CAR_Public/110711.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 11, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 135

                             Headlines

ALPINE DIRECT: Sued Over High Interest Loans in Illinois
ANGEL STADIUM: Court Certifies Wheelchair Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Modifications
BANK OF AMERICA: Mumford West Files Foreclosure Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused by Latino Victims of Aiding Ponzi Scam

BEACONSFIELD, CANADA: Judge Allows Noise Class Action to Proceed
BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
BLUE CROSS: Class Action Lacks Standing Under State Law
CALIFORNIA: May Face Class Action Over Internet Sales Tax
CLEARWATER BAY: Made Usurious Loans in Illinois, Suit Says

CVS CAREMARK: Faces Nationwide Class Action Over Double-Billing
DUNCAN ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Texas Suit Claims
G. WILLI FOOD: Continues to Defend Suit Over Calorie Markings
G. WILLI FOOD: Suit Over Misleading Labels of Imports Pending
INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq Faces Five Class Action Suits in Israel

INTERNET GOLD: Hearings on Class Standing vs. Pelephone Ongoing
INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq International Defends Suits Pending in Israel
INTERNET GOLD: DBS Satellite Continues to Defend Suits
INTERNET GOLD: Petitioners Ordered to Pay NIS900,000
INTERNET GOLD: Continues to Defend Suit Over Set-Top Boxes

INTERNET GOLD: Motion for Class Cert. in Commercial Suit Pending
LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Service Fees
LONGTOP FIN'L: July 22 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MAIN STREET: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
MIZUNO USA: Recalls 131T Baseball & Softball Gloves due to Mold

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Not Liable for Class Action Under FDCPA
NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Class Action Over Disability Funding Cuts
SMITH & WESSON: Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal Still Pending
STERLING JEWELERS: Gender Bias Class Action Can Proceed
SUPERMEDIA INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA: Judge Allows Tar Pond Class Action to Proceed
TEXAS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Foster Care
TIM PARTICIPACOES: Awaits Appeal Ruling on Asset Recovery Suit
TIM PARTICIPACOES: Units Face Suits Over Long-Distance Charges
TIM PARTICIPACOES: Units Face Suits Over Services and Policies

ULTRAPAR HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling in 1996 Explosion-Related Suit




                             *********

ALPINE DIRECT: Sued Over High Interest Loans in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
Tyanna Qualls, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members
described below v. Alpine Direct Services, LLC, Daniel Koetting
and Jaino Perez, Case No. 2011-CH-23685 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
July 05, 2011) accuses the Defendants of making usurious loans to
Illinois residents in violation of the Illinois Interest Act, the
Illinois Payday Loan Reform Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that all loans from Alpine were made at an
annual percentage rate exceeding the 9% rate, which a non-bank
lender that does not have license from the Illinois Department of
Financial and Professional Regulation may charge for a loan made
to an Illinois resident.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Alpine is a limited liability company chartered under the law of
Nevada.  The individual defendants are the sole managers of Alpine
and had between them complete control over its actions.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, 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


ANGEL STADIUM: Court Certifies Wheelchair Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Wheelchair users are likely to have an easier time purchasing
tickets to and attending games at Angels Baseball games after a
recent Federal Court ruling granting class certification to
improve wheelchair accessibility to games.

The Plaintiff in the lawsuit, J. Paul Charlebois, a baseball fan
who is confined to a wheelchair, alleges that Angel Stadium fails
to provide basic accommodations to disabled persons in its premier
Club Level, the only section that includes amenities such as in-
seat waiter and waitress food and beverage services.  Remarkably,
in the Club Level consisting of thousands of seats and luxury
boxes, there are only two wheelchair accessible seats on the
entire level.

The lawsuit entitled, Charlebois v. Angel Baseball et al. Case No.
SACV 10-0853 DOC (ANx) alleges that in July 2009, when
Mr. Charlebois attempted to access his seat in the Club Level
section, he was informed that there were no available wheelchair
accessible seats in the entire section, as the only two seats were
already taken.  Despite his experience, Mr. Charlebois is seeking
injunctive relief only and no personal damages.

Indeed, after investigating and speaking with numerous users of
wheelchairs who purchased tickets to Angel Baseball games,
Mr. Charlebois' lawyers, stated in a supplemental filing in
support of the Motion for Class Certification in Case No. SACV 10-
0853 DOC (ANx): "Based on the first-hand experience of wheelchair
users, it appears that the wheelchair accessible seating on the
Club Level of Angel Stadium, which is the only level providing
waiter and waitress services, is completely unavailable to
wheelchair users who wish to attend Angels baseball games."

The United District Court responding to Angels Baseball's argument
that the proposed class action required an analysis of each class
member's individual circumstances and state of mind, concluded, in
its opinion granting Class Certification in Case No. SACV 10-0853
DOC (ANx) "This argument, pardon the pun, strikes out."

The Court, in its written opinion granting class certification,
found that the Plaintiff met the requirement of showing that there
were a sufficient number of wheelchair users attending games at
Angel Stadium to justify the certification of the class of wheel-
chair users emphasizing, "Baseball is often referenced as
America's favorite past-time, and given that Plaintiff's class
includes future attendees, it is reasonable to presume that many
wheelchair-using baseball fans will emerge as future class members
. . ."

V. James DeSimone of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman &
Harrison, LLP, the attorneys representing Mr. Charlebois and the
class stated: "Justice is served.  The certification of the class
is an important first step toward achieving equal access to Angel
Baseball Stadium for people who use wheelchairs."


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Modifications
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit
alleges breach of contract by Bank of America and subsidiary BAC
Home Loans Servicing in mortgage modifications.

The suits involve permanent modifications through the U.S.
Treasury-administered Home Affordable Modification Program, which
offers incentives to loan servicers who modify loans, as well as
modifications banks offer independently of the government
guidelines.

One plaintiff's loan was modified, cutting her mortgage, but she
then received past-due notices and foreclosure threats.

They represent a new wave of complaints against banks that have
weathered years of criticism for their reluctance to modify loans
and for foreclosing on borrowers after offering them trial
modifications.


BANK OF AMERICA: Mumford West Files Foreclosure Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that a Salt Lake City law firm has
filed a proposed class-action suit against Bank of America and its
subsidiary ReconTrust "for conducting thousands of unauthorized
foreclosures in Utah."

Mumford West & Snow filed the suit in 3rd District Court.  The
action comes in the wake of the Utah Legislature creating civil
penalties against what state authorities consider illegal
foreclosures.  It also comes more than one month after the Utah
Attorney General's Office pledged that it would file suit against
the banking giant if ReconTrust continued to file foreclosure
proceedings in violation of state law.

Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton said her company had no
comment about the lawsuit.

Lead counsel for the law firm, Marcus R. Mumford, on July 6 said
he intends to seek a statewide restraining order and a preliminary
injunction "prohibiting the named defendants from conducting any
additional foreclosure sales within the state."

The lawsuit is being filed at a time that the attorney general
continues to meet with Bank of America and ReconTrust
representatives.  The two sides have yet to come to an agreement
acceptable to both sides.

"We are still negotiating with them to change their practices,"
said AG spokesman Paul Murphy.

Mr. Mumford said that Bank of America and ReconTrust "have
demonstrated a long-standing pattern of illegal activity in taking
thousands of homes from Utah homeowners in unauthorized
foreclosures."  He estimates there are tens of thousands
homeowners who could be eligible to sign on to the lawsuit if it
receives class-action status from the court.

"Bank of America and ReconTrust are intentionally not complying
with Utah law," Mr. Mumford said, adding that the bank and its
subsidiary are neglecting to meet with homeowners to try to come
up with a plan before initiating foreclosure proceedings.

"The purpose of the Utah law was to give homeowners an opportunity
to come in and to have a dialogue the person foreclosing on them,"
Mr. Mumford said.  "They [Bank of America and ReconTrust] continue
to kick people out of their homes, claiming that they are not
required to follow Utah law.  We intend to put a stop to that."

Calls to Bank of America for reaction to the suit were not
immediately returned.


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused by Latino Victims of Aiding Ponzi Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that hundreds of
working-class Latino families say Bank of America aided and
abetted a $30 million Ponzi scam that cost many victims their
homes and their life savings.

In a class action in Superior Court, 10 named plaintiffs sued the
bank and Pablo Araque, the owner and sole employee of PEA
Enterprises, a tax preparation and bookkeeping business in Downey.

Neither BofA nor Mr. Araque are accused of running the scam.  The
plaintiffs say the Ponzi scam was run by Juan Rangel, through his
company, Financial Plus Investments.  Mr. Rangel advertised on
Spanish-language TV and in newspapers, guaranteeing annual returns
as high as 60%, allegedly from buying and selling property and
high-interest loans to distressed homeowners.

The plaintiffs say Mr. Rangel used the money he got from his
victims to buy himself a Lamborghini, a $2.5 million mansion and a
limousine, among other things.

Mr. Rangel also allegedly targeted distressed homeowners with a
fraudulent refinancing program that left many without their homes.

The duped investors say Mr. Rangel received "substantial
assistance" from Bank of America branch manager Dony Gonzalez, who
took bribes from Mr. Rangel in exchange for laundering $1 million
to bank accounts in Pachuca, Mexico.

Mr. Gonzalez is not a defendant in this complaint.

The plaintiffs say that knowledge of the transactions was "not
limited to Gonzalez," and that several Bank of America employees
should have detected the fraud.

"Suspicious transactions were brought to the attention of Bank of
America managers and officials through reports that documented the
transactions, but none of them endeavored to investigate Rangel
and Financial Plus," the complaint states.

