/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110623.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 23, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 123


ADAMS GOLF: Gets Judgment Against Zurich Over Insurance Coverage
ALESSI & KOENIG: Faces Class Action Over HOA Debt Collection
CLARCOR INC: MDL Proceeding vs. Unit Remains Stayed
DAVID LERNER: Faces Two Class Actions Over Apple REITs
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action in Ill. Over Unpaid Overtime

FLORIDA: Teachers' Union File Class Action Over Retirement Plan
GIANT INTERACTIVE: Still in Negotiations to Settle New York Suit
GREG MORTENSON: Former Teacher Files Class Action Over Book
MAGNETIC SLIMMING: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
MAYER BROWN: Supreme Court Junks PIMCO Class Action

MERRILL LYNCH: To Face Class Action Over Mortgage Securities
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Settles Class Action Over Deferred Annuities
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Dec. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Autism Transfer Policy
RURAL/METRO CORP: Enters Agreement to Settle Delaware Suit

SMITHFIELD FOODS: Unit Continues to Defend "Herrold" Suit
TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Judge Okays $3.4BB Cobell Class Action Settlement
VISA INC: June 24 Hearing Set for Class Action
VODAFONE GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits

WAL-MART: Discrimination Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
WALTER ENERGY: Hearing in Western Coal Suit Set for Oct. 2011
WARNER MUSIC: Class Actions Over Proposed Access Sale Settled
WILLIAM FRY: Taps Willkie Far to Defend Against Class Action


ADAMS GOLF: Gets Judgment Against Zurich Over Insurance Coverage
An Illinois court granted Adams Golf, Inc.'s motion for partial
summary judgment against Zurich American Insurance Company finding
that Zurich had breached its contract with the Company in
connection with Zurich's refusal to cover payments in the
consolidated securities class action against Adams Golf, according
to the Company's June 17, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 13, 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
among other things: (i) granted a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment filed by Adams Golf, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
against its former insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance
Company, finding that Zurich had breached its contract with Adams
Golf; (ii) denied Zurich's motion for summary judgment on Adams
Golf's claim for violations of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims
statute; and (iii) dismissed Adams Golf's claims for
misrepresentation and unfair claims settlement practices under
Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code.  These rulings are
interlocutory, which means the State Court is free to alter or
vacate the rulings.  If the rulings stand, Adams Golf would be
entitled to recover from Zurich the sum of: (i) $5 million, (ii)
18% interest on that amount from the date of loss through the
entry of final judgment and (iii) reasonable attorneys' fees.
Adams Golf is also seeking consequential damages.  The amount of
consequential damages, if any, and attorneys' fees remain to be
resolved at the time of trial.  Given the preliminary nature of
the State Court's rulings, the amount, if any, that Adams Golf
actually recovers from Zurich or its former insurance broker,
Thilman & Filipini, LLC, may vary materially from those disclosed
amounts that Adams Golf is entitled to receive.

Any final judgment would also be subject to an appeal, and any
ultimate recovery in the case would be subject to payment of the
first $1.25 million of any sums collected, net of fees and costs
of lawsuit, to the class action plaintiffs.   The case is
currently set for trial in August 2011.  At this point in the
legal proceedings, Adams Golf says it cannot predict the outcome
of the matter with any certainty.

                         Zurich Lawsuit

Adams Golf's pursuit of Zurich in the State Court is a result of a
consolidated securities class action filed in June 1999 in the
United States District Court of the District of Delaware.  In the
Federal Court action, the Federal Court approved a final class
action settlement and entered an order dismissing with prejudice
all claims against all defendants in the litigation.  The
settlement provided for a total payment to the class of $16.5
million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25 million, after
attorneys' fees and costs, actually received (if any) by Adams
Golf in connection with its litigation against T&F and Zurich.  Of
the $16.5 million cash settlement amount, $5.0 million was paid by
Adams Golf, which it accrued as a liability during the quarter
ended September 30, 2009, and paid to the settlement fund in
March 2010.  As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the
IPO released Adams Golf from any indemnification obligation.  On
July 19, 2010, the appeals period for the final order of dismissal
expired and the litigation was fully and finally resolved.

Adams Golf maintains directors' and officers' and corporate
liability insurance to cover certain risks associated with these
securities claims filed against Adams Golf or its directors and
officers.  During the period covering the class action lawsuit,
Adams Golf maintained insurance from multiple carriers, each
insuring a different layer of exposure, up to a total of $50
million.  In addition, Adams Golf met the financial deductible of
its directors' and officers' insurance policy for the period
covering the time the class action lawsuit was filed.  On
March 30, 2006, Zurich, which provided insurance coverage totaling
$5.0 million for the layer of exposure between $15 million and $20
million, notified Adams Golf that it was denying coverage due to
the fact that it was allegedly not timely notified of the class
action lawsuit.  On October 11, 2007, Adams Golf filed a lawsuit
in the State Court against T&F, asserting various causes of action
arising out of T&F's alleged failure to notify Zurich of the class
action lawsuit.  T&F moved to dismiss Adams Golf's lawsuit on the
basis that the lawsuit was premature in that Adams Golf had not
been damaged because it had not paid any sums in satisfaction of a
judgment or settlement of the class action securities litigation.
That motion was denied pursuant to a Memorandum Opinion and Order
dated September 26, 2008.  On November 16, 2009, Adams Golf filed
a Second Amended Complaint reasserting its causes of action
against T&F and adding Zurich as a defendant to the lawsuit,
asserting various causes of action against it arising out of its
denial of coverage for the class action lawsuit.  Zurich has
answered and filed a counterclaim against Adams Golf seeking a
declaration that Adams Golf is not entitled to coverage for the
class action lawsuit.

ALESSI & KOENIG: Faces Class Action Over HOA Debt Collection
Steve Green, writing for Vegas Inc., reports that another class-
action lawsuit was filed on June 20 over Nevada homeowner
association debt-collection practices.

The latest target is Alessi & Koenig LLC, which says it is a law
firm with offices in Las Vegas, Reno and in California.

An attorney for the Estates at Seven Hills homeowner Stacy Calvert
filed suit in U.S. District Court alleging violations of the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The suit, seeking class-action status on behalf of similarly-
situated homeowners, says Alessi & Koenig sent Ms. Calvert a "pre-
notice of default" letter in December seeking payment of $3,870 in
delinquent HOA assessments and threatening to foreclose on her

The suit says this letter violated the federal law by failing to
disclose to Ms. Calvert it was a letter to collect a debt and that
any information obtained would be used for that purpose.

