CAR_Public/110620.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 120

                             Headlines

ALLIANCE ONE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit in Brazil
AUSTRALIA: Port Stephen Residents Mull Class Action
BEST BUY: Reaches Settlement in Employment Discrimination Suit
BRASKEM SA: "Union of Triunfo" Suit Still Pending
CANADA LINE: Appeal From Class Action Certification Ruling Denied

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Class Action Settlement Junked
CIBA-GEIGY: Judge Approves $20-Million Class Action Settlement
CNN.COM: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Video Captioning
CORVEL CORP: Expects To Have "Williams" Suit Deal by End of June
CORVEL CORP: Still Owes Settlement Payment to "Roche" Claimants

C. R. BARD: Eighth Circuit Affirms Ruling in "St. Francis" Suit
DRUG RETAILERS: Seeks Rehearing of Class Action Dispute
FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Billhofer" Suit Ongoing
FTDI WEST: Fakhimi & Associates File Wage Class Action
GROUPON INC: Sued Over Expiration Dates in Vouchers

JENNY CRAIG: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over False Advertising on Benecol
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Underpaid Wages
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Overtime Suit
SCHULTE ROTH: Ex-Employee Files Class Action for Unpaid Overtime

SEMTECH CORP: Securities Settlement Hearing Set for June 27
SPORTIME LLC: Recalls 600 aDOORable Swing Bars Due to Fall Hazard
TARGET: Recalls an Additional 375,000 Child Booster Seats
TEXAS: Physicians File Class Action Over Abortion Bill
TJX COMPANIES: Recalls 23,600 Emma's Garden Polka-Dot Dresses

TOYS "R" US: Paid $1-Million Civil Penalty to FTC in May 2011
UNITED STATES: Cobell Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Today
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach




                             *********

ALLIANCE ONE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit in Brazil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance One International, Inc., is awaiting the Court's decision
on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced against
its Brazilian subsidiary, Alliance One Brazil Exportadora de
Tobaccos Ltda., according to the Company's June 10, 2011, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2011.

On June 6, 2008, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary, Alliance One
Brazil Exportadora de Tobaccos Ltda. ("AOB") and a number of other
tobacco processors were notified of a class action initiated by
the ALPAG -- Associacao Lourenciana de Pequenos Agricultrores
("Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco").  The class
action's focus is a review of tobacco supplier contracts and
business practices, specifically aiming to prohibit processors
from notifying the national credit agency of producers in debt,
prohibiting processors from deducting tobacco suppliers' debt from
payments for tobacco, and seeking the modification of other
contractual terms historically used in the purchase of tobacco.
The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of Sao Lourenco
do Sul.  The Company's motion to dismiss the class action is
currently pending.  The Company believes this claim to be without
merit and is vigorously defending it.  Ultimate exposure if an
unfavorable outcome is received is not determinable.


AUSTRALIA: Port Stephen Residents Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
ABC Newscastle reports that about 100 Port Stephens residents are
expected to be part of a class action against the Commonwealth
over aircraft noise.

Residents are seeking compensation for the economic impact caused
by the incoming Joint Strike Fighter Jets as well as the existing
noise created by the Williamtown air base.

Residents claim the noise has devalued their land and stopped some
from developing land.

Canberra legal firm Goodman Law held two information sessions at
Raymond Terrace on June 15, with several dozen people signing up
to join the 60 people already part of the class action.

The firm's Steven Gavagna says he's confident of a positive
outcome for residents.

"It is worth fighting for," he said.

"If they do nothing they'll get nothing."

"They'll have an opportunity to participate against the
Commonwealth and demand of the Commonwealth compensation.

"And demand of the Commonwealth to change its laws to better
balance public interest against the damages that are caused in
applying defense force facilities."

Mr. Gavagna says listening to the impact aircraft noise has had on
residents brought to tears to his eyes.

He says the noise impacts are destroying people's lives.

"Until you stand in front of a hundred or more people and you
listen to their stories it can't help but bring tears to your
eyes," he said.

"The pain that many of those are going through is just
unfathomable.

"And I can't understand how a Commonwealth officer, a Defence
Department officer can't listen to what they've been going through
and not be moved.

"It drove me speechless on many occasions."


BEST BUY: Reaches Settlement in Employment Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy and civil rights lawyers announced on June 17, 2011,
a proposed settlement of an employment discrimination class action
brought on behalf of women and minority employees of Best Buy.
The settlement remains subject to court approval.

Through this settlement, Best Buy agrees to changes to its
personnel policies and procedures that will enhance the equal
employment opportunities of the thousands of women, African
Americans, and Latinos employed by Best Buy nationwide.  One of
the counsel for Plaintiffs, Eve Cervantez, said that "Best Buy's
commitment to these changes makes it a 'best in class' employer of
women and minorities and a leader in the areas of diversity and
inclusion."  Best Buy said that these changes are part of Best
Buy's continuous improvement of its employees' experience and the
systems which support that experience.

The settlement has been submitted for approval to the Hon. Phyllis
J. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of California.

The lawsuit, filed in December 2005, alleged that Best Buy
discriminates against women, African American, and Latino
employees of Best Buy retail stores in the United States by
denying them promotions and more lucrative sales positions.  Best
Buy has denied any wrongdoing throughout the litigation.

In reaching this proposed settlement, the parties agreed that it
was in the interest of Best Buy, the plaintiffs, and the employee
classes to resolve the matter through a settlement that provides
injunctive relief to all class members, rather than to proceed
with litigation.

The case is entitled Holloway v. Best Buy, Civil Action No.
3:05-cv-05056-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James M. Finberg, Esq.
          Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON L.L.P.
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: jfinberg@altber.com
                  ecervantez@altber.com

               - and -

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2900
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com


BRASKEM SA: "Union of Triunfo" Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. disclosed in its June 10, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010, that in the third quarter of 2010, the
Petrochemical and Chemical Industries Workers Union of Triunfo
(Rio Grande do Sul) filed a class action requiring the payment of
overtime referring to working hour breaks, and the integration
into salary of the remunerated weekly day-off.  The Company says
the opinion of the external legal advisors is that it is possible
that the Company will win these lawsuits, and therefore, no
provision has been made.  The amount of the lawsuit totals
R$165,000.


CANADA LINE: Appeal From Class Action Certification Ruling Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that Canada Line
has lost its appeal of a B.C. Supreme Court decision certifying a
class action lawsuit by Cambie Street businesses.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield had certified a class
comprising 62 individuals or companies who own properties in the
Cambie Village and about 215 individuals who operate a business in
the village.

The businesses claim that the "cut and cover" construction method
on the rapid transit line in 2005 and 2006 amounted to a nuisance
and are seeking damages.

Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. appealed the judge's ruling,
arguing that a class proceeding was not the preferable approach to
the lawsuit.

The company argued that there were too many individual issues that
would predominate in the lawsuit.

But in a ruling released on June 15, B.C. Court of Appeal Madam
Justice Elizabeth Bennett noted that much of Canada Line's
argument was founded on a finding that there was no nuisance,
which she did not accept.

Justice Bennett said a chambers judge's decision in a class action
case is generally given considerable deference and only interfered
with if the judge erred in principle or was clearly wrong.

"In my view, the chambers judge did not err when he concluded that
the class action proceeding would advance the litigation in a
meaningful way," said the judge.  "I would not interfere with his
conclusion that the class action is the preferable procedure.  I
would dismiss the appeal."

Lawyers for Canada Line had initially asked that their appeal be
adjourned based on the uncertainty surrounding the "Heyes" case.

Cambie Street business owner Susan Heyes had filed her own
separate lawsuit, with Justice Pitfield awarding her $600,000 for
the nuisance caused by the construction.

Canada Line appealed that decision and the B.C. Court of Appeal
found that while nuisance was proven, the defense of statutory
authority took precedence and overturned the award.

At the time arguments regarding adjournment were heard, it was not
clear whether Ms. Heyes planned to seek leave to appeal her case
to the Supreme Court of Canada.  The women's clothing store owner
has since indicated she will appeal.

The Court of Appeal declined to adjourn the class action appeal
but Justice Bennett said the decision to proceed with the appeal
should not be seen as a direction to the class action trial court
to proceed.

"Whether the trial should be postponed pending the outcome of any
further appeal by Susan Heyes Inc. is a matter for the case
management or trial judge."


CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Class Action Settlement Junked
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Parker, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that the
S.C. Supreme Court on June 13 dismissed a final appeal in the
convoluted case involving victims of sexual abuse, the Catholic
Diocese of Charleston, a class-action settlement and a local
attorney representing a second group of victims.

The legal wrangling began in 2005 and reached a milestone in 2008
when the diocese paid out more than $10 million in a class-action
settlement.

Attorney Gregg Meyers, representing a group of 11 clients who had
opted out of the class action, negotiated a separate settlement
with the diocese worth nearly $1.4 million, then struggled to get
his clients paid.

In 2008, he alleged that the diocese was purposefully delaying
payment because a 12th victim had been promised a share of the
settlement money.

And he accused class counsel and Circuit Judge Diane Goodstein of
colluding to ensure that Judge Goodstein presided over all related
arguments in the case from her bench in Dorchester County, even if
Mr. Meyers' lawsuit had been filed in Charleston County.

In its decision to dismiss Mr. Meyers' claims, the Supreme Court
called the appeal "moot" because the two settlement agreements
were distinct from one another.  Those who opted out of the class
action and signed releases could not subsequently seek damages
related to the class-action suit, the court ruled.

Complicating matters further was the introduction in 2008 of a
12th victim, John Doe B, who was not officially party to either
settlement.  Because he had signed a release years before,
absolving the diocese of any additional obligation, John Doe B
could make no claim on the diocese.

Mr. Meyers said his 11 clients had every right to share their
compensation if they chose to do so, and that it was unfair of the
diocese to delay payment to them because of John Doe B.  In his
appeal, he argued that the diocese was obligated to pay interest
on funds it had withheld.

A. Peter Shahid, diocese counsel, said John Doe B had waived his
right to any additional litigation or compensation, and that it
was Mr. Meyers who was delaying the case.

The diocese was the one in July 2008 to file a motion asking the
court to enforce the settlement agreement, Mr. Shahid said.

In early 2009, Judge Goodstein ordered the diocese to pay
Mr. Meyers' clients.  John Doe B filed for bankruptcy, and Mr.
Meyers added a defamation charge to a court motion, securing from
the diocese a "sizable six figure" payment to John Doe B, which
was shared with the other 11, Mr. Meyers said.

The Supreme Court on June 13 did not address the allegations of
collusion.

Mr. Shahid said the methodology of the class-action settlement was
validated by the courts, despite the drawn-out legal wrangling.

"The diocese is pleased with the outcome, because the overall
handling of the class-action settlement agreement was good for the
victims," providing a non-adversarial opportunity to secure
compensation, he said.  Also, the separate settlement was
successfully implemented, once Mr. Meyers' clients signed the
releases, he said.

But Mr. Meyers is not walking away.

In 2009 and 2010, he filed new lawsuits against the diocese and
class-action lawyers Larry Richter and David Haller on behalf of
people he said were excluded from the original class-action
settlement and alleging malpractice.  He awaits the rulings.


CIBA-GEIGY: Judge Approves $20-Million Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a Middlesex County judge has approved a class-action settlement,
valued by the plaintiffs at $20 million, of a 10-year suit over
chemicals at the Ciba-Geigy plant in Toms River that allegedly
reduced home values.

Superior Court Judge Jamie Happas on June 7 found the agreement in
Janes v. Ciba-Geigy, MID-L-1669-01, was fair, reasonable and
adequate. No class members objected.

Ciba-Geigy made dyes at the plant from 1952 to 1996, and the plant
was declared a Superfund site after an underground plume of
chemicals was identified.  The plaintiffs alleged that the company
improperly disposed of hazardous substances at the site, leading
to groundwater contamination from the plant that reduced the value
of their homes.

The settlement creates two classes.

The first is made up of current owners of homes in the Oak Ridge
neighborhood, a subdivision of about 650 homes near the plant.
The second class is made up of about 200 people who bought homes
in the area before March 1, 2000, and sold them before Dec. 31,
2008.

For the first group, the settlement requires a 15-acre buffer zone
separating the Oak Ridge neighborhood from the plant.  Placement
of deed restrictions on that zone would allow the property to
remain in its current wooded state even if the rest of the plant
property changes hands or is redeveloped as a brownfields
property, says class co-counsel John Keefe Jr. of Keefe Bartels
Clark in Red Bank.

Creation of the zone protects class members from undesirable
views, traffic and noise from any future development of the Ciba-
Geigy site, says Mr. Keefe.  In addition, the settlement for the
first group calls for a $25,000 fund to landscape pumping stations
on the buffer zone to screen them from the residents' view.

For the second group, the settlement creates a $900,000 fund to
compensate 200 homeowners who sold their properties for less than
they would have received had the land not been contaminated.
Members of that group will receive a maximum of $4,000 each, but
payments will be computed on a pro rata basis if total claims
exceed the amount of the settlement fund.

The settlement also provides $3 million in fees to class counsel,
Mr. Keefe and Arthur Penn of Pelletieri, Rabstein & Altman of
Princeton.