"An investigation would have led to the discovery of the Ponzi
scheme," the complaint adds.  "Instead Bank of America preferred
to enjoy the banking relationship with Rangel and the other
companies involved in this scheme."

FBI agents arrested Mr. Rangel in August 2008.  He was sentenced
this year to 22 years in prison, with a concurrent 7 year and 3
month sentence for money laundering and bribery.

George Trevor, whose firm Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny
represents the victims, told Courthouse News that Mr. Rangel's
scheme was "financially devastating," and that many of his clients
lost their life savings.

"When you look at someone like Bernie Madoff, his victims were
millionaires," Mr. Trevor said.  "These people are hard-working
Spanish people victimized by Rangel and Financial Plus."


BEACONSFIELD, CANADA: Judge Allows Noise Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Cornacchia, writing for The Gazette, reports that a group
of Beaconsfield residents who have been lobbying authorities for a
noise barrier along Highway 20 were buoyed last week by a court
decision that allows another group of Quebec residents frustrated
about noise to launch a class-action suit against Quebec's
transport department.

The Quebec Court of Appeal decision rendered on July 5 gives a go
ahead to a C$50-million class-action lawsuit in the name of about
1000 suburban Quebec City residents living near A-73 highway.

Like residents living south of Highway 20 in Beaconsfield, the
Quebec City-area residents are concerned about the public health
impact of high noise levels.

"It's very positive news for us," said Derrick Pounds, a member of
Citizens for a Sound Wall, a lobby group of about 200 Beaconsfield
residents.

Even though, Mr. Pounds added "We think the case could help our
cause," he added.  The Beaconsfield group plans to continue
fighting "within the system" for the construction of a C$20-
million noise barrier along the south side of Highway 20 between
the western border of Pointe Claire and the eastern border of Baie
d'Urfe.

The fact a Quebec class-action suit is now in the mix doesn't hurt
the cause of Beaconsfield residents, Mr. Pounds said.

Quebec's transportation department last fall recommended a 4,887-
metre-long noise barrier be built in Beaconsfield after a
provincial government study revealed unacceptably high noise
levels along that stretch of highway.

The municipality and the provincial government have been wrangling
over who will foot the bill.  Beaconsfield has argued it should be
exempt from the 50-50 cost-sharing formula that usually applies to
such projects, involving municipalities and the Quebec government.

Members of Citizens for a Sound Wall say they will attend the next
Beaconsfield city council meeting to ask for another update on
negotiations.


BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against BioMimetic Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action in the United States District Court,
Middle District of Tennessee is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased BMTI securities from
October 14, 2009, through May 11, 2011, inclusive.  The Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

BMTI's product, Augment(TM) Bone Graft, is a fully synthetic, off-
the-shelf bone growth factor product for the treatment of bone
defects and injuries.  The Company's primary focus is obtaining
market approval for Augment, and preparing for the anticipated
commercial launch of Augment in the United States, the European
Union and Australia.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants conditioned investors to
believe that FDA approval of Augment would be forthcoming through
a host of materially false and misleading statements regarding the
status of Augment's ongoing clinical studies, and the safety and
efficacy of the Company's product.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding: (a) the
Company's business, operations, management, future business
prospects and the intrinsic value of BMTI's common stock; (b) the
safety and efficacy of Augment and its prospects for FDA approval;
and (c) the woeful inadequacies of Augment's clinical trials.  As
a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 10, 2011, the FDA published briefing documents on Augment
that were critical of Augment's clinical trial, stating the "FDA
still has clinical concerns with the safety and overall
risk/benefit of the device at this time, primarily due to the
unanswered question of safety in regards to the potential for
cancer formation versus an unproven benefit in the current
standard for care."

On this news, BMTI's stock price plummeted approximately $4.73 or
over 35% and closed at $8.66 on unusually heavy volume.

On May 13, 2011, BMTI disclosed that the FDA Panel voted by a
narrow margin of 10-8 in favor of Augment's efficacy, making it
highly unlikely that the device will receive FDA approval without
requiring additional trials, substantially delaying the launch of
the product.

As a result of the news regarding the narrow Panel vote, BMTI
shares declined nearly 12% or $1.095 and closed at $8.105.

If you are a shareholder who purchased BMTI securities during the
Class Period, you have until September 6, 2011, to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact:

          Rachelle R. Boyle, Esq.
          Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
          Telephone: 888-476-6529 (ext. 350)
          E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington.


BLUE CROSS: Class Action Lacks Standing Under State Law
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a ruling last month, said a
construction company and its owner lack standing under state law
to challenge a health insurer's corporate actions.

Robert Petty is the sole owner of construction company R.G. Petty
Masonry.  Petty Masonry contracts with Blue Cross of Northeastern
Pennsylvania to provide health insurance coverage for its
employees.

Mr. Petty and his company filed a four-count class action lawsuit
against Blue Cross on behalf of Blue Cross policyholders,
subscribers and members.  The action asserted four separate
theories of relief.

In the first count, the appellants alleged Blue Cross violated 15
Pa.C.S. Sec. 5545 of the Nonprofit Law by accumulating excessive
profits and surplus well beyond the "incidental profit" permitted
by the statute.  The second count alleged Blue Cross breached its
contract with appellants by violating the Nonprofit Law, which was
incorporated into the contract, and also breached its inherent
duty of good faith and fair dealing by amassing the excess
surplus.  The third count contended Blue Cross owed appellants a
fiduciary duty by virtue of their status as subscribers and
policyholders, and the insurer breached this duty when it accrued
the excess surplus.  The fourth count requested an inspection of
Blue Cross' business records and bylaws.

A trial court found appellants lacked standing to challenge Blue
Cross' alleged violations of the Nonprofit Law, as they did not
fall within the standing limitations set by 15 Pa.C.S.
Sec. 5793(a).

In reaching this conclusion, the court examined Blue Cross'
incorporating documents and concluded appellants possessed no
particular governance rights bringing them within Sec. 5793(a)'s
parameters.

The trial court then conducted what it termed a "traditional"
standing analysis, and found appellants could not establish common
law standing since they could not show they were aggrieved by
either a breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty by Blue
Cross.

The court reasoned the parties had a contractual relationship for
insurance for payment of health care services, and appellants were
not alleging any breach of that contractual relationship.  It
said, the appellants had no protected property rights in their
particular rates and had the remedy of shopping elsewhere if
dissatisfied.

The court also rejected the notion that appellants adequately
articulated a breach of fiduciary duty claim since Blue Cross'
only fiduciary duty to appellants specifically related to the
performance of its duties under the insurance contract.

The commonwealth court affirmed the trial court's decision,
holding that the appellants were mere Blue Cross customers.  The
court said nothing in the articles of incorporation or bylaws
afforded them rights equivalent to "a member, officer or member of
another body."

The state's highest court granted allocatur to consider the
following questions:

   -- Whether policyholders and subscribers who have purchased
medical insurance from a nonprofit corporation have standing under
15 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5793(a) of the Non Profit Corporation Law of 1988
to challenge the corporation's actions in court?

   -- Whether policyholders and subscribers who have purchased
medical insurance from a nonprofit corporation have standing to
maintain a breach of contract claim for the nonprofit
corporation's alleged violation of other provisions of the Non
Profit Corporation Law of 1988, such as 15 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5545?

   -- Also, whether policy holders who have purchased medical
insurance from a nonprofit corporation may maintain a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty against that corporation for its alleged
excess accumulation of surplus profits?

Justice J. Michael Eakin authored the Court's June 20 opinion.

Mr. Eakin said Mr. Petty and his construction company do not
exhibit the "necessary characteristics" required by the
Legislature.

The Court found that the appellants lack standing to maintain a
breach of contract claim for Blue Cross' alleged Nonprofit Law
violation.  It also found that the appellants may not maintain a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the insurer.

Blue Cross' fiduciary duty under the contract, the Court said,
does not include a duty to "make proper business decisions."

"Again, we note appellants do not seek to address Blue Cross'
breach of the insurance contract, but rather seek to attack
corporate actions outside of the contractual terms to reach
behavior at the core of the corporation's business functions," the
Court wrote.

"Appellants' attempt to assert a breach of fiduciary duty is
simply another attempt, be it under a different name, to attack
Blue Cross' business-making actions and decisions."

The Court affirmed the commonwealth court's ruling.


CALIFORNIA: May Face Class Action Over Internet Sales Tax
---------------------------------------------------------
Net Literacy disclosed that on June 29, 2011, California joined
the growing number of states collecting Internet sales taxes and
the new tax collection is expected to raise an estimated $317
million dollars a year in new state and local government revenue.
But the litigation underway in other states may determine if
California is ultimately able to keep these taxes.  Should the
current statues taxing inter-state e-commerce be found to be
facially unconstitutional, taxes on inter-state e-commerce may
have to be refunded.  Class action suits may be a remedy that
states such as California will be required to contend with, Net
Literacy predicts.

"Net Literacy believes that current statutes taxing inter-state e-
commerce are facially unconstitutional because they violate the
Commerce Clause and Federal legislation," says Net Literacy's
Daniel Kent in a whitepaper entitled A Discourse on the Discordant
State of Collecting Domestic Digital Duties.  "Should the current
litigation be found in favor of the e-commerce merchants such as
Amazon, taxpayer refunds of these will adversely impact state
budgets."

Since 2007, reductions in states' tax collections have accelerated
their efforts to identify new sources of revenue.  States are
redefining the definition of "substantial nexus" or the physical
presence of out-of-state e-commerce to avoid running afoul of
constitutional challenges.  Because technology has been moving
faster than legislation has been enacted, ambiguities have been
created.

