---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 137

                             Headlines

A-POWER GENERATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
ADAMIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Bid in "Curtis" Suit Denied
ALABAMA: Civil Rights Groups File Class Action Over HB 56 Bill
ALASKA: Filipino Carehome Owners File Class Action Over Shutdown
ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario

BEST BUY: Awaits Consolidated Complaint Filing in Securities Suit
BEST BUY: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Discrimination Suit
CANADA: Four-Year Wait Expected for Sydney Tar Pond Class Action
CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: Damages Lawsuit Against Furnas Still Pending
CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: Lawsuits by Two Cabeco Associations Pending

CIGNA INSURANCE: Sued for Denying ABA Therapy Insurance Coverage
CITIGROUP: Faces Class Action Over Military Foreclosures
DELL: Hagens Berman Expands Investigation of Optiplex Defects
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: "Bennet" Suit Dismissed in May 2011
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement in Protection Fee Suits

FIRST NIAGARA: Hearing on NewAlliance Settlement Set for Aug. 22
GOLDMAN SACHS: Can't Compel Arbitration in Discrimination Suit
GOOGLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Streetview Wiretapping Suit
GUNNS: Disputes Shareholder Class Action Over 2009 Profit Drop
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Retired Players File Another Class Action

NEWS OF THE WORLD: Silverman Sherliker to File Class Action
ONLINE TRAVEL AGENCIES: Loses Hotel Occupancy Tax Class Action
RED HAT: Second Circuit Remands Appeal From Settlement Order
SC JOHNSON: Settles Two Class Actions Over Greenlist Logo
SIGNATURE GROUP: Awaits Court's Final Okay of Calif. Suit Deal

SIGNATURE GROUP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
STEC INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
TICKETMASTER: Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
WASHINGTON: Court Rejects MWAA Class Action Over Toll Road Fees
WEICHERT REALTORS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement




                             *********

A-POWER GENERATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against A-Power Generation Systems, Ltd. and certain of
its officers.  The class action (Civil Action No. 11-05649 (VBF))
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased A-Power securities from March 31, 2008,
through and including June 27, 2011.  The Complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

A-Power, a renewable energy company in China, provides on-site
distributed power generation systems and micro power grids for
industrial corporations.  The complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, Defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results.  Specifically, the Company's statements
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them,
including that: (1) the Company improperly accounted for its
related-party transactions such that its financial statements were
presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles; (2) the Company's revenues and income were misstated
in violation of GAAP; (3) the Company's revenue and income
reported in its filings with the SEC were overstated as the
Company reported materially lower revenue and net income in its
filings with the State Administration for Industry and Commerce;
(4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
results were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On June 17, 2011, the Company disclosed that an independent
director had resigned from the Company's Board due to his
"concerns that his views on process and best practices were not
necessarily shared throughout the Company."  Also on June 17,
2011, Seeking Alpha raised a number of red flags of fraud at the
Company, including allegations that the 2009 financial statements
filed by A-Power with the SAIC showed less than one-tenth of the
revenue and cash balances of its financial statements filed with
the SEC.

On this news, A-Power stock fell $0.51 per share, or more than
22%, in two consecutive trading sessions, to close at $1.74 per
share on June 20, 2011.

On June 27, 2011, A-Power disclosed the resignation of the
Company's auditor, MSCM LLP because "the Company had not retained
a qualified independent forensic accounting firm to evaluate
certain business transactions that MSCM stated was necessary for
MSCM to complete its audit of the Company's financial statements
for the year ended December 31, 2010 on a timely basis."  Also,
the Company acknowledged that it would delay filing its Form 20-F
for the fiscal year 2010, due in part to MSCM's resignation.  On
this news, after the market closed, NASDAQ halted trading of
A-Power stock at $1.67 per share.

If you are a shareholder who purchased A-Power securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 31, 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, D.C.


ADAMIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Bid in "Curtis" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit commenced by Curtis Leahy, et al.,
against Adamis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its officers,
according to Adamis' July 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2011.

