CAR_Public/110706.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 132

                             Headlines

A-POWER ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
BARNES & NOBLE: Remaining Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Still Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: Finalizing Settlement of "Minor" Suit
BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Laptop
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims

FINISAR CORP: Appeals From Settlement Approval Still Pending
FINISAR CORP: Hearing on Consolidation Plea Set for Sept. 2011
FULL TILT: Faces Class Action in New York
HOME DEPOT: Sued for Discriminatorily Firing Older Employers
ITURAN LOCATION: Continues to Defend Suit in Israel

ITURAN LOCATION: Unit Continues to Defend TCPA Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
L'OREAL USA: Sued Over "Leave-in" Hair-Styling Product
LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Settles Class Action Over Self-Help Products
LOU FUSZ AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Class Action for $2.45 Million

MEDTRONIC INC: Minneapolis Firefighters Suit Still Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: 8th Cir. Denies Rehearing Bid in Fidelis Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Remaining Claims in ICDs/CRT-Ds Suit
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Triumphs Over Fraud Suit in Massachusetts
NZ TRUSTEE COS: Final Funding Approval Sought for Class Action

OZ MINERALS: Shareholder Class Action Settled
ROGERS & COWAN: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
SONY CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Law-Violation Suits
SONY CORP: Faces Numerous Suits Over 2011 Cyber-Attacks
SP AUSNET: State Hesitant to Divulge Bushfire Findings

TIGER AIRWAYS: May Face Class Action Over Flight Cancellations
TORONTO COMMUNITY: Disputes Wellesley Fire Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Taps Theodore Boutrous to Defend Acceleration Suit
UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Sued Over Alleged PR Misrepresentations
WESTAMERICA BANCORP: Unit Gets Prelim. OK of Class Suit Settlement

WONDER AUTO: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
WALT DISNEY: Judge Certifies Blind Persons' Class Action
YUHE INT'L: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action





                             *********

A-POWER ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 2 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against A-Power Energy Generation Systems,
Ltd. alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The
Rosen Law Firm is representing A-Power shareholders seeking to
recover losses in A-Power stock.

To join the A-Power class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Jonathan
Horne, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The case filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint alleges that A-Power and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading financial statements.  The Complaint alleges that
A-Powers financial statements filed by A-Power's main subsidiaries
with Chinese regulators showed less revenue and cash balances than
those filed with the SEC.

As a result of this adverse news, A-Power's share price has
dropped and NASDAQ has halted trading in its stock.  This has
caused investors substantial losses.  The class action seeks to
recover these losses for A-Power investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff and recover your investment
losses, you must move the Court no later than August 30, 2011.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  If you wish to join
the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding
this class action, please contact:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Jonathan Horne, Esq.
        THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Telephone: 212-686-1060
        Weekends Telephone: 917-797-4425
        Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
        E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                jhorne@rosenlegal.com
        Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


BARNES & NOBLE: Remaining Appeal in IPO-Related Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated lawsuit involving a Barnes & Noble, Inc. subsidiary
remains pending, according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended April 30, 2011.

A class action lawsuit -- In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation -- filed in April 2002, named over one thousand
individuals and 300 corporations, including Fatbrain.com, LLC, a
former subsidiary of Barnes & Noble.com, and its former officers
and directors.  The amended complaints in the Action all allege
that the initial public offering registration statements filed by
the defendant issuers with the SEC, including the one filed by
Fatbrain, were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that the defendant underwriters were receiving excess
compensation in the form of profit sharing with certain of its
customers, and that some of those customers agreed to buy
additional shares of the defendant issuers' common stock in the
aftermarket at increasing prices.  The amended complaints also
allege that the allegations constitute violations of: (i) Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended by the defendant
issuers, the directors and officers signing the related
registration statements, and the related underwriters; (ii) Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the
same parties; and; (iii) the control person provisions of the 1933
and 1934 Acts by certain directors and officers of the defendant
issuers.  A motion to dismiss by the defendant issuers, including
Fatbrain, was denied.

After extensive negotiations among representatives of plaintiffs
and defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding, outlining a proposed settlement resolving the
claims in the Action between plaintiffs and the defendant issuers.
Subsequently, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the
defendants and plaintiffs in the Action, the terms of which are
consistent with the MOU.  The Settlement Agreement was submitted
to the court for approval, and on February 15, 2005, the judge
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Federal Appeals Court for the Second
Circuit (the Second Circuit) issued a decision reversing the
District Court's class certification decision in six focus cases.
In light of that decision, the District Court stayed all
proceedings, including consideration of the settlement.  In
January 2007, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc
before the Second Circuit, which was denied in April 2007.  On
May 30, 2007, plaintiffs moved, before the District Court, to
certify a new class.  On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered
an order terminating the Settlement Agreement.  On October 2,
2008, plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the class certification
motion.  On October 10, 2008, the District Court signed an order
granting the request.

A Settlement Agreement in principle, subject to court approval,
was negotiated among counsel for all of the issuers, plaintiffs,
insurers and underwriters, and executed by Barnes & Noble.
Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court on
June 10, 2009, and final court approval of the settlement was
granted on October 5, 2009.  Pursuant to the settlement, no
settlement payment will be made by the Company.  Since that time,
various notices of appeal have been filed by certain objectors on
an interlocutory basis, two of which have been dismissed.  The
remaining appeal has been remanded to the District Court for
further proceedings.  Should the remaining appeal be successful
and the approval of the settlement overturned, the Company intends
to vigorously defend these lawsuits.


BARNES & NOBLE: Finalizing Settlement of "Minor" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Parties to a purported class action lawsuit against a Barnes &
Noble, Inc. subsidiary are finalizing a settlement, according to
the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30,
2011.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against B&N Booksellers, Inc., in the Superior Court for the State
of California captioned Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
et al., alleging wage payments by instruments in a form that did
not comply with the requirements of the California Labor Code,
allegedly resulting in impermissible wage payment reductions and
calling for imposition of statutory penalties.  The complaint also
alleges a violation of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act and seeks restitution of such allegedly
unpaid wages under California's unfair competition law, and an
injunction compelling compliance with the California Labor Code.
The complaint alleges two subclasses of 500 and 200 employees,
respectively (there may be overlap among the subclasses), but
contains no allegations concerning the number of alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the
purported class.  On June 3, 2009, B&N Booksellers filed an answer
denying all claims.  Discovery concerning purported class member
payroll checks and related information is ongoing.  On August 19,
2010, B&N Booksellers filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack
of a class representative when the named plaintiff advised she did
not wish to continue to serve in that role.  On October 15, 2010,
the Court issued an order denying B&N Bookseller's motion to
dismiss.  The Court further ruled that Ms. Minor could not serve
as a class representative.  The Court also granted Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Further Responses to previously-served discovery
seeking contact information for the putative class.  B&N
Booksellers provided that information on October 15, 2010.  The
previously scheduled Case Management Conference was continued to
January 27, 2011.  Plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint
on January 26, 2011, adding two new named Plaintiffs, Jacob Allum
and Cesar Caminiero.  At the Case Management Conference held on
January 27, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to complete
mediation by May 6, 2011.  The parties held a mediation on
April 11, 2011.  The parties have reached a tentative resolution
of this matter and are finalizing the settlement which will be
subject to court approval.  This settlement is not expected to
have a material impact on the Company's Consolidated Financial
Statements.


BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Laptop
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a hospital and
cancer center allowed a laptop computer stuffed with unencrypted,
confidential information on its patients to be stolen, and did not
notify patients of the data theft for 8 weeks, patients say in a
class action.

Named plaintiff Rita Barricks claims the laptop was stolen during
the weekend of Dec. 4, 2010, from Barnes-Jewish Hospital dba The
Siteman Cancer Center, a joint venture between Washington
University and Barnes-Jewish Hospital.

Ms. Barricks says the computer contained patients' names,
addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, Social Security numbers,
medical records, diagnoses, lab results, e-mail addresses,
insurance information and employment information.

"WashU and BJC have a policy of encrypting the sensitive
information of plaintiffs," according to the complaint City Court.
"However, the stolen laptop was unencrypted and contained
unencrypted sensitive information."

Ms. Barricks claims the defendants immediately knew about the
theft, but waited 8 weeks -- until Jan. 28 -- to inform patients.

During that time, Ms. Barricks says, her identity was stolen.

"The identity theft involved unauthorized attempts to access
plaintiff's online banking account, application of unauthorized
charges to plaintiff's bank account, and unauthorized access to
plaintiff's email account for the purpose of soliciting money from
some or all of plaintiff's email contacts," the complaint states.

Ms. Barricks claims the defendants' offer to monitor patients'
credit through TransUnion TransCredit for 1 year is "woefully
insufficient," because identity theft victims often face years of
theft, not to mention the humiliation of having her confidential
medical information hacked.

She claims the defendants, which include Washington University and
its medical school, violated the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act by failing to maintain an adequate security
system; failing to encrypt patients' sensitive information;
failing to implement policies that allowed access to
electronically stored health information only to those granted
access; and failing to prevent removal of electronically protected
health information from its facility.

Ms. Barricks seeks damages and restitution for identity theft and
an injunction requiring the defendants to collect and store
patients' data according to HIPAA standards.

A copy of the Complaint in Barricks v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, et
al., Case No. 1122-CC08701 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/JewishHospital.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil Smith, Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, LLC
          225 S. Meramec Ave., Suite 532
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-4400
          E-mail: neil@neilsmithlaw.com


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say BJ's
Wholesale Club is selling itself too cheaply to Leonard Green &
Partners and Beacon Merger Sub, for $2.8 billion or $51.25 a
share.

A copy of the Complaint in Phillips v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 6623 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Strum, Esq.
          James P. McEvilly, III, Esq.
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


FINISAR CORP: Appeals From Settlement Approval Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of a settlement in the consolidated
class action lawsuit against Finisar Corporation remain pending,
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.

A securities class action lawsuit was filed on November 30, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from November 17, 1999, through Dec. 6,
2000.  The complaint named as defendants the Company, Jerry S.
Rawls, its Chairman of the Board and formerly its President and
Chief Executive Officer, Frank H. Levinson, its former Chairman of
the Board and Chief Technical Officer, Stephen K. Workman, its
former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and an
investment banking firm that served as an underwriter for its
initial public offering in November 1999 and a secondary offering
in April 2000.  The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the
registration statements for the offerings failed to disclose,
among other things, that (i) the underwriter had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those
investors material portions of the shares of the Company's stock
sold in the offerings and (ii) the underwriter had entered into
agreements with customers whereby the underwriter agreed to
allocate shares of the Company stock sold in the offerings to
those customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional shares of the Company stock in the after
market at pre-determined prices.  No specific damages are claimed.
Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more
than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000, which were consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In October
2002, all claims against the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

In February 2009, the parties reached an understanding regarding
the principal elements of a settlement, subject to formal
documentation and Court approval.  Under the settlement, the
underwriter defendants will pay a total of $486 million, and the
issuer defendants and their insurers will pay a total of $100
million to settle all of the cases.  On August 25, 2009, the
Company funded approximately $327,000 with respect to its pro rata
share of the issuers' contribution to the settlement and certain
costs.  This amount was accrued in the Company's consolidated
financial statements during the first quarter of fiscal 2011.  On
October 2, 2009, the Court granted approval of the settlement and
on November 19, 2009, the Court entered final judgment.  The
judgment has been appealed by certain individual class members.

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


FINISAR CORP: Hearing on Consolidation Plea Set for Sept. 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to consolidate and appoint lead plaintiffs in the
securities class action lawsuits filed against Finisar Corporation
will be heard in September 2011, 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.

Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and its Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer following its March 8, 2011 announcement
of unaudited financial results for the third quarter of fiscal
2011 and its financial outlook for the fourth quarter.  The
Company also has been named as a nominal defendant in several
shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in 2011 concerning its
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement and filed in 2007 concerning
the granting of stock options.

The securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011, earnings announcement allege claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased stock between
December 1 and 2, 2010, through March 8, 2011.  The named
defendants are Finisar and its Chairman of the Board, CEO and CFO.
To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged.  The
cases have been related, and motions to consolidate and appoint
lead plaintiffs have been filed and will be heard in September
2011.

The Company says it will continue to incur legal fees in all of
the class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative cases,
including expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of present
and former officers and directors under indemnification
obligations.  The expense of continuing to defend such litigation
may be significant.  The Company intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously, however there can be no assurance that it will be
successful in any defense.  If any of the lawsuits related to the
Company's earnings announcement are adversely decided, it may be
liable for significant damages directly or under its
indemnification obligations, which could adversely affect its
business, results of operations and cash flows.  Further, the
amount of time that will be required to resolve these lawsuits is
unpredictable and these actions may divert management's attention
from the day-to-day operations of the Company's business, which
could adversely affect its business, results of operations and
cash flows.


FULL TILT: Faces Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------
Chad Holloway, writing for PokerNews, reports that on June 30,
2011, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court South District of New York against Full Tilt Poker demanding
the return of players' funds and for subsequent damages, purported
to be more than $150 million.  The class-action complaint was
brought by plaintiffs Steve Segal, Nick Hammer, Robin Hougdahl,
and Todd Terry "on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated."

The complaint names nine corporate entities/companies, 15 persons,
and "John Does," which leaves open the possibility of attaching
other names at later dates.  The companies named are largely those
that comprise "Full Tilt," while the names listed include Raymond
Bitar and Nelson Burtnick; in addition, many members of Team Full
Tilt are listed including Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey, Chris
Ferguson, John Juanda, Jennifer Harman-Traniello, Phil Gordon,
Erick Lindgren, Erik Seidel, Andy Bloch, Mike Matusow, Gus Hansen,
Allen Cunningham, and Patrik Antonius.