The suit also alleges "consumer fraud" based on Nevada's Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.  This is based on assertions Alessi & Koenig
is not licensed or registered as a debt collector with the Nevada
Division of Financial Institutions.

The suit seeks unspecified damages.

A message for comment was left with an attorney who represents
Alessi & Koenig in other litigation.

The suit is just the latest in a flurry of litigation that has
erupted in Nevada during the past few years as the recession
boosted both foreclosures and HOA assessment delinquencies.

Besides being sued by homeowners, HOAs and their collection
agencies have been sued by investors in foreclosed homes and a
Bank of America subsidiary.

Those suits challenge what the investors and Bank of America call
inflated and unauthorized fees and liens filed against foreclosed
homes -- liens that have to be cleared before new owners take

The homeowner associations and collection agencies say they're in
compliance with the law and that it's important past-due
assessments be collected so HOA budgets can be balanced.

CLARCOR INC: MDL Proceeding vs. Unit Remains Stayed
A multidistrict litigation involving a CLARCOR Inc. subsidiary
remains stayed in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice's
investigation on the claims made in the proceeding, according to
the Company's June 17, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 28,

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter
manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters,
Inc., engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate
U.S. customers for aftermarket filters.  This lawsuit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the Defendant Group.  Parallel purported class actions,
including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been
filed by other plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety
of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

In addition, the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the
County of Suffolk, New York have filed complaints against the
Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney
General of the State of Washington requested various documents,
information and cooperation, which the Company has agreed to

In late 2010, William Burch, a former employee of two other
defendants in the Defendant Group, brought an action under the
United States False Claims Act and similar state statutes on
behalf of the governments of the United States and approximately
twenty individual states against the Defendant Group, based on
these same allegations (the "Qui Tam Action").  On March 1, 2011,
Mr. Burch voluntarily dismissed Baldwin Filters, Inc. from this
action, without prejudice, based on certain representations by
Baldwin.  As such, Baldwin Filters, Inc. is no longer a defendant
in the Qui Tam Action.

Finally, the Company understands that the Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice was investigating the allegations raised
in these lawsuits and issued subpoenas in connection with that
investigation.  The Company was not contacted by the DOJ in
connection with the DOJ investigation and was not the subject of
any subpoena.  Public reports indicate that the DOJ officially
closed its investigation in January 2010, and took no action
against any filter manufacturer.

All of the U.S cases, including the actions brought by and on
behalf of governmental entities, have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Company believes all of these lawsuits and the
claims made therein to be without merit and is vigorously
defending them.

In response to a request by the DOJ, the District Court issued an
order on April 14, 2011, staying the proceedings for 90 days,
during which time the Company understands the DOJ is investigating
potential wrongdoing by persons unaffiliated with the Company or
any member of the Defendant Group.

DAVID LERNER: Faces Two Class Actions Over Apple REITs
Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that two
class action suits have been filed against brokerage David Lerner
& Associates over its sales of Apple REITs, a family of real
estate-based securities that has been questioned by regulators.

A suit filed on June 20 in a New Jersey federal court says the
Syosset, N.Y.-based firm is "engaged in an ongoing scheme to sell
more than $6 billion of shares" of the securities to many elderly,
retired and unsophisticated investors.

The lead plaintiffs are Stanley and Debra Kronberg of Mahwah,
N.J., who invested in a series of Apple REIT offerings that are
now closed to investors, known as Apple REIT Six through Apple
REIT Nine.  Now being offered by Lerner is Apple REIT Ten.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street's self-
watchdog, filed a regulatory complaint against Lerner on May 31,
saying the firm is misleading some customers about Apple REIT Ten.
The regulator also suggested that Apple REIT Ten shares may be
overpriced at $11 each.  Lerner has denied the allegations, saying
it is a scapegoat for regulators' failures to detect investor
fraud by Bernard Madoff.

Lerner has been the sole underwriter of Apple REITs since 1992,
according to Finra, selling nearly $6.8 billion of the securities
into some 122,600 customer accounts.

The Kronbergs, in their federal court suit, allege that offering
documents from Lerner misstated the REITs' basic business model,
omitting important details about how they operate and failing to
disclose some risks.  It says Lerner also misrepresented the value
of Apple REIT shares and investors' returns, and asks for
financial compensation, among other things.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Lerner negligently failed
to disclose that Apple REITs were being sold at artificially high
prices of $11 per share, and that the 7-8% returns paid to
investors were being paid from new investor money or borrowing,
rather than from income or funds from operations.  The complaint
also alleges that the true value of the Apple REITs had
deteriorated far below the artificial $11 values on investors'
account statements.

"Without knowing the true nature of the Apple REITs being sold,
investors were deprived of the opportunity to make a meaningful
decision about the investments they were making," said Jonathan
Levine, a lawyer who represents the plaintiffs.

The class action lawsuit, captioned Kronberg et al. v. David
Lerner Associates Inc., et al., 2:33-av-00001, is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Girard Gibbs LLP filed the class action lawsuit.  Girard Gibbs
represents individual and institutional investors in securities
fraud class actions and litigation.  Girard Gibbs filed the
lawsuit along with:

          David P. Meyer, Esq.
          Matthew Wilson, Esq.
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          E-mail: dmeyer@dmlaws.com

               - and -

          Jacob Zamansky, Esq.
          Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin D. Galbraith, Esq.
          Daniel Fried, Esq.
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
           BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Rd.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Telephone: (866) 981-4800
          711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94611
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

Another class action suit, filed in a Manhattan federal court on
June 17, focus on Apple REITs Nine and Ten.  The lead plaintiff,
Nancy Kowalski of Palm Beach, Fla., bought 1,818 shares in Apple
REIT Nine, according to the complaint.  Ms. Kowalski is seeking
monetary damages and has asked the court to rescind the purchase
of her REIT, among other things.

The suit alleges that the REIT's profits don't cover its 8% annual
distribution, which is funded "in the manner of a Ponzi scheme" by
returning some investor capital and by borrowing.  This tactic has
"seriously impaired the value" of the REITs, the suit says.  Also,
investors "were never informed about the dismal financial
performance of and significant loss of value" of earlier Apple
REITs, the complaint says.

Both cases list numerous defendants in addition to David Lerner &
Associates, including Glade Knight, chairman and chief executive
of the Richmond, Va.-based Apple REIT Companies, Inc. and other
Apple REIT management.

A lawyer for David Lerner & Associates called the class action
suits "frivolous."