Mr. Keefe says $16 million of the $20 million settlement comes
from the estimated 10 percent increase in property values that is
expected in the Oak Ridge neighborhood as a result of the
dedication of open space.

The class action was filed in 2001 on behalf of residents near the
plant who sought compensation for diminished property values
resulting from the contamination and a delayed cleanup at the
plant.

The suit was consolidated as a mass tort in Middlesex County on
Feb. 6, 2001.  Other suits that were part of the mass tort, which
sought medical monitoring and treatment, have been settled.

Judge Marina Corodemus certified the class in May 2003.  Ciba-
Geigy took the position that the residents' claims were time-
barred, and the suit was later dismissed on those grounds.  But
the Appellate Division reinstated the case in January 2007,
finding that the continuous tort doctrine applied.

The parties continued to negotiate but the remedy for those who
had not sold their homes continued to be a stumbling block, says
Mr. Keefe.

Finally, the successor to Ciba-Geigy, then known as Ciba, was
bought in 2009 by BASF, which took a more conciliatory approach,
Mr. Keefe says.

The buffer zone emerged as a good remedy for current homeowners
because, as the case neared its January 2011 trial date, it became
apparent that any damage to their property values was abating as
home prices grew and the stigma from the contamination was fading,
says Mr. Keefe.

The lawyer for Ciba-Geigy, David Field of Lowenstein Sandler in
Roseland, declines to comment.


CNN.COM: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Video Captioning
---------------------------------------------------------
KTVU.com reports that a class action lawsuit was filed in Alameda
County Superior Court on June 15 alleging that CNN.com
discriminates against people who are deaf or hard of hearing by
failing to provide any captioning of its online videos on its Web
site.

The lawyers who filed the suit said they believe it is the first
of its kind in the country.

The suit says videos of breaking news events are posted on news
Web sites allowing the public to access critical information but,
CNN.com, which it says is one of the largest media and
entertainment companies in the world, refuses to provide any
captioning of its online videos.

The lack of captioning excludes the deaf and partially deaf
communities from accessing video news content on its Web site, the
suit alleges.

The suit was filed by the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness,
or GLAD, on behalf of its members with hearing loss as well as
three individual plaintiffs, one of whom lives in Alameda County.

The plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, a
non-profit disability rights legal center based in Berkeley, and
Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, an Oakland law
firm.

Anna Levine, an attorney with Disability Rights Advocates, said
GLAD has been writing letters to CNN.com since late last year to
ask for captioning but the Web site "has refused to commit to it."

Ms. Levine said, "There were many months of effort to try to
accomplish the captioning without litigation" and the lawsuit was
only filed as a last resort.

She said CNN.com has never cited cost as a factor in not providing
captioning, saying only that it does not believe it is required by
law to have captioning.

A spokeswoman for CNN.com, which is a subsidiary of Time Warner
Inc., declined to comment on the suit on June 15, saying it had
not yet been served.

The lawsuit alleges that CNN.com is violating California's anti-
discrimination statutes, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the
Disabled Persons Act.

It seeks an injunction requiring CNN.com "to take steps necessary
to ensure that the benefits and advantages offered by CNN.com are
fully and equally enjoyable to persons who are deaf or have
hearing loss in California."

Ms. Levine said the suit also seeks damages of between $1,000 and
$4,000 for each violation of California's laws, which could total
between $5 million and $10 million.

But Ms. Levine said the main focus of the lawsuit is getting
CNN.com "to fix its Internet site to provide equal access" to
people who are deaf or hard of hearing, not on damages.

The suit says broadcast and cable television content must be
closed-captioned under federal communications law and there is
readily available technology that would enable online news sites
to provide similar closed captions.

The suit says, "Captioning can be readily provided as an option
for hearing-impaired visitors to CNN.com without significant
difficulty or expense and without interfering with the experience
that non-disabled visitors to CNN.com enjoy."

Ms. Levine said coverage of the upcoming presidential election is
an example of the importance of having videos with captions.

She said body language and facial cues are a central part of
communication for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and
videos with captions would allow them to view speeches and debates
in a meaningful manner.

Ms. Levine said she did not know of any news Web sites that
provide captioning of online videos.

She said the plaintiffs chose to sue CNN.com "because it's an
industry leader and we want to send a message to the industry that
they must comply with anti-discrimination laws."

        Time Warner Also Sued for Lack of Captioning

Courthouse News Service reports that the Greater Los Angeles
Agency on Deafness asserts in a state class action that Time
Warner discriminates by failing to caption its news videos on
CNN.com.

A copy of the Complaint in Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness,
Inc., et al. v. Time Warner, Inc., Case No. 11580682 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/16/Deaf.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence W. Paradis, Esq.
          Anna Levine, Esq.
          Elizabeth Leonard, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          E-mail: lparadis@dralegal.org
                  alevine@dralegal.org
                  eleonard@dralegal.org

               - and -

          Linda M. Dardarian, Esq.
          Rachel E. Brill, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          E-mail: rbrill@gdblegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Blanck, Esq.
          900 S. Crouse Avenue
          Crouse-Hinds Hall, Suite 300
          Syracuse, NY 13244-2130
          E-mail: pblanck@syr.edu


CORVEL CORP: Expects To Have "Williams" Suit Deal by End of June
----------------------------------------------------------------
CorVel Corporation expects to be able to arrive at a definitive
settlement agreement by the end of June 2011 in the class action
lawsuit commenced by George Raymond Williams, according to the
Company's June 10, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD., as plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a
First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class
Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St.
Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation and its insurance
carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and Executive
Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other unrelated
parties.  Williams alleges that CorVel violated Louisiana's Any
Willing Provider Act (the "AWPA"), which requires a payor
accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days' advance
written notice or point of service notice in the form of a benefit
card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the
contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured
under that payor's health benefit plan.  On March 31, 2011, CorVel
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with attorneys
representing the plaintiffs and the class setting forth the terms
of settlement of this class action lawsuit.  The Memorandum of
Understanding provides that subject to the execution of a mutually
acceptable settlement agreement and final non-appealable approval
of such settlement by the Louisiana state court, CorVel will pay
$9 million to resolve claims for which CorVel recorded a $9
million pre-tax charge to earnings during the March 2011 quarter.
In addition, CorVel will assign to the class certain rights it has
to the proceeds of CorVel's insurance policies relating to the
claims asserted by the class.

The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration
Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana
Hospital Association, doing business as Lake Charles Memorial
Hospital, as previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within
the settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.  Pursuant
to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed
to request that the appropriate courts stay all related
proceedings in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana
Office of Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding
before the American Arbitration Association in which the parties
are named, until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed
and receives final court approval.  The settlement does not
constitute an admission of liability.