In May 2010, Curtis Leahy, et. al. v. Dennis J. Carlo, et al. was
filed in San Diego Superior Court.  The plaintiffs -- Antaeus
Capital Partners, Curtis Leahy, and David Amron -- are Adamis
shareholders.  The defendants named in the Complaint are Adamis,
Dennis Carlo, David Marguglio, Robert Hopkins, and Richard Aloi,
who are officers and/or directors of Adamis.  Plaintiffs allege
that defendants misrepresented and omitted material information in
private placement memoranda distributed by Adamis in 2006 and 2008
regarding, among other things, Adamis' license rights with respect
to certain patented anti-viral technology.  Based on these
purported misrepresentations and omissions, plaintiffs assert
claims for violations of Sections 25401, 25501, and 25504 of the
California Corporations Code, and claims for common law fraud and
negligent misrepresentation.  Plaintiffs seek, among other
remedies, damages amounting to the difference between the purchase
price of the Adamis stock they purchased and the current share
price, or the price at which they previously sold their stock.
Plaintiffs originally asserted a number of other claims, but in
October 2010 the court issued an order dismissing these other
claims.

On May 27, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders who purchased
stock pursuant to either or both of Adamis' 2006 and 2008 private
placement memoranda.  Defendants filed their brief opposing the
motion on June 10, 2011.  On June 28, 2011, the court issued an
order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
the grounds that (1) plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to
show that there are common issues of fact to certify the class and
(2) the individual plaintiffs were not adequate class
representatives.

Adamis continues to believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit, intends to defend against plaintiffs' claims
vigorously and may assert any available counterclaims.


ALABAMA: Civil Rights Groups File Class Action Over HB 56 Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that several prominent civil rights groups filed a
class action lawsuit on July 8 challenging Alabama's new anti-
illegal immigration law, the latest such legal effort aimed at
similar bills passed in various states.

The suit claims the recently passed HB 56 "endangers public
safety, invites the racial profiling of Latinos, Asians and others
who appear foreign to an officer, and interferes with federal
law," according to a press release sent by the Southern Poverty
Law Center.

That group allied with several other groups, including the
American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigration Law Center,
Asian Law Caucus and Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama.
Their lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern
Alabama.

Mary Bauer, the Southern Poverty Law Center's legal director, told
CNN that she believed the law is "radical" -- even more so than
similar bills enacted in Arizona and Georgia, for instance -- and
sent a clear, unwelcoming message to immigrants.

"We hope the law never goes into effect," said Ms. Bauer.

The Alabama legislation, known as HB 56, was passed and signed by
Gov. Robert Bentley last month and is set to take effect on
September 1.

Gov. Bentley's spokeswoman, Rebekah Mason, issued a statement on
July 8 standing behind the bill.

"Gov. Bentley campaigned on the need for a strong immigration
bill," said Ms. Mason.  "The legislature passed that bill, and the
governor signed it."

Suzanne Webb, a spokeswoman for Alabama Attorney General Luther
Strange, said by e-mail on July 8 that her office had yet to get a
copy of the complaint, and thus had no comment on the specifics.
Regardless, she said the attorney general planned to defend the
controversial measure.

"Under state law, acts of our legislature are presumed to be
constitutional, and it is the duty of this office to defend them,
and we will do so," said Ms. Webb.

While immigration had long been a federal responsibility, other
anti-illegal immigration measures have been passed in recent
months in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina.
Parts of those laws have been suspended in four of those states,
pending resolutions to the lawsuits.

Last month, a federal judge struck down a key part of the Georgia
law in deciding police cannot inquire about immigration status
when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations.

Alabama's law has a similar provision.  According to a fact sheet
presented by Alabama House Republicans, the bill requires law
enforcement officers "to attempt to determine the immigration
status of a person who they suspect is an unauthorized alien of
this country."

The legislation also makes it a criminal offense to transport or
house an illegal immigrant.  The state will have to check the
citizenship of students, and any business that knowingly employs
an illegal immigrant will be penalized.