"The allegations are baseless and rife with falsehoods,
distortions, and misleading statements and we look forward to the
opportunity to be vindicated in a court of law," said Joseph C.
Pickard, the brokerage firm's senior vice president and general
counsel, in a statement.

A spokeswoman for the Apple REIT Companies, Inc. didn't
immediately return a call requesting comment.

David Lerner & Associates, a New York corporation, is a privately
held broker dealer that operates a total of six branches and
purports to specialize in fixed income, government bonds, and
municipal bonds and conservative investments for individual
investors and retirees.  The Individual DLA Defendants are the
senior officers, executives and principals of DLA.  For the past
seven years, DLA has served as the exclusive selling agent for
offerings of shares in certain REITs created and managed by Glade
M. Knight and related entities he owned or controlled, including
the Apple REITs.

If you invested in Apple REITs Six, Seven, Eight, Nine or Ten and
wish to discuss the Apple REIT lawsuit, or have any questions
concerning your rights, Girard Gibbs LLP may be reached at
http://www.GirardGibbs.com/Apple-Reit-Lawsuit.asp or call

DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action in Ill. Over Unpaid Overtime
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Dollar Tree Stores, also dba Deals, makes employees work off the
clock and cheats them of overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in LaFleur, et al. v. Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-_____ (N.D. Ill.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          Saint Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 232-6333
          E-mail: rmf@foote-meyers.com

               - and -

          Cathleen A. Potter, Esq.
          387 Colonial Circle
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 232-8449

               - and -

          Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
          CHAVEZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          Saint Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 232-4480
          E-mail: gkeg4@aol.com

               - and -

          Peter L. Currie, Esq.
          22 West Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (630) 862-1130
          E-mail: plclaw05@aol.com

FLORIDA: Teachers' Union File Class Action Over Retirement Plan
Mary Ellen Klas, writing for The Miami Herald, reports that The
Florida Education Associate on June 20 disclosed it has filed a
class action lawsuit against Gov. Rick Scott and other trustees of
the state retirement plan for unconstitutionally imposing a 3% pay
cut on teachers to balance the budget.

The lawsuit was filed in Leon County Circuit Court on behalf of 11
workers from across the state, including two nurses and a social
worker in Miami Dade County, a custodian in Madison County, and a
social studies teacher in Hillsborough County.  The Police
Benevolent Association, the largest union of law enforcement in
the state, also joined the lawsuit.  The workers are asking the
court to sequester the more than $1 billion the state saves from
reducing teacher pay 3% and ending the cost of living increase on
their retirement benefits while the case moves through the
judicial system.

"This pay cut was used by legislative leadership to make up a
budget shortfall on the backs of teachers, law-enforcement
officers, firefighters and other state workers," said FEA
President Andy Ford.  "It is essentially an income tax levied only
on workers belonging to the Florida Retirement System.  It's
unfair -- and it breaks promises made to these employees when they
chose to work to improve our state."

The lawsuit alleges that the state violated its contractual
obligation to state workers when it shifted money from worker pay
to replace some of the state's obligation to pay into the Florida
Retirement System.  The union says that state law expressly
provides that the FRS is one in which employees do not have to
contribute part of their salaries and the shift impairs those
contractual rights.

Gov. Rick Scott and state legislators argued the change was needed
to bring state retirement accounts in line with the private
sector, which require workers to contribute into their retirement
accounts but the money was not used to enhance employee benefits
but to relieve the budget deficit.  Florida was the only state
that still had not negotiated a employee contribution as part of
its retirement plan.

The Broward Teachers Union, which joined the lawsuit, called the
legislature's labeling the pay cut a retirement contribution "a
false premise."

"Florida's leaders talk ad nauseam about the need to cut taxes for
businesses and the state's wealthiest residents and yet, when it
comes to our police officers, firefighters and teachers, they
didn't even blink an eye when imposing this income tax increase,"
said BTU President Pat Santeramo.

The FRS collects retirement money for more than 655,000 active
employees throughout the state and provides benefits to 219,000
retirees.  Workers have not paid into the plan since 1974.

GIANT INTERACTIVE: Still in Negotiations to Settle New York Suit
Giant Interactive Group Inc. is currently in negotiations to reach
a settlement in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in New York, according to the Company's June 17, 2011,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Two securities class actions have been filed against the Company.
The first was filed on November 26, 2007, entitled Pyramid
Holdings, Inc. V. Giant Interactive Group, Inc. (United States
District court, Southern District of New York (07cv10588); and the
second was filed on December 20, 2007, entitled Brooks v Giant
Interactive Group, Inc. (United States District court, Southern
District of New York (07cv11423).  The actions assert similar
allegations and seek similar damages, both alleging claims
pursuant to Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who purchased
Company's American depositary shares pursuant to or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering from November 1, 2007,
though November 10, 2007.  The Company, Merrill Lynch & Co. and
UBS Investment Bank are named as defendants.  Plaintiffs also
request that the action be maintained as class action and request
relief in the form of class damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees, experts' fee and other costs, and a rescinding of the
initial public offering.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the Company's Registration
Statement and prospectus contained untrue statement of material
facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statement made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the applicable rules and regulations.  Plaintiffs were
allegedly harmed when the Company's stock price declined on
November 19, 2007, when the Company announced its third quarter
financial results and disclosed that during third quarter 2007,
the Company's average concurrent users and peak concurrent users
decreased from the second quarter following a rule change made to
ZT Online.  Plaintiffs claim that the Company did not explain or
describe the rule change in the Registration Statement or
Prospectus, did not explain or highlight the alleged negative
trend in ACU and PCU and did not disclose the supposed negative
impact that rule change was having at the time of the initial
public offering.

The actions were consolidated by stipulation on January 31, 2008,
into Giant Interactive Group, Inc. Securities Litigation.  On
August 5, 2008, the United States District court, Southern
District of New York appointed a Lead Plaintiff and its Counsel in
the consolidated action.  The Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on October 6, 2008.  The Company, Merrill Lynch
& Co. and UBS Investment Bank filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaints on November 21, 2008.  This motion
has been fully briefed and was deemed submitted to the Court for
decision as of February 25, 2009.  On August 5, 2009, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the Complaint, because the
Court required more facts and evidence prior to making the ruling.
Following document and deposition discovery, the parties
participated in a mediation in March 2011.  The Company is
currently in negotiations to reach a settlement.  As negotiations
are still in its early stages, the Company's management has been
advised by its legal counsel that it is unable to assess or
conclude on the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or any
possible loss to the Company.  In the event that the Company
reaches a settlement with the counterparty and obtains relevant
approval from the Court, the settlement payment will be made
solely by the Company's insurers to the counterparty directly and
the Company does not expect to record any loss related to this

GREG MORTENSON: Former Teacher Files Class Action Over Book
The Associated Press reports that efforts to start a class-action
lawsuit against "Three Cups of Tea" author Greg Mortenson in
Montana now include Illinois.