In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members
will release CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any
claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or
reimbursement of a workers' compensation bill, including but not
limited to claims under the AWPA.  Plaintiffs have also agreed to
a notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply
with the AWPA.  As noted, the Memorandum of Understanding is
contingent upon the execution of a mutually acceptable definitive
settlement agreement.  Under Louisiana law, once the parties have
executed such a settlement agreement, they must apply to the court
for approval of the settlement following a court-supervised
process of notice to the class and an opportunity for the class to
be heard about the fairness of the settlement or to be excluded
from the settlement.  CorVel expects to be able to arrive at such
a definitive settlement agreement by the end of June 2011, but
there can be no assurance that the parties will be able to reach a
definitive settlement agreement within that timeframe or at all,
that the court will approve the settlement or that a large number
of class members will not opt out of the settlement.  If a
definitive settlement agreement is not reached or is not approved
by the court, all related proceedings in State and Federal Court,
as well as the Louisiana Office of Workers Compensation and the
arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association
that have been stayed pending settlement will resume.


CORVEL CORP: Still Owes Settlement Payment to "Roche" Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a
putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against CorVel Corporation.
The case sought unspecified damages based on the Company's alleged
failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members
of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the
Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review
medical providers' bills.  On October 29, 2010, the Company
entered into a settlement agreement providing for the payment of
$2.1 million to class members and up to an additional $700,000 for
attorneys' fees and expenses, and as a result the Company accrued
$2.8 million of estimated liability for this settlement agreement
during the quarter ended September 30, 2010.  On January 21, 2011,
the Circuit Court gave final approval to the settlement and
awarded class counsel $700,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses and
a $5,000 incentive award to Kathleen Roche, the class
representative.  Through March 31, 2011, the plaintiff's attorneys
had been paid but no amounts had been paid to the claimants.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 10, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 31, 2011.


C. R. BARD: Eighth Circuit Affirms Ruling in "St. Francis" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a
district court ruling granting C. R. Bard, Inc.'s summary judgment
motion and dismissing claims brought against it by St. Francis
Medical Center, et al., according to the Company's June 10, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 8, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
in a re-hearing of the plaintiff's previous appeal, affirmed the
decision of the District Court in the previously-disclosed class
action lawsuit entitled St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v. C.
R. Bard, Inc. et al. (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031, United
States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern
Division).

In September 2009, the District Court granted the Company's
summary judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all counts
brought against the Company in this action.  St. Francis Medical
Center may request that the Court of Appeals re-hear its appeal
and/or may request a review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court.


DRUG RETAILERS: Seeks Rehearing of Class Action Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group of
pharmacies sued by West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw
is appealing a federal appeals court's decision to send the case
to state court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in May rejected
the defendants' argument that Mr. McGraw had filed what was
essentially a class action lawsuit against them.  As a class
action, they argued, the case belonged in federal court and not in
Boone County Circuit Court, where it was first filed.

The three-judge panel that heard the case ruled 2-1 for
Mr. McGraw, and now the defendants seek a rehearing in front of
the entire Fourth Circuit in a petition filed June 3.

"(T)he majority's decision directly conflicts with the
authoritative precedent from the only other federal appellate
court to have addressed the issue," the petition says, noting a
pair of 2008 decisions that involved Hurricane Katrina.

"(T)he Fifth Circuit held that even where an attorney general is
the nominal plaintiff, an action is removable under the (Class
Action Fairness Act) when it seeks reimbursement for a subgroup of
state citizens."

Mr. McGraw's lawsuit alleges the defendants -- six prescription
drug retailers including CVS, Target and Wal-Mart -- did not pass
savings on generic drugs onto consumers.  He hired private
attorneys to pursue the case as well as another one against Rite
Aid.

In its appeal brief, the group of pharmacies claimed Mr. McGraw's
lawsuit satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the federal
CAFA.

"The AG's allegations make abundantly clear that more than $5
million and the interests of more than 100 persons are at issue.
If the rightful interests of the West Virginia consumers on whose
behalf the AG has brought suit are recognized, there also is
undeniably minimal diversity between at least some plaintiffs (who
are West Virginia citizens) and all defendants (as none of the
defendants reside in or is a citizen of West Virginia."

The pharmacies added that any consumer who was allegedly
overcharged is a real party in interest to the case.

The decision says the West Virginia statutes on which Mr. McGraw
relies contain none of the essential requirements for a class
action.  Mr. McGraw is not designated as a member of the class and
he is not required to give notice to overcharged customers, the
decision says.

"Indeed, the West Virginia Attorney General's role here is more
analogous to the role of the EEOC or other regulator when it
brings an action on behalf of a large group of employees or a
segment of the public," the decision says.  "Yet, the Supreme
Court has concluded that such a regulator's action is not a class
action of the kind defined in Rule 23."

Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented.  Even though the action was
brought under state statutes, it doesn't take away the "essence"
of the case, he wrote.

"(T)he elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and
adequacy of representation have not been specifically pleaded,"
Judge Gilman wrote.  "But I submit that these are subsidiary
factors that do not detract from the essence of the action.

"They are, in other words, 'bells and whistles' whose absence in
the pleadings do not prevent the Attorney General's suit from
being considered a class action under CAFA."

Judge Gilman wrote that similar lawsuits filed by Mr. McGraw's
outside counsel in other states are undisputed class actions.

McGraw hired two private firms -- Bailey & Glasser and DiTrapano
Barrett & DiPiero -- for the case.  The two firms have contributed
more than $60,000 to Mr. McGraw's campaign fund over the years,
including $11,800 for his 2008 race against Republican Dan Greear.


Bailey & Glasser brought similar lawsuits in Michigan and
Minnesota.  The Michigan suits were dismissed by a state judge
because the only specific pricing information was obtained by a
West Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger.

The Minnesota lawsuit, brought on behalf of unions that provide
health care for their members, was initially dismissed in November
2009 by former U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum, who had harsh
words for the plaintiffs attorneys.

Judge Rosenbaum was peeved that the complaint, filed against 13
defendants, only contained specific pricing information about two
of them.

"(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any
basis.  There are no, none, factual allegations touching any
defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Judge Rosenbaum said
Nov. 20, 2009.

"There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any
liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to
sustain a complaint based upon that.  It's not only laughable,
it's absolutely reprehensible."

A federal magistrate judge is currently deciding if that lawsuit
will be remanded to a Minnesota court.


FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in "Billhofer" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the putative class action lawsuit
captioned Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, S.A., et al.,
according to the Company's June 10, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 9, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
entitled Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, et al.  The complaint
purports to allege claims arising under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on certain public statements by the Company
concerning, among other things, a clinical trial involving Coreg
CR and seeks the award of damages in an unspecified amount.  By
Order dated February 11, 2008, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel in the action.  On March 27, 2008, the
lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which continued to name
as defendants the Company and two previously named officers and
asserted the same claims based on the same events as alleged in
the initial complaint.  On May 12, 2008, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the action, which the Court denied by Order
dated October 1, 2009.  The action is now in the discovery phase
pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court in a Case Management
Order, signed December 9, 2009.

On April 29, 2010, the lead plaintiff moved to withdraw and
substitute another individual as lead plaintiff and to amend the
Case Management Order.  On September 20, 2010, the Court granted
that motion and on September 30, 2010, the Court approved an
Amended Case Management Order.  The parties are now pursuing
further discovery consistent with the schedule set forth in that
Order.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in
the action.


FTDI WEST: Fakhimi & Associates File Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
San Bernardino employment attorneys of Employment Law Team, a
division of Fakhimi & Associates have filed a class action lawsuit
against F.T.D.I West Inc., a company with locations in California
and Florida.  The lawsuit filed in the San Bernardino Superior
Court on March 18, 2011 under case number CIVDS 1103584, and case
name Bustillo v FTDI West, Inc., alleges that FTDI West Inc.,
violated: Sections 226.7 and 512 of the California Labor Code by
failing to provide adequate meal breaks to employees involved,
section 226.7 of the California Labor Code by failing to provide
adequate rest breaks to employees involved, Section 510 of the
California Labor Code by failing to pay proper overtime wages,
Sections 203 and 226 (a) of the California Labor code by providing
involved employees paystubs not in compliance with California law
and not paying "waiting time" penalties, as well as two other
causes of action as related to Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 and the common law tort of unjust enrichment.  The
overtime claims asserted deal with non-payment of "double time"
wages.  Double time wages are due for any work over 12 hours in a
workday or any work beyond eight hours on any seventh consecutive
day of a workweek.  The lawsuit defines its class members as "All
current and former employees of Defendants who were employed as
non-exempt employees at any of Defendants' locations anywhere in
California, at any time from four years prior to the initiation of
this action until the present."

Anyone with information or knowledge about the claims made in the
complaint against F.T.D.I. Inc., is encouraged to contact the
office's of Fakhimi & Associates at 877-529-4545.  All current and
former employees who feel that they may qualify to be part of the
class are also encouraged to contact Orange County overtime
attorneys of Fakhimi & Associates.

Employment Law Team -- http://www.employmentlawteam.com-- was
founded by Houman Fakhimi a former in-house attorney with STEC,
Inc., and a seasoned trial lawyer.  The Orange County employment
law attorneys of Fakhimi & Associates have litigated a wide range
of employment law and labor law issues ranging from overtime
wages, discrimination, non-payment of wages, and retaliation.


GROUPON INC: Sued Over Expiration Dates in Vouchers
----------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced against Groupon Inc. in Ontario
on behalf of consumers who have purchased or acquired a voucher,
also known as a "groupon", for services and products.

The lawsuit alleges that Groupon engages in "unfair practices"
contrary to Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, by selling vouchers
with expiration dates that are against the law.  In addition, it
alleges that Groupon relies on "terms and conditions" which
confuse and mislead consumers and are deceptive, ambiguous,
contradictory and confusing.  The lawsuit further alleges that
Groupon illegally requires consumers to use the entire groupon in
a single transaction, or else lose any remaining balance.

The proposed representative plaintiff, Hitendra Patel, is a
Toronto resident who purchased a $25 groupon for $50 worth of
merchandise at the Gap in the fall of 2010.  He tried to use the
groupon in late November 2010, but was told the groupon had
"expired" and could not be redeemed.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

Mr. Patel has retained the Toronto law firm of Sack Goldblatt
Mitchell LLP to bring the claim.  Sack Goldblatt Mitchell is also
counsel in a number of other large class action lawsuits.

A Web site has been established with more information about the
claim: http://www.grouponclassaction.ca

Consumers who believe they may have a claim against Groupon can
register through the Web site to receive more information about
the class action, including updates about the claim's progress.


JENNY CRAIG: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Jenny Craig stiffs workers
for regular time and overtime, according to a federal class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Coleman, et al. v. Craig, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-01301 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/15/JenCraig.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          Laura M. Cotter, Esq.
          CLARK & MARKHAM LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 2130
          San Diego, CA 92102
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321

               - and -

          Barron E. Ramos, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Barron E. Ramos
          270 N. El Camino Real, # F-303
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (858) 461-0500
          E-mail: info@yourclasscounsel.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          65 Pine Ave. #312
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (877) 696-8378


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over False Advertising on Benecol
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Nutritionals falsely advertise
that their Benecol margarine-like spread is "proven to reduce
cholesterol."

A copy of the Complaint in Reid v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-99999 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/15/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          3636 4th Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: Ron.Marron@gmail.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          888 Turquoise Street
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 488-1672


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Underpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
cheat workers of wages and overtime wages, a class action claims
in Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Andino v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,
et al., Case No. 11580548 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/15/Kaiser.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  ikhoury@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that unlicensed
accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers are not automatically
covered by California's overtime laws, a U.S. appeals court ruled
on June 15.

Two-thousand unlicensed junior accountants brought a class action
lawsuit against PwC, claiming the giant accounting firm failed to
pay them mandatory overtime under California law.  A lower court
found that PwC could not exempt them from the state's overtime
requirements.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on June 15, ruling
that PwC is entitled to litigate whether the unlicensed
accountants can be exempted from overtime laws.  The 9th Circuit
remanded the case back to a district court in Sacramento, Calif.
for more proceedings.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and PwC did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

The case in the 9th Circuit is Jason Campbell, Sarah Sobek et al.
v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 09-16370.


SCHULTE ROTH: Ex-Employee Files Class Action for Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Am Law Daily by
Tom Huddleston Jr., a former technical support employee of Schulte
Roth & Zabel has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the
firm denied him and other employees proper overtime compensation
required by federal wage and hour laws.

The suit was filed on June 13 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan
on behalf of Keith McKenzie, a former desktop support technician
who worked in Schulte Roth's Manhattan office from April 2001, to
April 2010, according to the lawsuit.

The putative class consists of McKenzie and any of Schulte's
current or former desktop support technicians who were employed at
any point in the three-year period before the date the suit was
filed and who did not receive overtime pay when working more than
40 hours in a week.  The suit claims that the firm employed seven
other technicians -- who, it says, provide technological support
to the firm's employees -- during that time.  The complaint states
that the firm failed to pay overtime premiums "for all hours
worked over 40 in a given week."

"We believe that Mr. McKenzie's claims are without merit and we
will respond in due course in the court proceeding," Gary Fiebert,
Schulte Roth's executive director, said in a statement to The Am
Law Daily.

