CAR_Public/110707.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 7, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 133

                             Headlines

AMERICAN HOME: Settles Class Action Over Home Warranty Policies
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Parking Ticket Policy
CATALYST INTERVENTIONS: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Employee Suits in Calif.
DEUTSCHE BOERSE: Signs MOU to Settle Shareholder Litigation

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: FDIC Probes Payment Protection Service
GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Street View Class Action to Go Ahead
HOLSTEN MANAGEMENT: Violates Chicago Tenant Ordinance, Suit Says
JAMES HARDIE: Unit Faces Class Suit Filed by Homeowners
KAPLAN INC: Judge Refuses to Sign Second Antitrust Settlement

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Appeals in IPO Suit Remanded
ORECK CORP: Class Action Lawyers to Review Halo Vacuum Claims
PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: In Negotiations to Settle "Niederklein" Suit
PINNACLE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Illinois Collection Act
RESURGENCE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlicensed Debt Collections

SINGING MACHINE: Continues to Defend Bratz-Related Suits
SINO-FOREST CORP: Litigator Questions Hasty Class Action Filings
SONY ONLINE: Star Wars Galaxies Players Mull Class Action
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Settled Amiodarone Sale Suit in Early 2011
WALMART-STORES: Trial Lawyers to Continue Class Action Fight

YUHE INTERNATIONAL: August 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears




                             *********

AMERICAN HOME: Settles Class Action Over Home Warranty Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Harney, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
the settlement of a major class-action lawsuit is shedding new
light on a controversial real estate practice that home buyers and
sellers typically know little about: fees paid to real estate
brokers and agents for promoting home warranty policies.

The case involves potentially thousands of home buyers and sellers
who purchased warranty coverage from American Home Shield between
May 2008 and March of this year.  American Home Shield is the
dominant player in the home warranty field, with sales of $657
million in 2010, according to the company.  Home warranty policies
offer repairs and replacements for owners when specified home
systems and appliances malfunction.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs say as many as 500,000
consumers may be members of the class, though neither they nor
American Home Shield would speculate on how many ultimately will
file for and receive cash from the settlement.

In their suit, the plaintiffs alleged that American Home Shield
violated federal law by paying kickbacks to real estate brokerage
firms and agents for promoting warranty policies to their
customers.  The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act prohibits
payments for referrals of "settlement services" in connection with
most mortgage transactions.  It also bans the giving or receiving
of fees or other compensation when no substantive services are
rendered.

American Home Shield denied any wrongdoing in the settlement and
said it sought to limit its exposure to litigation costs by
resolving the dispute.

The complaint, filed by homeowners in Alabama, involved payment of
a $524 fee at closing for a one-year home warranty from American
Home Shield.  A portion of that amount allegedly was paid to the
real estate agent by American Home Shield.

Real estate professionals and consumer groups say payments such as
these have been commonplace and controversial in the industry for
years.  Typical warranty policies cost anywhere from $400 to $500;
fees to real estate brokers and agents range from $60 to $90.
Warranty companies took in an estimated $1.5 billion in sales
during 2009, according to Warranty Week.

Some real estate companies refuse to participate in payment plans,
while others defend the practice.  Glenn Kelman, chief executive
of Redfin, a national online brokerage, says if his firm finds
that any agent "accepts gifts or payments from any party in the
transaction, we fire the agent."

Douglas R. Miller, executive director of Consumer Advocates in
American Real Estate and former head of a title insurance agency
in Minnesota, calls payments to real estate brokers and agents by
home warranty companies "bribes," whether clients know about them
or not.

The 1.1 million-member National Association of Realtors has been
outspoken on the issue, arguing that federal anti-kickback
regulations should not cover warranties because they are not
"settlement services" and have no effect on the closing of a real
estate transaction.  In a letter to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development -- the chief regulator of the real estate
settlement statute -- the association argued that brokers and
agents provide a valuable service in alerting sellers and buyers
to the existence of warranties.

"Consumers are often not familiar with the numerous home warranty
products," wrote Vicki Cox Golder, 2010 president of the
association.  "Real estate brokers and agents do not merely flash
a brochure concerning these products to individual buyers and
sellers."  Instead, they "devote valuable time educating consumers
about the features, limitations, coverage and pricing of home
warranties."

HUD has disagreed, however.  In an interpretive rule issued last
summer, HUD said that "a real estate broker or agent actively
promoting [a home warranty company] and its products to sellers or
prospective home buyers" for compensation is considered to be
making a "referral" that violates federal law.  If a case-by-case
factual analysis demonstrates that agents provided substantive
services beyond their normal duties, the department said, then the
fees may not be in violation.  Real estate professionals have said
the ruling is unacceptably vague.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the American Home Shield
settlement cited the HUD guidance extensively.  Other class-action
suits challenging home warranty payments to agents are at various
stages in federal courts around the country, according to
attorneys familiar with the issue.


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Parking Ticket Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Clifford, writing for Santa Monica Dispatch, reports that in
a virtually unprecedented move, Santa Monica attorney
Stanley Epstein spoke briefly to the City Council on June 28
before it went into closed session about item 1-C "Existing
Litigation" brought by Mr. Epstein and his wife against the City
and others for violating the California Vehicle Code laws
regarding parking tickets.

Mr. Epstein's tone was brisk; his message clear: he had tried
since mid-February to resolve the case without resorting to
litigation.  He had met with City officials, sent countless
letters and e-mails, but had been rebuffed at every turn, and left
with no choice but filing a class action suit, which would cost
the City a great deal of money in lawyers' fees.

No action was taken on 1-C in the closed session.

Parking tickets are one of the petty annoyances of modern life.
Nobody likes them, but, after some grumbling and grousing, most
people pay them, and get on with their lives.

But when Mr. Epstein's wife, Harriet Epstein, was given a ticket
for parking in a space reserved exclusively for Euclid Park
visitors between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., she
contested it, as she didn't believe she was in violation.  Though
she didn't know it at the time, that was the genesis of the
lawsuit.

Following California Vehicle Code (CVC), Section 40215,
"Contesting Parking Violation Procedure," Mrs. Epstein wrote to
the Parking Violations Bureau (PVB), stated the reasons that the
citation was invalid and asked for its dismissal.  Her letter
reported that the officer had written "S.C.V." on the ticket, but
did not state what it meant.  Further, Mrs. Epstein parked at
2:00 p.m. and was issued the ticket at 2:05 p.m., but unless the
officer followed her around for the next 55 minutes, which she
didn't, she had no way of knowing whether Mrs. Epstein had spent
time in the park.

