CAR_Public/110705.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 131

                             Headlines

AB&C GROUP: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
AGRIA CORP: Consolidated Suit in New York Resolved
AMBAC FIN'L: Has Motion for Securities Class Actions Settlement
AMERICAN HOME: Sued Over Failure to Pay Out Policy Claims
AOL INC: Sued for Tracking Consumers' Web Browsing History

ATLANTIC CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Collection Activities
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Trial in "Hot Fuel" Cases Set for May 2012
COST PLUS: Recalls 1,000 Wooden Animal Drums
DEBENHAMS: Shareholders Mull Legal Action Over Demerger Losses

DYNEX CAPITAL: Cohen Milstein Issues Update on Class Action
EASTERN PLATINUM: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
EVANS BOB FARMS: Payments in "Diaz" Settlement to Start This Month
GANEDEN BIOTECH: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Diet Supplements
GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Impalas Rear Spindle Rods

GENERAL NUTRITION: Recalls 2,500 Units of Women's Multivitamins
HAMILTON BEACH: Recalls 300,000 Toasters Due to Fire Hazard
INT'L VITAMIN: Recalls 12T Units of Live Better Vitamins
JPMORGAN: May Have to Pay Billions to Settle Class Actions
LVNV FUNDING: Accused of Violating Collection Act in Illinois

SAGE CREEK: Recalls 600 Children's Sleepwear
SHADE STORE: Recalls 45,000 Roman Shades
SMITH MICRO: Faces Securities Class Action in California
SONOMA VALLEY: Shareholders File Class Action Over Collapse
TARGET: October Status Conference Set for Class Action

WAL-MART: Sued Over Fraudulent Battery Recycling Fee
WALDHEIM CEMETERY: Faces More Suit Over Rosemont Contracts
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Shareholder Class Suit Settled for $208.5MM
WM WRIGHT: Recalls 48T Roman Shade Kits Due to Strangulation Risk
YAHOO! INC: Faces Shareholder Class Actions in California

* Law Firms in Calif. Hires More to Defend Wage-and-Hour Suits




                             *********

AB&C GROUP: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Jenni Vincent, writing for The Journal, reports that former AB&C
employees who've been waiting for more than three years to get
paid for their final days and benefits at the now bankrupt company
should soon get a check.

Attorney David Hammer said a settlement of $1,171,031.60 was
"approved by the state's Northern District U.S. District Court for
claims dating back to the closure of AB&C Group Inc.'s facilities
on March 14, 2008."

Final calculations will determine how much each employee will
receive, he said.

"Basically $726,000 will be divided between approximately 529
former employees," said Mr. Hammer, who worked on the case with
fellow attorney Garry Geffert.

Mr. Hammer said the employees can expect to receive their checks
by mail in late August.  The checks are being mailed by the court-
approved administrator, HBS Class Action Services.

AB&C Group Inc. operated call centers in Ranson and Orange, Va.,
as well as an order-fulfillment warehouse in Martinsburg.

"On March 14, 2008, without prior warning to its hourly employees,
AB&C abruptly shuttered its facilities and released its workers,
many of whom had not been paid for their final three weeks of
employment," Mr. Hammer said.

Although it took a while to resolve, Mr. Hammer said he is pleased
with the outcome, and that former employees will soon receive what
they are due.

"Given the situation, I feel good we've made this recovery.  I'm
pleased that this difficult chapter for so many employees is
finally coming to an end," he said.

"Getting paid more than three years late is not the intent of the
law.  However, the bankruptcy of AB&C Group and the difficulties
of getting money from other potentially liable entities made this
case particularly difficult and time consuming," Mr. Hammer said.

Attorney Paul Taylor, who represented approximately 300 of the
employees, said he is happy with the outcome -- especially
considering other possible scenarios.

"I am pleased to be able to get this because at one point it
looked like it wouldn't happen," Mr. Taylor said.  "It was a bad
sign when the company went bankrupt, so we were forced to look
further afield for recovery.

"But the main thing is that the employees were treated terribly
and I am happy to get them some satisfaction."


AGRIA CORP: Consolidated Suit in New York Resolved
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted final approval of a settlement in a consolidated
class action lawsuit against Agria Corporation, and entered a
final judgment resolving the case, according to the Company's
June 28, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 3, 2009, a consolidated class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
was filed, alleging violations of various sections of the
Securities Act, against the Company, its executive officers, its
directors and other defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company's initial public offering registration statement and
prospectus failed to disclose certain alleged discussions between
two Agria executives relating to requests for additional
compensation and a threatened resignation.

On December 1, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the consolidated class action
against the Company and the underwriters defendants, and the Court
issued a judgment in favor of the Company and the underwriter
defendants.

On June 4, 2010, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiff reflecting an agreement in
principle and agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle all claims
asserted in the class action lawsuit.  On September 20, 2010, the
court granted a preliminary approval of the settlement.  The
deadline for filing objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Distribution of settlement proceeds, and attorneys' fee and
expense request by Lead Plaintiff's counsel expired on January 7,
2011, and no such objections were filed by Class Members.

On June 7, 2011, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered a final judgment resolving the case.  The
settlement amount is within the limit of the Company's applicable
insurance policies, and the Company does not expect the settlement
to have any impact on its financial position, results of operation
or cash flows.


AMBAC FIN'L: Has Motion for Securities Class Actions Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that Ambac Financial Group Inc. filed a motion for
bankruptcy court approval of a previously announced settlement
calling for payment of $2.5 million in cash to resolve several
securities law class-action suits first filed in January 2008.
The hearing in bankruptcy court for approval of the settlement
will take place July 19.