"A loss of sales tax revenues from inter-state e-commerce during a
slow economic recovery is putting added pressure on states working
to balance their budgets," said Mr. Kent.  Many states require
their citizens to pay use taxes on e-commerce purchases made out
of state.  Also, Streamlined Sales Tax Executive Director Scott
Peterson said that more than 1,500 companies registered on the
central registration system have collected $700 million in sales
taxes for the Streamlined states.  "With the recent legislation
passed in California, Illinois, and other states, the amount of
taxes collected on inter-state e-commerce sales will dramatically
increase in the future together with states? potential
liabilities," said Mr. Kent.

The principal of prospective retroactivity has been raised by some
state officials discussing their state's liability should the
inter-state e-commerce litigation be decided against them.  To Net
Literacy's knowledge, a class action suit has not yet been filed
by taxpayers seeking redress for payment of unconstitutional state
taxes or by businesses seeking to recover administrative costs of
collecting the taxes and for the associated loss of sales and
profits.

This whitepaper is available at:

     http://www.netliteracy.org/whitepapers-fcc-filings

                       About Net Literacy

Net Literacy -- http://www.netliteracy.org-- is a student-
operated 501(c)3 nonprofit focusing on increasing digital
inclusion and digital literacy.  Founded in 2003, Net Literacy has
increased computer access to over 150,000 Americans, been honored
by two American Presidents, and been cited by the FCC in the
National Broadband Plan.


CLEARWATER BAY: Made Usurious Loans in Illinois, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyanna Qualls, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members
described below v. Clearwater Bay Marketing, LLC, d/b/a Sandpoint
Capital and Tim Coppinger, Case No. 2011-CH-23698 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., July 05, 2011) is brought to secure redress from
usurious loans made over the Internet to Illinois residents by
Clearwater.  The Plaintiff alleges that Clearwater violated the
Illinois Interest Act, the Illinois Payday Loan Reform Act, and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by offering and making illegal
loans.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Clearwater is a limited liability company chartered under the law
of Missouri.  Mr. Coppinger is president, sole director and owner
of Clearwater.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, 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


CVS CAREMARK: Faces Nationwide Class Action Over Double-Billing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., and Cohen & Malad,
LLP of Indianapolis have filed a nationwide class action lawsuit
against CVS Caremark, the largest pharmacy health care provider in
the United States and the owners of CVS.com, for allegedly double-
billing its customers for the price of prescription drugs.

The Complaint alleges that CVS's nationwide billing system double-
bills the price of prescription drugs to CVS customers who have a
high deductible health plan that is coupled with a health
reimbursement account or health savings account (HSA) and who use
a prescription drug coupon.  CVS's billing system isn't equipped
to handle this coordination of benefits, and as a result, CVS
uniformly double-bills these customers -- taking cash from the
customer at the time of sale and then later taking cash from their
HSA.

The class action lawsuit was filed in state court in Cincinnati on
July 5, 2011.  It brings class action claims on behalf of all CVS
customers who were allegedly double-billed the price of
prescription drugs and seeks damages on behalf of those customers
estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands across the country.

David Cutshaw, a partner at Cohen & Malad, LLP, said "It's
unfortunate that in these tough economic times, hard working
Americans are being taken advantage of and charged twice for
prescription drugs by CVS.  Prescription drugs are high enough the
way it is.  This lawsuit seeks to make CVS pay refunds it owes to
its customers."

The case is currently pending in Hamilton County, Ohio, Case No.
A1105191, Erickson vs. CVS Caremark Corporation.

Cohen and Malad, LLP is an Indianapolis law firm that has a record
of representing classes of injured plaintiffs for over 25 years.

With offices in Cincinnati, Denver, Cody, and Phoenix, Burg
Simpson is a firm of lawyers practicing in the areas of personal
injury lawsuits, class actions, medical malpractice lawsuits,
dangerous drug litigation, unsafe products, insurance bad faith,
employment law, commercial and securities litigation.


DUNCAN ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Texas Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Duncan Energy Partners is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Enterprise
Products Partners, for $2.5 billion, or $43.82 a share,
shareholders say.

A copy of the Complaint in Davis, et al. v. Duncan Energy Partners
L.P., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02486 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/06/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          Lauren E. Rosner, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsumeda.com
                  soddo@robbinsumeda.com
                  jrieger@robbinsumeda.com
                  lrosner@robbinsumeda.com

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
          Saint Ann Court
          2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2257
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com


G. WILLI FOOD: Continues to Defend Suit Over Calorie Markings
-------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit related to markings of calorie value in a product,
according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 2010, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit alleging that it misled its customers by illegally
marking a lower calorie value of a product than its real value.
The groups which the lawsuit desires to represent include any
Israeli resident who bought this product due to such person's
preference for low calorie product.  The plaintiff appraises the
group's damages at NIS2.5 million (approximately $700,000).  On
January 2011, the Company presented the prosecution with an
official notice from the products manufacturer together with test
results from an external laboratory that the calorie value
indicated on the product was accurate.  At the current preliminary
stage of the dispute, the Company's management and legal counsel
cannot assess the chances of the parties.


G. WILLI FOOD: Suit Over Misleading Labels of Imports Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against G. Willi-Food
International Ltd. relating to labeling of imports remains
pending, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 2011, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit alleging that it misled its customers by
misleadingly labeling a product that the Company imports.  The
groups, which the lawsuit desires to represent, include any
Israeli resident who bought this product due to such person's
preference.  The plaintiff appraises the group's damage at
NIS3 million (approximately $845,000).

An application was filed to approve a class action in accordance
with the Israeli Class Action Law (2006).  At the current
preliminary stage of the dispute, the Company's management and
legal counsel cannot assess the chances of the parties.


INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq Faces Five Class Action Suits in Israel
------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Bezeq The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., is facing five class action
lawsuits in Israel, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings
and other claims from time to time, including disputes with
customers, commercial disputes with third parties with whom they
do business and disputes with government entities.  The disputes
with customers include purported class actions regarding claims.

From time to time, claims arising in the ordinary course of the
Company's business are brought against it and its subsidiaries.
In the opinion of their management, no currently existing claims,
which are not reserved in their financial statements will have a
material adverse effect on their financial position, liquidity or
results of operations.

Bezeq is party to these class action proceedings related to its
business:

   (a) In November 2006, a claim was filed in the Tel Aviv
       District Court against Bezeq, seeking certification as a
       class action, in the amount of approximately NIS189
       million ($53.25 million), alleging unlawful collection of
       money in cases of disconnection of service due to
       non-payment.  Following Bezeq's opposition to the
       plaintiff's effort to broaden the claim, the plaintiff
       filed an additional claim in the Central District Court in
       February 2011, with an application for its certification
       as a class action, for approximately NIS44 million ($12
       million), in the matter of rebate of payment for
       "associated services" in respect of the period in which
       the line was disconnected;

   (b) In November 2006, a claim and motion for certification as
       a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
       against Bezeq, Pelephone Communications Ltd., HOT Telecom,
       Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Company
       Ltd., in the amount of NIS 158 million ($45 million).  The
       plaintiffs allege that when completing a call made from a
       cellular line to a fixed line, if the call is disconnected
       by the fixed line call recipient (and not by the cellular
       line call initiator), Bezeq and HOT delay sending the
       disconnection signal for approximately 60 seconds, and as
       a result, they incur a charge which is reflected in
       airtime costs and interconnect fees.  In a procedural
       arrangement reached between the parties, it was decided
       that the claim would be heard against Bezeq and HOT, while
       the claim against Pelephone, Partner and Cellcom would be
       heard as part of a similar claim filed against them in
       August 2006 for NIS 100 million.  On October 28, 2010, the
       Court denied the application and on December 16, 2010, the
       plaintiffs filed an appeal against the decision in the
       Supreme Court;

   (c) On July 12, 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification
       as a class action were filed against Bezeq in the Central
       District Court, alleging that Bezeq offers its customers
       calling plans for a fixed monthly payment which results in
       loss of money for the customers for whom the calling plans
       are not worthwhile, and misleads them.  The plaintiff is
       claiming restitution of the difference between the amount
       paid by the customers under the monthly calling plan and
       the amount that they would have paid for a standard
       calling plan, a sum it estimates at "tens of millions of
       shekels," as well as compensation of NIS1,500 ($423) per
       customer for alleged intrusion of privacy;

   (d) In October 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as
       a class action were filed against Bezeq in the Tel Aviv
       District Court, in which it is alleged that Bezeq is
       operating in violation of the Consumer Protection Law in
       that it fails to provide its customers with a written
       document stating the details required under that law at
       the time it effects a change or addition to an ongoing
       transaction.  The plaintiff is petitioning for an order
       and declaratory relief instructing Bezeq to comply with
       the provisions of the law as well as monetary relief
       (financial and non-financial) commencing October 10, 2008,
       through the date of filing the lawsuit, in the amount of
       NIS98 million ($27.6 million).  In October 2010, similar
       claims were filed by plaintiffs represented by the same
       lawyer against other Company subsidiaries: Pelephone
       Communications Ltd., Bezeq International Ltd. and DBS
       Satellite Service (1998) Ltd.; and

   (e) In January 2011, these four claims together with
       applications for their certification as class actions were
       filed against Bezeq arising from a malfunction in its
       network on January 25, 2011: (i) a claim estimated at
       NIS104 million ($29 million) in the Nazareth District
       Court; (ii) a claim estimated at NIS135 million ($ 38.03
       million) in the Central District Court; (iii) a claim
       estimated at NIS84 million ($24 million) in the Haifa
       District Court, and (iv) a claim estimated at NIS217
       million ($61 million) in the Tel Aviv District Court.
       According to the plaintiffs, Bezeq's customers were
       disconnected from its services and were unable to make
       proper use of their telephone lines, as a result of which
       they allegedly suffered various losses.