Her letter was reviewed by a Santa Monica Police Department
Traffic Services Officer and sent on to the Parking Violations
Bureau, a sub-contractor of ACS State and Local Solutions, a Xerox
subsidiary that manages parking ticket paperwork and other
administrative services for Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Culver
City and West Hollywood and many other cities in this country and
abroad.

A few days later, Mrs. Epstein received a form letter (unsigned)
from PVB that said simply, "the citation is valid," thus violating
CVC 40215, which states that the "initial review notification"
must "include a reason for the denial."

Mrs. Epstein and her husband, Stanley, an attorney, went to the
Santa Monica Police Department headquarters to report that the PVB
reply neither complied with CVC requirements nor stated the bases
for the denial of Ms. Epstein's claim. T hey were told by an SMPD
lieutenant that the "denial notification was appropriate," though
it gave no reason for the denial, but merely confirmed the
citation's alleged validity.

Still following the Vehicle Code rules, Mrs. Epstein paid the $64
fine and requested a hearing.

"Parking citation hearing examiner services" are provided by ACS
and overseen by a division of the City Finance Department.
Hearing examiner Sheri Ross has a two-year contract with the City
to adjudicate parking violation appeals.

The Epsteins appeared before Ms. Ross, challenged the validity of
the original citation, pointed out that the PVB notification
failed to cite a reason for denying the complaint, as required by
CVC 40215, and asked that the case be dismissed.

Ms. Ross said she would review the statute, analyze the arguments
and make her decision.  Two days later, another unsigned
notification form arrived from PVB.  Like the previous
notification, it simply said, "the citation is valid."

CVC statute 40215 (6) requires the examiner to provide the basis
for his/her decision to the appellant: "The examiner's decision
following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered
to the person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail, and, if
the notice (citation) is not canceled, include a written reason
for that denial."

As unanswered questions and apparent violations of the California
Vehicle Code accumulated, Stanley Epstein discussed them with both
the Finance Department, which oversees the adjudication of
citation appeals, and the City Attorney's office, which is
responsible for reviewing all documents, including notification
letters sent to parking citation appellants.

He also talked with the regional director of operations for
ACS/PVB who told him that the City was notified of changes in the
California Vehicle Code that became effective on January 1, 2009,
but the City did not authorize ACS/PVB to change the notification
letters.

Since the state's Vehicle Code requires that motorists who appeal
parking citations be informed of the bases for the City's denial
of such appeals, and Mrs. Epstein was twice told that the citation
was valid, but was not told why it was valid, or given "a written
reason for the denial," the City's parking citation appeals
process was in violation of the state's Vehicle Code.

The Epsteins called for a full and impartial review to ascertain
whether the City and its contractors are and/or have violated
state statutes since January 1, 2009, asked that any investigation
include the hearing examiner, who is a licensed California
attorney, to ascertain whether ticketed motorists' appeals
followed the procedures prescribed by law, and further asked that
all notices and procedures be brought into compliance with state
statutes.

If appellants were improperly noticed, their appeals denied
without explanation, original citations upheld simply because they
were "valid," and fines collected by the City, the Epsteins
believed the tickets should be dismissed, and the fines and bail
money, if any, refunded, as they were collected in violation of
state statute.  According to their estimates, the money the City
has collected illegally could total hundreds of thousands of
dollars.

Don Patterson, the City's Finance Department official who oversees
ACS/PVB, said in an e-mail to the Epsteins: "These concerns were
reviewed with the City Attorney's Office, and our current
administrative hearing processes and notices meet the minimum
requirements of applicable state law . . . We have been in the
process of reviewing and updating various parking-related notices
over the past several months . . .."

On May 9, Mr. Epstein e-mailed the members of the City Council:
"Today's Bill Bauer column in the 'Daily Press' accurately details
the actions by the city and ACS my wife and I encountered in
contesting a parking citation.  City staff will undoubtedly defend
its procedures so that it can continue illegally to collect fines
from the public.  Based on what the City Attorney's office told
Don Patterson, here's my analysis of why its opinion is totally
wrong.

"STATEMENT by attorney Stanley H. Epstein

"The pathetic attempt by City lawyers (in an 'opinion' not one
word of which has been provided to the public or media) is a bad
faith effort to support their advice in 2008 which resulted in
daily conduct by the City and its Processing Agency that violates
California law and has cost motorists millions in fines that
should not have been paid to Santa Monica.

"1. Language of Law: Section 40215 of the state's Vehicle Code
sets up a procedure for contesting parking citations.  The
motorist first communicates reason(s) why the citation should be
dismissed.  Under the amendments to the law effective 1/1/09, the
City (through its Agent) must do one of two things: cancel the
citation or if that's denied 'include a reason for that denial.'
This is called the 'initial review.'  The motorist then can appeal
to an independent hearing examiner and following that hearing, the
new provision again allows only the same two options, specifically
requiring the notice to 'include a written reason for that
denial.'  The City chose to continue sending two (form) notices,
neither of which contains the necessary reason for denial of
dismissal.  They simply say that the citation is not invalidated,
which is a conclusion, not a reason.

"2. Intent of Law: Lawyers and judges regularly seek to determine
what was in the minds of legislators.  Here that exercise is fatal
to [City Attorney] Mr. Seltzer's position.  The statute
contemplates that City expenditures will be reduced by not
requiring a City employee (such as the citing officer) to attend
or testify before the examiner or on any appeal to the court.
Therefore the City?s position has to be clear in its documented
responses to both of those bodies.  Consequently, the statute
specifically mandates a reason for a denial so the examiner and
the judge can carefully evaluate that reason in the case through
the documents and testimony by the motorist.  Simply saying 'the
citation is valid,' as the City does twice, gives the trier of
fact no information as to what the City is saying in response to
the particular claims of the motorist in each individual case.
Makes total sense.  Furthermore, the motorist is assisted in
deciding whether to appeal when the City provides a specific
reason countering her statements.

"In conclusion, the City Manager and Finance and Police
Departments should have the courage now to discard the lawyers'
unsubstantiated 'opinion' which seeks to cover up their original
mistake in 2008 and prevent motorists from being reimbursed.  To
quote from VC Section 40215: "The hearing shall provide an
independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested
parking violations."  The City should guarantee no less."

None of the Council members responded to Mr. Epstein's statement.