According to the report, insurance companies that provided
directors' and officers' liability insurance will provide an
additional $24.6 million in the settlement.  Ambac's $2.5 million
has been in escrow since before the Chapter 11 filing.  Mediation
brought the parties to settlement.  In one of the class suits, the
U.S. district judge in New York dismissed claims based on a
March 2008 securities offering while sustaining claims related to
a February 2007 offering.

                    About Ambac Financial

Ambac Financial Group, Inc., headquartered in New York City, is a
holding company whose affiliates provided financial guarantees and
financial services to clients in both the public and private
sectors around the world.

Ambac Financial filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No.
10-15973) in Manhattan on Nov. 8, 2010.  Ambac said it will
continue to operate in the ordinary course of business as "debtor-
in-possession" under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and
in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy
Code and the orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

Ambac's bond insurance unit, Ambac Assurance Corp., did not file
for bankruptcy.  AAC is being restructured by state regulators in
Wisconsin.  AAC is domiciled in Wisconsin and regulated by the
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin.
The parent company is not regulated by the OCI.

Ambac's consolidated balance sheet -- which includes non-debtor
Ambac Assurance Corp -- showed $30.05 billion in total assets,
$31.47 billion in total liabilities, and a $1.42 billion
stockholders' deficit, at June 30, 2010.

On an unconsolidated basis, Ambac said in a court filing that
it has assets of ($394.5 million) and total liabilities of
$1.6826 billion as of June 30, 2010.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp., as trustee to seven different types
of notes, is listed as the largest unsecured creditor, with claims
totaling about $1.62 billion.

Peter A. Ivanick, Esq., Allison H. Weiss, Esq., and Todd L.
Padnos, Esq., at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, serve as the Debtor's
bankruptcy counsel.  The Blackstone Group LP is the Debtor's
financial advisor.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is the claims
and notice agent.  KPMG LLP is tax consultant to the Debtor.

Anthony Princi, Esq., Gary S. Lee, Esq., and Brett H. Miller,
Esq., at Morrison & Foerster LLP, in New York, serve as counsel
to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  Lazard Freres
& Co. LLC is the Committee's financial advisor.


AMERICAN HOME: Sued Over Failure to Pay Out Policy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that
a lawsuit filed in Orleans Parish Civil District Court seeks class
action status against insurer American Home Shield Corporation,
which has allegedly failed to pay out policy claims to its
clients.

New Orleans attorney Michael Riley filed the petition for damages
June 23.

Bridgette and William Guadet are currently the only named
plaintiffs in the suit.

The suit seeks damages in excess of $75,000 for the plaintiffs via
declaratory judgment.

"American Home instituted policies, customs, practices, and
procedures encouraging and directing their contractors to follow
specific guidelines in a calculated effort to deny claims from
policyholders whereby the contractors would receive a considerable
bonus for the denial," the suit claims.

The lawsuit claims that American Home -- which ensures home
appliances and components -- "has denied claims made by Plaintiff
and class members under its customary grounds of 'lack of
maintenance,' 'pre-existing condition,' or 'failure to clean,'
despite not inspecting the appliances when policies are issued.

The suit claims that American Home agents will deny policy claims
because an appliance "possesses de minimis indications of
uncleanness" even if the appliance or component failed because of
outside factors or regular wear and tear.

The suit also claims American Home is liable for breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and fraudulent misrepresentation, among other charges.

It states that the claims made "are separate from the class
certified by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama's Southern Division."

This case has been assigned to Orleans Parish Judge Herbert Cade.

Orleans Parish Case 2011-6610


AOL INC: Sued for Tracking Consumers' Web Browsing History
----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action demands that AOL stop intruding on millions of
people's privacy by tracking their Web browsing and selling the
information to third-party advertisers.

Co-defendants ScanScout and Brightcove also are accused of
overriding privacy controls on private citizens' computers to
install temporary files, or "cookies."

The three defendants allegedly use Adobe flash technology to do
their offensive snooping, but Adobe is not named as a defendant.

ScanScout, which provides video ad services to AOL and others,
uses Brightcove technology to display online video content and
track consumers' viewing patterns, lead plaintiff Sandra Person
Burns says in her 47-page complaint.

"AOL was a minority investor in Brightcove until earlier this
year," the complaint states.

Ms. Burns says class members pay monthly subscription fees to AOL
for service that includes Web browser controls, which "AOL
purported would clear cookies, browsing history, and other web-
browsing artifacts from their computers but which, because of
defendants' conduct, did not do so."

She estimates the class is in the millions.

"To avoid being tracked online, plaintiff and class members used
and relied on their browser controls to block and/or delete
browser cookies from tracking companies, including defendants,"
the complaint states.

"Since approximately 1997, typically approximately five times a
week, plaintiff used her browser controls to delete browser
cookies on her computer (which AOL described as 'small files kept
on your computer that websites use to track your visits') and
clear her browsing history, browser cache, blocked pop-ups list,
saved thumbnail images and search history.

"Plaintiff did so to protect her privacy interests and to improve
the performance of her computer while she browsed the web."

Ms. Burns says the class "reasonably expected their browser
controls to block or delete cookies, preventing them from being
tracked online, profiled, and served behaviorally targeted
advertisements."

The main purpose of cookies -- messages sent by a server to the
user's browser -- is to identify users, store their preferences
and prepare customized Web pages for them.

The Internet Engineering Task Force labeled third-party cookies
"unverified transactions" and warned that they pose a threat to
consumers' online privacy and security.

However, "with the dominant browsers in the market defaulting to
acceptance of third-party cookies, online advertising companies
were able to engage in widespread 'network advertising' and
tracking by delivering ads to many websites," the complaint
states.