The complaint essentially uses the following boilerplate paragraph
in naming each member of Team Full Tilt: "[Name] is an individual
residing in the State of Nevada, and is a member of the
Enterprise.  At all of some relevant time(s), [Name] has been a
shareholder and director of Full Tilt and/or one or more Full Tilt
Companies.  [Name], a professional poker player himself, is a
member of Team Full Tilt and represents the Full Tilt brand in
poker-related events all over the world, wearing clothing and
accessories that bear the easily recognizable Full Tilt Poker
patch."

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs (Mr. Segal is a
resident of New York; Messrs. Hammer and Hougdahl of Minnesota;
and Terry of New Jersey) "represent a nation-wide class of Full
Tilt account holders residing in the United States . . .
Plaintiffs bring suit to demand return of U.S. player funds and
for damages . . . U.S. Players' would never have suffered injury,
but for the Defendants' widespread scheme to commit wire fraud,
bank fraud and money laundering in order to pad their own pockets.

Other allegations/facts put forth in the complaint include:

    * "Perhaps most importantly, all members of the Team [Full
Tilt] own an equity interest in -- and are directors of -- the
Full Tilt and/or the entities that operate under the Full Tilt
name." (pg. 5)

    * "U.S. players are wrongfully denied access to approximately
$150 million in funds they deposited in their own Player Accounts.
After deceitfully separating U.S. players from their money, Full
Tilt Poker refuses to refund the U.S. players' deposits, to
reimburse U.S. players for the dollar-value of the contents of
their Player Accounts, or to permit U.S. players access to their
Player Accounts." (pg. 6)

    * "The Predicate Acts of Wire Fraud, Bank Fraud and Money
Laundering Directly Harmed Plaintiffs." (pg. 31)

    * "All Defendants, by virtue of their control and ownership of
the Full Tilt Companies that comprise the Full Tilt umbrella,
and/or their ownership stakes in the umbrella undertaking, are
liable for conversion of Plaintiffs' and class members' monies and
assets held in Plaintiffs' and class members' Full Tilt Player
Accounts.  The Player Accounts and the property therein are
currently and wrongfully in the exclusive custody of the
Defendants." (pg. 43)

    * Claims Ivey has at least a 5% stake in Full Tilt. (pg. 13)

    * Full Tilt's "pattern of racketeering" is proximate cause of
injuries to plaintiffs.

Jury trial demanded.

This class-action complaint was brought on the same day that the
LA Times released a story that Full Tilt Poker was to be sold to a
group of European investors, which hinted that player refunds
would likely follow.  What effect that will have on this lawsuit
remains to be seen.


HOME DEPOT: Sued for Discriminatorily Firing Older Employers
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses Home Depot of "systematic and "disproportionate" firing of
older workers.

A copy of the Complaint in Griffin, et al. v. Home Depot USA,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02366 (D. Kan.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/HomeDepot.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bert S. Braud, Esq.
          THE POPHAM LAW FIRM, P.C.
          712 Broadway, Suite 100
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 221-2288
          E-mail: bbraud@pophamlaw.com

               - and -

          Tiffany B. Klosener, Esq.
          THE KLOSENER LAW FIRM
          5914 NE Ruby Drive
          Lee's Summit, MO 64064
          Telephone: (816) 392-1768
          E-mail: klosenerlaw@sbcglobal.net


ITURAN LOCATION: Continues to Defend Suit in Israel
---------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. continues to defend a purported
class action lawsuit in Israel, 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 March 21, 2011, the Company received a purported class action
lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court
of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, by one plaintiff who is a
subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was
declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices
Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and
discriminated between its customers.  The plaintiff claims that
the alleged discrimination resulted from the Company charging
higher monthly subscription fees from customers who are obliged by
insurance company requirements to install location and recovery
systems in their vehicles than the monthly subscription fees that
are charged from customers who are not required by insurance
companies to install location and recovery systems in their
vehicles.  The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action.
The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a class
action, was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately
NIS75 million (US$ 21.1 million).  Based on the opinion of the
Company's legal counsel, the Company is of the opinion that the
lawsuit lacks substantiation, includes incorrect assumptions and
inconsistent claims and that the Company has good defense
arguments in respect of the claims made by the plaintiff.  At this
preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's
chances of success.


ITURAN LOCATION: Unit Continues to Defend TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Ituran Location and Control Ltd. continues to
defend itself against a class action lawsuit pending in
Pennsylvania, 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 July 8, 2005, a class action was filed against a subsidiary of
the Company, Ituran Florida Corporation, in the First Judicial
District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The lawsuit claims
that Ituran Florida sent fax advertisements to the named plaintiff
and the other members of the class allegedly in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.  Ituran Florida filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings that such claims should not
be heard as part of a class action.  Such motion was denied by the
court, the precertification discovery process was completed and a
certification hearing is yet to be scheduled.  The plaintiff
agreed to limit the class action to Pennsylvania actions only.  If
the plaintiffs prevail, the Company estimates that the subsidiary
may have exposure pursuant to the provisions of the TCPA in the
maximum range of $500,000 to $750,000 for all class plaintiffs,
plus punitive damages and expenses.  However, based upon rulings
by the Court in Philadelphia in another matter, the Company
believes that the class action will be certified but that it is
probable that a significant portion of the individual class
members will unlikely qualify for inclusion in a class or be able
to satisfy the burden of proof necessary for compensation.  Even
if the plaintiffs prevail, the Company believes that the
resolution of this claim will not have a material effect on its
revenues, operations or liquidity.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Anna Timone, writing for FXstreet.com, reports that JPMorgan Chase
& Co. lost a petition for dismissal of a lawsuit in which
consumers accused the second- biggest U.S. bank of wrongly cutting
home-equity lines of credit.  U.S. District Judge Rebecca
Pallmeyer in Chicago allowed a case against JPMorgan Chase & Co.
to go forward on some claims while dismissing allegations that the
lender had engaged in fraudulent practices.  The ruling comes in a
consolidated class action, or group lawsuit, alleging that the
lender had retracted or crimped those lines of credit without any
justification for doing so.  The bank had sought to dismiss the
action in its entirety.  Justice Pallmeyer stated in her decision
that plaintiffs' allegations that defendant reduced or suspended
their HELOCs without adequate justification are sufficient to
state claims for breach of contract under Minnesota, California,
Texas and Delaware law.  The next step for the plaintiffs is to
seek class-wide certification.  According to some legal experts,
there are thousands of similarly situated potential class members.


L'OREAL USA: Sued Over "Leave-in" Hair-Styling Product
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
L'Oreal failed to warn that the two main ingredients in its
"leave-in" hair-styling product, Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine
Anti-Frizz Serum, "are flammable upon contact with temperatures
reached by most hair styling appliances."