Bezeq makes provisions in its financial statements for certain of
the legal proceedings to which it is a party.  These provisions
are aggregated into groups based on the type of activity and
claim.  As of March 31, 2010, Bezeq has made an aggregate
provision of NIS358 million ($100.1 million) for its pending
litigation.  Bezeq believes that as of March 31, 2010, its
aggregate additional exposure due to claims filed against
companies within the Bezeq Group that are unlikely to be realized,
amounts to NIS12.3 billion ($3.47 billion).  In addition, Bezeq
has not yet assessed additional outstanding claims in the
aggregate amount of NIS233 million ($65.6 million) as of such
date.  The amounts do not include additional potential exposure
that Bezeq may have attributable to pending motions to certify
lawsuits as class actions that do not state the amount claimed if
the motion is approved.


INTERNET GOLD: Hearings on Class Standing vs. Pelephone Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings on motions to certify certain lawsuits as class actions
against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. are
ongoing, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings
and other claims from time to time, including disputes with
customers, commercial disputes with third parties with whom they
do business and disputes with government entities.  The disputes
with customers include purported class actions regarding claims.

From time to time, claims arising in the ordinary course of the
Company's business are brought against it and its subsidiaries.
In the opinion of their management, no currently existing claims,
which are not reserved in their financial statements will have a
material adverse effect on their financial position, liquidity or
results of operations.

The Company's subsidiary, Pelephone Communications Ltd., is
currently involved in these class action lawsuits:

   (a) In August 2006, a lawsuit and motion for certification as
       a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
       against Pelephone, Cellcom Israel Ltd. and Partner
       Communications Company Ltd.  The plaintiffs allege that
       when Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., or
       HOT Telecom customers initiate the termination of a call
       made to the customer from a cellular network there is an
       excess charge until the call is actually disconnected.
       The total amount sought in the lawsuit, if certified as a
       class action, is approximately NIS100 million ($28.2
       million).  In a procedural arrangement reached between the
       parties, it was determined that this lawsuit would be
       combined with a similar lawsuit filed against the
       defendants in November 2006.  The hearing on the motion to
       certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway;

   (b) In December 2007, a lawsuit and motion for certification
       as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District
       Court against Pelephone, Cellcom and Partner.  The
       plaintiffs claim that the defendants have exposed them to
       radiation from cellular antennae that were allegedly
       unlawfully established and as a result, have caused damage
       to their health.  The total amount sought in the lawsuit,
       if certified as a class action, is approximately NIS1
       billion ($282 million).  The hearing on the motion to
       certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway;

   (c) In July 2008, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
       class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court.
       The plaintiffs are seeking the refund of amounts that they
       allege was unlawfully collected from Pelephone's
       subscribers in connection with "dial-on" calls from
       Bezeq's information service, late payments and for
       services provided at Pelephone's service centers, in
       violation of Pelephone's license.  The total amount sought
       in the lawsuit, if certified as a class action, is
       approximately NIS240 million ($67.6 million).  A decision
       on the motion is pending;

   (d) In August 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as
       a class action were filed in the Central Region District
       Court.  The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory relief that
       Pelephone unlawfully saves text messages sent via its
       network, an order that Pelephone delete the information,
       an injunction to prevent Pelephone from saving text
       messages in the future and monetary relief in an amount to
       be determined by the Court.  The parties are waiting for
       the Attorney General to provide his position with respect
       to a settlement reached by the parties.  The hearing on the
       motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is
       underway;

   (e) In August 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as
       a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
       against Pelephone, Shamir Systems Ltd., and Unicell
       Advanced Cellular Solutions Ltd.  The plaintiffs are
       seeking the refund of amounts allegedly unlawfully
       collected by the respondents (which are charged through
       the cellular bill issued by Pelephone) for data services
       provided by Shamir and Unicell.  The total amount sought
       in the lawsuit, if certified as a class action, is
       approximately NIS200 million ($56.4 million).  The
       plaintiffs are also seeking an order instructing the
       respondents to discontinue the collection of such amount.
       The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit as a
       class action is underway;

   (f) In October 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as
       a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
       against Pelephone, alleging that Pelephone is in violation
       of its license in connection with benefits offered to
       customers and customer commitment periods.  The plaintiff
       is seeking compensation in a total amount, if the lawsuit
       if certified as a class action, of approximately NIS331
       million ($93.3 million).  The hearing on the motion to
       certify the lawsuit as a class action is underway;

   (g) In March 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
       class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
       against Pelephone and Cellcom.  The plaintiffs have
       asserted an unjust enrichment claim against Pelephone on
       the basis that in alleged violation of its license,
       Pelephone has allegedly failed to procure insurance
       covering liability for bodily harm caused by exposure to
       cellular radiation.  The total amount sought in the
       lawsuit, if certified as a class action, is approximately
       NIS4.2 billion ($1.18 billion), of which NIS2.1 billion
       ($509 million) is sought from Pelephone.  The plaintiffs
       are also seeking an order instructing Pelephone to obtain
       such insurance.  The hearing on the motion to certify the
       lawsuit as a class action is underway and the next court
       date is scheduled for October 2011;

   (h) In May 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
       class action were filed in the Central District Court
       against Pelephone and three other cellular operators.  The
       plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated their duty
       to establish cellular antenna sites in the required amount
       and spread, that they violated their duty to test, repair
       and provide notice regarding levels of non-ionizing
       radiation emitted from cellular phones after they have
       been repaired, and also violated their duty to provide a
       warning with respect to the hazard involved in the holding
       of cellular phones.  The plaintiffs are seeking aggregate
       compensation from Pelephone of approximately NIS3.68
       billion ($1.04 billion) and aggregate compensation from
       all of the defendants of approximately NIS12 billion
       ($3.38 billion).  The next hearing on the motion to
       certify the lawsuit as a class action has not been
       scheduled;

   (i) In June 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
       class action were filed in the Central District Court
       against Pelephone, alleging that Pelephone unlawfully
       charges its customers for several services that were not
       requested by the customers and transferred customers'
       details to third party suppliers without their consent.
       The plaintiff is seeking compensation for personal damages
       in the amount of NIS958 (approximately $270).  The total
       amount of the lawsuit if certified as a class action was
       not indicated in the lawsuit, but the lawsuit estimates it
       would be hundreds of millions of NIS.  The hearing on the
       motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is
       underway and the next court date is scheduled for October
       2011;

   (j) In August 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as
       a class action were filed in the Central District Court
       against Pelephone.  The amount of the claim is not stated,
       but the application is estimated in the tens of millions
       of NIS.  According to the plaintiff, Pelephone should
       refrain from collecting Value Added Tax from customers who
       use its services when they are outside Israel.  The
       plaintiff is also seeking an order instructing Pelephone
       to cease charging its customers VAT on the services they
       use outside Israel, and an order instructing that the VAT
       collected to date on those services be reimbursed;

   (k) In October 2010, a lawsuit and motion to certify it as a
       class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
       against Pelephone.  The plaintiff alleged that Pelephone
       is operating in contravention of the Consumer Protection
       Law, by failing to provide its customers with a written
       document containing the details required under the
       Consumer Protection Law, when entering into an agreement
       for changing or adding to a continuing transaction.  The
       plaintiff is applying for a writ of mandamus and
       declaratory relief which will direct Pelephone to comply
       with the provisions of such law and for monetary damages
       of NIS98 million ($27.6 million) for the period from
       October 2008 until the date the claim was filed;

   (l) In January 2011, a lawsuit and motion for certification as
       a class action were filed in the Jerusalem District Court
       against Pelephone.  The plaintiff alleged that he
       purchased two Samsung handsets but was unable to use them
       for surfing the Internet even though he purchased surfing
       services.  The plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount
       of NIS150  million ($42.3 million); and

   (m) On June 6, 2011, a lawsuit and motion to certify it as a
       class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
       against Pelephone and three other cellular phone
       companies.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendants sold
       and continue to sell accessories designed to allow mobile
       devices to be worn on one's body in a manner that is
       contrary to the instructions of the mobile device
       manufacturers and the Ministry of Health's recommendations
       on radiation.  According to the plaintiff, he suffered
       personal damage of NIS1,000 and is also entitled to
       reimbursement for the cost of the accessories.  In the
       plaintiff's estimation, the total amount sought from
       Pelephone is approximately NIS503 million ($42 million).


INTERNET GOLD: Bezeq International Defends Suits Pending in Israel
------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Bezeq
International Ltd., continues to defend several class action
lawsuits pending in Israel, according to the Company's June 30,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings
and other claims from time to time, including disputes with
customers, commercial disputes with third parties with whom they
do business and disputes with government entities.  The disputes
with customers include purported class actions regarding claims.

From time to time, claims arising in the ordinary course of the
Company's business are brought against it and its subsidiaries.
In the opinion of their management, no currently existing claims,
which are not reserved in their financial statements will have a
material adverse effect on their financial position, liquidity or
results of operations.