The Epsteins both filed suit in Superior Court, as Mrs. Epstein
received the Citation and Mr. Epstein owns the car.  The suit
asked that the City be required to abide by the state law and
either respond to the Epsteins' request that it state the bases
for the citation or dismiss it, and refund her $64 payment.

But when the Epsteins' research showed that an estimated 16,000
motorists had apparently received the same alleged illegal
treatment, they withdrew their suit, and filed a class action
suit, and asked for "a writ of mandate," which would require the
City abide by state law and settle with all the people who had
been denied due process.

On May 30, the City issued a press release headlined "City
Continues Implementation of Parking System Improvements".

The release said, "Santa Monica, California -- The City of Santa
Monica's Finance and Police Departments have been working on a
year-long effort to review and improve parking citation and permit
systems.

"Recent resident inquiry and press attention has focused on
notices to people who contest their parking citations during the
appeal process.  As a result, the City has reviewed the level of
information provided in letters that are sent to the recipient
notifying them of the decision.  Although the letters provide the
minimum information required by law, the City believes that
providing additional details with these letters would improve
customer service.  The notifications sent by the City during the
parking citation appeal process now reflect this additional
information.  The final stage of the appeal process, which is to
the Superior Court, is not affected by this change in procedure.
Any person who recently appealed a parking citation to the City,
and would like additional details regarding why a citation was
upheld during the appeal process, can e-mail their request with
the citation number to parking.office@smgov.net, and they will
receive a response within 10 business days.

"This is the latest in a series of customer service improvements
that has occurred over the last year which includes revised
parking permit renewals; the ability to renew parking permits
online at www.smgov.net/parking; barcoding of permits to allow for
efficient verification of permits in the field; and installation
of credit-card enabled meters in the public lots along Main St.

"Future planned improvements include continued review of letters
and notices to make them more customer-friendly; installation of
on-street credit card enabled parking meters; and providing the
ability for residents to print one day guest parking permits for
preferential parking areas."

The Epsteins disagree with the City's assertion that the letters
"provide the minimum information required by law," noting that
"the ticket is valid," the City's only response to both of the
Epsteins' requests for the bases of the citation, ignores both her
request and the law.

A class action complaint asking for a writ of mandate and
declaratory relief was filed by attorney Eric Benink in Los
Angeles Superior Court on June 6.  It alleges, among other things,
that "In an effort to maximize revenue and reduce costs,
respondents' practice has been to provide form letters rather than
provide individual explanations or reasons as required under law."

As of the City Council meeting on June 28, the City has not
responded.


CATALYST INTERVENTIONS: Faces Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams, individually and on behalf of the classes
defined herein and People of the State of Illinois ex rel.
Jennifer Williams v. Catalyst Interventions, LLC, and Law Offices
of Brian S. Glass, P.C., Case No. 2011-CH-23539 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., July 01, 2011) alleges that Catalyst Interventions
became regulated by the Illinois Collection Agency Act since
January 1, 2008, but it did not obtain a license until May 22,
2008.

Ms. Williams contends that between January 1, 2008, and May 22,
2008, Catalyst Interventions -- in violation of the ICAA --
collected debts from debtors in Illinois by instituting or
prosecuting lawsuits against Illinois consumers, including
herself.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Kane County, Illinois.

Catalyst Interventions, an Illinois limited liability company, is
or was 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 Law Offices of Brian S. Glass, which was organized under
Illinois law, collects consumer debts originally owed to others.
The firm filed and prosecuted the action against the Plaintiff on
behalf of Catalyst Interventions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, 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


CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Defend Employee Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc., continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits relating to disputes over employee meal and rest
breaks, and wage and hour laws in California, according to the
Company's June 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 23, 2011.

The Company is currently involved in legal disputes related to
employment claims, real estate claims and other business disputes.
As of May 23, 2011, the Company's accrued liability for litigation
contingencies with a probable likelihood of loss was $2,652,000,
with an expected range of losses from $2,652,000 to $10,347,000.
With respect to employment matters, the Company's most significant
legal disputes relate to employee meal and rest break disputes,
and wage and hour disputes.  Several potential class action
lawsuits have been filed in the State of California, regarding
such employment matters, each of which is seeking injunctive
relief and monetary compensation on behalf of current and former
employees.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in these lawsuits; however, the Company is presently unable
to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions.  As of May 23,
2011, the Company estimated the contingent liability of those
losses related to litigation claims that are not accrued, but that
the Company believes are reasonably possible to result in an
adverse outcome and for which a range of loss can be reasonably
estimated, to be in the range of $2,690,000 to $13,295,000.  In
addition, the Company is involved in legal matters where the
likelihood of loss has been judged to be reasonably possible, but
for which a range of the potential loss cannot be reasonably
estimated.


DEUTSCHE BOERSE: Signs MOU to Settle Shareholder Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
In respect of the description of the shareholder litigation
contained in the Offer Document as well as the description of the
treatment of Deutsche Boerse shares as components of the DAX and
the STOXX indices contained in the Offer Document the following is
published:

              Settlement of Shareholder Litigation

Following the announcement of the business combination agreement
between NYSE Euronext, Deutsche BoerseAG, Alpha Beta Netherlands
Holding N.V., a public limited liability company incorporated
under the laws of the Netherlands, and Pomme Merger Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Holdco
pursuant to which NYSE Euronext and Deutsche BoerseAG agreed to
combine their respective businesses and become subsidiaries of
Holdco on February 15, 2011, several complaints were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery; the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York; and the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, each challenging the proposed
combination.  The Delaware cases were subsequently consolidated
under the caption In re NYSE Euronext Shareholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 6220-VCS.  The New York Court cases were
coordinated, and a Master File was created, under the caption In
re NYSE Euronext Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 773000/11.
The actions were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
shareholders of NYSE Euronext and variously name as defendants
NYSE Euronext, its directors at the time of the announcement of
the combination, Deutsche Boerse, Merger Sub and Holdco, and
allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the
combination and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those
breaches.  On May 26, 2011, plaintiffs in the actions filed a
motion in the Delaware Court seeking a preliminary injunction
enjoining the scheduled July 7, 2011 NYSE Euronext shareholder
vote on the combination.