A copy of the Complaint in Altamura, et al. v. L'Oreal, USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-05465 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/01/Flaming.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Avi Kreitenberg, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 400-1050
          E-mail: akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Grace Parasmo, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          E-mail: gparasmo@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON TROSCLAIR & LOVINS, PLLC
          302 North Market Street, Suite 510
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 484-1930
          E-mail: jeremy@wilsontrosclair.com


LEGALZOOM.COM INC: Settles Class Action Over Self-Help Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
LegalZoom.com, Inc. has reached an agreement in principle to
settle the pending class action, Webster v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.
The settlement will also resolve claims in a related class action,
Whiting v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.  The Plaintiffs alleged claims
related to LegalZoom's offering of legal self-help products over
the Internet.  Neither case alleged that LegalZoom's documents
were defective in any manner.

Plaintiffs have now requested that the Court certify a class, for
settlement purposes only, consisting of all LegalZoom customers
over the past six years.  Under the terms of the proposed global
settlement, which must be approved by California Superior Court
Judge William Highberger, LegalZoom will provide two months of
membership in LegalZoom's Legal Advantage Plus or Business
Advantage Pro plan, depending on the product each customer
purchased.  LegalZoom's Legal Advantage plans are monthly
membership plans which provide members with access to attorney
consultations, access to LegalZoom's extensive legal form
database, and other benefits.

"Our intent is to achieve a resolution of these lawsuits and avoid
a prolonged and costly litigation process.  While we continue to
dispute the basis of the allegations in the cases, and are
confident we are not engaged in any of the activities set forth in
the complaints, we believe it is in the best interests of the
Company and our customers to move forward with the proposed
settlements," said Kenneth Friedman, Vice President of Legal and
Government Affairs at LegalZoom.

"Our customers will have access to Legal Advantage plans, enabling
them to speak to a locally-licensed attorney to supplement the
self-help legal forms available on LegalZoom.com," said John Suh,
CEO of LegalZoom.  "A final settlement will allow us to focus on
what we do best; provide Americans greater access to high quality,
reasonably priced legal solutions that leverage modern
technology."

In Webster, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that LegalZoom's Web site
included misleading statements that LegalZoom would provide legal
advice to its customers, which lead to the unjustified belief that
LegalZoom was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  In
Whiting, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged technical non-compliance with
an outdated statute that was never intended to apply to the
Internet age.

"The proposed settlement contains no admission or finding of
wrongdoing by the Company.  LegalZoom believes that all Americans
have the right to affordable and convenient legal protection.  We
look forward to continuing our important work," added
Mr. Friedman.

                       About LegalZoom.com

LegalZoom -- http://www.legalzoom.com-- is a provider of online
legal document services to small businesses and families.
Headquartered in Glendale, California, with offices in Austin,
Texas, the company has over 500 employees.


LOU FUSZ AUTOMOTIVE: Settles Class Action for $2.45 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Desloge, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports that
The Lou Fusz Automotive Network has agreed to pay $2.45 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit brought by customers.

The three-year-old case stems from processing fees that Lou Fusz
Automotive charged customers to prepare documents used in the sale
or lease of cars and trucks.

Under terms of the settlement, about 62,000 people who purchased
or leased autos from Lou Fusz dealerships will be eligible for
gift cards worth anywhere from $45 to $75 for goods and services
at Lou Fusz locations.  People cashing in gift cards potentially
could double the amount if they use them to buy or lease another
new car or truck from Fusz.

The Simon Law Firm in St. Louis represented the customers in the
lawsuit.  The firm will receive $245,000 as part of the
settlement.

The St. Louis County Circuit Court gave preliminary approval May 2
to the agreement, and post cards were mailed June 16 to people who
purchased or leased cars who were identified as part of the class.

Simon Law Firm claimed the document preparation fee was illegal.
It cited a 2008 Missouri Supreme Court ruling in a similar case
involving Countrywide Home Loans Inc., where the high court ruled
such fees amounted to the unauthorized practice of law.

"We expected dealerships to stop charging the fees," said
John Campbell, the lead attorney in the case for the Simon Law
Firm, which has brought similar suits against other auto dealers.
He said the Fusz settlement is among the largest of several
similar cases in Missouri.  David Wasinger of the Wasinger Law
Group in Brentwood, also represented the plaintiff class.

Pete Ramey, secretary of Lou Fusz Automotive Network, and attorney
Jay Kanzler of the Witzel & Kanzler law firm, which handled the
case for Fusz Automotive, referred questions about the case to
Lou Fusz Jr., president and CEO of the company.  He could not be
reached for comment.  Fusz Automotive, as part of the settlement,
did not admit to any allegations made in the lawsuit.

Lou Fusz Automotive is among the largest auto dealers in
St. Louis, selling 20,682 vehicles in 2009, and 19,369 vehicles in
2010, according to Missouri records.

The $245,000 cash going to the Simon firm was computed by figuring
10 percent of the overall cash value of the settlement, according
to the settlement document.  At that percentage, the cash portion
of the settlement is considered comparatively low, said
John Ammann, a professor at the Saint Louis University School of
Law and director of the school's legal clinic.  Attorney fees in
similar class action cases typically start at 25% of the value of
the settlement and range up to one-third of the value.

Mr. Campbell, who said he was aware that critics might question
the settlement terms, said the gift card portion was structured to
provide value to customers who paid the processing fee and allow
Fusz to maintain relationships with its customers.  The
alternative was to distribute checks with a much lower cash value,
he said.


MEDTRONIC INC: Minneapolis Firefighters Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit commenced by the Minneapolis
Firefighters' Relief Association is still pending in Minnesota,
according to Medtronic, Inc.'s June 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended April 29, 2011.

On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and certain current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE Bone Graft
product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price during
the period.  On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
putative class action complaint expanding the class.  Medtronic's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied on
February 3, 2010, and pretrial proceedings are underway.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.


MEDTRONIC INC: 8th Cir. Denies Rehearing Bid in Fidelis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed
plaintiffs' petition for a rehearing of their failed appeal from
the dismissal of their lawsuits relating to Medtronic, Inc.'s
Fidelis defibrillation leads, 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.

On October 15, 2007, the Company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) family of
defibrillation leads.  As of April 29, 2011, approximately 4,000
lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads had been filed against the
Company, including approximately 47 putative class action lawsuits
reflecting a total of approximately 9,000 individual personal
injury cases.  Approximately 2,800 of the lawsuits were commenced
in Minnesota state court and approximately 1,200 were consolidated
for pretrial proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) rules.  On January 5, 2009, the
MDL court dismissed with prejudice the master consolidated
complaint for individuals and the master consolidated complaint
for third-party payors on grounds of federal preemption.  The
state court judge dismissed the state court cases on similar
grounds on October 22, 2009.  Plaintiffs sought appeals in both
the federal and state court matters.  The Minnesota Court of
Appeals dismissed the appeal on May 16, 2011.  On October 15,
2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.  On October 29, 2010,
plaintiffs petitioned the Eighth Circuit for rehearing of their
appeal.  On June 14, 2011, the Eighth Circuit dismissed this
petition for rehearing.

