 9,000 locations and 12,000 ATMs across North America and
internationally, and is an "employer" as that term is used in
Section 203(d) of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net


                             *********

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  * * *