"The moment a consumer connects to the Internet, tracking
companies bid against each other in automated, real-time auctions
for the chance to track and target the consumer. . . . Tracking
companies observe where consumers click, whether on a Web site or
in a commercial email message.  They track consumers from the
moment of seeing but not clicking on a product ad to the
consumers' purchase of the product many days later.  Many tracking
companies claim their tracking and profiling is anonymous when, in
fact, they merge consumer profiles with purchased profile data
about the individual consumers' online web activities and offline
shopping, as well as details about income, education, family
status and number of children, type of vehicle driven, and
location of residence and work," says the complaint.

Many consumers are unaware that their online activities are
monitored.  Their only protection against tracking is a browser
control that blocks or deletes cookies, the complaint states.

Despite AOL's representations, Burns says, she discovered that the
defendants had stored Adobe Flash files -- called local stored
objects (LSOs) -- on her computer to track her online activities.

The Adobe Flash Player software is used to play video content on
Web pages designed using Flash technology.  Such Web sites often
store LSOs -- which retain audio volume preferences and online
video game scores -- on the computers of consumers using Flash
Player.

But Ms. Burns says, "Defendants stored LSOs on plaintiff and class
members' computers for a different purpose; they used LSOs as
substitutes and back-ups for browser cookies. . ..  On plaintiff's
computer, she discovered LSOs set by Brightcove dating back to
2009, including one in which Brightcove set an LSO for another
third party tracking and including several in which Brightcove set
LSOs for AOL, including for its advertising network."

Ms. Burns says AOL and ScanScout stored tracking devices on her
computer as early as 2006 and used them to collect information
about her online activities.  She says AOL transmits such
information to other tracking companies.

Ms. Burns adds: "Unlike cookies, for which commercial browsers
provide consumers some measure of control, consumers have no
reasonable means to block, detect or delete LSOs and are burdened
by other, material differences between cookies and LSO."

Ms. Burns says AOL and the tracking companies used the class
members' private information without their consent and diminished
the performance of their computers.

She seeks class certification and compensatory and punitive
damages for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Massachusetts' Privacy Act
and Consumer Protection Act, trespass to chattel and unjust
enrichment.  And she wants the defendants enjoined from tracking
consumers.

A copy of the Complaint in Burns v. AOL Inc., et al., Case No.
(D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/30/Trackers.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS & PRESSLY LLP
          60 State Street, Suite 700
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 1-800-934-2921
          E-mail: konstantine@kyrospressly.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3071
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  dstampley@kamberlaw.com
                  gparasmo@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Collection Activities
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Betts, individually and on behalf of the class defined
herein, and the People of state of Illinois ex rel Joseph Betts v.
Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-23341 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., June 30, 2011), seeks redress for the conduct of
Atlantic in taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois
Collection Agency Act.

Mr. Betts alleges that Atlantic, which claims to acquire defaulted
debts originally owed to others, engaged in collecting debts from
consumers in Illinois, including him, before it obtained a license
-- in violation of the ICAA.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Atlantic is a corporation chartered under the law of Virginia, and
does business in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOOD, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle putative class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with CPK Holdings Inc., according to the
Company's June 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

As previously disclosed, four putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the Delaware
Court of Chancery.  The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 24, 2011, among California
Pizza Kitchen, Inc., CPK Holdings Inc., ("Parent"), and CPK Merger
Sub Inc. ("Purchaser").  The complaints filed with respect to the
Merger Litigation name as defendants the members of the Board of
Directors of the Company, as well as the Company, Parent and
Purchaser.

On June 27, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the actions pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and Los Angeles County Superior Court
signed a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed
settlement of all claims asserted in the actions related to the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  This
memorandum of understanding provides, among other things, that the
parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which
provides for the release of all asserted claims.  The asserted
claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement
is approved by the court.  There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve such settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the
memorandum of understanding, the Company has agreed to make
certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger.
Finally, in connection with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs
intend to seek, and the defendants have agreed to pay, an award of
attorneys fees and expenses in an amount to be determined by the
Los Angeles County Superior Court.  This payment will not affect
the amount to be paid to Company stockholders pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement.


CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Trial in "Hot Fuel" Cases Set for May 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas Court has scheduled trial to commence on May 17, 2012, in
the "hot fuel" cases against Casey's General Stores, Inc., and
other gasoline retailers, according to the Company's June 28,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 30, 2011.

The Company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of gasoline retailers.  The complaints generally
allege that the Company, along with numerous other retailers, has
misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing
to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at
temperatures above 60 F.  Fuel is measured at 60 F in wholesale
purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in
Kansas and Missouri.  The complaints all seek certification as
class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers within those two
states, and one of the complaints also seeks certification for a
class consisting of gasoline consumers in all states.  The actions
generally seek recovery for alleged violations of state consumer
protection or unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent
and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil
conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing; several seek injunctive relief and punitive damages.  The
amounts sought are not quantified.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have
been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25
states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of
defendants that produce, refine, distribute and/or market gasoline
products in the United States.  On June 18, 2007, the Federal
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
pending hot fuel cases (officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including
rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class
certification.  Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially
completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits.

In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled
on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et.
al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the Company is a named Defendant.
The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to
claims against the Company in the American Fiber & Cabling case,
having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert
such claims.  However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a
class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the
Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) against the Company and
several other Defendants.  With respect to claims for unjust
enrichment, the class certified consists of all individuals and
entities (except employees or affiliates of the Defendants) that,
at any time between January 1, 2001, and the present, purchased
motor fuel at retail at a temperature greater than 60 F, in the
state of Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or controlled
by one or more of the Defendants.  As to claims for violation of
the KCPA, the class certified is limited to all individuals, sole
proprietors and family partnerships (excluding employees or
affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases.

The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why
the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not
be consolidated for all purposes.  The matter is now under
consideration by the Court.  The court has scheduled the trial to
commence on May 17, 2012.  Management cannot estimate or quantify
the relief sought or the amount of possible loss or potential
range of loss related to these actions.  Management does not
believe the Company is liable to the Plaintiffs for the conduct
complained of, and intends to contest the matter vigorously.