Republican state Rep. John Merrill told CNN in June that the
legislation is "good for Alabama" because it will reduce illegal
immigration to the state and "provide equal opportunities for all
people who want to come to Alabama legally."

He rejected suggestions the law is discriminatory, saying he is
confident it was drafted in such a way that it will survive legal
challenges.

But several civil rights advocates called the Alabama bill
unconstitutional and unfair, vowing in the SPLC's press release to
fight it in court on a number of grounds.

Sin Yen Ling, an attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, called it the
"harshest version" of the laws that have followed Arizona's
pioneering measure.  Among other aspects, the measure will "turn
teachers, landlords and community members into de facto
immigration enforcement agents," claimed Linton Joaquin of the
National Immigration Law Center.

Olivia Turner, the executive director of the ACLU in Alabama, said
the bill marks a big step backward for the state, which had been
central in the civil rights movement.

"In the nearly 50 years since the historical and worldwide
movement for civil and human rights began in our state, real
progress has been made," said Ms. Turner.  "But this law threatens
to pull us back to a dark and shameful past -- and one in which
all Alabamians were held back."


ALASKA: Filipino Carehome Owners File Class Action Over Shutdown
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henni Espinosa, writing for ABS-CBN North America Bureau, reports
that Filipino community leaders and members of the Filipino-
American Assisted Living Home Providers Association of Alaska
(FAALHPAA) filed a class action lawsuit against the state of
Alaska.

They said the Alaskan state government discriminates against
Filipinos, who dominate the carehome industry here.

The lawsuit charges the state of Alaska and the Department of
Health and Social Services of engaging in "abusive, negligent and
reckless practices . . . shutting down homes without due process."

Patricia Perez, one of the 20 plaintiffs said: "The abuse and
allegations toward us need to stop."

Filipinos own most of the 600 carehomes in Alaska.  Ms. Perez
believes Filipinos are targeted because the state of Alaska cannot
accept that minorities dominate the industry.

They said Alaskan government agencies have shut down about 25
carehomes so far, of which 95% are Filipino-owned.

"The agency's licensing and monitoring activities are strangling
the assisting living homes with their unduly burdensome financial
audit regulations," said John Pharr, counsel for the Filipino
carehome owners.

The state of Alaska and the Department of Health and Social
Services have not made a comment on the class action lawsuit yet.

But the agency maintains that it has no way of knowing the race of
a carehome's owner and they just respond to complaints.

The agency added that it has an appeals process, so providers can
formally raise any concerns they may have about any enforcement
actions.

FAALHPAA CEO Mike Ocampo said they want the abusive practices
imposed on them to change.  "We want them to know that Filipinos
will not take things sitting down," he said.


ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on July 8 announced the filing in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice of a proposed class action against
Armtec Infrastructure Inc., certain of Armtec's senior officers
and directors, and certain underwriters in the Armtec prospectus
offering of April 2011.

The proposed class includes all persons and entities who acquired
securities of Armtec from March 30, 2011 to June 8, 2011,
including those who purchased Armtec shares in the April 2011
prospectus offering, and those who purchased Armtec securities in
the secondary market during the Class Period.

The action alleges, among other things, that the defendants failed
to disclose in the prospectus or on a timely basis that the
performance of Armtec's engineered solutions business in the first
quarter of 2011 was adversely affected by deteriorating margins,
and that the performance of Armtec's construction and
infrastructure applications business in the first quarter of 2011
was adversely affected by unprecedented weather conditions.