Former teacher Deborah Netter of Lake County filed suit this month
in Illinois federal court seeking damages and class action status.
She is suing Mr. Mortenson, his coauthor and his publisher,
claiming they violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

Last month, two Montana lawmakers filed a claim in Missoula
federal court saying they were duped into buying Mr. Mortenson's
best-selling book and donating to his charity based on lies they
thought were true.

The lawsuits cite media reports alleging Mr. Mortenson lied in the
book about how he became involved in building schools in Pakistan
and Afghanistan.

An e-mail seeking comment from a Mortenson representative wasn't
immediately returned.

MAGNETIC SLIMMING: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
Milt Policzer at Courthouse News Service reports that a proposed
class action has been filed in Los Angeles over alleged false
advertising of Magnetic Slimming Panties.  Apparently, magnets in
your panties don't help you lose weight.

MAYER BROWN: Supreme Court Junks PIMCO Class Action
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court on June 20 refused without comment to hear
a class-action lawsuit filed by Pacific Investment Management Co.
and other investors against law firm Mayer Brown, adviser to
former commodities broker Refco Inc.

PIMCO was joint lead plaintiff in the case along with investment
management firm RH Capital Associates.

Refco, a financial services company specializing in commodities,
collapsed two months after an August 2005 IPO when it revealed
that Phillip R. Bennett, CEO and chairman, had hidden $430 million
in bad debts from auditors and investors.  Later that year, PIMCO,
RH Capital and other investors filed a class-action lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in New York against Refco and numerous
advisers involved in the IPO, arguing that they participated in
securities fraud.  The court found against the class action.

"Mayer Brown is very pleased that the Supreme Court let stand"
that decision, the firm said in a statement.

Salvatore Graziano, a partner with the law firm Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann and attorney for the lead plaintiffs, said in
an interview that while $400 million has been recovered and
distributed to Refco investors, the investors felt that Refco's
legal advisers should also be forced to contribute to civil
damages, particularly since former Mayer Brown partner and Refco
counsel, Joseph P. Collins, had been convicted on criminal charges
in the case, along with Mr. Bennett.

On June 13, the Supreme Court rebuffed efforts by shareholders
seeking class-action relief from Janus Capital Group and its
subsidiaries for alleged false statements that misled the
investing public into thinking that JCG and its Janus Capital
Management subsidiary would implement measures to curb market
timing in the Janus mutual funds.  Writing for the court's 5-4
majority, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that even though
JCM "was significantly involved in preparing the prospectuses"
that led to inflated stock prices, "JCM itself did not 'make'
those statements."

"The bigger issue was, you've got somebody who was criminally
convicted.  Why couldn't there be civil charges?" Mr. Graziano
said in the interview.  Mr. Graziano said that while the
plaintiffs were rebuffed by U.S. district and appeals courts in
New York, the appeals court "seemed to leave open some room for
us.  Now, that space is getting smaller," particularly after the
5-4 ruling June 13 in the Janus case.

"It's very frustrating," said Glen DeValerio, senior partner with
securities litigation firm Berman DeValerio, which represents
institutional investors, in an interview.  "It's a continuing
narrowing of who can be held liable for fraud."

MERRILL LYNCH: To Face Class Action Over Mortgage Securities
Bob Van Voris and Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Bank of America Corp.'s Merrill Lynch unit must face a
class-action suit on behalf of at least 1,800 investors over
mortgage-backed securities, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff in Manhattan certified a class,
or group, of all investors in the securities, which were sold from
February 2006 through September 2007.  Judge Rakoff also granted
the investors' request to appoint New York-based Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead lawyers for the class.

"After careful consideration, and for reasons that will be stated
in a forthcoming written opinion, the court hereby grants both
motions," Judge Rakoff wrote in an order released June 16.

In the litigation, filed in 2008, the investors claim Merrill
misled them in the offering documents for $16.5 billion of
certificates.  The investors claim the bank falsely claimed that
the underlying mortgages complied with the stated underwriting

The class certification allows the investors to combine their
claims into a single suit rather than being forced to make them

Bill Halldin, a spokesman for Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank
of America, declined to comment.

Named Plaintiffs

The named plaintiffs in the case include the Mississippi Public
Employees' Retirement System, the Los Angeles County Employees
Retirement Association, the Wyoming state treasurer, the
Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund and the Connecticut Carpenters
Annuity Fund.

In a separate case, U.S. District Judge William Pauley in
Manhattan consolidated three cases claiming Bank of America
concealed the risks of its mortgage-backed securities and that it
failed to use appropriate controls in processing foreclosures.
Pauley also named the Pennsylvania Public School Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff.

The cases are Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 08-CV-10841; Pipefitters Local No. 636
Defined Benefit Plan, 11-CV-733, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York (Manhattan).

MIDLAND NATIONAL: Settles Class Action Over Deferred Annuities
Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court
class action claims Midland National Life Insurance settled a
class action for failing to disclose costly surrender penalties
and shifting the cost of high sales commissions to purchasers of
deferred annuities older than 65, but did the same thing, without
redress, to customers younger than 65.

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Dec. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
A notification program began on June 20 as ordered by the Civil
District Court in and for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana to
alert people who lived, stayed, or visited at public housing in
New Orleans before February 17, 2001, about proposed settlements
in a long-running class action about children exposed to lead.
Insurance companies for defendants in the case agreed to pay
$65,520,174.19 to settle claims that HANO public housing
developments were contaminated with lead and injured as many as
10,000 or more children.  The settlements provide payments to
those who qualify and pay the lawyers' fees and expenses and other
settlement costs.

The lawsuit, known as Billieson v. City of New Orleans, et al, No.
94-19231, claimed that HANO's public housing developments
contained lead, and that many children who were exposed to the
lead developed learning, reading, growth, hearing, physical,
cognitive, and behavioral problems, as well as permanent brain
damage, and some possibly died.  The defendants deny that they did
anything wrong, and the settlements do not mean that they did.