These four lawsuits and motions for certification as a class
action were filed against Bezeq International by plaintiffs, who
claim that Bezeq International's international calling cards to
certain foreign destinations provide less than the amount of time
indicated on the cards:

   (1) a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action
       were filed in April 2008 in the Tel Aviv District Court
       with respect to international calling cards to Nepal.  The
       plaintiffs are seeking compensation aggregating NIS115
       million ($32.4 million), if the lawsuit is certified as a
       class action;

   (2) a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action
       were filed in April 2008 in the Tel Aviv District Court
       with respect to international calling cards to the
       Philippines.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensation
       aggregating NIS566 million ($159.5 million), if the
       lawsuit is certified as a class action;

   (3) a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action
       was filed in April 2008 in the Central Region District
       Court with respect to international calling cards to
       Thailand.  The lawsuit was subsequently transferred to the
       Tel Aviv District Court.  The plaintiffs are seeking
       compensation aggregating NIS478 million ($134.7 million),
       if the lawsuit is certified as a class action; and

   (4) a lawsuit and motion for certification as a class action
       was filed in June 2008 in the Tel Aviv District Court with
       respect to international calling cards to Thailand.  The
       plaintiffs are seeking compensation aggregating NIS478
       million ($134.7 million), if the lawsuit is certified as a
       class action.

The plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits also allege that Bezeq
International unlawfully deducted the time spent when
unsuccessfully attempting to call someone from the card and formed
a cartel with other international communication companies that
raised the prices of calling cards.  They also petitioned the
Court to order Bezeq International to cease the foregoing acts.
The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuits as a class
action is underway.  The lawsuits are being heard together in the
Tel Aviv District Court, although their proceedings have not
formally been consolidated.

Bezeq International is also a party to these class action
proceedings:

   -- On May 4, 2009, a lawsuit and motion for certification as a
      class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court.
      The plaintiff is seeking reimbursement of excess amounts
      allegedly unlawfully collected by Bezeq International for
      services that the plaintiff claims he did not order and for
      the increase of the rate for Internet access after the
      first year.  The plaintiff is seeking personal compensation
      for NIS2.8 billion ($789 million) and if certified as a
      class action, for NIS216 million ($60.9 million) for the
      entire class.  On June 12, 2011, the court approved the
      withdrawal of the plaintiff from the lawsuit;

   -- On January 24, 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification
      as a class action were filed in the Central Region District
      Court against Bezeq International and four other
      communication licensees.  The plaintiffs are seeking
      reimbursement of the amounts allegedly unlawfully collected
      for calls made to the technical support call centers.  The
      total amount of the claim against Bezeq International, if
      certified as a class action, is NIS105 million ($29.6
      million).  The hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit
      as a class action is underway; and

   -- In October 2010, a lawsuit and motion for certification as
      a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court,
      seeking damages for NIS39 million ($11 million).  The
      claim alleges that Bezeq International does not provide its
      customers with a written document as required under the
      Consumer Protection Law, when entering into an agreement
      for changing or adding to a continuing transaction.
      Similar claims by other plaintiffs (represented by the same
      lawyer) were also filed against Bezeq International, and
      the Company's other subsidiaries, Pelephone Communications
      Ltd. and DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd.


INTERNET GOLD: DBS Satellite Continues to Defend Suits
------------------------------------------------------
DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold -
Golden Lines Ltd., continues to defend class action lawsuits
commenced in Israel, according to the Company's June 30, 2011,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in legal proceedings
and other claims from time to time, including disputes with
customers, commercial disputes with third parties with whom they
do business and disputes with government entities.  The disputes
with customers include purported class actions regarding claims.

From time to time, claims arising in the ordinary course of the
Company's business are brought against it and its subsidiaries.
In the opinion of their management, no currently existing claims,
which are not reserved in their financial statements will have a
material adverse effect on their financial position, liquidity or
results of operations.

These class action lawsuits are commenced against DBS:

   -- On October 3, 2007, a lawsuit and motion for certification
      as a class action were filed in the Tel Aviv District
      Court.  The plaintiff claims that due to reception
      disturbances in DBS's broadcasts in September 2007, daily
      malfunctions and long interruptions in television
      broadcasts were caused to DBS's subscribers and that DBS's
      service center was not operational during such time.  The
      plaintiffs are seeking aggregate compensation of
      approximately NIS 121 million ($34.1 million), if the
      lawsuit is certified as a class action.  The hearing on the
      motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is
      underway;

   -- On November 1, 2010, a motion for certification of a class
      action was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court seeking
      damages of NIS258 million ($72.7 million).  According to
      the plaintiff, DBS materially violated the provisions of
      the Consumer Protection Law regarding a transaction for a
      defined period of time, due to the failure to send a notice
      to its customers of the end of their term of commitment and
      its collection of improper payments at the end of the term
      of commitment.  The plaintiff alleged that DBS conditioned
      the return of the payments unlawfully collected from the
      customers in the engagement on another long-term
      commitment.  The plaintiff argues that as a result she
      incurred financial damages of NIS568 million ($160
      million), which is the full amount she paid as subscriber
      fee after the end of the term of commitment.  In addition,
      the plaintiff is suing for NIS5,000 million ($1,409
      million) as exemplary damages and/or damages in respect of
      non-financial damage incurred in respect of the alleged
      breaches of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law.
      The plaintiff estimates that the relevant group for the
      application for certification is 570,000 customers.  On
      March 31, 2011, DBS filed its response to the motion for
      certification by refuting the plaintiff's arguments,
      indicating: that it had adopted detailed procedures to
      comply with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law;
      that it is in compliance with the obligation imposed on it
      to notify its customers when an offer ends; and that an
      error had occurred with respect to the plaintiff which led
      to her not being identified by DBS's system as a customer
      approaching the end of her term of commitment.  On
      April 14, 2011, the court approved a motion filed by the
      parties to withdraw and dismiss the claim;

   -- On December 13, 2010, a motion for certification of a class
      action was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court seeking
      NIS600 million ($169 million) in damages.  The plaintiff
      alleged that DBS violated its obligation to its customers
      by omitting broadcasts it was committed to air in its
      "Basic Package," removed channels without approval, did not
      comply with the obligation to invest in quality programming
      and violated its obligations regarding the broadcast of
      commercials, promos and marketing and commercial content.
      The plaintiff alleged that as a result, he incurred damages
      estimated at NIS2,180 ($614).  This amount consists of
      NIS1,680 ($473) (10% of the total subscription fee the
      applicant paid in the seven years he was a subscriber of
      DBS as damages in respect of the damage he incurred due to
      non-broadcast of the programming DBS was obligated to air)
      and non-financial damages of NIS500 ($141) in respect of
      harm to personal autonomy.  The plaintiff defined the group
      as all of DBS's subscribers during the seven years
      prior to the filing of the action.  He estimates that the
      group numbers 800,000 subscribers.  The hearing on the
      motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action is
      underway; and

   -- On December 16, 2010, a motion for certification of a class
      action was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court seeking
      NIS50 million in damages.  The plaintiff alleged that DBS
      violated its obligation to its hearing impaired subscribers
      in that it did not comply with is obligations under the
      Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law (1998) and
      under the Television Broadcasting (Subtitles and Sign
      Language) Law (2005) and violated the directives of the
      Council in this regard.  In accordance with that
      allegation, the amount of damages claimed per customer is
      NIS10,000.  According to the estimate of the plaintiff at
      least 25,000 of the persons suffering from hearing
      impairment (of the 50,000 he claims are defined as hearing
      impaired) are DBS customers.  DBS has not yet filed its
      response to the motion for certification.


INTERNET GOLD: Petitioners Ordered to Pay NIS900,000
----------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court directed petitioners to pay costs totaling
NIS900,000 in the dismissed class action lawsuit against GoldMind
Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd., according
to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On June 1, 2011, the court decided to dismiss the motion to
certify a class action filed against several corporations
operating e-Commerce sites, including GoldMind's P1000 Web site.
The court ruled, among other things, that the petitioners did not
prove any of the pre-conditions for the certification of a class
action according to the Israeli law.  The court further ruled that
petitioners pay to respondents costs totaling approximately
NIS900,000.


INTERNET GOLD: Continues to Defend Suit Over Set-Top Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. continues to defend itself
against a purported class action lawsuit relating to set-top
boxes, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On October 7, 2010, a motion for approval of a class action
against the Company was filed in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa district court
for NIS98 million.  According to the applicant, the Company did
not comply with its obligation to provide the applicant and its
customers with a document that outlines their right to
cancellation should they make a change and/or addition to the
service provided to them under the ongoing transactions with it,
and as a result, the applicant allegedly incurred financial
damages of NIS124, which is the difference between the payment the
applicant made in respect of the new set-top box ("STB") and the
amount paid for the STB prior to the change over a period of three
months, and non-financial damage of NIS50 in respect of harm to
personal autonomy.  The applicant estimated that the total number
of members of the relevant group is approximately one million
subscribers.  The final date for submitting the Company's response
to the motion for certification was March 23, 2011.


INTERNET GOLD: Motion for Class Cert. in Commercial Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification in the lawsuit relating to
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s commercials, promos and
service announcements is pending, according to the Company's
June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 9, 2011, a motion for certification of a class action
against the Company was filed at the Tel Aviv-Jaffa district court
for NIS50 million.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company
violated its obligation, inter alia, pursuant to the
Communications (Telecommunications and Broadcasts) Law 5742-1982
and the Regulations for Restricting Volume during Commercials,
Promos and Other Broadcasts, 5769-2009.  The plaintiff contends
that these breaches are reflected in the volume in broadcasts of
the Company's commercials, promos and service announcements.  The
amount of the claim for each subscriber is NIS100, and the
plaintiff estimates that the group he seeks to represent includes
approximately 500,000 subscribers.  The Company has not yet
responded to the motion for certification.


LIVE NATION: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Service Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Branch Jr., writing for TicketNews, reports that live
entertainment giant Live Nation, which has had to fend off similar
legal challenges in the past, is facing a class action lawsuit in
Baltimore over the service fees the company charges on tickets.