On June 16, 2011, the plaintiffs in the actions, the NYSE Euronext
defendants, Deutsche Boerse and Holdco entered into a memorandum
of understanding setting forth their agreement in principal
regarding a proposed settlement of all claims asserted in the
actions.  As part of the settlement, the NYSE Euronext defendants
acknowledged that the pendency and prosecution of the actions were
a factor in the NYSE Euronext board of directors' decision to
support management's recommendation that Holdco declare a special
dividend and consequently provide appraisal rights.  Additionally,
in the MOU, Holdco acknowledged its intent to recommend to the
Holdco board of directors that following the completion of the
combination Holdco act upon the recommendations of the boards of
directors of NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Boerse that Holdco issue
the special dividend subject to the approval of the Holdco board
of directors, consistent with its fiduciary duties.  As part of
the settlement, the parties agreed to seek to remove or withdraw
any pending requests for interim relief, specifically including
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in the Delaware
action.

The settlement is contingent upon, among other items, the
execution of a formal stipulation of settlement, Delaware Court
approval following notice to the class, final dismissal of the
actions with prejudice, and the completion of the combination.  If
Holdco were to fail to pay the special dividend, for any reason,
the parties would have the option to terminate the settlement.  If
the settlement is consummated, it would release all claims that
the plaintiffs and all members of the class may have arising out
of or relating in any manner to the combination, as described in
the MOU, including the federal action pending in SDNY.

Decision made on treatment of Deutsche Boerse shares as components
of DAX and STOXX indices in context of planned merger with NYSE
Euronext

The Working Committee for Equity Indices decided to replace the
Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE0005810055) with the tendered
Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE000A1KRND6) with two trading days
notice, provided an acceptance threshold of at least 50% is
reached by the end of the initial acceptance period (i.e., on 13
July 2011) or at any time during the additional acceptance period.
Once the 50% threshold is achieved the then larger share class is
included in the DAX in accordance with the index rulebook.  If the
tendered Deutsche Boerse share is still an index member after
closing or discontinuation of the transaction, the tendered
Deutsche Boerse share will be replaced by the Alpha Beta
Netherlands Holdings N.V. share (ISIN NL0009766997) or the
Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE0005810055), respectively, provided
that, in the case of the closing of the transaction, the Alpha
Beta Netherlands Holdings N.V. share fulfills the criteria for
inclusion in the DAX.  Deutsche Boerse stated that it will follow
the independent decision of the Working Committee for Equity
Indices and will implement the adjustments as decided.

The Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE0005810055) will be replaced in
STOXX indices by the tendered Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN
DE000A1KRND6) with two trading days notice, provided an acceptance
threshold of at least 75% is reached by July 13, 2011 or at any
time during the additional acceptance period.  The new free float
market capitalization will reflect the reached acceptance level.
If the tendered Deutsche Boerse share is still an index member,
after closing or discontinuation of the transaction, the tendered
Deutsche Boerse share will be replaced by the Alpha Beta
Netherlands Holdings N.V. share (ISIN NL0009766997) or the
Deutsche Boerse share (ISIN DE0005810055), respectively, provided
that, in the case of the closing of the transaction, the Alpha
Beta Netherlands Holdings N.V. share fulfills the criteria for
inclusion in the STOXX indices.

With an increasing number of Deutsche Boerse shares being tendered
until July 13, 2011, there is a strong probability that the
liquidity of the untendered Deutsche Boerse shares (ISIN
DE0005810055) will be significantly lower than the liquidity of
the tendered Deutsche Boerse shares (ISIN DE000A1KRND6).


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: FDIC Probes Payment Protection Service
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip van Doorn, writing for TheStreet, reports that Discover
Financial Services disclosed that the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. was "reviewing the Company's marketing practices with
respect to its fee-based products, including its payment
protection fee product, which could lead to an enforcement
action."

Discover reported the FDIC scrutiny and possible regulatory action
in its first-quarter 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The filing added that Discover also has eight class
action cases pending against it, also "in relation to the sale of
the Company's payment protection fee product."

The company's Payment Protection service allows a credit card
customer to put loan payments "on hold for up to 2 years in the
event of disability, hospitalization, or other qualifying events,
depending on the product level," also offering death benefits to
borrowers, depending on the state in which a borrower resides.

The Payment Protection service also allows a borrower to put
"payments on hold for 1 billing period for the following
Celebration Events," including marriage, childbirth, retirement,
graduation and other events.

A disclosure page on the company's Web site, says that the fee for
the service is a credit card borrower's "total balance at the end
of each monthly billing period (including any partial monthly
billing period at the beginning of your enrollment), multiplied by
89› per $100."

Considering that on an annual basis, the fee would come to over
10.5%.

Discover said in a statement that the company is "engaged in
constructive dialogue with the FDIC as it reviews the marketing
practices of our fee-based products."

The New York Times reported in June of last year, that one of the
class action lawsuits against Discover, accused the company of
using deceptive business practices to market the Payment
Protection service, quoting David S. Paris, of Paris Ackerman &
Schmierer, the lead firm for a class action suit against Discover,
as saying that some customers who had declined to sign up for the
service when called by a Discover representative, had still been
enrolled "unilaterally."

On June 15, JPMorgan Chase was fined $2 million by the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency for "high pressure sales taxes" of
a similar Credit-protection product.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Street View Class Action to Go Ahead
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Zebley, writing for Jurist, reports that a judge for the US
District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30
rejected a motion by Google to dismiss class-action lawsuits under
wiretapping laws.  Judge James Ware denied Google's argument that
when they collected information while creating their Street View
feature, the information was freely and publicly available.
Google collected private details transmitted on unencrypted
wireless connections, but the company claims it was inadvertent.
Judge Ware did dismiss state claims, but allowed federal claims to
go forward.

Judge Ware approved a settlement agreement in a privacy lawsuit
against Google over its Buzz social networking application earlier
this month, awarding damages to privacy groups previously left out
of the original proposed settlement.  In March, the Federal Trade
Commission settled a similar privacy lawsuit against Google over
charges that the Internet giant breached consumer privacy rights
and was misleading during the launch of Buzz.  The FTC alleges
that when Google launched Buzz through its web-based e-mail,
Gmail, users were automatically enrolled without their consent and
were unable to decline or leave the social network and that the
Buzz privacy controls were confusing.  Google has recently faced a
number of allegations of violating privacy laws, both in the US
and abroad.  In November, the Federal Communications Commission
confirmed that it is investigating Google to determine if it
violated communications laws when its Street View vehicles
inadvertently collected private user data, including passwords and
URLs, over WiFi networks.  In October, the FTC ended an inquiry
into the company's data collection through Street View cars after
Google assured the FTC that it did not use any of the collected
data and announced that it was committed to compliance with
privacy laws, instituting new training on privacy principles and
appointing a new director of privacy.