The lawsuit includes a Class or group of people who, before
February 17, 2001, were damaged by lead present in the Iberville,
Florida, Lafitte, B.W. Cooper, St. Bernard, Desire, Guste,
Fischer, St. Thomas, or C.J. Peete/Magnolia public housing units
and either: (a) filed a lawsuit against HANO and/or C.J. Brown
Property Management, Inc., C.J. Brown Public Housing, Inc. and/or
Ventana Property Management, Inc., Ventana Public Housing
Management, Inc. and/or the City of New Orleans saying that they
were hurt from exposure to lead at one of the HANO public housing
developments; or (b) have or can get medical documents or other
evidence showing they were lead poisoned, specifically a document
that shows they had an elevated blood lead level of 10 micrograms
per deciliter of whole blood, or higher, when they were six years
old or younger and they were born on or after December 12, 1987.

Notices informing Class Members of their legal rights will be
mailed, and are scheduled to appear in newspapers, and on
television and radio in New Orleans, leading up to a Court hearing
on December 21, 2011, when the Court will consider whether to
approve the settlements, as well as the lawyers' requests for fees
and expenses.

Those affected by the settlements must register to receive future
notices and a Claim Form.  Class Members may also object to the
settlements and ask to speak at the Court hearing.  The deadline
is October 20, 2011, to register, object, or to ask to speak at
the hearing.

A toll-free number, 1-888-768-2043, has been established along
with a Web site -- http://www.HanoLeadSettlements.com-- where
answers to common questions, a Registration Form, the Settlement
Agreements, plus other information to help Class Members determine
whether they are included and qualify.  Written requests for more
information may be sent to Billieson Notice Administrator, c/o
Analytics, Inc., PO Box 2010, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2010.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Autism Transfer Policy
Kristen A. Graham, writing for Philly.com, reports that four
parents have filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of their
autistic children, alleging that the Philadelphia School District
is illegally moving the children from school to school based
solely on their disability.

At issue is the district's Automatic Autism Transfer Policy, which
mandates that students with autism move to another school at the
end of third and fifth grades.  Non-autistic students do not have
to move.

The four plaintiff parents, whose suit was filed on June 20 in
federal court, claim the district is violating state and federal
law by transferring students simply because they are autistic.

Autism-support classes are located in various schools throughout
the city, requiring most students to be transferred every three
years.  Most schools that have an autism-support class have a K-2,
3-5, or 6-8 class, but not all three, according to Sonja Kerr, an
attorney for the plaintiffs.

Sharon Vargas, one of the plaintiffs, said she is worried for her
son, a second grader.

"They don't really prepare the kids for a transition, and that's
really hard for autistic kids," she said.  "It's so frustrating."

Though the suit was filed by four parents, the policy affects at
least 3,000 students district-wide, said Ms. Kerr, director of
disability rights at the Public Interest Law Center of

"We think it's a widespread problem," said Ms. Kerr.  "We think
it's a long-standing problem."

Transitions are especially difficult for people with autism, and
the automatic-transfer policy has been criticized by the
Philadelphia Right to Education Local Task Force, a local
authority charged with monitoring school districts' compliance on
special-education issues.

Two of the plaintiff parents won due-process hearings this year
that found that the district had violated the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act by keeping their children out of their
neighborhood schools and by allowing the children's autism-support
classrooms to become overcrowded.

The hearing officer said then that he did not have the authority
to address the automatic-transfer policy.

In his finding, which was included in the lawsuit, Officer Brian
Jason Ford wrote, "The district is encouraged to alter its
procedures on a broader scope, if only to avoid a plethora of
identical claims from similarly situated students."

Two of the students are 9-year-olds finishing third grade at
Richmond Elementary in Port Richmond; two are 8-year-olds
finishing second grade at Richmond.

The parents seek to have the transfer policy overturned so their
children can attend support classes in their current school.

Ms. Kerr, the parents who filed the suit, and their children were
set to hold a news conference on June 21 to draw attention to the
case.  Ms. Kerr said she believed many parents of special-
education students did not know their rights.

A School District spokeswoman said she had not yet seen the suit
and so could not comment.

RURAL/METRO CORP: Enters Agreement to Settle Delaware Suit
Rural/Metro Corporation entered into an agreement in principle to
settle a consolidated class action lawsuit in Delaware challenging
its proposed merger with WP Rocket Holdings LLC, according to the
Company's June 17, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On March 28, 2011, Rural/Metro Corporation entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with WP Rocket Holdings LLC
("Parent") and WP Rocket Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.  The Merger Agreement provides for the
merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the Company
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  On
May 26, 2011, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement
describing the Merger with the SEC.  Merger Sub and Parent are
affiliates of Warburg Pincus LLC formed by Warburg Pincus to
acquire the Company.

As disclosed in the Company's definitive proxy statement, the
Company, each member of the Board of Directors of the Company,
Warburg Pincus, Parent and Merger Sub were named as defendants in
purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged stockholders of
the Company challenging the Merger.  The stockholder actions were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Llorens
v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., filed April 6, 2011, and
amended April 21, 2011, and Joanna Jervis v. Rural/Metro
Corporation, et al., filed May 16, 2011,) and in the Superior
Court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa (Joanna Jervis
v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., filed April 6, 2011, and
amended April 14, 2011).

On May 16, 2011, Joanna Jervis, the stockholder in the Jervis
Arizona action, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  On May 23, 2011, after plaintiff filed a
complaint in Delaware, the parties filed a stipulation of
dismissal and proposed order dismissing the Jervis Arizona action,
which the court so-ordered on May 24, 2011.

On May 27, 2011, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
entered an Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Counsel
designating Plaintiff Llorens as Lead Plaintiff and Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP as Lead Counsel under the caption In re Rural Metro
Corporation Consolidated Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6350-
VCS.  A Second Scheduling Order was entered on June 10, 2011,
updating the Stipulated Scheduling Order entered on May 3, 2011.
Depositions were completed on June 10, 2011.

On June 16, 2011, the Company, each member of the Board of
Directors, Warburg Pincus, Parent, Merger Sub and the Lead
Plaintiff in the Consolidated Delaware Action reached an agreement
in principle, subject to the Court's approval, providing for the
settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of the Consolidated
Delaware Action filed in connection with the Merger.  Pursuant to
such agreement in principle, on June 16, 2011, the Company agreed
to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger and
filed a supplement to the Company's definitive proxy statement.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to stockholders of the Company in connection with the proposed
merger or the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of the
Company scheduled for June 27, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., local time, at
the Company's corporate headquarters at 9221 East Via de Ventura,
in Scottsdale, Arizona 85258, to consider and to vote upon a
proposal to adopt the merger agreement, among other things.