According to Mr. McKenzie's suit, Schulte Roth authorized a policy
that gave all desktop support technicians compensatory time off
instead of overtime pay when those employees exceeded 40 hours of
work in a given week.  Mr. McKenzie -- represented by Christopher
Davis and Robert Ottinger of The Ottinger Firm in New York --
alleges that the firm willfully violated the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by refusing to pay overtime premiums, and by failing
to keep accurate records that reflect the hours McKenzie and the
collective class worked.

"Our client has informed us that [Schulte Roth has] applied an
unlawful practice of substituting compensatory time for overtime
wages, and that's illegal," Mr. Davis says.  "We've investigated
the allegations and we're extremely confident that we'll be able
to prove that this practice was taking place."

The lawsuit seeks relief for Mr. McKenzie and any other plaintiffs
that would include an award for unpaid wages owed (with interest
and penalties), as well as attorney's fees.

Schulte Roth is a roughly 400-lawyer firm with offices in New
York, Washington, D.C., and London.


SEMTECH CORP: Securities Settlement Hearing Set for June 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of the settlement in the
consolidated class action lawsuit against Semtech Corporation is
scheduled for June 27, 2011, according to the Company's June 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2011.

Two separate purported class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers in August and
October 2007, on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired
Company securities from dates in 2002 to July 2006.  The cases
alleged violations of Federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's past stock option practices.  In February 2008, the
Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System filed a motion in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California for consolidation of the cases, appointment of MPERS as
lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel.  The MPERS
motion was granted in late March 2008, and a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint was filed in May 2008, initiating the
consolidated action with MPERS as the lead plaintiff.  The
consolidated case is captioned In Re: Semtech Corporation
Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Central
District of California, Case No. 2:07-CV-07114-CAS.  In December
2008, per motions filed by the defendants, the Court granted
motions to dismiss in favor of defendants Jason Carlson (former
Chief Executive Officer of the Company) and Mohan Maheswaran
(current Chief Executive Officer of the Company) regarding claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The Court denied all other motions of all defendants,
including other motions to dismiss brought in relation to
alternate allegations raised against Messrs. Carlson and
Maheswaran, who remain pending as defendants in the matter.  In
August, 2010, the Court issued its class certification order,
certifying the plaintiff class as persons who acquired common
stock of the Company between August 27, 2002, and July 19, 2006
(inclusive).

At a mediation meeting held on December 5, 2010, an agreement in
principle to settle the class action litigation was reached.  The
Company agreed to pay $20 million to settle all claims in the
litigation.  As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded
an additional charge of $10.0 million in fiscal year 2011 to
increase the Company's total accrued liability for this matter to
$20.0 million.  Payment in full of the $20 million settlement
amount was made on April 14, 2011, into the applicable escrow
account associated with the proposed settlement and preliminary
Court approval of same.

The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against the
Company, all current officers and directors of the Company named
in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors of the
Company named in the lawsuit.  No parties admit any wrongdoing as
part of the proposed settlement.  Preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement was issued by the Court on April 11, 2011.
Final approval is scheduled for June 27, 2011, contingent upon any
objections, or material elections to opt out of the settlement,
being filed timely on or before June 6, 2011.  The Company does
not expect any objections or material elections to opt out of the
settlement being filed before the applicable deadline, and expects
final approval of the settlement by the Court following the
hearing on June 27, 2011.


SPORTIME LLC: Recalls 600 aDOORable Swing Bars Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
about 600 units of Abilitations aDOORable swing bar were
voluntarily recalled in the United States of America by importer,
Sportime LLC, of Norcross, Georgia, a subsidiary of School
Specialty Inc. of Greenville, Wisconsin, and manufacturer,
Sporting King Co. Ltd., of Taiwan.  Consumers should stop using
the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A welded eye hook on the swing bar can break, posing a fall
hazard.

Sportime has received three reports of children falling when the
welded eye hook released.  Two minor injuries were reported
including one report of rug burn after falling from a swing
attached to the swing bar.

The Abilitations brand aDOORable swing bar is designed to be
suspended in a doorway so that a swing attachment can be
connected.  The swing bar is a white metal pole between two
brackets that attach to a standard size doorway with metal screws.
Two metal "S" hooks are welded to the metal pole for a swing
attachment.  "Abilitations aDOORable Swing Bar" and product number
"1302341" are printed on the metal pole.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11743.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold
exclusively by Sportime in Georgia from January 2009 through March
2011 for about $60.

Consumers should stop using the recalled swing bars immediately
and contact Sportime to receive a full refund for the swing bar
and additional attachments sold with the swing bar.  For
additional information, contact Sportime toll-free at (888) 388-
3224 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.sportime.com/


TARGET: Recalls an Additional 375,000 Child Booster Seats
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall of
about 375,000 Circo Child Booster Seats.  In August 2009, 43,000
additional booster seats were recalled.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The booster seat's restraint buckle can open unexpectedly,
allowing a child to fall from the chair and be injured.

Target has received 10 additional reports of booster seat buckles
opening unexpectedly, including three reports of bumps and bruises
when a child fell forward out of the booster seat, hitting an
object or the floor.

The expanded recall involves all Circo Booster Seats, including
those sold as early as 2005.  The plastic booster seats are blue
with green trim and a white plastic restraint buckle.  They attach
to an adult chair to boost a child to a table.  "Circo" and
"Booster Seat" can be found on a green label located in the front
of the booster seat.  Picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11248.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide from January 2005 through
June 2009 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled booster seats
and return them to any Target store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between
7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/


TEXAS: Physicians File Class Action Over Abortion Bill
------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, physicians say an unconstitutionally vague
Texas law that takes effect Sept. 1 threatens them with criminal
prosecution and loss of their medical licenses if they fail to
obtain "informed consent" of women who seek abortion, by giving
them "visual and auditory depictions of the fetus" beforehand.

Gov. Rick Perry, who is considering running for president, signed
Texas House Bill 15 on May 19, 2011.  The bill "takes effect on
September 1, 2011, and applies to any and all abortions performed
on or after October 1, 2011," according to the complaint.

The plaintiff class "Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion
Services" is led by Metropolitan OB-GYN PA dba Reproductive
Services of San Antonio, and its director, a physician.

HB 15 amended a Texas statute enacted in 2003 known as the Women's
Right to Know Act (WRKA), "which mandates that certain procedures
and content be used in the informed consent process when the
patient is a woman seeking an abortion," according to the
complaint.

The 2003 law requires that doctors must inform the woman of the
name of the doctor who will perform the abortion, the medical
risks associated with the procedure, the probable gestational age
of the fetus and the medical risks of carrying a pregnancy to
term.