The Company announced on October 14, 2010, it had entered into an
agreement to settle the pending lawsuits as well as certain
unfiled claims subject to opt-out rights by both plaintiffs and
the Company, including the Company's right to cancel the
agreement.  The terms of the agreement stipulated that, if
Medtronic elected not to cancel the agreement, it would pay
plaintiffs to settle substantially all pending U.S. lawsuits and
claims, subject to certain conditions.  The parties subsequently
reached an adjusted settlement agreement pursuant to which
Medtronic waived its right to cancel the agreement and agreed to
pay a total of $221 million to resolve over 14,000 filed and
unfiled claims.  In the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, the
Company recorded an expense of $268 million related to probable
and reasonably estimated damages under U.S. GAAP in connection
with these matters, and, consistent with the adjusted settlement
agreement, the Company reduced that expense to $221 million in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.  On October 20, 2009,
that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class
certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, which the
plaintiffs appealed.  On July 16, 2010, the appeal was denied.
Plaintiffs' request for further appeal was denied on November 22,
2010.  The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages
in connection with that matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.


MEDTRONIC INC: Settles Remaining Claims in ICDs/CRT-Ds Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., settled the remaining claims in the lawsuits over
its implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac
resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds) last 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.

On February 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise
physicians about the possibility that a specific battery shorting
mechanism might manifest itself in a subset of ICDs and CRT-Ds.
These included certain Marquis VR/DR and Maximo VR/DR ICDs and
certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D devices.  Subsequent to this
voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits were filed against
the Company alleging a variety of claims, including individuals
asserting claims of personal injury and third-party payors
alleging entitlement to reimbursement.  These United States
lawsuits were settled in 2008, and only a small number of
individual cases remain.  One third-party payor, Kinetic Knife,
dismissed its original action without prejudice and on November 5,
2008, filed a putative class action relating to the same subject
matter.  Medtronic removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  On April 19, 2011, the court
dismissed on preemption grounds the majority of plaintiff's
claims.  In June 2011, the Company settled the remaining claims
for final resolution of this matter.

In addition, class action product liability lawsuits pending in
Canada are consolidated in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
That court certified a class of individual implant recipients and
their family members for proceeding on December 6, 2007.
Additionally, the subrogated claims of the provincial health
insurers to recover costs incurred in providing medical services
to the implant class are claimed in the class proceeding.
Pretrial proceedings are underway.  The Company has not recorded
an expense related to damages for the remaining lawsuits because
any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably
estimable under U.S. GAAP, and based on current information, the
Company does not believe that these lawsuits are likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's operations.


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Triumphs Over Fraud Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts judge dismissed a putative federal securities
class action lawsuit against Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., and its
president and chief executive officer, according to the Company's
June 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In its June 28, 2011 statement, the Company reveals that on
June 23, 2011, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton allowed the defendants'
motion to dismiss the putative federal securities fraud class
action lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in March 2010 entitled Boris Urman and
Ramona McDonald v. Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. and Harry S. Palmin
(Civil Action No. 10-10394-NMG).  The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the progress of the Phase 3 clinical trial
before the United States Food and Drug Administration of Novelos'
oxidized glutathione compound, NOV-002, in application to non-
small cell lung cancer.  On February 24, 2010, Novelos announced
that the Phase 3 trial had concluded unsuccessfully, and the price
per share of Novelos' common stock dropped by approximately 80%
from its close on the prior day.

In dismissing the action without prejudice, Judge Gorton concluded
that the statements made by Mr. Palmin to which the plaintiffs
objected were not misleading, and endorsed the "competing and more
persuasive non-fraudulent inference that Mr. Palmin understood
that alleged changes to the NOV-002 specifications presented to
the FDA affected only the color specifications rather than the
effectiveness or fundamental composition of the drug."

Novelos and Mr. Palmin were defended by Foley Hoag LLP.

                About Novelos Therapeutics, Inc.

Novelos is a pharmaceutical company developing novel drugs for the
treatment and diagnosis of cancer.  The Company currently has
three cancer-targeted compounds, which are selectively taken up
and retained in cancer cells (including cancer stem cells) versus
normal cells.  Thus, the Company's therapeutic compounds directly
kill cancer cells while minimizing harm to normal cells.  This
offers the potential for a paradigm shift in cancer therapy --
efficacy versus all three major drivers of mortality in cancer:
primary tumors, metastases and stem cell-based relapse.  LIGHT is
a small-molecule cancer imaging agent.  The Company believes LIGHT
has first-in-class potential and expects it to enter Phase 1/2
clinical trials in the third quarter of this year.  HOT is a
small-molecule, broad-spectrum, cancer-targeted molecular
radiotherapeutic that delivers radiation directly and selectively
to cancer cells and cancer stem cells.  The Company believes HOT
also has first-in-class potential, and expects it to enter a Phase
1b dose escalation trial in the third quarter of this year, and
Phase 2 trials in mid-2012 as a monotherapy for solid tumors with
significant unmet medical need.  COLD, a cancer-targeted
chemotherapy that the Company expects to enter clinical trials
late in 2012, works primarily through Akt inhibition.  Together,
the Company believes its compounds are able to "find, treat and
follow" cancer anywhere in the body in a novel, effective and
highly selective way.


NZ TRUSTEE COS: Final Funding Approval Sought for Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Gray, writing for The New Zealand Herald, reports that
Auckland law firm Turner Hopkins is still collecting evidence for
its planned class action against the trustee companies of some
failed finance firms and hopes to have final funding approval for
the lawsuit within a month or two.

The firm has been seeking expressions of interest from investors
who lost about NZD8 billion after the collapse of several New
Zealand finance companies between 2006 and 2009.

The class action claims are expected to allege a breach of trust
on the part of the corporate trustees appointed to monitor and
supervise the activities of the failed companies and protect
investors.

Turner Hopkins, which has teamed up with Australian legal giant
Slater and Gordon, is briefing experts and lining up witnesses.

"We've got a number of things on the go at the moment before we
get the final nod for funding," said Turner Hopkins lawyer
Andrew Hooker.

Several investors, representing well over 2000 investments, have
registered their interest in taking part in the litigation.

Mr. Hooker has been down the track of claiming against financial
advisers but "none of them have got any money".

"It's a matter of saying what other people could be culpable and,
in my view, the people at the top of the list are the trustees.

"Quite a few so-called insiders have been in touch with us, so we
are starting to talk with them about what went on in some of these
trustee companies," Mr. Hooker said.