SMITHFIELD FOODS: Unit Continues to Defend "Herrold" Suit
Smithfield Foods, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
against a putative class action lawsuit filed by Daniel Herrold,
according to the Company's June 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
May 1, 2011.

In May 2004, the same lead lawyer who previously filed other
lawsuits against the Company's subsidiaries filed a putative class
action lawsuit entitled Daniel Herrold, et al. and Others
Similarly Situated v. ContiGroup Companies, Inc., Standard Farm,
Inc., and PSF Group Holdings, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri.  PSF is a Company subsidiary.  This action
originally sought to create a class of plaintiffs living within
ten miles of PSF's farms in northern Missouri, including contract
grower farms, who were alleged to have suffered interference with
their right to use and enjoy their respective properties.  On
January 22, 2007, plaintiffs in the Herrold case filed a Second
Amended Petition in which they abandoned all class action
allegations and efforts to certify the action as a class action
and added an additional 193 named plaintiffs to join the seven
prior class representatives to pursue a one count claim to recover
monetary damages, both actual and punitive, for temporary
nuisance.  On June 28, 2007, the court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to transfer venue to the northern Missouri
counties in which the alleged injuries occurred.  As a result of
those rulings, the claims of all but seven of the plaintiffs have
been transferred to the appropriate venues in northern Missouri.

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

The Company believes that it has good defenses to the action and
intends to defend vigorously the lawsuit.

TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say
Transatlantic Holdings is selling itself too cheaply to Allied
World Assurance Co. Holdings, in an all-stock deal valued at $3.2
billion (0.88 shares of Allied for each share of Transatlantic,
valued at $51.10 a share).

A copy of the Complaint in Ivers v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 6574 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          Email: CKeener@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          Carolina C. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          Saint Ann Court
          2501 N. Harwood St., Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com

UNITED STATES: Judge Okays $3.4BB Cobell Class Action Settlement
According to an article in The Blog of Legal Times posted by
Mike Scarcella, a federal judge in Washington on June 20 approved
a landmark $3.4 billion settlement in a Native American class
action that stands to compensate hundreds of thousands of American

Senior Judge Thomas Hogan's approval of the deal, reached in late
2009 in Washington federal district court, caps more than 15 years
of hostile litigation that featured numerous appeals, trials and
failed negotiations.  Judge Hogan called the deal "truly

The case, named after lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell, sought a
historical accounting of trust accounts the government mismanaged
for more than a century.  Class members will receive a minimum
payment of $1,000, Judge Hogan on June 20 said at the end of a
hearing that lasted more than seven hours.

"The judge's finding that the settlement is fair and reasonable is
a major milestone in the Administration's effort to reach a
resolution of litigation that has cast a cloud over the
government's relationship with American Indians," Associate
Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, who twice testified before
Congress on the settlement, said in a prepared statement.

About a dozen people objected to the settlement on June 20 in
court, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs' lawyers
demand for compensation -- $224 million -- was excessive.  Justice
Department attorneys said the bulk of the objection to the
settlement was over fees.  There were 92 objections in all.  More
than 1,000 people have opted out of the settlement.

The plaintiffs' team, led by Washington solo practitioner Dennis
Gingold and a group of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton lawyers,
said they received an overall favorable response to the settlement
during dozens of meetings in recent months in Indian Country.
Kilpatrick chairman William Dorris, who participated in the case,
said in court on June 20 he expected the settlement to provide a
"beacon of hope" for American Indians.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Hogan awarded $99 million in
legal fees for the plaintiffs' lawyers.  The settlement set
compensation between $50 million and $99.9 million.  But the deal
gave the judge the final say on a reasonable amount in accordance
with controlling law.

The Justice Department had urged Judge Hogan to award no more than
$50 million in compensation.  Mr. Gingold in court on June 20
asked Judge Hogan to award more than $99.9 million.  Ms. Cobell's
lawyers argued in recent court papers that there was never a cap
on fees.  The attorneys argued for a higher amount in order to
compensate for the outcome and complexity of the case.

The settlement includes $1.9 billion for a land consolidation
program.  The Interior Department has begun scheduling
consultation meetings with tribal leaders to begin discussion of
that part of the agreement.

"Judge Hogan's decision is another milestone in empowerment and
reconciliation for the American Indians," Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar said in a statement on June 20.  Mr. Salazar said the
agreement "turns the page on an unfortunate chapter" in the
department's history.

President Barack Obama issued a statement on June 20 praising
Judge Hogan's approval of the settlement.

"After fifteen years of litigation, [Mon]day's decision marks
another important step forward in the relationship between the
federal government and Indian Country," Pres. Obama said.
"Resolving this dispute was a priority for my Administration, and
we will engage in government-to-government consultations with
tribal nations regarding the land consolidation component of the
settlement to ensure that this moves ahead at an appropriate pace
and in an appropriate manner."

VISA INC: June 24 Hearing Set for Class Action
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge is set to hear
motions Friday, June 24, in a 2010 class action originally filed
against Visa, Inc. and a Bethalto credit union.

Judge Mudge will hear the motions in the case filed by proposed
lead plaintiffs Gene and Karen Rhodes at 9:00 a.m.

The Rhodeses claim that Visa GiftCards they purchased through 1st
MidAmerica Credit Union, formerly known as Olin Community Credit
Union, already had diminished values due to monthly administrative
fees that were deducted from the cards by Visa before the cards
were purchased.

Karen Rhodes claims that when she bought such a card for her
father-in-law, Gene Rhodes in November 2007, the $50 card was
literally only worth $35 in actual cash value due to the prior,
undisclosed deductions.

The class, if certified, would include all holders of Visa
GiftCards issued by Services or Olin Community Credit Unions which
lost value prior to the expiration of their "Valid Thru" date and
a sub-class of holders of cards issued by either credit union that
were pre-activated and had less than the value of the purchase
price due to the pre-sale deductions.

The class action complaint claims the amount in controversy is
more than $5 million.

The plaintiffs are suing on claims of violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust

An amended complaint added Services Credit Union and dropped Visa
Inc. from the defendants' side of the aisle.

Services Credit Union filed to dismiss the first amended complaint
May 31.

In that motion, the defendant claims the plaintiffs are "factually
incorrect," in their claims that the monthly administrative fees
at issue in the case were applied before the cards were sold.

Services also claims that the consumer fraud claims are barred by
the statute of limitations and can't apply to the gift card bought
by Karen Rhodes.

It also points to the back of the gift card which informs
customers that $3 monthly fees will start to be deducted from the
cards seven months after activation.