"The performing physician or the physician's agent must also
inform the woman that: (1) specified types of medical assistance
benefits may be available to her; (2) the father is liable for
child support; (3) public and private agencies provide pregnancy
prevention counseling and referrals for obtaining birth control;
and (4) she has the right to view printed state materials, which
are also accessible on the Internet, describing the fetus and
listing agencies that offer abortion alternatives.  This
information must be given to the woman by telephone or in person
at least 24 hours before the abortion," the complaint states.
Under current law, intentional performance of an abortion in
violation of the WRKA constitutes a misdemeanor punishable by a
fine of up to $10,000.

HB 15 amends the Women's Right to Know Act by adding a new
penalty, which requires the Texas Medical Board to "refuse to
renew the license of any physician who violates the WRKA," the
complaint states.

In addition, it states that to obtain a woman's "informed
consent," a doctor or a "certified sonographer" must perform an
ultrasound on the woman at least 24 hours before the abortion.

"Under the Act the physician who will perform the abortion must
'display[] the sonogram images in a quality consistent with
medical practice in a manner that the pregnant woman may view
them,'" the complaint states.

"The physician who will perform the abortion must also describe
the fetal image to the pregnant women in great detail," the
complaint states.

The doctor also must make the fetal heartbeat, if any, audible for
the pregnant woman to hear, and verbally explain it to her.

"Prior to the pre-abortion ultrasound, the woman must fill out a
certification form indicating that she understands that: (1) Texas
law requires she receive a ultrasound prior to receiving an
abortion; (2) she has 'the option to view the sonogram images;'
(3) she has the 'option to hear the heartbeat;' and (4) she is
'required by law to hear [the physician's] explanation of the
sonogram images' unless she certifies in writing that she falls
into one of three limited categories," according to the complaint.

"The Act allows the woman to certify that she elects not to hear
an explanation of the ultrasound images in only three
circumstances: (a) if she is 'pregnant as a result of a sexual
assault, incest or other violation of the Texas Penal Code that
has been reported to law enforcement authorities or that has not
been reported because [the woman] reasonably believe[s] that doing
so would put [her] at risk of retaliation resulting in serious
bodily injury;' (b) if she is a minor obtaining an abortion
pursuant to a judicial bypass; or (c) if the 'fetus has an
irreversible medical condition or abnormality, as identified by
reliable diagnostic procedures and documented in [the patient's]
medical file.'"

While the law gives a pregnant woman the option not to view the
sonogram, or hear the fetal heartbeat, if any, the "Act also
states that the ultrasound images are 'required to be provided to'
the woman and that 'consent to an abortion is voluntary and
informed only if,' inter alia, the image is placed in the woman's
view," the complaint states.

"In light of the foregoing, it is not clear under the Act whether:
(1) the woman's choice not to view the ultrasound images relieves
the physician of the obligation to place the ultrasound images in
the woman's view; (2) the woman's choice not to hear the verbal
explanation relieves the physician of the obligation to provide
that verbal explanation; and (3) the woman's choice not to hear
the heart auscultation relieves the physician of the obligation to
make the heart auscultation audible, if present.

"In light of these ambiguities, and the harsh penalties and strict
liability imposed by the Act, a physician seeking to avoid those
penalties, including the risk of losing his or her medical
license, will be compelled to: (1) place the ultrasound images in
the woman's view even if the woman has indicated that she does not
want to see them; (2) describe the ultrasound images to every
woman seeking an abortion, even to a woman who falls in one of the
three designated categories and has indicated that she does not
want to hear the explanation; and (3) make the heart auscultation
audible (either personally or through an agent who is a certified
sonographer)."

The class claims, "The Act will impose irreparable harms on
patients who seek, and physicians who provide, abortions by
depriving them of their constitutional rights to free speech,
privacy, equal protection, and due process."

The class seeks declaratory judgment that HB 15 is
"unconstitutional and unenforceable" for vagueness, and because it
"compels physicians to convey to their abortion patients in a
private medical setting unwanted government speech that falls
outside accepted and ethical standards and practices for medical
informed consent," and subject patients to this same "unwanted
government speech.

The Act also discriminates on the basis of gender "by subjecting
women to burdens not imposed on men; by perpetuating patronizing
and paternalistic stereotypes of women as in need of special
'protections' and unable to make medical decisions on their own;
and by enforcing the notion that a woman's primary and proper role
is that of mother," the class says.

Finally, the class claims the Act violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment by treating abortion patients and
providers "differently than providers and patients of all other
medical services in the state without any basis for the
differential treatment other than discriminatory views towards
women and animus towards abortion providers and patients who seek
their services."

Here are the defendants: Dr. David Leakey, commissioner of the
Texas Department of State Health Services, in his official
capacity; Mari Robinson, executive director of the Texas Medical
Board, in her official capacity; and David Escamilla, County
Attorney for Travis County, in his official capacity and as
representative of the class of all county and district attorneys
in the State of Texas with authority to prosecute misdemeanors;
and their employees, agents and successors.

A copy of the Complaint in Texas Medical Providers Performing
Abortion Services, et al. v. David Lakey, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00486 (W.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/15/Abortion.pdf#

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dicky Grigg, Esq.
          SPIVEY & GRIGG, LLP
          48 East Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-6061
          E-mail: dicky@grigg-law.com

               - and -

          Susan Hays, Esq.
          GODWIN RONQUILLO, PC
          1201 Elm Street, Suite 1700
          Dallas, TX 75270
          Telephone: (214) 557-4819
          E-mail: shays@godwinronquillo.com

               - and -

          Bebe J. Anderson, Esq.
          Bonnie Scott Jones, Esq.
          CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
          120 Wall Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (917) 637-3600
          E-mail: banderson@reprorights.org
                  bjones@reprorights.org

               - and -

          Jamie A. Levitt, Esq.
          J. Alexander Lawrence, Esq.
          Morrison & Foerster, LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 336-8638
          E-mail: alawrence@mofo.com


TJX COMPANIES: Recalls 23,600 Emma's Garden Polka-Dot Dresses
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with The TJX Companies, Inc., of Framingham,
Massachusetts, announced a voluntary recall of about 21,000 Emma's
Garden(R) Polka-Dot girls' dresses in the United States of America
and 2,600 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The decorative buttons on the front of the dress can detach,
posing a choking hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported in the United States
or Canada.

This recall involves the Emma's Garden(R) polka-dot dresses.  The
girls' dresses in sizes 12 months to 5T were sold in black and
white and pink and white.  There are three decorative buttons
which are round, white and approximately 3/4 inch in diameter.
Dresses sold in the United States have neck tags bearing tracking
number TJX-80327TDS1.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11249.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at T.J.
Maxx sold the pink and white design and Marshalls sold the black
and white design in the United States from February 2011 through
May 2011 for about $13.  Winners stores sold both designs in
Canada, from March 2011 through April 2011 for about $17.