Persons and entities who acquired securities of Armtec during the
Class Period are encouraged to register at:

     http://www.classaction.ca/joinaction.aspx?action=armtec

Inquiries should be directed to:

          Nicole Young
          SISKINDS LLP
          Telephone: (800) 461-6166 (ext. 2380)
          E-mail: nicole.young@siskinds.com


BEST BUY: Awaits Consolidated Complaint Filing in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc., is awaiting the filing of a consolidated
complaint in the consolidated securities lawsuit pending in
Minnesota, according to the Company's July 1, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 28, 2011.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  This federal
court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made
available to the public.  Additionally, in March 2011, a similar
purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene
LeBlanc, against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the same court.  In June 2011, the unopposed collective motion
of IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc to consolidate
their respective lawsuits into a new action with a single
shareholder, Marion Haynes, as lead plaintiff was granted.  The
lead plaintiff is expected to file and serve a consolidated
complaint.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions seek damages, including
interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and
expenses they incurred in the lawsuits.  The Company believes the
allegations in the securities actions are without merit, and it
intends to defend these actions vigorously.  Based on the
Company's assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
securities actions, their respective procedural litigation
history, and the degree to which it intends to defend itself in
these matters, the Company says it is unable to provide meaningful
quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may
impact its future consolidated financial position or results of
operations.


BEST BUY: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement
resolving a class action lawsuit pending in California, according
to the Company's July 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 28,
2011.

In December 2005, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Jasmen Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  This federal court action alleges that the Company
discriminates against women and minority individuals on the basis
of gender, race, color and/or national origin in its stores with
respect to its employment policies and practices.  The action
seeks an end to alleged discriminatory policies and practices, an
award of back and front pay, punitive damages and injunctive
relief, including rightful place relief for all class members.  In
June 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the parties' negotiated settlement including conditional
certification of settlement classes and seeking a schedule for
final approval.  The proposed settlement terms include, in
exchange for a release and dismissal of the action, certain
changes to the Company's personnel policies and procedures;
payment to the nine named plaintiffs of $0.3 million in the
aggregate; and payment in an amount to be determined by the Court,
not to exceed $10 million, of a portion of the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.  This proposed settlement is subject to
final Court approval.


CANADA: Four-Year Wait Expected for Sydney Tar Pond Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that the
certification of a class-action lawsuit against former operators
of the Sydney steel plant and coke ovens sites is an important
development, but it could still take as long as four years for it
to go to trial, a lawyer involved says.

The representative plaintiffs -- Neila MacQueen, Joe Petitpas, Ann
Ross and Iris Crawford -- are seeking financial compensation and a
medical monitoring fund for contamination associated with the
operation of the sites between 1967 to 2000.  They are not seeking
compensation for personal injury.

The certification came seven years after the lawsuit was first
filed.  The next step in the process will be for Justice
John Murphy, who rendered an oral decision on July 6, to complete
his written decision, which isn't expected to take place until the
fall.  Soon afterward, the parties involved should receive
Justice Murphy's order, after which the Crown will have 10 days to
decide whether to file an appeal.

If an appeal is filed, the Crown could seek a stay of proceedings
while the appeal process unfolds.

"We will oppose that because we don't want any further delays in
getting this matter concluded," Ray Wagner, one of the plaintiff's
lawyers, said on July 7.  "I think after that, the fact that we've
spent seven years going over all the studies and having all of our
experts, a mountain of information has already been generated,
it's not going to take ourselves that long to be in a position for
trial."

But due to the amount of court time that will be required for the
trial -- Mr. Wagner estimated it could be upwards of six months --
it will be several years before it will proceed, likely not until
2014 to 2015.

Discovery hasn't yet taken place and could take about a year.
Mr. Wagner said they expect to receive about nine million Crown
documents.

While the federal and provincial governments have opposed the
plaintiffs at every stage of the process leading up to the
certification, Mr. Wagner said he's hopeful that the plaintiff's
success may induce them to consider settling, saying it would be
good for the community.

"The governments, now having expended their best effort to oppose
certification and throw all the arguments that they did opposing
certification and for us to be successful now, you would hope that
it would be time for the governments to basically see what can be
done in terms of resolving the case," he said.

"I hope people can see a better way but I can't predict how the
governments are going to react.  It's going to be harder to
ignore, it's going to be harder to frustrate in terms of process
now that we've passed this immense hurdle."

Justice Murphy approved the plaintiff's proposed boundaries, which
follow the deposition of lead, for the neighborhoods of Whitney
Pier, Ashby and north end Sydney.  He ruled that south end Sydney,
where data regarding lead levels is not as extensive, will not be
included in the class definition.