1st MidAmerica also cites the statute of limitations and asks the
court to dismiss the suit on the grounds that DuPage County
Circuit Court or the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois are the proper venues for the dispute as part
of its affirmative defenses.

Mark Goldenberg, Esq., represents the plaintiffs and proposed

Mark Bauman., Esq., represents Services Credit Union.

Mitten Nelson, Esq., represents 1st MidAmerica.

The case is Madison case number 10-L-1155.

VODAFONE GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
Vodafone Group Public Limited Company's subsidiary, Cellco
Partnership, continues to defend lawsuits relating to product
liability and patent infringement, among other claims, according
to the Company's June 17, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,

Cellco Partnership, a Delaware general partnership doing business
as Verizon Wireless, is subject to lawsuits and other claims,
including class actions and claims relating to product liability,
patent infringement, intellectual property, antitrust, partnership
disputes, and relations with resellers and agents.  Verizon
Communications owns 55% and Vodafone owns 45% of the Partnership.

The Partnership is also defending lawsuits filed against it and
other participants in the wireless industry alleging adverse
health effects as a result of wireless phone usage.  Various
consumer class action lawsuits allege that the Partnership
violated certain state consumer protection laws and other statutes
and defrauded customers through misleading billing practices or
statements.  These matters may involve indemnification obligations
by third parties and/or affiliated parties covering all or part of
any potential damage awards against the Partnership and/or
insurance coverage.

The Company says all of these matters are subject to many
uncertainties, and outcomes are not predictable with assurance.
Consequently, the ultimate liability with respect to these matters
as of Dec. 31, 2010, cannot be ascertained.  The potential effect,
if any, on the consolidated financial statements of the
Partnership, in the period in which these matters are resolved,
may be material.

WAL-MART: Discrimination Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart
will not have to face a sexual discrimination class action that
would have sought billions in damages on behalf of about 1.5
million women who have worked for the world's largest private
employer, the Supreme Court ruled on June 20.

Several women sued the Bentonville, Ark.-based company in a San
Francisco-based District Court in 2001, claiming they received
less pay and fewer promotions than men in comparable positions.
A federal judge ruled that the class should encompass "all women
employed by Wal-Mart at any time after Dec. 26, 1998," across the
company's 3,400 stores.

Wal-Mart argued that the proposed class -- an estimated 1.5
million women -- was too big to fight, and that employees should
file individual lawsuits.

The full 9th Circuit ruled 6-5 in April 2010 to send the case to
trial, ultimately narrowing the original seven plaintiffs to just
three as representatives of the certified class.  In December, the
Supreme Court said it would intervene to decide whether class
action is an appropriate forum for individual employees' claims.

In disbanding the class on June 20, the justices said that the
women failed to prove commonality.

"Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class
members 'have suffered the same injury,'" Justice Antonin Scalia
wrote for the lead opinion, quoting the court's 1982 decision in
General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon.  "This does not mean
merely that they have all suffered a violation of the same
provision of law.  Title VII, for example, can be violated in many
ways -- by intentional discrimination, or by hiring and promotion
criteria that result in disparate impact, and by the use of these
practices on the part of many different superiors in a single
company.  Quite obviously, the mere claim by employees of the same
company that they have suffered a Title VII injury, or even a
disparate impact Title VII injury, gives no cause to believe that
all their claims can productively be litigated at once.  Their
claims must depend upon a common contention -- for example, the
assertion of discriminatory bias on the part of the same
supervisor.  That common contention, moreover, must be of such a
nature that it is capable of classwide resolution -- which means
that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue
that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one

Justice Scalia pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to identify
a real discriminatory corporate policy, and rather cited "Wal-
Mart's 'policy' of allowing discretion by local supervisors over
employment matters."

"On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform
employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for
a class action; it is a policy against having uniform employment
practices," Justice Scalia wrote.  "It is also a very common and
presumptively reasonable way of doing business."

The justices noted as well that the plaintiffs' anecdotal evidence
is similarly unavailing.

"Here, by contrast, respondents filed some 120 affidavits
reporting experiences of discrimination -- about 1 for every
12,500 class members -- relating to only some 235 out of Wal-
Mart's 3,400 stores," Justice Scalia wrote.  "More than half of
these reports are concentrated in only six States (Alabama,
California, Florida, Missouri, Texas, and Wisconsin); half of all
States have only one or two anecdotes; and 14 States have no
anecdotes about Wal-Mart's operations at all.  Even if every
single one of these accounts is true, that would not demonstrate
that the entire company 'operate[s] under a general policy of
discrimination,' which is what respondents must show to certify a
companywide class."

Though the plaintiffs defended class certification of their claims
for back pay, the justices decided that monetary claims may not be
certified where such relief is not incidental to the desired
injunctive or declaratory relief.

In a partial dissent on behalf of the court's four left-leaning
justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took issue with the
majority's conclusions about commonality.

Though she agreed with the majority's findings about the back-pay
certification, Justice Ginsburg said she would have left it for
the lower court to determine if "common class questions
'predominate' over issues affecting individuals."

"The plaintiffs' evidence, including class members' tales of their
own experiences, suggests that gender bias suffused Wal-Mart's
company culture," Justice Ginsburg wrote in an 11-page opinion
signed by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonio Sotomayor and Elena

"The District Court's identification of a common question, whether
Wal-Mart's pay and promotions policies gave rise to unlawful
discrimination, was hardly infirm," she added.  "The practice of
delegating to supervisors large discretion to make personnel
decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has long been known
to have the potential to produce disparate effects.  Managers,
like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are
unaware.  The risk of discrimination is heightened when those
managers are predominantly of one sex, and are steeped in a
corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes."

WALTER ENERGY: Hearing in Western Coal Suit Set for Oct. 2011
Plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed with a securities class
action lawsuit against Western Coal Corp. are scheduled to be
heard on October 3 to 7, 2011, according to Walter Energy, Inc.'s
June 17, 2011, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On December 2, 2010, Western Coal and Walter Energy entered into
an arrangement agreement for Walter Energy to acquire all of the
outstanding common shares of Western Coal for C$11.50 per share in
cash or 0.114 of a Walter Energy share, or for a combination
thereof, all subject to pro-ration.  This proposed acquisition was
subject to various closing conditions, including court approval, a
favourable vote of at least two-thirds of the votes cast by
Western Coal's shareholders and a simple majority of the votes
cast by Western Coal's minority shareholders, at Western Coal's
special meeting of shareholders scheduled for March 8, 2011, and
certain regulatory approvals.  Approval by Walter Energy
shareholders was not required to complete the transaction.