OZ MINERALS: Shareholder Class Action Settled
---------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that class action
settlement on behalf of more than 7,500 individuals who purchased
shares in the minerals resources company Oz Minerals in 2008 was
settled on July 1 by the Federal Court.

The class action was conducted by law firm Slater & Gordon with
the support of Litigation Lending Services.

The small investors who purchased shares in Oz Minerals between
February and December 2008 would share in at least AU$16 million
in compensation, after the deduction of legal and funding costs,
Slater & Gordon said in a statement.

About 80% of class members who suffered a loss are expected to
receive between AU$100 and AU$5,000 depending on when and the
number of shares they purchased.

Slater & Gordon said the settlement was the first shareholder
class action where multiple shareholder actions were issued,
demonstrating that multiple actions were no barrier to resolving
claims efficiently.


ROGERS & COWAN: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua L. Weinstein & Pamela Chelin, writing for TheWrap, report
that a former Rogers & Cowan account coordinator has filed a class
action lawsuit against the public relations firm, accusing it of
consistently violating California's labor laws by, among other
charges, requiring employees to "volunteer" to work for free.

In the 30-page lawsuit, filed on June 30 by Paul T. Cullen of the
Cullen Law Firm and obtained by TheWrap, former Rogers & Cowan
employee Daniel Malakhov claims that he and other company staffers
were required to work after their regular shifts were over
"without any pay whatsoever."

Mr. Malakhov worked at Rogers & Cowan's Pacific Design Center
offices in West Hollywood.  The suit doesn't specify when he
worked there.

Mr. Malakhov said the company refused to pay overtime and didn't
provide appropriate meal and rest periods.  It also says their
wage statements and paystubs were inaccurate and were made to
"work in a business environment where they were routinely and
uniformly subjected to unfair business practices."

Tom Tardio, Rogers & Cowan's CEO, was not available for comment on
June 30.

The lawsuit says that Rogers & Cowan "may contend that any such
tasks were done on a volunteer basis . . . failure to 'volunteer'
to work for the defendants at such after-hours events would
negatively affect their ability to advance their careers."

It's a class action suit, which means that lawyers believe many
Rogers & Cowan employees and former employees were mistreated by
the company.  The suit estimates that more than 500 people are
entitled to money from the PR firm.

The lawsuit asks for unpaid wages, penalties and other
compensation.

Mr. Cullen told TheWrap that he expects to ask a jury to award the
plaintiffs millions of dollars.

Rogers & Cowan is well known for representing clients in the
entertainment industry.


SONY CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Law-Violation Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
from purported class action lawsuits alleging violations of
antitrust laws, according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended March 31, 2011.

In October 2009, Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Optiarc
America Inc., received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of
Justice seeking information about its optical disk drive business.
Sony understands that the DOJ and agencies outside the United
States are investigating competition in optical disk drives.
Subsequently, a number of purported class action lawsuits were
filed in certain jurisdictions, including the United States, in
which the plaintiffs allege that Sony Corporation and certain of
its subsidiaries violated antitrust laws and seek recovery of
damages and other remedies.  Based on the stage of these
proceedings, it is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or
range of possible loss, if any, that might result from adverse
judgments, settlements or other resolution of these matters.


SONY CORP: Faces Numerous Suits Over 2011 Cyber-Attacks
-------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation is facing numerous purported class action
lawsuits arising from the 2011 cyber-attack on its and its
subsidiaries' Web sites, according to the Company's June 28, 2011,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 31, 2011.

Beginning earlier in 2011, the network services of
PlayStation(R)Network, Qriocity(TM), Sony Online Entertainment LLC
and Web sites of other subsidiaries came under cyber-attack.  As
of June 28, 2011, Sony has not received any confirmed reports of
customer identity theft issues or misuse of credit cards from such
cyber-attacks.  However, in connection with certain of these
matters, Sony has received inquiries from authorities in a number
of jurisdictions, including orders for reports issued by the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan as well as the
Financial Services Agency of Japan, formal and/or informal
requests for information from Attorneys General from a number of
states in the United States and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,
various U.S. congressional inquiries and others.  Additionally,
Sony Corporation and/or certain of its subsidiaries have been
named in a number of purported class actions in certain
jurisdictions, including the United States.  Based on the stage of
these inquiries and proceedings, it is not possible to estimate
the amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any, that might
result from adverse judgments, settlements or other resolution of
these matters.


SP AUSNET: State Hesitant to Divulge Bushfire Findings
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bachelard, writing for The Age, reports that the state
government spent AU$90 million on the Bushfires Royal Commission,
but now it wants to prevent the judge who is hearing a class
action over the most deadly of the fires from seeing the
commissioners' findings.

Justice Terry Forrest told lawyers in a case conference last month
that he felt he was "going down a mine without a light" because
the government lawyers had not allowed him to read the findings
and legal arguments from the royal commission.

He is trying to prepare himself to hear a complex class action
against power company SP AusNet, its contractor Utility Services
Corporation, and the Country Fire Authority and others, for
alleged negligence over the Kilmore-Kinglake fire on Black
Saturday.  The fire killed 119 people and caused hundreds of
millions of dollars' damage.

"I find it very difficult to understand a number of the
contentions contained in the pleadings," Justice Forrest told
lawyers on May 27.  "It does seem to me to make it very difficult
for us . . . You need to know the background."

Lawyers representing the victims of the fire, as well as the
lawyers for SP AusNet, are willing for the judge to read the
hundreds of pages of material and legal arguments.

Andrew Watson, a senior lawyer for Maurice Blackburn, which
represents the victims, told The Sunday Age: "We believe that the
court should have access to all of the submissions and findings of
the Bushfires Royal Commission."

But Chris Caleo, SC, representing the state (which includes the
police, the CFA and the Department of Sustainability and
Environment) said his client would not allow it.  He did not give
a reason, and nor did Justice Forrest ask for one, saying only
that: "I will not read the material over objection."

Utility Services Corporation -- the company that employed the
inspector who allegedly failed to notice damage to the powerline
which broke on the morning of Black Saturday -- was the only other
party to object.

Bushfire Minister Peter Ryan was a regular attendee at the
Bushfires Royal Commission, and has promised to implement all its
recommendations.

His spokeswoman told The Sunday Age that legal argument was still
under way and would return to court on August 12.

The parties are now discussing whether they want another judge,
Associate Justice Rita Zammit -- who is helping Justice Forrest
with the case management -- to read the files.

Mr. Caleo said he would need to seek instructions from the state
government on that subject.  They will return with their position
on August 12.


TIGER AIRWAYS: May Face Class Action Over Flight Cancellations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Clare, writing for Sunshine Coast Daily, reports that a
Melbourne businessman is considering launching a class action
against grounded carrier Tiger Airways after his family's Sunshine
Coast holiday plans were thrown into chaos.

Nick Kenfield had no idea his flight had been cancelled until he
arrived at Melbourne airport at 4:30 a.m. on July 2.