COST PLUS: Recalls 1,000 Wooden Animal Drums
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Inc. of Oakland, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 Wooden animal drums.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The paint used on the drum is in excess of the maximum allowable
level of 90 ppm, a violation of the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled toy is a wooden hexagon drum with pictures of animals
on the six sides.  SKU No. 424857 is printed on a sticker on the
bottom of the drum.  Picture of the recalled products is available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11263.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Cost
Plus World Market stores nationwide from December 2010 through May
2011 for about $7.

Consumers should immediately stop using the toy and return it to
Cost Plus World Market for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Cost Plus toll-free at (877) 967-5362 between
7:00 a.m. and midnight Eastern Time seven days a week or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.worldmarket.com/


DEBENHAMS: Shareholders Mull Legal Action Over Demerger Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Russell, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a group
of established retailers, including Debenhams and Sir Philip
Green's Arcadia Group, is facing the possibility of a class action
lawsuit from current and previous shareholders.

Law firm Edwin Coe is heading up the highly unusual action against
Debenhams, Burton and Arcadia, and their directors.

The legal action centers on losses suffered by shareholders in the
companies dating back to the demerger of Debenhams in 1997.

Edwin Coe claims total losses could be as much as GBP3.5 billion.

A statement by the law firm read: "Shareholders and former
shareholders in Debenhams, Burton, and Arcadia are forming an
Action Group and considering taking legal action against the
companies and directors in relation to losses suffered in the
share value of these companies over the past few years."

The action is understood to centre on the demerger of Debenhams in
1997; the sale of Arcadia to Sir Philip and Lady Tina Green in
2002; the sale of Debenhams to private equity in 2003 and the re-
flotation of Debenhams three years later.

The flotation of Debenhams with nearly GBP2 billion of debt
remains one of the most controversial listings in recent memory.

The company's shares have lost two-thirds of their value since
re-emerging onto the public markets in 2006.

Edwin Coe is currently inviting shareholders who lost money in the
companies to join the action.

Although the action is being headed by a reputable law firm it is
not certain whether any legal challenge will emerge.

Although a number of shareholder actions have been brought to the
UK courts in recent years, particularly in relation to the
financial crisis, few if any have been successful.

Debenhams declined to comment.  Arcadia, which owns Burton, could
not be reached.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Cohen Milstein Issues Update on Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC issued a statement regarding
the Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation.

LEGAL NOTICE

ATTENTION PURCHASERS OF MERIT SECURITIES CORPORATION SERIES 12-1
AND SERIES 13 BONDS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 7, 2000 AND MAY 13, 2004

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF THE FOLLOWING MERIT SECURITIES CORPORATION'S
COLLATERALIZED BONDS SERIES 12-1 AND SERIES 13 BETWEEN FEBRUARY 7,
2000 AND MAY 13, 2004 INCLUSIVE WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY:
            
Series 12-1         Series 13
Class       Cusips      Class      Cusips
1-A1        589962CK3      A1           589962CR8
1-A2     589962CL1      A2           589962CS6
1-A3     589962CM9      A3           589962CT4
1-M1     589962CN7      A4           589962CU1
1-M2     589962CP2      M1       589962CV9
1-B1     589962CQ0      M2       589962CW7       
                 B1        589962CX5
                           
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A CLASS HAS BEEN CERTIFIED IN PENDING
LITIGATION THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

If you are a member of the class, your rights may be affected by
the lawsuit referred to as In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civ. No. 05-1897(HB), which is now pending before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, brought by Lead Plaintiff Teamsters Local 445 Pension Fund
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against
Dynex Capital, Inc., Merit Securities Corp., Dynex's Principal
Executive Officer, Thomas Potts, and Merit's President and Chief
Executive Officer, Steven Benedetti.

The Court determined that the Action may proceed as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  You
may be a member of the Class.  Excluded from the Class are
Defendants; the other officers and directors of Dynex during the
Class Period; members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the Court with
respect to the merits of the claims or the defenses asserted in
the Action.  This Notice is merely to advise you of the pendency
of this Action and of your rights therein.

If you have not yet received the "Notice of Pendency of Class
Action" which describes the Class Action and your related rights
in detail, you may obtain a copy by calling 1-800-231-1815 or
writing to: In Re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
GCG, Inc., PO Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249

If you fall within the definition of the Class set forth above,
you are a member of the Class.  IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A MEMBER OF
THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME.

If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must send a
direction to be excluded to In Re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities
Litigation, EXCLUSIONS c/o GCG, Inc., PO Box 9349, Dublin, OH
43017-4249, postmarked no later than September 30, 2011.  There
are specific requirements for being excluded that are set forth in
the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action.  In addition,
inquiries regarding this litigation may be addressed to: Joel P.
Laitman, Christopher Lometti, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone:
(212) 838-7797, Fax: (212) 838-7745

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: June 30, 2011, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


EASTERN PLATINUM: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Eastern Platinum Ltd. says it will
contest a proposed class-action lawsuit that alleges the company
failed to disclose material changes to its Crocodile River Mine in
South Africa.

The miner, also known as Eastplats, on June 30 said it is aware of
the suit filed earlier in the week by London, Ont.-based Siskinds
LLP in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of shareholders who bought
the company's stock between Jan. 1 and April 15 this year.

"After reviewing the documents filed with the court, the company
is of the view that the allegations are completely without merit
and intends to vigorously defend the proposed lawsuit," Eastplats
said in a statement.

Class-action suits require certification by a judge before they
can proceed in court.  None of the allegations against the company
have been proven.