HOLSTEN MANAGEMENT: Violates Chicago Tenant Ordinance, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verna Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Holsten Management Corporation, Case No. 2011-CH-23408
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 30, 2011) is brought to secure
redress against Holsten for violations of the City of Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

The Plaintiff alleges that Holsten failed to (a) pay interest on
Plaintiff's and the class' security deposits, and (b) provide
tenants with City-mandated interest rate summaries and porch
safety disclosures.

Ms. Harper is a resident of Chicago, Illinois, and was a tenant of
Holsten.

Holsten, an Illinois limited liability company, leases and manages
residential apartments in Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sobek, Esq.
          Kristen Parks, Esq.
          JS Law
          22 W Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 756-1330


JAMES HARDIE: Unit Faces Class Suit Filed by Homeowners
-------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of James Hardie Industries SE is facing a lawsuit
relating to product allegedly manufactured by the subsidiary,
according to the Company's June 29, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2011.

On March 30, 2011, one of the Company's U.S. subsidiaries was
named as a defendant in a lawsuit pending in federal district
court relating to product allegedly manufactured by the
subsidiary.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an
individual homeowner.

The individual plaintiff seeks to bring the lawsuit on behalf of a
purported but unidentified class of homeowners.  Based on
available information and circumstances presently known, the
Company believes that the outcome of the proceedings with respect
to the individual plaintiff will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows.  In addition, although the outcome of the
individual plaintiff's request for class action status is
uncertain, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
lawsuit, and the subsidiary intends to vigorously defend the
action.


KAPLAN INC: Judge Refuses to Sign Second Antitrust Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge refused to sign off on a second settlement in
the BAR/BRI antitrust litigation after objectors raised concerns
that Kaplan Inc.'s portion of the deal involved coupons.

The deal would have settled claims by class members alleging that
Kaplan and West Publishing Corp. conspired to monopolize the
market for bar review courses.  West Publishing owns BAR/BRI and
Kaplan sells preparatory courses for the Law School Admission
Test.  Under the settlement, West would have paid $5.29 million in
cash and Kaplan would have provided coupons worth $150 each toward
the purchase of future course materials.

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real in Los Angeles had preliminarily
approved the deal on March 21.  But during a final settlement
hearing on June 20, Judge Real expressed concern about the
coupons, which would provide discounts on future Kaplan courses,
according to lawyers who attended the hearing.  He also cited
qualms about the value of the settlement, which included about
$1.7 million in attorney fees, the lawyers said.

"He took great issue with the coupon aspect of it, the discount
certificates," said George Richard Baker of Baker Law in
Birmingham, Ala.  Mr. Baker attended the hearing on behalf of six
class members who referred to themselves in court papers as the
"Alabama Objectors."  Mr. Baker's clients objected to the
settlement based in part on the coupons.

On June 24, Judge Real issued a written ruling rejecting the
settlement.  He also referred the matter to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had been hearing the case
before the settlement was reached.

Alan Harris, a partner at Harris & Ruble in Los Angeles --
law@harrisandruble.com -- who is co-lead plaintiffs' counsel,
declined to comment.  "The parties are conferring with our clients
as to the next step," he said.

John Shaughnessy, a spokesman for West's parent corporation,
Thomson Reuters Corp., said in a prepared statement: "We are
disappointed that Judge Real's position on the settlement has
changed.  That said, we hope to continue working with all parties
to bring this matter to closure."

Kaplan spokeswoman, Carina Wong, declined to comment.  In court
papers, both companies defended the settlement, noting that all of
the major law firms in the country had submitted claim forms and
that the case, had it gone forward, would have faced an uphill
battle.

In an earlier case, Kaplan and West agreed to pay $49 million to
resolve claims on behalf of a class of about 300,000 test-takers
who said they paid on average $1,000 in overcharges for the bar
review course.  In that case, the companies agreed to disband a
marketing agreement under which Kaplan had agreed not to enter the
bar review market.

                            Roadblocks

That deal, too, hit roadblocks after winning Judge Real's
preliminary approval -- in part, because objectors raised concerns
about the amount of the incentive awards being paid to five named
plaintiffs.  Judge Real rejected the awards but approved the
settlement, giving McGuireWoods, the lead plaintiffs' firm, $12
million in attorney fees.  In the end, Judge Real granted $500,000
in fees to the firm.

The second agreement would have resolved claims by class members
who purchased bar review course materials from Aug. 1, 2006, to
the present.  The previous settlement, reached in 2007, resolved
claims on behalf of students who purchased the course materials
between 1997 and 2006.

In a motion for final approval, Mr. Harris said that class members
would have received an average of $240, including $90 in cash from
West and Kaplan coupons worth about $150 each.  Plaintiffs'
lawyers would have received more than $1.3 million in fees, or 25%
of the $5.28 million payment from West, plus more than $400,000
for the Kaplan part of the deal.  Class representatives would have
received $4,000 each as incentive awards.

Mr. Harris estimated that the face value of the coupons totaled
about $37 million.  In court papers, several objectors disputed
the coupon portion of the deal, calling the certificates "beyond
the pale of reasonable fairness," "valueless" and "particularly
laughable."

"Thanks, but no thanks," wrote Daniel George of Beverly Hills,
Calif.  "For many, Kaplan's 'coupons' are worth less than a
confederate dollar."

Mr. Baker wrote that the asking price of a Kaplan coupon on eBay
was $20 to $100, but most had attracted no bids.  The highest bid
had been $1.25, he said -- a "far cry" from the estimated $150
value put forth in the settlement.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Appeals in IPO Suit Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court remanded to the district court for further
determinations remaining appeals from the approval of a global
settlement of cases coordinated under the title In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, according to OmniVision
Technologies, Inc.'s June 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30,
2011.

On November 29, 2001, a complaint captioned McKee v. OmniVision
Technologies, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 01 CV 10775, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, some of its directors
and officers, and various underwriters for its initial public
offering.  Plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws because the prospectus related to
the Company's offering failed to disclose, and contained false and
misleading statements regarding, certain commissions purported to
have been received by the underwriters, and other purported
underwriter practices in connection with their allocation of
shares in the Company's offering.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between July 14, 2000, and December 6,
2000.  Substantially similar actions have been filed concerning
the initial public offerings for more than 300 different issuers,
and the cases have been coordinated as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  On February 19, 2003,
the Court issued an order dismissing all claims against the
Company except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and it will
bear no financial liability.  The Company and the other defendants
will receive complete dismissals from the case.  In 2009, the
Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.
Certain objectors filed appeals.  A number of those appeals were
dismissed.