Police patrolling the grounds had to deliver the Geelong father
the news that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had suspended
the operations of Tiger for one week due to several safety
concerns.

It cost Mr. Kenfield about AU$550 for a last-minute one-way ticket
with Virgin to Brisbane, where he then jumped on a bus to make his
way to Mooloolaba.

His mother and sister, who were flying from Sydney to the Sunshine
Coast, had to fork out AU$600 extra between them.

His father managed to secure a $100 ticket on a late-night flight
on July 3.

Mr. Kenfield said Tiger's offer of a refund or travel voucher was
not adequate.

"Our family is seriously out of pocket and we are not alone," he
said.

"I would understand if it was because of an ash cloud because that
would be out of their control.

"But this is ridiculous.  It seems they are only looking after
themselves."

Mr. Kenfield said after the safety authority issued Tiger with a
show-cause notice in March, the airline should have improved.

"But CASA has found there have been further events raising
concerns about the airline's ability to continue to conduct
operations safely," he said.

"A lawsuit might be the only way people are going to be reimbursed
and I am going to look into the legalities of it."

Mr. Kenfield said he had flown with Tiger about four times.

"Yes, Tiger has cheap flights and when you are looking at AU$69
over AU$269, it is easy to be swayed by price," he said.

"But this incident is the last straw.  I got no personal sorry
from Tiger, no let me help you, nothing.

"Our accommodation was paid for and my young son, who lives on the
Coast, was looking forward to my visit.

"We didn't want to just cancel our plans which had been in place
for a long time."

Tiger Airways says it has already taken steps to address the
safety concerns that led to it being grounded.


TORONTO COMMUNITY: Disputes Wellesley Fire Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Vincent, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Toronto
Community Housing says the compensation plan it has offered to
tenants affected by last September's fire at 200 Wellesley has
been "highly successful" and negates the need for a class-action
lawsuit, court documents show.

Hundreds of residents affected by the six-alarm fire on Sept. 24,
2010, have signed up to be part of the class action against TCHC
and Greenwin, the property management company operating the 29-
storey highrise at the time of the fire.

The plaintiffs, led by Jo-Anne Blair, who lived across the hall
from the unit where the fire broke out, are seeking damages for
the inconvenience of being uprooted, loss of property,
psychological distress, among other things.

Three days have been set aside this week in Superior Court, during
which a judge will hear arguments over whether the class action
should be certified, a designation necessary for the claim to go
forward.

The base amount of compensation available to those with property
damage ranges between C$4,700 and C$6,900, depending on unit size
and duration of disruption to tenants, plus C$1,700 to C$1,900 for
each additional occupant of a unit, according to the TCHC offer.
About half of the roughly 1,100 tenants in the building have
accepted the offer; TCHC has paid out about C$1.3 million.

In its court filings for this week's hearings, TCHC argues the
compensation plan has been "highly successful" because it allowed
tenants to resolve their claims against TCHC in an "expeditious
manner, at no cost to themselves."

Those seeking not to accept the package can go to the Landlord and
Tenant Board, TCHC added.

A central point of the tenants' lawsuit is that TCHC knew there
was a problem with hoarding in the unit where the fire started.
In their statement of claim, tenants argue that the agency failed
to remedy the problem.

Brian Shell, the lawyer representing tenants in the class action
bid, says an adjuster has determined that tenants joining the suit
are looking at an average of between C$25,000 to C$30,000 in
damages if it goes forward.

Because there are so many tenants in the building battling
physical or mental health disabilities, many of them will feel
pressure to accept TCHC's offer, Mr. Shell said, arguing TCHC is
using this as subtle tactic.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Taps Theodore Boutrous to Defend Acceleration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Am Law Daily by Tom
Huddleston Jr., Toyota Motor Corp. has hired a heavy-hitter to
boost its chances of appealing the class-action ruling in the case
of defective accelerator pedals on its cars and trucks.

The car maker's legal team now includes Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's
Theodore Boutrous, according to The National Law Journal.
Mr. Boutrous, a partner in the firm's Los Angeles office, is
cochair of Gibson Dunn's appellate and constitutional law group,
media and entertainment group, and crisis group, as well as the
firm's transnational litigation and foreign judgments group.

Litigation associate Theane Kapur also will be working on the
appeal with Mr. Boutrous, the NLJ reports.  The two join a Toyota
legal team handling the multidistrict litigation -- the 200
economic-loss cases were recently consolidated into a single
class-action suit by a federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif.

Toyota plans to appeal U.S. District Judge James Selna's December
2010 rejection of the company's motion to dismiss the class
action.  The litigation followed a Toyota recall of roughly 10
million vehicles in January 2010 on account of defective
accelerator pedals and floor mats that have been blamed for sudden
acceleration.  The class action was filed on behalf of nationwide
consumers seeking damages due to the defects' affect on the value
of their vehicles.

Toyota's appeal is largely based on the argument that many of the
consumers in the class action did not suffer from monetary loss or
property damage to their cars, many of which Toyota says never
actually accelerated as a result of the defects.

Toyota's legal team on the matter also includes Lisa Gilford, a
litigation partner in the Los Angeles office of Alston & Bird.

In April, Toyota prevailed in the first of the sudden acceleration
cases to go to trial.  A federal jury in New York found the
company was not liable in Amir Sitafalwalla's 2005 accident in a
Scion, according to an April 1 report from the NLJ.

No other cases are expected to go to trial before 2012.

Mr. Boutrous is joining the Toyota defense fresh off his win for
client Wal-Mart in the company's decade-long effort to thwart a
discrimination class action filed on behalf of more than 1 million
current and former female workers.


UNIVERSAL TRAVEL: Sued Over Alleged PR Misrepresentations
---------------------------------------------------------
Universal Travel Group is facing a putative class action lawsuit
alleging that the Company's public filings and press releases
contained misrepresentations, according to the Company's June 28,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 15, 2011, plaintiff Albert Snellink commenced a putative
class action in the United States District Court, District of New
Jersey, against Universal Travel Group, and the Company's
officers, Jiangping Jiang, Yizhao Zhang and Jing Xie.  In the
complaint, plaintiff alleges a claim for violations of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against all defendants, and a claim for a violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants in connection with purported misrepresentations
contained in the Company's public filings and press releases.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, and his costs
incurred in the action.  The Company's time to answer or move with
respect to the complaint has not yet expired.  The Company
believes that the allegations of complaint are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


WESTAMERICA BANCORP: Unit Gets Prelim. OK of Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Westamerica Bancorporation received preliminary
approval of a tentative mediated class-wide settlement of a
lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of deposit account customers,
according to the Company's June 28, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 22, 2011, Westamerica Bancorporation's subsidiary bank,
Westamerica Bank, received preliminary approval from the Superior
Court of California of a tentative mediated class-wide settlement
of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a punitive class of its deposit
account customers.  Westamerica Bank's lawsuit is similar to other
lawsuits prevalent in the banking industry related to the
assessment of overdraft fees.  The lawsuit alleges that
Westamerica Bank's manner of processing debit card transactions
and other amounts drawn against deposit accounts results in
customers paying more overdraft-related charges than they expect
to pay.  Westamerica Bank disputes its liability and the
suitability of the claims for class treatment, but agreed to
settle the punitive class action to end the expense and
uncertainty created by the litigation.  The tentative settlement
would require Westamerica Bank to refund a portion of previously
assessed overdraft fees to non-business customers.  The tentative
settlement is contingent on final court approval and is not
expected to be effective earlier than the fourth quarter 2011.
Westamerica Bank has concluded the settlement is likely and
reasonably estimable at this juncture and intends to accrue for
the estimated settlement in the second quarter 2011.  The
anticipated amount of Westamerica's settlement is proportionally
similar to the amount of settlements reached for similar
litigation experienced by other banks.