Filed in the Northern Division of U.S. District Court in Maryland,
the lawsuit takes the unique approach of essentially accusing Live
Nation's Ticketmaster division of being a scalper by charging
above face value for tickets, which is against the law in the City
of Baltimore.

"The Defendants consistently and regularly sell tickets to events
in Baltimore City at prices far exceeding the face value of those
tickets," the lawsuit states.  Among other things, Defendants
impose and conspire to impose charges in addition to the face
value of tickets denominated as 'service charges,' 'convenience
fees,' 'processing fees,' and other unlawful charges
(collectively, 'service charges').  Because the Defendants sell
tickets to Baltimore City events, they are acting as 'ticket
agencies' under Baltimore City law -- but none of the Defendants
are licensed, as required, with Baltimore City.

"Even if the Defendants had been licensed 'ticket agencies,'
however, their activities described herein still would constitute
wholesale violations of Baltimore City scalping laws.  These laws,
designed to protect the public, are simply ignored by the
Defendants, who dominate the ticket sales market for events in
Baltimore City."

The lawsuit was filed by Baltimore resident Andre Bourgeois, who
bought tickets in 2009 to see Jackson Browne at the Lyric Opera
House that carried a face value of $52 each.  Ticketmaster then
allegedly tacked on additional services charges of $12 per ticket,
which represent more than 20% above the "value of the ticket."

The city prohibits ticket agencies from tacking on convenience
charges over $0.50 above face value, but Ticketmaster routinely
adds fees well in excess of the allowed amount, according to the
lawsuit.

"The Defendants, however, have completely ignored the restrictions
of Baltimore City law and have criminally overcharged their
customers," the lawsuit states.  "They have reaped huge financial
windfalls from operating outside of the rules which apply to them.
As a result of Defendants' actions described herein, Plaintiff and
the putative class defined herein assert claims for Money Had and
Received, Negligent Misrepresentation, violation of the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act, Deceit by Non- Disclosure or Concealment,
and violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act.

When reached by TicketNews on July 6, Maryland attorney Benjamin
Carney, who represents Bourgeois and the class, declined to
comment about the pending lawsuit.  A Live Nation spokesperson did
not return a message seeking comment.

The issue of service fees has long been a complicated one for
Ticketmaster, which created the business model of charging fees in
the 1980s and then splitting them with venues, promoters, sports
teams or others as an additional revenue driver.

Over the years, fans have continuously cried foul over the fees,
which at times have exceeded 40% for some events, and in an effort
to appease ticket buyer, Ticketmaster has occasionally sold
tickets with all-in pricing.  All-in pricing includes the face
value and all additional costs associated with a ticket in one
price.  In fact, Live Nation's recent discount ticketing deal with
Groupon includes all-in pricing.

In 2009, based on public finance reports, Ticketmaster generated
over $1 billion in revenues as a result of the fees, which were
charged on tickets worth a total of $8 billion, the lawsuit
estimates.

"Defendants represented to Mr. Bourgeois that the additional
service charges imposed on him were legitimate and collectible,"
the lawsuit states.  "Defendants did not disclose to Mr. Bourgeois
that they were not licensed as ticket agencies by the Baltimore
City Director of Finance.  Defendants also did not disclose to
Mr. Bourgeois that Defendants were prohibited by the Baltimore
City Code from imposing and collecting the additional service
charges which he paid.

"Despite full knowledge that Mr. Bourgeois and other Class members
could not be legally charged for additional service charges, the
Defendants willfully and knowingly charged Plaintiff and other
members of the Class service charges in excess of the face value
of each ticket they sold, as well as in excess of the $0.50
permissible service charges for licensed ticket agencies.
Defendants pocketed these illegal service charges, and refused to
credit any portion of them to the ticket purchases of Plaintiff
and members of the Class."


LONGTOP FIN'L: July 22 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Longtop
Financial Technologies Limited, announces a July 22, 2011,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Longtop Financial Technologies Limited between
May 15, 2009, and May 17, 2011, inclusive.

Longtop, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, and
delivers software solutions and information technology services to
the financial services industry in the People's Republic of China.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose, among other things: (1)
certain related party transactions relating to the Company's
purported major staffing company; (2) that the Company had vastly
overstated its operating margins; (3) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

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.  If you purchased Longtop securities between May 15,
2009, and May 17, 2011, you have certain rights and have until
July 22, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.  To be a member
of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you
may retain counsel of your choice.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215)638-4847,
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


MAIN STREET: Accused of Illegal Debt Collection in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Myers, individually and on behalf of the classes defined
herein and the People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Teresa
Myers v. Main Street Acquisition Corp., and Law Office of Keith S.
Schindler, Ltd., Case No. 2011-CH-23808 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
July 06, 2011) seeks redress for the conduct of Main Street in
taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois Collection
Agency Act.

Ms. Myers alleges that although required to be licensed under the
ICAA no later than January 1, 2008, Main Street did not obtain a
license until September 22, 2010.  She adds that between those
dates, Main Street collected debts from Illinois consumers,
including through lawsuits litigated by the Law Office of Keith S.
Shindler.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Illinois.

Main Street is a Nevada corporation and does business in Illinois.
The Firm is an Illinois corporation and regularly sought to
collect consumer debts originally owed to others.

Ms. Myers 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


MIZUNO USA: Recalls 131T Baseball & Softball Gloves due to Mold
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mizuno USA Inc., of Norcross, Georgia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 131,000 Mizuno Supreme Series and Ballpark Pro
baseball and softball gloves.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Some gloves were found to contain a variety of molds that could
cause respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic
health problems, or in individuals who have impaired immune
systems.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled items are leather Mizuno baseball and softball
gloves.  The gloves have a sewn-in white label on the heel of the
glove with the words "Made in Vietnam" and the model number.
Supreme Series gloves affected are further identified by the date
code imprinted on the heel of the glove near the thumb opening.
These models are affected by this recall:

   Model        Description                          Date Code
   -----        -----------                          ---------
   GSP1251TG    The glove is dark brown on the top     SV0910
                and palm sides with a yellow wrist     SV1110
                strap.  The words "SUPREME SERIES"     SV1210
                are stamped into the palm of the       SV0111
                gloves.                                SV0311

   GSP1300T     The glove is light tan on the top      SV0310
                and palm sides with a dark brown
                wrist strap and dark brown bindings.
                The words "SUPREME SERIES" are
                printed in dark brown on the palm of
                the gloves.

   GSP1401TG    The glove is dark tan on the top and   SV0610
                palm sides with a brown wrist strap    SV0910
                and dark brown bindings.  The words    SV1010
                "SUPREME SERIES" are printed in dark   SV1110
                brown on the palm of the gloves.       SV0111
                                                       SV0311

   MMX122P      The glove is dark brown on the top       N/A
                and palm sides with a dark brown
                wrist strap and dark brown bindings.
                The words "BALLPARK PRO" are printed
                in gold on the palm of the gloves.

   MMX115PWM    The glove is tan on the top and palm     N/A
                sides with a light tan wrist strap
                and dark brown bindings.  The words
                "BALLPARK PRO" are printed in dark
                brown on the palm of the gloves.

   MMX130       The glove is tan on the top with dark    N/A
                brown palm and webbing and tan wrist
                strap and bindings.  The words
                "BALLPARK PRO" are printed in gold on
                the palm of the gloves.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11271.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Walmart and Target stores nationwide from April 2010 through May
2011 for between $24 and $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the gloves and contact
Mizuno USA to receive a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Mizuno USA Inc. at (800) 451-7913 between 8:30 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Not Liable for Class Action Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that Nationstar
Mortgage is not liable under federal law for a class action that
claims it mailed "hundreds or thousands" of deceptive letters to
Texas homeowners, but it must still face claims under a broader
state law, a federal judge ruled.

San Antonio resident Naomi Boles said her home equity loan
provider, Nationstar Mortgage, accused her of falling behind on
payments.

Ms. Boles claimed the lender then retained a collections agency,
Moss Codilis LLP, which sent her a letter that stated: "If you
voluntarily surrender possession of the collateral specified
herein, you could still owe additional monies after the money
received from the sale of the collateral is deducted from the
total amount you owe."

In a seven-page complaint against Nationstar and Moss Codilis,
Ms. Boles accused both companies of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Texas Debt Collection Act
(TDCA).

"The letter misrepresents Texas law because Texas residents who
have obtained Texas home equity loans secured by their homesteads
have no personal liability for any deficiency owing on a home
equity loan," Judge Rodriguez wrote.

Ms. Boles sought certification to sue on behalf of those home
equity borrowers that received the same collection letter.

Nationstar moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it is not
a debt collector under either statute.  U.S. District Judge Xavier
Rodriguez agreed that Nationstar is not liable for Moss Codilis'
letter under the FDCPA, but pointed out that the Texas law gives
more leeway.

"The [Texas] statute separately defines third-party debt
collectors as any debt collector that falls within the FDCPA
definition," Judge Rodriguez wrote.  "Thus, the TDCA's definition
of a debt collector is broader than that under the FDCPA, and
includes creditors seeking to collect debts originated by them."

Both defendants have until August 30 to respond to the motion for
class certification.

A copy of the Order on Motion to Dismiss in Boles v. Moss Codilis,
LLP, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01003 (W.D. Tex.), is available at:

  http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/06/foreclosure%20order.pdf


NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Class Action Over Disability Funding Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tomsic, writing for WFAE 90.7 FM, reports that Disability
Rights North Carolina and two other advocacy groups are suing the
state for cutting services to people with developmental
disabilities.  The lawsuit claims the state didn't give enough
notice or a chance for patients to appeal the cuts.