In May 2011, the appellate court issued an order remanding the
remaining appeals to the district court for further
determinations.  If for any reason the settlement does not become
effective, and litigation against the Company proceeds, the
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs'
claims and intends to defend the action vigorously.


ORECK CORP: Class Action Lawyers to Review Halo Vacuum Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased an Oreck Halo Vacuum or ProShield Plus air
cleaner, you may be able to participate in a Class Action against
Oreck seeking recovery of the costs of these products, which
retailed for $599.95 and $399.95, respectively.

To learn more visit:

http://www.forthepeople.com/oreck-halo-class-action--11-3109.html

Oreck recently reached a settlement agreement with the Federal
Trade Commission as a result of the FTC's allegations that Oreck
made false and deceptive claims concerning the health benefits of
these products.  As part of this settlement, Oreck agreed to pay a
fine to the FTC as a consequence of Oreck's allegedly false and
unproven claims that these products substantially reduce the risk
of or prevent the flu and other illnesses or ailments caused by
bacteria, viruses, molds, and allergens, such as the common cold,
diarrhea, upset stomachs, asthma, and allergy symptoms; that the
ProShield Plus eliminates airborne particles or other common germs
and allergens found in users' homes; and, that the Oreck Halo
vacuum is effective against germs, bacteria, dust mites, mold and
viruses embedded in carpets.  The FTC found that these claims were
false and misleading because Oreck did not possess or rely upon a
reasonable basis or scientific evidence to support many of these
representations.

Consumers who bought an Oreck ProShield Plus air cleaner or Halo
vacuum may be able to participate in a class action in light of
these allegations.  The attorneys at Morgan and Morgan would like
to hear from consumers who bought either the Oreck Halo Vacuum or
ProShield Plus air cleaner.  Visit ForThePeople.com and complete
the free case review form to find out if you may be able to
participate in an Oreck class action to seek compensation for the
cost of your Oreck Halo vacuum or ProShield Plus air cleaner.

                     About Morgan and Morgan

Morgan and Morgan -- http://www.forthepeople.com/-- is one of the
largest personal injury law firms in the country with multiple
office locations throughout Florida and the Southeast.  The firm
handles auto accident cases, personal injury cases, and medical
malpractice cases, as well as claims against drug and medical
device manufacturers.

Contact: Michael Goetz, Esq.
         Morgan & Morgan
         Telephone: 877-667-4265


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: In Negotiations to Settle "Niederklein" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CS Edventures!.com, Inc., is currently engaged in negotiations to
settle a class action lawsuit captioned Niederklein v. PCS
Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., according to the Company's June 29,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

The Company, along with its current chief executive officer, and
former chief financial officer has been named in a class action
lawsuit --(Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, Case 1:10-cv-00479-CWD).
The class action was brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period
between March 28, 2007, and August 15, 2007.  On February 24,
2011, the Court granted the motion of Moustafa Salem to serve as
the lead plaintiff.  On June 8, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
motion to voluntarily dismiss the former CFO without prejudice
from the lawsuit, which the Court has granted.  On June 10, 2011,
the Company participated in a Court-ordered settlement conference
and is engaged in ongoing negotiations.


PINNACLE CREDIT: Accused of Violating Illinois Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane M. Foley and Dennis W. Wehr, individually and on behalf of
the class defined herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex
rel. Diane M. Foley and Dennis W. Wehr v. Pinnacle Credit
Services, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-23481 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
July 01, 2011) alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois
Collection Agency Act by collecting debts in Illinois without
first obtaining a license.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Cook County, Illinois.

Pinnacle Credit, a limited liability company organized under
Minnesota law, does business in Illinois by purchasing or claiming
to purchase charged-off consumer debts and enforcing the debts
against the consumers by filing collection lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Thomas E. Soule, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, 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


RESURGENCE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Unlicensed Debt Collections
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Barker, individually and on behalf of the class defined
herein, and the People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Tammy
Barker v. Resurgence Financial, LLC (Case No. 2011-CH-23480 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 01, 2011) is brought in connection with
the Defendant's collection of debts from debtors in Illinois
before obtaining a license -- in violation of the Illinois
Collection Agency Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Illinois.

Resurgence Financial, an Illinois limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Cook County, 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 & GOODWIN, 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


SINGING MACHINE: Continues to Defend Bratz-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The Singing Machine Company, Inc., doing business as SMC Global,
continues to defend itself from lawsuits relating to "Bratz"
disputes with MGA Entertainment, Inc., according to the Company's
June 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

MGA Entertainment, Inc. filed an action against the Company on
April 16, 2010, captioned MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. The Singing
Machine Company, Inc. (Central District Court Of California, Case
Cv 10-03761 Doc (RNBX)), alleging breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion
claims relating to two licensing agreements between the parties
entered into on May 10, 2006, and November 21, 2006.  The two
licensing agreements involved the manufacture, distribution and
marketing of "Bratz" branded merchandise.

The Company has responded to the case and has removed the case to
federal court, case no. CV 10-03761 DOC (RNBX).  Based upon legal
opinion from outside Counsel, the Company believes it has defenses
to the claims raised by MGA.  At the time of this filing, the case
is still in early stages of discovery and the outcome is unknown.

The Company has also filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
itself and all similarly situated licensees against MGA in the
Central District Court of California, case no. CV 10-4536-
DOC(RNBX).  The Company alleges breach of contract, failure of
consideration for the licensing agreements, and other claims based
on various state and federal laws.  Due to the multiple lawsuits
involved back and forth between the Company and MGA, at this time,
the Company cannot provide a reasonable estimate of contingent
liability.

Prior to the Company entering into the License Agreements with
MGA, Mattel, a competitor to MGA, filed a complaint against MGA on
or about April, 2005 alleging ownership to the "Bratz" concept.
The Mattel/MGA Litigation was tried in phases and, on July 17,
2008, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Mattel and against MGA
concerning ownership of the Bratz concept.  The Jury determined
that MGA did not and never did own any right, title or interest in
or to the "Bratz" identity including the brand, sculptures,
likenesses, trademarks etc.  The cases were retried in January and
February 2011 and the jury found in favor of MGA in both matters.
Notwithstanding the jury verdict, the case is still pending and
Mattel is expected to appeal.