"I think in terms of geography, we've maintained about 80% of our
area," Mr. Wagner said.  "It encompasses the areas of severe and
moderate contamination."

The class could include about 6,000 properties and 15,000 to
20,000 people.

It is only the second contested certification approved under
Nova Scotia's Class Proceedings Act, and is the first
environmental class action certified in the province.  Mr. Wagner
said the progress is being watched by people across the country.

"It is of national importance, not only of regional importance,"
he said.

Now that it's been certified, Mr. Wagner said it will be
interesting to see how many members of the class sign on to the
lawsuit.  Registration can be done via his firm's Web site.

When the trial does occur, aspects of it will likely be divided
between Halifax and Sydney, Mr. Wagner said.  He said it's
important for the people of Sydney to be able to access the
hearing.  Proceedings in the certification stage, which took place
in Halifax, were broadcast over the Internet.

None of the plaintiff's claims have yet been proven in court.


CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: Damages Lawsuit Against Furnas Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit regarding environmental damages caused by
Furnas Centrais Eletricas SA's hydroelectric plant Sao Jose da
Barra is still pending in Minas Gerais, Brazil, according to
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras' July 1, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2009.

In 2001, ten municipalities of the State of Minas Gerais and a
local commerce association brought a class action regarding
environmental damages caused by Furnas Centrais Eletricas S.A.'s
hydroelectric plant Sao Jose da Barra.  Furnas is a generation and
transmission subsidiary of the Company.  The claim alleges that
the level of the reservoir is decreasing because of the excessive
and irregular use of water for energy production purposes.  The
claim also alleges that the low levels of water in the reservoir
are detrimental to tourism in the area and that as a result the
regional economy has been adversely affected.  The claim is for
financial compensation of approximately R$1 billion, although the
majority of the municipalities originally involved have already
withdrawn from the claim.  Proceedings are currently in progress
to determine the court in which the claim will be heard.  The
Company has not made any provision in respect of this litigation
as it considers the risk of an unfavorable decision on these
lawsuits to be remote.

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


CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: Lawsuits by Two Cabeco Associations Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits commenced in Cabeco, Brazil against a
unit of Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras are still
pending, according to the Company's July 1, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2009.

In 2002 and 2003, two associations of the community of Cabeco
brought independent class actions regarding environmental damages
caused by Companhia Hidro Eletrica do Sao Francisco, a generation
and transmission subsidiary of the Company.  The Cabeco community
is located in a river island in the estuary of the Sao Francisco
River.  Both alleged that the hydroelectric plants disturbed the
normal flow of the river and resulted in a decline in fishing
activity and the gradual disappearance of the river island.  Both
class actions are still in a preliminary phase and the monetary
compensation requested is R$100 million in each case.  Because the
risk of loss was deemed only reasonably possible, no provision has
been set up.

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


CIGNA INSURANCE: Sued for Denying ABA Therapy Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Philadelphia is reviewing a motion for class
action in a lawsuit brought by the father of an autistic child
against CIGNA Insurance over its policy of denying insurance
coverage for Applied Behavior Analysis therapy.  In his lawsuit,
the plaintiff, Kristopher Churchill, alleges that CIGNA has a
nationwide policy of classifying ABA as experimental, and
therefore not providing insurance coverage for this therapy.  The
plaintiff claims that the classification of ABA therapy as
experimental violates federal laws governing insurance plans.
Earlier in the case, the Court denied CIGNA's Motion to Dismiss
the case on legal grounds.  The case is before Judge Juan R.
Sanchez.

According to the lawsuit, ABA is a well recognized and
scientifically valid form of autism treatment for children.
Numerous authorities and organizations have supported using ABA to
treat autism, including the U.S. Surgeon General and the National
Institute of Mental Health.  Also, the American Academy of
Pediatrics states that the effectiveness of ABA "has been well
documented through 5 decades of research."  Moreover, 26 states,
including Pennsylvania, mandate insurance coverage for ABA-type
autism treatments.