The lawsuit focuses on four teenagers with severe developmental
disabilities in Union and Cabarrus counties.  But Vicki Smith of
Disability Rights North Carolina said more than 600 people had
their services reduced or cut altogether on July 1.

"The problem is that individuals are being told this change is
happening, it's happening to you, we understand that your
circumstances haven't changed, we've decided to use a new
methodology in terms of our business, and there's really nothing
you can do about it," Ms. Smith said.

Ms. Smith said the plaintiffs have been receiving services at home
or in the community, such as help with daily tasks and motor
skills.  The services are covered by Medicaid, but the state
Department of Health and Human Services is working with almost
$500 million less in the new state budget.

In a written statement, the Department of Health and Human
Services says it's still delivering an appropriate amount of care
to meet the medical needs of people with developmental
disabilities.

Disability advocates are asking a federal judge to certify their
lawsuit as a class-action.


SMITH & WESSON: Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation remains
pending, according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended April 30, 2011.

The case known as the In re Smith & Wesson Holding Corp.
Securities Litigation is a consolidation of three cases: William
Hwang v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.; Joe Cranford v.
Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.; and Joanne Trudelle v. Smith
& Wesson Holding Corp., et al.  It is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Springfield),
and is a purported securities class action lawsuit brought
individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities between June 15, 2007, and December 6, 2007.
The putative plaintiffs seek unspecified damages against the
Company, certain of its officers, and its directors for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed
Lead Plaintiff of the putative class.  On May 30, 2008, Lead
Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System
filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeking unspecified
damages against the Company and several officers and directors for
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On August 28, 2008, the Company and the named officers and
directors moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint
because it failed to state a claim under the federal securities
laws and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The putative class Lead Plaintiff submitted its Opposition to the
Company's motion on October 28, 2008.  On March 26, 2009, the
Company's motion was granted as to Barry M. Monheit, Chairman of
Board, and denied as to the remaining defendants.  On May 11,
2010, the court certified the consolidated action as consisting of
a class of persons who purchased the Company's securities between
June 15, 2007, and December 6, 2007, and suffered damage as a
result.  Court-scheduled discovery concerning the facts of this
action ended on May 28, 2010.  Examination of any experts put
forth by the parties ended on October 1, 2010.  On
October 29, 2010, the Company moved for summary disposition of the
case.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the motion on November 22, 2010, and
cross-moved for partial summary judgment.  A hearing of this
matter was held on December 20, 2010.  On March 25, 2011, the
Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all
remaining defendants, and dismissed the consolidated actions with
prejudice.  Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal of that dismissal
on April 21, 2011.  Plaintiff has not appealed Mr. Monheit's
dismissal and the time for such an appeal has now past.  Deadline
for Plaintiff to file its Appellant Brief was July 5, 2011.


STERLING JEWELERS: Gender Bias Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
A group of women who claim they were paid less than men while
working for Sterling Jewelers, Inc., can seek to pursue their
claims as class action in arbitration against the national jewelry
chain, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, ruled on July 1.
The ruling in Jock et. al v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., should pave
the way for the women who have worked at Sterling's stores to seek
class certification of the gender discrimination claims.

"This is a well-justified vote of confidence for the arbitration
process," said the claimant's lead counsel Joseph M. Sellers, of
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.  "This decision clears the way
for these women to proceed with their long-standing gender
discrimination claims in the hopes of bringing them to a
successful conclusion."

The female employees sued Sterling Jewelers in 2008, contending
that they were paid less than male co-workers and denied equal
opportunity for promotion.  The case was referred to the American
Arbitration Association because Sterling's alternative dispute
resolution program requires that such claims go to arbitration.
Sixteen women brought the case in their own names and on behalf of
other women that are situated similarly and will seek
certification as a class action.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission previously had
determined there was reasonable cause to believe that Sterling had
subjected female employees to a pattern of discrimination in their
pay and promotion practices.

Sterling has denied the women's claims and argued that its
arbitration program, called RESOLVE, barred them from pursuing
their claims as a class action.  In 2009, the arbitrator ruled
that Sterling's RESOLVE program did not prohibit the women from
bringing pursuing their claims collectively in arbitration.
Sterling appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, which upheld the arbitrator's ruling.

Sterling asked the District Court to reconsider its ruling after a
U.S. Supreme Court decision in another case held that an
arbitration agreement did not permit class arbitration.  Based on
the Supreme Court's ruling in that case, Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v.
AnimalFeeds International Corp., the District Court held in 2010
that the arbitrator exceeded her powers in allowing the claimants
to seek to proceed collectively against Sterling.

Attorneys for the women appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit located in New York, which ruled in their favor
in a 25-page decision issued on July 1.  "In sum, we hold that the
arbitrator did not exceed her authority in determining that the
agreement permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their effort to
certify a class in the arbitration proceedings," the Court stated.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are:

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Jenny R. Yang, Esq.
          Kalpana Kotagal, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Tel: 202-408-4600
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  jyang@cohenmilstein.com
                  kkotagal@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Thomas Warren, Esq.
          THOMAS A. WARREN LAW OFFICES PL
          2032 Thomasville Rd, #D
          Tallahassee, FL 32308 -0734
          Tel: (850) 385-1551

               - and -

          Sam Smith, Esq.
          Burr & Smith LLP
          Grand Central Place
          442 W Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Tel: 813-253-2010


SUPERMEDIA INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Allen Vaught of Baron and Budd, P.C. on July 6 announced
the recent filing of a class action federal Fair Labor Standards
Act lawsuit charging that SuperMedia, Inc., formerly known as
Idearc, Inc., wrongfully denied hundreds of inside sales employees
overtime compensation over the preceding three year period.
Federal law clearly requires that an employee's base salary in
addition to all commissions be included in calculating the
overtime pay rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
However, SuperMedia failed to include sales commissions in the
calculation of the overtime pay due its sales employees.  Given
the number of employees in addition to the time period involved,
SuperMedia potentially denied its employees millions of dollars in
overtime compensation.

"It is hard to believe that in the year 2011, any American company
would manipulate the legally required compensation due its
employees," said Allen Vaught, head of Baron and Budd's FLSA
litigation section.  "The overtime compensation laws have been on
the books since the 1930s.  This class action lawsuit is about
economic justice for the hundreds of current and former sales
employees of SuperMedia and its predecessor Idearc.  SuperMedia
has been successful because of its sales employees and should pay
these workers the federally required wages they are due."

SuperMedia is a publicly traded company that primarily sells print
and online advertising to small and medium sized businesses.
According to its most recent Form 10-K filing, it is "one of the
largest yellow pages directory publishers in the United States as
measured by revenue."  It also offers "online advertising
solutions."  Additionally, it offers direct mail services to its
customers.  SuperMedia advertises that it is "the official
publisher of Verizon Communications, Inc. print directories in
which Verizon is currently the incumbent local telephone exchange
carrier."

Current and former SuperMedia and Idearc sales employees who wish
to report their work experiences or learn more about the lawsuit
or their legal rights should visit
http://www.supermediaovertimelawsuit.comor
http://www.facebook.com/supermedia.overtime.lawsuit

The Web site and Facebook group will allow witnesses and claimants
to contact Baron and Budd attorney Allen Vaught directly.

The lawsuit, entitled Palmer v. Supermedia Inc., Case No.3:11-cv-
01647-B, was filed in United States District Court in Dallas,
Texas on July 1, 2011.

                     About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, Baton
Rouge, Austin, Los Angeles and Miami, represents individuals,
governmental and business entities in areas as diverse as water
contamination, Gulf oil spill, Qui Tam, California Proposition 65
violations, dangerous medications and medical devices, Chinese
drywall, insurance claims, commercial litigation, securities fraud
and asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma.


SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA: Judge Allows Tar Pond Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a judge says a case against the
federal and Nova Scotia governments involving the former Sydney
steel plant can proceed as a class-action lawsuit.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice John Murphy says he's satisfied
the plaintiffs' arguments meet the test to qualify for such a
suit.

The lawsuit is being prepared on behalf of people who claim their
health and properties have been harmed by living near the plant
and the tar ponds.

The toxic tar ponds were the byproduct of roughly a century of
steelmaking in Sydney and are now being remediated.

Ray Wagner, the plaintiffs' lawyer, says he is thrilled the case
will go ahead after seven years of fighting to have it certified.

He says it could involve tens of thousands of people who allege
that their land and health has been contaminated by lead, arsenic
and other toxins.

Separately, The Cape Breton Post reports that the Nova Scotia
Supreme Court justice ruled he will certify the lawsuit partially
based on boundaries their lawyers proposed.

Justice Murphy said he will certify the action in the property
owner class based on boundaries of the neighborhoods of Whitney
Pier, Ashby and north end Sydney proposed by the plaintiffs.
However, he decided to exclude the areas of Hardwood Hill and St.
Rita's.

Justice Murphy also ruled that using levels of lead contamination
as a proxy for other contaminants as proposed by the plaintiffs
can be a reasonable approach to setting boundaries.  He noted the
distribution of lead is much less broad than other contaminants
and seems to be closer to the defendants' facilities.

Justice Murphy also accepted plaintiffs' argument that living in
one of the neighborhoods for at least seven years should qualify
someone to be included in the residential class.  He also said he
won't exclude those who worked at the plant, as the defendants --
the provincial and federal governments -- wanted.

He noted that just because someone is included in the class
doesn't mean their case will succeed.

Justice Murphy earlier found that the original class boundaries
proposed by the plaintiffs were too broad.