Based on advice from Counsel, the Company is of the opinion the
Mattel/MGA Litigation will not materially affect the outcome of
the MGA/Singing Machine Litigation.  The Company's class-action
lawsuit is based on the belief that the Licensing Agreements with
MGA were entered into through an intentional or negligent
concealment of a known material fact on the part of MGA -- namely
the pending lawsuit by Mattel challenging MGA's ownership of the
Bratz designs that were the very subject of the License
Agreements.  The Company has not accrued any additional liability
beyond the initial $85,000 originally recorded for this vendor.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Litigator Questions Hasty Class Action Filings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Law Times, reports that a
significant carriage fight is shaping up among plaintiffs' firms
in class action suits against beleaguered Sino-Forest Corp., a
TSX-listed issuer and commercial forestry operator in China.

From the bar's perspective, the preliminary jockeying among
plaintiffs' firms raises some interesting questions about the
conduct of class proceedings in Ontario.

At least one veteran litigator who acts for plaintiffs isn't
impressed.  "I think the hasty filings were completely
irresponsible," said the lawyer, who spoke on condition of
anonymity.

"If we're going to have mature, credible class actions against
Sino-Forest, we need responsible behavior on all sides, and that
includes the analysts and the class action bar.  Filing on the
basis of a report riddled with misinformation doesn't meet that
standard."

On June 8, just six days after short-seller Muddy Waters accused
Sino-Forest of fraud, and after the company's stock dropped by
more than 70%, Joel Rochon of Toronto's Rochon Genova LLP filed a
proposed class action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The lawsuit, which also names several of Canada's major
underwriters, relies almost exclusively on the allegations by
Muddy Waters, a research company that's certainly not mainstream
and even lacks a physical address.

Siskinds LLP of London, Ontario, followed with a lawsuit in Quebec
Superior Court on June 9.  For the most part, the Siskinds case
also relies on the Muddy Waters allegations.

Quebec is a first-to-file jurisdiction, so the plaintiffs' firm
that files first in that province is the one likely to get
carriage and the biggest slice of the fee pie from proceedings
against Sino-Forest.

On June 15, Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds told Law Times his firm
and co-counsel Kirk Baert, of Toronto's Koskie Minsky LLP, would
file a similar action on behalf of an institutional investor
"within the next week."  The Ontario lawsuit was filed June 20.

Perhaps because the firm lacked the green light from institutional
investors, Siskinds didn't file in Ontario at the outset.  That
might explain the rush to file in Quebec once Rochon Genova had
pre-empted Siskinds in Ontario.

What makes the argument more compelling is that Quebec doesn't
have laws that impose secondary market liability in the same way
that Ontario does, meaning the case will be harder to prove in the
neighboring province.

Toronto's Kim Orr law firm is investigating a separate claim on
behalf of other institutional investors.

The upshot is that each of Ontario's major securities class action
plaintiffs' firms is hot on the heels of the Sino-Forest fallout.
There's no suggestion that there's anything wrong with that.  But
critics say the rush to file doesn't always reflect well on the
civil justice system.

Consider, for example, that at least some of the Muddy Waters
allegations that form the heart of the pleadings filed to date
were quickly shown to have been inaccurate, with views contrary to
those of the Bay Street analyst community.

It's the type of scenario that has given rise to skepticism about
securities class actions in the United States.

That's not to say that experienced Canadian plaintiffs' counsel,
widely regarded as far more cautious than their American
counterparts, need to wait around until the true facts emerge.
The point is that lawsuits filed on what appear to be dubious
facts from a source that has a conflict of interest are bound to
raise a few eyebrows.

Mr. Rochon says the Muddy Waters report is powerful.  "What we
have is a very serious problem that is evidenced by the massive
drop in market value," he says.  "It's important for investors to
know that someone is doing something about it and not just relying
on the results of a regulator's investigation that won't be
available for some time."

Mr. Lascaris focuses on the need for proper representation for
investors, at least implicitly acknowledging the possibility of a
looming carriage fight down the road.

"It's important to have the case prosecuted by firms that have
experience in this area," he says.  "The problem with the first-
to-file approach is that it allows lawyers with limited experience
to take advantage of the rule."

Mr. Lascaris said his firm isn't relying only on the Muddy Waters
report.  "We don't simply rely on what anyone says and certainly
not a short-seller," he says.

"We're doing our own investigation, and that involves considerably
more than just listening to the debate about what makes sense and
who's right here."

Mr. Lascaris says his firm "may not necessarily agree with
everything" said by Muddy Waters.  "The pleadings will evolve as
the facts emerge," he says.

Mr. Rochon says it's too early to make predictions about whether
and to what extent a carriage fight is imminent.  "We all have
mutual respect, and I hope that we can see through our personal
needs and find a constructive way to work together."


SONY ONLINE: Star Wars Galaxies Players Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lynley, writing for VentureBeat, reports that the reaction
from Sony Online Entertainment's Star Wars Galaxies online game
community regarding the game's closure come December 15 has
officially gone from woefully nostalgic to comically outlandish.

A number of Star Wars Galaxies players have written to VentureBeat
and said they want to file a lawsuit against Sony Online
Entertainment.  But there's zero chance that will happen.  There
are no grounds for a lawsuit against Sony, regardless of the
circumstance, because all users signed an end-user license
agreement when they signed up for the game.

More than 2,500 Star Wars Galaxies players have signed a petition
asking Sony Online Entertainment to convert the game to a free-to-
play game maintained through the sale of virtual goods.  The
petition also asks Sony to consolidate players onto a smaller
number of servers and facilitate character transfer to reduce
operational costs in order to keep the game running.  But there is
no guarantee that Star Wars Galaxies will be profitable -- or even
sustainable -- if it shifts to a freemium model.

Other online games have success converting from a subscription-
based model to a free-to-play model.  Revenue from Turbine's Lord
of the Rings Online doubled and its player base increased by 400%
in the month after it went free to play.  Revenue for the
company's first experiment in going free-to-play, Dungeons and
Dragons Online, jumped by about 500% after the shift.

The companies don't disclose subscriber information for their
games.  But those games both had subscriber counts that were, upon
visual inspection, orders of magnitude higher than the current
subscription count for Star Wars Galaxies.  Both games are also
much newer than Star Wars Galaxies, which is already nearly a
decade old.  There was a massive difference in the number of
players between the desolate streets of Coruscant, one time Star
Wars Galaxies' largest trade city, and the bustling cities in Lord
of the Rings Online before the game converted to a freemium model.

Star Wars Galaxies fans were also up in arms when Sony Online
Entertainment began locking threads that advertised the petition
and protested the game being shut down.