Eastern Platinum settled a two-year wage agreement with workers in
South Africa on May 24 after what it characterized as an illegal
strike action earlier in the month that saw some damage to its
mining facilities.

On May 11, the company reported a first-quarter net loss
attributable to shareholders of $5.6 million, compared to year-
earlier earnings of $824,000 as it sold 17 per cent less platinum
group metals.

Eastplats reported a "traditional slow start" to the year as well
as mine infrastructure changes and staff retraining as causes of a
production decrease.

However, it said the impact was expected to be short term and
production and earnings "will quickly return to anticipated
levels."


EVANS BOB FARMS: Payments in "Diaz" Settlement to Start This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement payments in the class action lawsuit commenced by Edder
Diaz and Rosolyn Gray, et al., against Bob Evans Farms, Inc., are
scheduled to be distributed this month, according to the Company's
June 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended April 29, 2011.

Like many restaurant companies and retail employers, SWH
Corporation, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Bob Evans,
which does business as Mimi's Cafe, has been faced with
allegations of purported class-wide wage and hour violations in
California.

On October 13, 2009, a class action complaint entitled Edder Diaz
and Rosolyn Gray, et al. vs. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe was
filed in Alameda County California Superior Court.  In a March
2010 amended complaint, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray purport to represent
a class of servers, bartenders, front-of-house trainers, to-go
servers, shift managers, or shift manager expeditors who are
allegedly similarly situated.  In a second amended complaint filed
in October 2010, Mr. Diaz and Ms. Gray allege that current and
former nonexempt employees working in these positions in
California from July 26, 2006, to August 31, 2010, (1) were not
reimbursed for certain expenses incurred in connection with the
discharge of their duties, (2) were denied rest breaks and meal
periods as required for nonexempt employees under California wage
and hour laws, (3) were not paid minimum wage and overtime for
time spent working off-the-clock during, or in connection with, a
meal period, and (4) were required to pay for cash shortages.  The
second amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the Company believes Mimi's Cafe has complied with the
California wage and hour laws at issue in the Diaz lawsuit, it
elected to resolve the lawsuit voluntarily.  In October 2010, the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Diaz
class representatives and their legal counsel to settle the
lawsuit for $340,000, inclusive of payments to class members,
enhancements to the class representatives, costs of
administration, and plaintiffs' attorney fees and costs related to
the lawsuit.  The Alameda County California Superior Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on December 8, 2010.  The
Company recently completed the administration of class notices,
and the Alameda County Superior Court granted final approval of
the settlement on May 31, 2011.  The Court's final approval order
rejected a portion of the class representative enhancements,
saving Mimi's Cafe $4,500 of the settlement amount.  Settlement
payments are scheduled to be distributed in or around July 2011,
and a final accounting hearing is scheduled with the Court on
November 14, 2011.


GANEDEN BIOTECH: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Diet Supplements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Ganeden Biotech and Schiff Nutrition International push diet
supplements with bogus claims about "clinical proof" that a
proprietary "helpful" bacteria improves digestion and strengthens
the immune system.

A copy of the Complaint in Burton v. Ganeden Biotech, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01423 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/30/DietSupp.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          David L. Romero, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. ROMERO
          925 Sandcastle Drive
          Cardiff, CA 92007
          Telephone: (619) 995-03456


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Defective Impalas Rear Spindle Rods
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
General Motors' 2007-8 Impalas have defective rear spindle rods
that cause wheel misalignment and premature tire wear, and though
GM issued a recall bulletin for Impalas that "operated as police
vehicles," it won't honor warranties for identical cars owned by
customers who don't happen to be police.

A copy of the Complaint in Trusky v. General Motors Company, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-12815 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/30/GM.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
          100 West Long Lake Rd., Suite 111
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          45 West Court Street
          Doylestown, PA 18901
          Telephone: (215) 230-8043
          E-mail: michael@edelsonlaw.ca

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF & WILLIS, PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

               - and -

          Ronald Jay Smolow, Esq.
          3 Three Ponds Lane
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 579-1111


GENERAL NUTRITION: Recalls 2,500 Units of Women's Multivitamins
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 2,500 units of GNC Women's Ultra Mega(R), Ultra Mega Active,
Ultra Mega Energy and Metabolism, and GNC Prenatal Formula with
Iron multivitamins were voluntarily recalled by General Nutrition
Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop
using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The product contains iron, but does not have child-resistant
packaging as required by federal law.  If ingested by a child,
these vitamins could cause serious injury or death.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall only involves four products with the noted lot
numbers: GNC Women's Ultra Mega 28-count multivitamin bottles with
lot numbers 0432AL1781 and 1283CL1781, GNC Women's Ultra Mega
Active 180-count multivitamin bottles with lot numbers 1029BL1783
and 1030BL1783, GNC Women's Ultra Mega Energy and Metabolism 90-
count multivitamin bottles with lot number 1450CL1789 and GNC
Prenatal Formula with Iron 120-count multivitamin bottles with lot
number 0785BL2863.  The lot numbers are printed on the side of the
bottle and on the bottom of the product's packaging.  The affected
lots are packaged in a white plastic bottle with a white label and
a flip-top cap.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11748.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold exclusively at GNC retail stores nationwide and
at the GNC Web site from March 2011 through May 2011 for between
approximately $9 and $35.

Consumers should keep these products out of the reach of children
and return them to the GNC store where they were purchased to be
exchanged for a replacement bottle or refund.  For additional
information, consumers can contact GNC toll-free at (888) 462-2548
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.gnc.com/


HAMILTON BEACH: Recalls 300,000 Toasters Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hamilton Beach Brands Inc., of Glen Allen, Virginia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 300,000 units of Hamilton Beach(R)
classic chrome 2-slice toasters.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The heating element in these toasters can remain energized
indefinitely when an item is placed in the toaster which may
ignite the contents, posing a fire hazard if the toaster is near
flammable items.