Justice Murphy says the claim does have a community basis and
individual lawsuits would be too expensive and unwieldy.

The federal and provincial governments had argued that
Justice Murphy should accept or reject the plaintiffs' motion and
not consider setting boundaries himself.  Justice Murphy said his
ability to set boundaries should be to set smaller boundaries than
proposed, not larger.

The lawsuit was first filed in 2004.  No defenses have been filed
and discovery hasn't taken place.  The representative plaintiffs
are seeking financial compensation and a medical monitoring fund.


TEXAS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Foster Care
---------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge said she has jurisdiction to hear a class action that claims
Texas causes "permanent harm" to the "forgotten children" in
foster care.

Representatives for nine children say Texas' long-term foster
care, known as Permanent Managing Conservatorship (PMC), fails the
12,000 children in its custody.  The representatives filed an
89-page federal class action for injunctive and declaratory relief
in March.

After 12 to 18 months, if the state has taken a child from an
abusive or neglectful family and has not returned the child to the
family or found a new permanent home, the child goes into PMC, the
complaint says.

In PMC, children often move around, end up in substandard
placements far from siblings and other family members, lack access
to proper mental health care, experience further abuse and
neglect, and "languish" in the system, according to the complaint.

On behalf of the children in PMC, the class representatives sued
Gov. Rick Perry, the executive commissioner of Texas' Health and
Human Services Commission, Thomas Suehs, and the commissioner of
Texas' Department of Family and Protective Services, Anne
Heiligenstein, whom they claim "inflict further trauma on these
children by maintaining a child welfare system in which these
children's constitutional rights and the entitlements guaranteed
by state law are routinely denied."

U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack certified the class on
May 26 and squelched a motion to dismiss the class action on
July 1.

According to the judge's latest order, the defendants challenged
the class' right to tackle its claims in federal court,
"contending that this lawsuit 'would effectively require the Court
to takeover and administer Texas' foster care system despite the
fact that regular and competent oversight of Texas' foster
children has already been entrusted to the Texas district courts
by the Texas Legislature.'"

State officials called for Judge Jack to dismiss the case based on
the abstention doctrines established in the Supreme Court
decisions in Younger v. Harris and Burford v. Sun Oil Co.

Judge Jack determined that the class action would neither
interfere with nor duplicate the state proceedings that individual
foster children go through.

"This lawsuit seeks to improve the standards for all children in
state foster care and protect foster children's constitutional
rights, seeking systemic changes that would improve the foster
care system for all children," according to the 30-page ruling.
Jack also pointed out that "[s]uch a lawsuit would ultimately aid
the ongoing state proceedings, not interfere with them."

"Moreover, the Court notes that the state reports focus upon the
specifics of each child's placement and whether his or her needs
are being met; they do not address whether the child's treatment
in foster care satisfies constitutional demands, the central
concern of this lawsuit," Judge Jack added.

She also noted that the state opened itself up to government
oversight when it accepted federal funds through the Social
Security Act's Title IV-E foster care program.  "The voluntary
submission to such federal oversight greatly lessens the force of
any complaints regarding unwarranted federal intrusion on state
sovereignty," Judge Jack wrote.

Contrary to the state's argument, the federal class action would
not hamper Texas' own attempts to make improvements, according to
the ruling.

A copy of the Order in M.D., et al. v. Perry, et al., Case No. 11-
cv-00084 (S.D. Tex.), is available at http://is.gd/ESVIa8


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Awaits Appeal Ruling on Asset Recovery Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIM Participacoes S.A. is awaiting a court decision on an appeal
filed in relation to a class action lawsuit concerning the return
to the federal government of the company's assets used in
connection with the provision of telecommunication services,
according to the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In January 2003, a type of class action ("acao popular") was
brought by an individual against Agencia Nacional de
Telecomunicacoes ("Anatel") and all the companies controlled by
Telecom Italia in Brazil, including the Company.  The claim sought
to suspend the effects of Resolucao 318, of September 27, 2002,
and other acts by Anatel, including Authorizations PVCP/SPV Nos.
001/2002 to 011/2002, published on December 12, 2002, which
authorized the Company to migrate from the Cellular Mobile Service
(SMC) regime to the Personal Communication Services (PCS) regime.

The action specifically challenged the omission of provisions
regulating the return of the assets ("bens reversiveis") used by
the Company in connection with the provision of telecommunication
services by the time of the expiration of the authorizations.  By
reason of such omission, argues the claimant, the Brazilian
Federal Government would suffer irreparable damage and, therefore,
Anatel acts allowing the migration from SMC to PCS should be
declared null and void.

The Company says it challenged this action vigorously, and after
some preliminary decisions by lower courts, it obtained a
unanimous decision from the Regional Federal Court of Appeals
("Tribunal Regional Federal") permitting the migration from SMC to
PCS, reserving discussion about the return of the assets to the
Brazilian Federal Government for a later date.  The judge
extinguished the action.  The decision was subject to compulsory
appeal at a superior court.  On October 19, 2007, the court of
appeals ordered the return of the case to the lower courts to
allow other interested parties to take part in the litigation.
Despite the call notice to summon other interested party, there
was no admittance in this lawsuit.  On July 2, 2009, the judge
extinguished the action again, but this decision was subject of
another compulsory appeal at a superior court.  The Company is
waiting for the second instance's court decision.

The Company believes that the migration from the SMC regime to the
PCS regime, and the related acts by Anatel, will not be suspended
or modified.  The Company expects proceedings relating to the
return ("reversao") to the federal government of its assets used
in connection with the provision of telecommunication services to
continue.  In 2003, Anatel and the federal government informed the
Court that Authorizations PVCP/SVP nos. 001/2002 to 011/2002 are
valid and should not be voided by the Court.

The Company says it entered into amendments to its authorizations
to provide for the contingency that in the event of the
termination of its authorizations, the assets essential to its
provision of services would be returned to the federal government.


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Units Face Suits Over Long-Distance Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIM Participacoes S.A.'s subsidiaries face class action lawsuits
relating to long-distance charges and other disputes, according to
the Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

There are two main class actions against the Company's
subsidiaries where the risk of loss is regarded as being probable:
(i) a lawsuit against TIM Celular S.A. in the State of Bahia with
the aim of obtaining a ban on charging long-distance rates for
calls originating and received between the towns of Petrolina/PE
and Juazeiro/BA, due to the existence of "state border areas"; and
(ii) a lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Rio de Janeiro,
involving the impossibility of charging a contract termination
penalty in the case of theft of phone sets.  Due to the fact that
the referred lawsuits entail positive and negative obligations
and, taking into account the impossibility of accurately
quantifying possible losses at the current stage of the legal
proceedings, no provisions have been set up by management
regarding the contingencies.


TIM PARTICIPACOES: Units Face Suits Over Services and Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIM Participacoes S.A.'s subsidiaries face six different class
action lawsuits challenging the Company's policy of exchanging
defective phone sets, among other things, according to the
Company's June 30, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Civil, labor, regulatory and tax-related actions have been filed
against the Company and its subsidiaries involving risk of loss
that is classified as possible by the management and the Company's
lawyers.  No provisions have been set up for these contingencies
and the Company does not expect material negative impacts in the
financial statements.

There are some class actions against the Company's subsidiaries
where the risk of loss is regarded as possible and which deserve
to be highlighted.  The actions can be summarized as:

   (a) a lawsuit against TIM Celular S.A. in the State of
       Pernambuco, challenging the Company's policy of exchanging
       defective phone sets, which is allegedly in disagreement
       with the manufacturer's warranty terms;

   (b) a lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Rio Grande
       do Norte (city of Natal), questioning the quality of the
       services provided, as well as the quality of the network
       serving said State;

   (c) a lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Para,
       challenging the quality of the service provided by the
       network in Sao Felix do Xingu;

   (d) lawsuits against TIM Celular in the State of Maranhao,
       challenging the quality of the service provided by the
       network in the municipalities of Balsas, Grajau and Coelho
       Neto;

   (e) a lawsuit filed against TIM Celular, challenging the long
       distance charges levied on calls made in the municipality
       of Bertioga - State of Sao Paulo and in the surrounding
       region; and

   (f) a lawsuit against TIM Celular in the State of Rio de
       Janeiro, challenging SMS sent without previous consent of
       consumer.


ULTRAPAR HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling in 1996 Explosion-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ultrapar Holdings Inc. is awaiting a court decision in a lawsuit
against a subsidiary arising from a 1996 explosion in the city of
Osasco, State of Sao Paulo, according to the Company's June 30,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company's subsidiary, Ultragaz, is a defendant in lawsuits
relating to damages caused by an explosion in 1996 in a shopping
mall in the city of Osasco, State of Sao Paulo.  These lawsuits
involve: (i) individual suits filed by victims of the explosion
claiming damages from Ultragaz for the loss of economic benefit
and for pain and suffering, (ii) indemnifications of management of
the shopping mall and its insurance company, and (iii) a class
action lawsuit seeking indemnification for material damages and
pain and suffering for all the victims injured and deceased.  The
Company believes that it has presented evidence that defective gas
pipes in the shopping mall caused the accident and that Ultragaz's
on-site LPG storage facilities did not contribute to the
explosion.  Of the 64 lawsuits currently adjudicated, 63 judgments
were rendered in the Company's favor, of which 37 have already
been dismissed.  The one unfavorable decision, which the Company
may appeal, was for damages in the amount of R$17 thousand.  There
is only one action to be decided.  The Company has not recorded a
provision for these lawsuits as it believes that the probability
of loss is remote and its insurance policy covers the full amount
in dispute.

                             *********

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  * * *