Sony Online Entertainment is able to terminate accounts that
violate any provision of the EULA.  That means that any player who
violates any of the player rules of conduct located at the game's
Web site or The Station is fair game to be struck with a ban
hammer.  Any player who engages in gameplay, chat or any player
activity whatsoever that the company determines is inappropriate
and/or in violation of the spirit of the game can also be banned
-- including protesting the game shutdown.

Yes, Star Wars Galaxies' imminent doom is tragic.  In its prime,
it was very different from other online games on the market,
according to VentureBeat's Mr. Lynley.  Sony Online Entertainment
watered it down to make it similar to World of Warcraft so it
would appeal to a more mainstream audience, and that killed the
game's unique qualities and its subscriber base.  "There's a
reason that we did this -- the game was losing subscribers," Sony
Online Entertainment president John Smedley said in 2009 regarding
the updates.  "We had to make this game more accessible to a wider
audience or eventually we would not have a business."  But
ultimately, it was a failed experiment and left the game with a
much smaller -- though much more fiercely loyal -- community.

That community does not have to die with Star Wars Galaxies.  It
doesn't have to move on to Electronic Arts' next online Star Wars
game, The Old Republic, either.  Yet, it seems to think those are
the only options, according to the players who have written to
VentureBeat.


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Settled Amiodarone Sale Suit in Early 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. resolved in early 2011 a
lawsuit related to the sale of amiodarone, according to the
Company's June 29, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 10, 2004, the Company was sued in the Superior Court
of New Jersey in Atlantic County along with other defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit for alleged personal injuries
related to defendants' sale of amiodarone.  On June 9, 2010, the
class action case was dismissed with prejudice, with a window of
150 days for individual claimants to file lawsuits.  Only one suit
was commenced against the Company.  In early 2011, an agreement to
resolve this matter was reached, which will have no material
impact on the Company's financial position.


WALMART-STORES: Trial Lawyers to Continue Class Action Fight
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, writing for San Francisco Examiner, reports
that trial lawyers will continue to fight against Walmart.

Walmart is America's largest private employer.  On June 20, the
Supreme Court threw out the class-action lawsuit alleging sex
discrimination filed by three current and former employees
supposedly on behalf of all 1.5 million current and former female
Walmart employees.

The court ruled that the 1.5 million women and the 3,400 Walmart
stores -- all in the United States -- had too little in common to
allow a class-action lawsuit to proceed.

The court said that there was no proof that Walmart, which has a
stated nondiscrimination policy, had a general policy of systemic
discrimination.  The Walmart stores had too little in common for a
class-action suit.

Individual managers made their own decisions as to promotion, and
plaintiffs had not proved that a culture of discrimination existed
at the company.

But fees of plaintiffs' lawyers typically are a percentage of the
damages awarded, and so the larger the class, the larger the
attorneys' fees.

Joseph Sellers, one of the lawyers representing women in the case,
promised to continue the fight by bringing more class-action
lawsuits at the store or regional level.

He told The New York Times that "this case will be splintered into
many cases that may take longer and be harder to resolve."

Walmart has been a target of trial lawyers because its employees
are not unionized.  Hence, the campaign to prove Walmart treats
women unfairly.

Millions of dollars spent on litigation are millions that Walmart
cannot spend expanding stores and hiring.  And with an
unemployment rate of 9.1%, more hiring is needed.

Texas, which reformed its state civil justice system in 2003 and
just passed a "loser pays" law to discourage frivolous lawsuits,
has created 37% of all net new jobs in America since the so-called
recovery began in June 2009.

The court decision doesn't mean that large companies can
discriminate against women.  It does mean that individual women,
or groups of women under one supervisor, store or region, have to
prove each case on its merits.

Two of the three Walmart employees who brought the class-action
suit are unlikely to have won individual sex-discrimination suits.

Betty Dukes, the lead plaintiff, who worked in a Pittsburgh
Walmart, had been promoted to manager, but then demoted to cashier
and greeter after admitted disciplinary violations.

Edith Arana, who worked in Duarte from 1995 to 2001, was dismissed
for violating Walmart's timekeeping policy.  She was told to apply
to her district manager when she complained that her store manager
was being unfair, but she never pursued the complaint.

Presumably Walmart would not have promoted men under the same
circumstances.

The plaintiffs submitted data showing that men were managers in
far greater proportion than their representation among employees,
and had higher average salaries.

But these averages might not account for differences in jobs,
education, time in the workforce or hours worked.  The Labor
Department reports that about 27% of women worked part-time in
2010, compared to 13% of men.  Full-time female employees work
fewer hours than full-time male employees.

These considerations explain some of the male-female differences
between average pay and numbers supervisors at some Walmart
stores.  If more women work part-time, they may not be eligible to
be promoted to manager, nor may they want to assume the
responsibilities of a full-time position.

Women should be treated on a case-by-case basis, the same as men,
despite large fees collected by trial lawyers from class-action
suits.


YUHE INTERNATIONAL: August 23 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is representing Yuhe International, Inc.
shareholders in a securities class action lawsuit.  If you
purchased the stock of Yuhe International, Inc. during the period
from December 31, 2009, through June 23, 2011, you may participate
in the class action as a lead plaintiff and seek to recover
investment losses.  The deadline for lead plaintiff applications
is August 23, 2011.

To join the Yuhe class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web site
at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., or
Laurence Rosen, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also
email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@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 Southern District of
Florida.

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 asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Yuhe and its officers and directors for issuing false and
misleading information to investors about the financial and
business condition of the Company.  The Complaint alleges that (a)
Yuhe's financial results as reported to the SEC for the fiscal
years ended 2009 and 2010 were materially false and misleading;
(b) Yuhe lied to investors about its purported acquisition of 13
breeder farms from Weifangshi Dajiang Qiye Group Co. Ltd.; and (c)
Yuhe's business was not growing at the rate represented by
defendants.

The Complaint alleges that on or about June 16, 2011, information
from an analyst entered the market, quoting Dajiang's chairman,
that Yuhe did not acquire Dajiang's farms, as Yuhe had represented
in its SEC filings and other public statements.  This announcement
shocked the market and Yuhe's stock lost more than half of its
value.  On June 17, 2011, trading in the Company's stock was
halted.  On June 23, 2011, the Company announced its auditor had
resigned because of Yuhe "management's misrepresentation and
failure to disclose material facts surrounding certain acquisition
transactions and off balance sheet related party transactions."
Moreover, the auditor stated that its audited financial statements
of Yuhe International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010,
should no longer be relied upon and that the auditor no longer
will be associated with the financial statements.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 23, 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 Phillip Kim, Esq., of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

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

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, 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
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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  * * *