Hamilton Beach has received 15 reports of toasters that did not
pop-up as intended, including three reports of minor damage to
kitchen cabinets.  There were no reports of injuries.

The Hamilton Beach recall involves model 22600 toasters with
specific series codes.  These series codes begin with the letters
C or D, and have the format of CXXXXBI or DXXXXBI, where XXXX is a
four-digit number ranging from 0190 through 5290.  The model
number and series code are printed on the bottom of the toaster.
The toaster has a chromed steel exterior, a front control panel
with a rotary toast shade selector and function buttons arranged
in an arc, a front removable crumb tray and Hamilton Beach printed
across the front of the toaster.  Picture of the recalled products
is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11265.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass
merchandisers and department, grocery and home center stores
nationwide and various online retailers from February 2008 through
June 2011 for between $30 and $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toasters and
contact the firm to receive instructions on how to obtain a free
replacement toaster.  For additional information, contact Hamilton
Beach at (800) 379-2200 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hamiltonbeach.com/. General toaster safety information
available from Hamilton Beach at (http://tinyurl.com/43va5sd)
(pdf).


INT'L VITAMIN: Recalls 12T Units of Live Better Vitamins
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
International Vitamin Corporation, of Freehold, New Jersey,
announced a voluntary recall of about 12,000 units of Live Better
One Daily Tablets and Live Better Complex Vitamin B50 Tablets.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The iron supplements are not in child-resistant packaging as
required by the Poison Prevention Packaging Act.  Ingesting
multiple iron supplement tablets at once can cause serious injury
or death to young children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled supplements were sold in white plastic bottles.
"Live Better Complete Multivitamin One Daily Maximum Formula" is
printed in blue and red on a white label on one product and "Live
Better Complex Vitamin B50" is printed in blue and green on a
white label on the other product.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11266.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at A& P Liquor, A&P, Pathmark, Waldbaum's, The
Food Emporium, Super Fresh and Food Basics grocery stores in CT,
NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, MA, VA and the District of Columbia between
June 2009 and October 2010 for about $8.

Consumers should keep this product out of reach of children and
call International Vitamin Corporation to receive a free
replacement child-resistant cap.  For additional information,
contact IVC toll-free at (866) 927-5470 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.ivcinc.com/


JPMORGAN: May Have to Pay Billions to Settle Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Comstock, writing for Business Insider, reports that
Chris Whalen, a bank analyst, warns that JPMorgan and the top 5 or
6 banks might have to pay billions to settle class action
lawsuits.

He told King World News in an interview that even though banks
have been fighting them, a ton of class action lawsuits against
banks have survived past petitions for dismissal, etc.  And they
could cost JPMorgan, for example, up to 50 cents on the dollar (on
the $45 to $50 billion in lawsuits against them, that's $20 -$25
billion).

"The surviving 33 claims which are straight forward securities
fraud claims, much like WorldCom, Enron and that sort of thing,
those claims were settled at 50 cents on the dollar.  So today of
the trillion dollars or so in class action claims that were filed
right after the crisis started, there's about $200 billion left
that have survived motions to dismiss and other procedural efforts
by the banks to knock this litigation out.  JPMorgan has somewhere
around $45 to $50 billion worth of current claims that look like
they are going to go to trial."

Usually, lawsuits like this don't stick around so long, and the
claimants have to fight them for themselves.  But not this time,
says Whalen.

"Now we in the community that watches this stuff had thought that
eventually the New York courts were going to shoot down the class
action lawsuits, and force all of the claimants to basically
litigate on their own.  That's the tendency in America, that's our
federalist system.  However, this time around we have bondholders
in these classes and I think there is enough commonality in the
claims that the court may actually let the class actions proceed,
which is much more efficient for the plaintiffs obviously . . ."

"There's still some significant claims out there.  It's not
certain that the banks will lose, but I will tell you that once
claims like this gets passed preliminaries and they are actually
going to trial, the plaintiffs have a good chance of winning."

Translation: the top 5 or 6 banks, and in particular JPMorgan,
might have to pay material settlements.

"This may force the banks to settle.  Now, if we settle at 50
cents on the dollar do the math, that becomes a very material hit
not just for JPMorgan, but for all the top five, six banks that
have home equity loan exposure that's been reflected in securities
act claims or just primary mortgage backed securities that have
fraud claims . . ."

If Mr. Whalen's prediction plays out, the settlements could crush
bank earnings in future quarters.  Bank of America just settled a
mortgage lawsuit for $8.5 billion and it's going to cost
shareholders as the firm will announce losses of around $9.1
billion this quarter.


LVNV FUNDING: Accused of Violating Collection Act in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Dremo, individually and on behalf of the class defined
herein, and the People of state of Illinois ex rel Nicholas Dremo
Joseph Betts v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-23389 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 30, 2011), is brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all individuals against whom LVNV filed a
collection lawsuit in Illinois between January 1, 2008, and
August 28, 2008.

Mr. Dremo alleges that prior to obtaining a license under the
Illinois Collection Agency Act, LVNV collected debts from and
instituted collection actions against debtors in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

LVNV  is engaged in the business of purchasing or claiming to
purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts
against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOOD, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


SAGE CREEK: Recalls 600 Children's Sleepwear
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sage Creek Organics, of Tarzana, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 600 children's sleepwear.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The garments fail to meet the federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear posing a risk of burn injury to children.
The garments are being recalled because they do not meet the
tight-fitting sizing requirements.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves long sleeve boys' and girls' pajama sets that
were part of the Enchanted Forest Collection, Forest Friends
Collection or Golden Dragonfly Collection.  The sets were sold in
sizes 6 months to 4T in the following colors: cream and green;
dark blue and light blue; and, pink and lilac.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11267.html

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at small
boutiques nationwide and online at the company's Web site
http://www.sagecreekorganics.com/from August 2010 to February
2011 for approximately $35.