On April 6, 2011, Walter Energy filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
with the SEC stating that it had completed the acquisition of all
of the outstanding common shares of Western Coal and that the
financial statements and pro forma financial information required
under Item 9.01 of the Form 8-K would be filed as soon as
practicable.  On June 17, 2011, Walter Energy filed the Form 8-K/A
to include the financial information required under Item 9.01.

According to the Financial Information, in November 2009, Western
Coal was named as a defendant in a statement of claim issued by a
plaintiff who seeks leave of the Ontario Courts to proceed with a
securities class action.  The claim alleges that those persons who
acquired or disposed of Western Coal shares between November 14,
2007, and December 10, 2007, should be entitled to recover C$200
million for general damages and C$20 million in punitive damages.
Two current directors and one former director and officer were
also named as defendants (the individual defendants).  The
plaintiff alleges that Western Coal's consolidated financial
statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the
accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007,
misrepresented Western Coal's financial condition and that it
failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all material
facts and changes.  The action also claims that the named
individual defendants purchased shares during the proposed class
period while in possession of material undisclosed information.
No damages are sought in respect of these share purchases.

The Board of Directors established a Special Committee to oversee
Western Coal's defense of the action and to instruct Western
Coal's defense counsel on how to proceed.  The Special Committee
has two members.  Neither of the Special Committee members are
named as individual defendants and each of them joined Western
Coal after the events that are the subject of the action occurred.

The plaintiff was to have delivered its materials in support of
motions for leave to proceed with the securities class action and
for certification of the action as a class proceeding on or before
May 14, 2010.  The plaintiff, however, sought and obtained
permission of the Court to deliver an amended claim before
May 28, 2010.

On May 28, 2010, the plaintiff delivered a proposed Fresh As
Amended Statement of Claim.  That claim indicated the plaintiff
intended to introduce new allegations that Western Coal, some of
its current and former directors (including the originally named
individual defendants) and other parties caused Western Coal to
enter transactions between April 26, 2007, and July 13, 2009, that
were oppressive because they had a dilutive effect on the
interests of shareholders.  The defendants did not oppose the
amendments but have reserved all rights to challenge the Amended
Statement of Claim.

On July 16, 2010, the plaintiff delivered his materials supporting
motions for leave to proceed with a securities class action for
misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and also for
certification of the securities' class action and of the
oppression claims.  After considering the plaintiff's materials
and investigating those allegations, Western Coal decided it
should answer the plaintiff's motion materials, oppose the motions
and vigorously defend the securities and oppression claims.

The Report said Western Coal and the other defendants intended to
deliver their materials on or before February 28, 2011.  Dates
have not been set for the plaintiff to deliver reply materials or
for any examinations or cross-examinations.  The plaintiff's
motions, however, are scheduled to be heard October 3 to 7 and on
October 13 and 14, 2011, if necessary.

Western Coal continues to maintain that there is no merit to any
of the claims being made and that the damages are without
foundation and excessive and, accordingly, has made no provision
for this claim in its consolidated financial statements.

WARNER MUSIC: Class Actions Over Proposed Access Sale Settled
Christopher Morris, writing for Variety, reports that plaintiffs
in a pair of suits seeking to block the pending sale of Warner
Music Group to Access Industries have agreed to settle, according
to information buried in last week's WMG proxy statement.

Settlement was undertaken "primarily to avoid the substantial
burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation and to fully and finally resolve all of the claims and
allegations in those actions," according to the June 13 WMG SEC

A vote on approval of Access' $3.3 billion purchase is set for a
special meeting of WMG shareholders in New York on July 6.

Preliminary agreement, which must be court approved, covers a
May 12 class action filed in Delaware Chancery Court by
shareholder Barbara A. Varipapa and a May 19 class action lodged
in New York Supreme Court by stockholder Derek Cournoyer.

Both suits alleged that the per-share price offered by Access was
insufficient, and that the WMG board breached their fiduciary duty
by failing to accept a higher bid for the company.

Mr. Cournoyer's suit additionally noted that Access principal
Len Blavatnik had a long history on the WMG board, and that the
board had lowered the vesting price on restricted shares granted
to WMG chairman/CEO Edgar Bronfman, Jr., during the sale process,
setting up a $13.6 million stock windfall for Bronfman.

Under the terms of a memo of understanding executed June 8 by
attorneys for Ms. Varipapa and Mr. Cournoyer, a full stipulation
of settlement will be finalized no later than July 19.  It will
apply to all members of the shareholder class, and will release
WMG from all claims.  Ms. Varipapa's counsel will file a voluntary
notice of dismissal upon final court order of the settlement.

WMG's proxy statement refers to a third class action filed June 3
in New York Superior Court by shareholder Vikas Dahivadkar, who
recapitulated most of Mr. Cournoyer's allegations.  Document says
that Dahivadkar's attorneys "have indicated that they do not
object to the (memo of understanding)," but says nothing further
about disposition of that suit.

WMG denies all liability with respect to the allegations of all
three actions in the proxy document.

WILLIAM FRY: Taps Willkie Far to Defend Against Class Action
Joanne Harris, writing for The Lawyer, reports that Irish firm
William Fry has turned to Willkie Farr & Gallagher's joint
litigation head Mitchell Auslander to defend it against a $700
million (GBP434.2 million) negligence claim over advice relating
to Bernard Madoff.

The firm is named among a number of defendants in the class action
complaint brought by shareholders in the Thema Fund, a feeder fund
for the Ponzi scheme operated by Madoff.

The complaint alleges that William Fry is jointly and severably
liable for net losses of up to $700 million sustained by the fund.
The firm,?along?with?other defendants,?including
PricewaterhouseCoopers and JPMorgan, is expected to file a motion
to dismiss the claim by June 29.

Also?named?in?the complaint is William Fry partner Daniel
Morrissey, who heads the firm's asset management department.

The instruction of litigation big-hitter Auslander indicates the
seriousness with which William Fry is treating the claim.

The litigation, in the Southern District of New York, alleges that
William Fry's and the other defendants' "wrongful conduct
permitted Madoff to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme".  It claims the
firm specifically failed to disclose Madoff's agreements with
Thema when it drafted prospectuses and agreements.

The claimants, represented by New York's Chaplin Fitzgerald
Sullivan & Bottini, recently settled a claim for $62.5 million
with HSBC.


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, Joy A. Agravante, 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  * * *