WONDER AUTO: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on July 1 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased
Wonder Auto Technology, Inc., during the period between May 14,
2008, and May 6, 2011, inclusive.

On March 1, 2011, the Company disclosed that the previously issued
financial statements for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, as well as
its interim reports for those periods "should no longer be relied
upon due to a cutoff error regarding timing of revenue in such
periods."  On March 25, 2011, the Company disclosed that it had
"received a notification letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market
indicating that the Company was not in compliance" with NASDAQ's
continued listing requirements as it failed to timely file its
annual report on a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.  On May 6, 2011, after the close of trading,
NASDAQ halted the trading of Wonder Auto stock until the Company
satisfied NASDAQ's request for "additional information."  Trading
has not been resumed.

On May 12, 2011, the Company disclosed in a press release, that
its Audit Committee had "undertaken an internal investigation
concerning certain investment and acquisition transactions."  On
May 20, 2011, the Company disclosed that the Audit Committee's
investigation was commenced "in response to a report alleging that
the Company had engaged in several transactions without properly
disclosing their related-party nature."

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased the shares of Wonder Auto Technology, Inc.
between May 14, 2008, and May 6, 2011, inclusive, you may contact
Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests:

If you purchased Wonder Auto Technology, Inc. during the Class
Period, and/or on the Secondary Offering priced at $10.75 per
share on November 12, 2009, and wish to apply to be the lead
plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed
with the Court no later than August 1, 2011.  You may contact
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment
of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action.  Please
note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not
take any action at this time to be a class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and
Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex
class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.
Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud
class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.

Contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Greg Stone, Esq.
         SAXENA WHITE P.A.
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 394-3399
         E-mail: gstone@saxenawhite.com
                 jwhite@saxenawhite.com
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


WALT DISNEY: Judge Certifies Blind Persons' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2011, in the United States District Court Central
District of California, Case No. CV 10-05810-DMG-FMO, Judge Dolly
Gee certified a nationwide class of blind persons in a class
action pending in Los Angeles.  The blind plaintiffs in the case,
represented by Andy Dogali of Forizs & Dogali, P.A. and Gene
Feldman of Eugene Feldman, Attorney at Law, do not seek money
damages, but only seek an injunction requiring Disney to comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act by making its theme parks
and Web sites accessible to persons with visual impairments.

Judge Gee certified five distinct classes who make the following
allegations against Walt Disney Parks & Resorts: 1) Disney does
not provide schedules, menus and maps in formats which are
accessible to blind persons, such as in Braille, large print, or
electronic form; 2) Disney does not accommodate the needs of guide
dogs; 3) Disney does not accommodate the needs of blind persons
during live parades and shows; 4) Disney does not permit any
discounted admission for sighted companions who must accompany and
support blind persons in the theme parks; and 5) Disney's
Web sites do not accommodate blind persons who use screen reader
programs to access information.

Blind persons routinely use screen reader programs when surfing
the internet.  As the blind visitor tabs through or drags a cursor
over elements of a webpage, screen reader programs read the
content aloud.  The plaintiffs allege that Disney's Web sites
unlawfully include information which is visible to sighted users
but not to screen reader programs, as well as options which are
available to sighted persons but not to blind persons, such as the
ability to renew passes, make reservations, and download
electronic tickets.

The three plaintiffs who have taken up this fight against Disney
and who are now certified to represent blind persons across
America are all women.  Two reside in Southern California, the
other in Wichita, Kansas.  They are represented by class counsel
Andy Dogali of Tampa, Florida and Gene Feldman of Los Angeles.
Mr. Feldman, who operates a boutique disability law practice, said
the ruling represents "an important victory for blind persons who
otherwise enjoy the Disney experience but who seek simple fairness
and equal treatment under the ADA".  The case is now set for trial
in January 2012.

The 45-page certification order is available at:

     http://is.gd/mJxeXX

More information for Mr. Dogali is available at:

     http://www.forizs-dogali.com

and for Mr. Feldman at http://www.californiadisabilitylawfirm.com

Mr. Dogali may be reached at (813) 289-0700 and Mr. Feldman at
(310) 372-4636.


YUHE INT'L: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action
lawsuit on July 1 against Yuhe International, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges violations of United States securities laws on
behalf of purchasers of common stock from December 31, 2009,
through and including June 17, 2011, and purchasers in Yuhe's
public offering, commencing on October 20, 2010.

Berman DeValerio brought the complaint against the Company,
certain of its directors and officers, its auditor and the
underwriters of the October Offering in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The case is filed as
Singh v. Yuhe International, Inc., et al.,11-cv-4526 (S.D.N.Y).

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors wishing to serve as the lead plaintiff are required to
file a motion for appointment with the court no later than
August 23, 2011.

The claims arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 for purchasers in the October Offering; and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission for Class Period Purchasers.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Yuhe, a
supplier of day-old chickens, and the other Defendants made
material false statements concerning Yuhe's purported acquisition
of 13 chicken farms as well as false statements concerning Yuhe's
financial results.  Between June 13, 2011, and June 17, 2011, a
series of analysts and then Yuhe itself revealed that Yuhe did not
acquire the chicken farms as it had stated.  As a result of these
disclosures, Yuhe's stock price dropped from $4.23 per share on
June 10, 2011, to $1.21 per share on June 17, 2011, when the
NASDAQ suspended trading in Yuhe stock after Yuhe's auditor, Child
VanWagoner & Bradshaw, withdrew its audit report for the year
ending December 31, 2010.

To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio
at (800) 516-9926.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
August 23, 2011, request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff for the class.  In addition, you may contact the
attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests
in the case.  Please note: you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Berman DeValerio is a national law firm representing plaintiffs in
lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers, chiefly for violations of
securities and antitrust laws.  The firm has 37 lawyers in Boston,
San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Contact: Nathaniel Orenstein, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio
         Telephone: 800-516-9926
         E-mail: norenstein@bermandevalerio.com


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, 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  * * *