Consumers should immediately return the garments to either the
place of purchase or to Sage Creek Organics for a full refund.
For additional information, call Sage Creek Organics toll free at
(877) 513-2183 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time.


SHADE STORE: Recalls 45,000 Roman Shades
----------------------------------------
About 45,000 Roman shades were recalled by The Shade Store, of
Port Chester, New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the blind
or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around his/her
neck.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves custom-made Roman shades.  The shades were
made out of fabric and of woven wood.  The shades do not have any
permanent markings.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11747.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at five showroom locations and online at
http://www.theshadestore.com/from February 2006 through March
2011 for between $120 and $355 per shade.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shades and
call the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC) for a free repair
kit toll-free at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org/ The Shade Store is contacting all
known customers.  For more information, contact The Shade Store
toll-free at (800) 754-1455 or by e-mail at help@theshadestore.com


SMITH MICRO: Faces Securities Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on June 29, 2011, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against Smith Micro Software,
Inc.  The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is from
November 3, 2010, through May 4, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.  If you
are a member of the Class as described, you may move the Court no
later than Monday, August 29, 2011, to serve as a lead plaintiff
for the Class.  However, in order to do so, you must meet certain
legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any
other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact:

        William B. Federman, Esq.
        FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
        10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
        Oklahoma City, OK 73120
        Telephone: (405) 235-1560
        Email to: wbf@federmanlaw.com
        Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


SONOMA VALLEY: Shareholders File Class Action Over Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Halverson, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that the
shareholders of Sonoma Valley Bank filed a class action lawsuit on
June 29 laying the primary blame for its collapse on its former
president and chief executive officer, Sean Cutting.

The lawsuit, which also names the bank's six corporate directors
and chief financial officer, accuses them of mismanaging more than
$40 million in loans.

It claims Cutting was "most directly responsible for the imprudent
loan activity that destroyed the bank," according to the
complaint.

Mr. Cutting did not return calls seeking comment, and bank
directors reached on June 29 declined comment.

The class action lawsuit, filed in Sonoma County Superior Court,
will cover virtually anyone who owned shares as of Aug. 25, 2010,
except those named as defendants in the case, said George
Donaldson, the Berkeley attorney representing shareholders.

Newton Dal Poggetto, a Sonoma attorney, is the lead plaintiff on
the case.

"There are a lot of shareholders who feel they've been wronged,"
he said.

Shareholders, mostly Sonoma Valley residents, saw the value of
their stock fall from $31 a share in the autumn of 2007 to less
than a penny after the bank's seizure last summer.  The three-year
slide wiped out $71 million of wealth.

The federal government is estimated to have lost at least $20
million due to the closure.

The lawsuit blames the bank's collapse, in large part, on its
decision to approve loans totaling more than $40 million to
companies and business partners of Bijan Madjlessi, a Marin County
developer.  About $35 million of those loans were never repaid.

Mr. Madjlessi was arrested this month by state regulators for
alleged insurance fraud stemming from a fire at one of his
developments in Reno.

The lawsuit blames the bank's executives and directors for
allowing the alleged "massive, concentrated loans made to
Madjlessi."

The lawsuit also calls out the bank's four-member audit committee,
which was responsible for reviewing the bank's financial
statements.  The bank was forced to drastically revise its
financial statements after government regulators reviewed its
accounting in early 2010.

In essence, regulators determined the bank's net worth, which is
called shareholder equity, was only half of what bank executives
had claimed in their financial filings.  Literally overnight, the
bank had to revise its shareholder equity from $37.7 million down
to $19.2 million in February 2010.

This precipitous drop in capital, which is a key measurement of a
bank's health, resulted in the government taking steps to close
it.

"The audit committee clearly failed to discharge its
responsibilities and, in so doing, acted negligently," the lawsuit
alleges.


TARGET: October Status Conference Set for Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson has set an
October status conference in a proposed class action over the
generic form of Airborne sold by Target stores.

Mr. Gleeson entered the order June 18 order setting the conference
in the suit brought by lead plaintiff Brian Buehlhorn for the
conference Oct. 3, at 9:00 a.m.

Mr. Buehlhorn proposes to lead a class of Target customers who
bought the retailer's version of the immune system supplement and
who claim it did not work.

The suit is one of several immune supplement class actions filed
by the team of Richard Burke, Paul Weiss, and Kevin Hoerner in
2008.

The Buehlhorn suit if certified would include plaintiffs in
California, Minnesota, and other states.

Target denies the suit's claims.

There has been little activity in the case throughout this year.

Robert Bassett represents Target.

The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-667.


WAL-MART: Sued Over Fraudulent Battery Recycling Fee
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
claims Wal-Mart charges a fraudulent "battery core," or recycling
fee for new lead-based batteries, but California has no such fee.


WALDHEIM CEMETERY: Faces More Suit Over Rosemont Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------
The Estate of Diane Samuels, and all others similarly situated v.
Rosemont Park, Inc., David Gail, Waldheim Cemetery Company, U.S.
Trust, a division of Bank of America, and Zion Gardens Inc., Case
No. 2011-CH-23177 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 29, 2011) is a
purported class action brought by the estates, families and heirs
of those interred at Zion Gardens cemetery, formerly known as
Rosemont Park Cemetery, which class members signed contracts with
Rosemont and paid funds to be placed in trust to ensure the
perpetual care, upkeep and maintenance of the graves of their
loved ones and family members interred at the Cemetery.

Following the sale of the Cemetery to Waldheim, the Plaintiff
says, it was informed that any perpetual care contracts with
Rosemont were worthless and would no longer be honored.  The
Plaintiff argues that the unlawful use and depletion of the Trust
principal for general upkeep of the Cemetery violated its
contract, as well as Illinois law.