Consumers should immediately take the dresses away from children
and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.  For
additional information, consumers in the United States should call
(800) 926-6299 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the Web sites http://www.tjmaxx.com/or
http://www.marshallsonline.com/ Consumers in Canada should call
toll-free (800) 646-9466 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the Web site
http://www.winners.ca/


TOYS "R" US: Paid $1-Million Civil Penalty to FTC in May 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc., paid approximately $1 million as a civil
penalty pursuant to a stipulation with the Federal Trade
Commission in May 2011, according to the Company's June 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On July 15, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the class plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in a consumer class action commenced in
January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two
Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005.  Both
actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby product
manufacturers (collectively, with the Company, the "Defendants")
to impose, maintain and/or enforce minimum price agreements in
violation of antitrust laws.  In addition, in December 2009, a
third Internet retailer filed a similar action and another
consumer class action was commenced making similar allegations
involving most of the same Defendants.

In January 2011, the parties in the consumer class actions entered
into a settlement agreement, which has been preliminarily approved
by the District Court.  As part of the settlement, in March 2011,
the Company made a payment of approximately $17 million towards
the overall settlement.  In addition, in January 2011, the
plaintiffs, the Company and certain other Defendants in the
Internet retailer actions entered into a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the Company made a payment of approximately $5
million towards the overall settlement.  In addition, on
November 23, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation with the
Federal Trade Commission ending the FTC's investigation related to
the Company's compliance with a 1998 FTC Final Order and settling
all claims in full.  Pursuant to the settlement, in May 2011, the
Company paid approximately $1 million as a civil penalty.


UNITED STATES: Cobell Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Today
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorna Thackeray, writing for The Billings Gazette, reports that
today, June 20, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., will begin
hearing arguments on the fairness of a settlement agreement
reached in a class-action lawsuit filed against the government by
Indians who claim the Department of Interior mismanaged their
trust accounts.

The proceeding before Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan
is the final hurdle in implementing a $3.4 billion agreement
worked out late last year between the government and plaintiffs in
the 15-year-old lawsuit.

The settlement was approved by Congress and signed by the
president.  All that remains now is for the judge to determine if
it is fair.

Elouise Cobell, a member of Montana's Blackfeet Tribe, is lead
plaintiff in the case that is usually referred to by her last
name.

In a wide-ranging multimedia campaign earlier this year, potential
beneficiaries all across Indian Country were notified that they
could receive a piece of the award.  At the same time, they were
informed that they could opt out of the settlement and proceed
with their own lawsuits against the government.

They were also given until April 20 to submit objections to the
settlement.  Ninety-two objections were filed and 19 objectors
asked to be heard on June 20.

Many objections concern attorneys' fees.  In documents filed in
Washington, D.C., earlier this year, attorneys representing
Ms. Cobell requested $223 million, plus $1.3 million in expenses.
They defended the amount as justified by the protracted length of
the case, its complexity, the amount of resources necessary and
the high risk involved in taking on a lawsuit that no other
attorneys had been willing to pursue.  They contend that their
request was far less, proportionally, than those awarded attorneys
in other complex class-action lawsuits.

Objectors called the fee proposal "outrageous."  Judge Hogan will
decide what is fair.

There were also objections to class incentive fees proposed for
Ms. Cobell and three other plaintiffs who initiated the lawsuit.
Ms. Cobell has asked for $2 million and the others are seeking
$150,000 to $200,000 each.  They are also asking $10.5 million in
expenses.

Objectors questioned the "exorbitant" expenses and argued that
awards of such magnitude divided the four class representative
from the class they claim to champion.  One objector asked that
the class itself be decertified because the interests of the
representatives and the rest of the class may no longer be the
same.  The representatives have motive to get the settlement
approved, regardless of its fairness, one objector complained.

Ms. Cobell's attorneys fired back that "there is a significant
risk without this settlement, class members will be left with no
remedy at all."

If the class representatives and their attorneys had not filed and
pursued the lawsuit, most of the nearly half-million American
Indians in the class would never be compensated for mismanagement
of their accounts, they argued.

"Certainly not any of the objectors or their opportunistic counsel
took any affirmative steps to rectify over 100 years of gross
mismanagement of Indian trusts," Ms. Cobell's attorneys wrote in
their response briefs.

Questions were also raised about the fairness of set payments for
all members of the class when some had been damaged far more than
others.

Judge Hogan will probably not rule immediately.  No one will get
any money until he does.

Nationwide, the lawsuit purports to represent 496,290 American
Indians who had Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts managed by
the Department of Interior.  Those accounts contain income from
land or fractions of interest in land held in trust by the
government.  Income can include timber sales, mineral royalties
and agricultural leases.

The Department of Interior has estimated that 33,600 beneficiaries
in Montana could receive a total of more than $87 million.  Final
approval would mean that most members of the class would get about
$1,800 to settle their claims against the government.

The government admitted no wrongdoing, but agreed to the
multibillion-dollar settlement.  Under terms of the agreement,
$1.25 billion would be dispersed to IIM account holders.  The
remaining $2 billion would be used to consolidate tribal lands by
purchasing fractionated interest.

Fractionation is one of the root causes of the lawsuit because it
made accounting for land interests nearly impossible.  In a series
of allotment acts starting in 1887, reservation lands were divided
into small parcels and allotted to individual Indians.

When an allottee died without a will, as most did, his or her land
was divided among an array of heirs.  Through successive
generations, division of the property interests became so small
that they are virtually worthless.  One small parcel of land can
have hundreds, even thousands, of owners.  These fractionated
interests became a management nightmare that grew each time land
interests were passed to new generations.

The $2 billion land consolidation award would be used to buy
fractionated interests from willing sellers and consolidate the
holdings to tribes.

As an incentive to sellers, the settlement ties sales to a $60
million scholarship fund for Indian students.  With every sale,
money will be added to the fund.


UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a state class action claims
the University of Hawaii allowed hackers repeated access to
personal information of more than 100,000 students and alumni by,
among other things, using Social Security numbers as identifiers,
despite the obvious risks.

A copy of the Complaint in Gross v. University of Hawai'i, Case
No. 11-1-1217-06 (Haw. Cir. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/15/IDTheft.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas R. Grande, Esq.
          GRANDE LAW OFFICES
          1164 Bishop Street, Suite 124-24
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 521-7500
          E-mail: tgrande@grandlelawoffices.com

               - and -

          Bruce F. Sherman, Esq.
          1164 Bishop Street, Suite 124-24
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 221-0901
          E-mail: bfs@bfshermanlaw.com


                             *********

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  * * *