Ms. Samuels died on February 20, 2006, and was interred at the
Cemetery.  Over a period of 20 years, contracts had been entered
into for the care and maintenance of the graves of more than 20 of
Ms. Samuels' relatives interred at the Cemetery.

Rosemont is the former owner of the Cemetery, and also the party
that entered into the specific/perpetual care contracts with
members of the purported class.  Mr. Gail is the current/former
secretary of Rosemont and also the primary Rosemont authorized
representative responsible for negotiating and entering into the
contracts.  U.S. Trust provides wealth management and financial
services to businesses and individuals, including Rosemont.
Waldheim is a cemetery care company in Illinois, and bills itself
as one of the oldest Jewish cemetery management companies in the
United States.  Zion Gardens is the successor managing authority
to Rosemont and is the current managing authority of the Cemetery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Pavich, Esq.
          Pavich Law Group
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-8500
          Facsimile: (312) 853-2187
          E-mail: jpavich@pavichlawgroup.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Shareholder Class Suit Settled for $208.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Benoit, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Washington Mutual Inc. and other co-defendants agreed to settle a
consolidated shareholder class-action lawsuit for $208.5 million:

       $105.0 million to be paid by WaMu and the individual
              defendants named, an amount covered by insurance;

        $85.0 million to be paid by 14 underwriting banks; and

        $18.5 million to be paid by Deloitte & Touche

Dow Jones recounts shareholders originally filed several lawsuits
in various courts essentially alleging that WaMu failed to stop
them from investing when the now-failed thrift knew, or should
have known, how much trouble it was in.  Some of the lawsuits were
filed long before the thrift's collapse, though the plaintiffs
regularly updated the consolidated case to include the latest
reports on Washington Mutual.  The consolidated lawsuit was filed
in federal court in Seattle.  It also names as defendants WaMu
executives and directors, the various investment banks that acted
as middle men in selling the shares to the investors, and WaMu's
auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP.

Dow Jones says representatives of WaMu, CEO Kerry Killinger and
Deloitte weren't available for comment Friday.

Dow Jones also reports that the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan
Board, the lead plaintiff in the Seattle suit, on Thursday
requested the judge in the case approve the settlement, which it
called "an excellent result."


WM WRIGHT: Recalls 48T Roman Shade Kits Due to Strangulation Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wm. Wright Co., of Antioch, Tennessee, announced a voluntary
recall of about 48,000 Roman shade make-it-yourself kits.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the
shade, or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around
his/her neck.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Wrights(R) "my home make-it-yourself"
Roman shade kits with item numbers 1451007001, 1451008001 or
1451008001A.  The kit fits windows of a maximum size of 48" W x
60" L.  It includes 15 yards of Roman shade tape, 15 yards of
drapery cord, 4- inch "L" brackets, 18 screws, one cord cleat and
instructions.  The item number and "Wm. Wright Co." can be found
on the back of the package.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11264.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart, Jo-Ann Stores and other specialty textile and variety
retail shops nationwide from December 2007 through June 2011 for
between $20 and $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and
contact Wm. Wright for a free repair kit including a fabric
voucher, new instructions and warning tags.  Unused kits should be
returned to place of purchase for a redesigned kit.  For
additional information, contact Wm. Wright toll-free at (800) 545-
5740 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.simplicity.com/

The CPSC notes that consumers should examine all shades and blinds
in their home, and make sure there are no accessible cords on the
front side, or back of the product.  The CPSC recommends the use
of cordless window coverings in all homes where children live or
visit.


YAHOO! INC: Faces Shareholder Class Actions in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Goldfarb Branham LLP on June 30 disclosed that several class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Yahoo! Inc. investors
who purchased shares of Yahoo! between April 19, 2011, and May 13,
2011.  Concerned Yahoo! investors are encouraged to contact
attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-583-2855 or
hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com to discuss their rights and remedies.

"According to the complaints filed in the Northern District of
California, the true value of an important asset of a Chinese
strategic partnership was significantly overstated -- by
billions," said Hamilton Lindley, a securities lawyer with the
firm.  "When this was revealed, Yahoo!'s stock plummeted 15% in
one day alone.  Our proposed lawsuit seeks to install better
corporate governance at Yahoo! to deter these actions for company
shareholders."

Goldfarb Branham represents individual and institutional
shareholders in securities litigation nationwide.  The firm has
been selected as lead counsel on high profile shareholder
lawsuits.  Current Yahoo! investors with questions or concerns, or
individuals with knowledge about the allegations in the
complaints, should contact:

        Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
        Goldfarb Branham LLP
        2501 N. Harwood, Ste. 1801
        Dallas, TX 75201
        Toll Free: (877) 583-2855
        Telephone: (214) 583-2233
        E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com
        Web site: http://www.goldfarbbranham.com


* Law Firms in Calif. Hires More to Defend Wage-and-Hour Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that law
firms in California are hiring more employment law associates to
help defend companies seeing a spike in wage-and-hour and
disability litigation.

Hiring partners interviewed by the Recorder expect to have plenty
of employment work, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
scuttling a huge class action by Wal-Mart workers.  A big "kitchen
sink" class action like the one in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes
is unusual, according to partner Nancy Abell of Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker.  Smaller, more manageable classes of plaintiffs
are the norm, she said.

The Recorder says these firms are seeing an uptick in work:

    * Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, which added 10 employment laterals
in California since last October and may hire five more.

    * Seyfarth Shaw, which added 10 employment associates in San
Francisco in the past 10 months, and may be hiring more in three
of its California offices.

     * Paul Hastings, which asked some first-year associates to
start early because its labor and employment lawyers were so busy.



                             *********

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  * * *