Mr. Churchill is represented by Gerard Mantese and John Conway of
Michigan, and Greg Heller of Pennsylvania.  Messrs. Mantese and
Conway are counsel in several cases seeking insurance coverage for
ABA therapy.  In 2010, they obtained final approval of a class
action against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan requiring
payment of approximately $1 million in claims for ABA.
Messrs. Mantese and Conway, and former Michigan State Senator,
David Honigman, are also representing thousands of military
beneficiaries seeking coverage of ABA therapy from the Department
of Defense and its insurer, TRICARE.  In March 2011, a federal
court in Washington D.C. granted class action status to the
military beneficiaries in that case, Berge v Department of
Defense, et al.

Contact information for Churchill's attorneys follows:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          Cell: (248) 515-6419
          E-mail: Gmantese@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          JOHN J. CONWAY, P.C.
          26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (313) 961-6525
          Cell: (313) 574-2148
          E-mail: John@johnjconway.com


CITIGROUP: Faces Class Action Over Military Foreclosures
--------------------------------------------------------
OzarksFirst.com reports that a lawsuit against Citigroup over a
foreclosure involving a member of the National Guard is looking
for class action status.

The suit claims the bank violated a 2003 federal law that forbids
foreclosures against active military duty.

Jorge Rodriguez says the bank took his Texas house in 2006, three
months after he went to train for a tour in Iraq.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all members of
the military.


DELL: Hagens Berman Expands Investigation of Optiplex Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, a consumer-rights class-action law firm, on July 8
disclosed that it is expanding its investigation of defects in the
Dell Optiplex line of personal desktop computers.

The firm filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Dell last
year claiming that many of its Optiplex desktop computers had
flawed motherboards and capacitors, causing the machines to fail
prematurely.  That case is currently in litigation.

Additional reports suggest that a number of other components --
including hard-disk drives, power supplies, fans, ICH5 chipsets,
and DDR2 RAM -- may also be defective.

If you own a Dell Optiplex computer manufactured between 2003 and
2006, especially one of the GX270, SX270, and GX280 models, and
your computer has exhibited frequent crashes, so-called blue
screens of death, no-post issues, disk drive malfunctions, thermal
failures, or is otherwise inoperable, you may have helpful
information that can aid the firm's proposed class-action lawsuit.
You can contact the firm by e-mail at dell@hbsslaw.com or by phone
at (206) 623-7292.  To learn more, or to join the investigation
online, visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/delloptiplex

                         About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm with offices
in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles, Minneapolis,
New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.  Founded in
1993, the firm represents plaintiffs in class actions and multi-
state, large-scale litigation that seek to protect the rights of
investors, consumers, workers and whistleblowers.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: "Bennet" Suit Dismissed in May 2011
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court dismissed in May 2011 the class action lawsuit commenced
by Michele Bennett against Discover Financial Services, according
to the Company's July 1, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2011.

On November 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company by a cardmember in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (Michele Bennett et al. v.
Discover Card, a/k/a DFS Services LLC).  The plaintiff alleged
that the Company contacted her, and members of the class, on their
cellular telephones without their express consent in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  In April 2011, the Company
entered into a settlement with the representative plaintiff,
pursuant to which the lawsuit was dismissed on May 23, 2011.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement in Protection Fee Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services entered into a preliminary global
settlement of all the pending lawsuits relating to its payment
protection fee product, according to the Company's July 1, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 31, 2011.

There are eight class action cases pending in relation to the sale
of the Company's payment protection fee product.  The cases were
filed (all in United States District Courts) on: July 8, 2010, in
the Northern District of California (Walker, et al. v. DFS, Inc.
and Discover Bank; subsequently transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois); July 16, 2010, in the Central District of
California (Conroy v. Discover Financial Services and Discover
Bank); October 22, 2010, in the District of South Carolina
(Alexander v. Discover Financial Services, Inc.; DFS Services LLC;
Discover Bank; and Morgan Stanley); November 5, 2010 in the
Northern District of Illinois (Callahan v. Discover Financial
Services, Inc. and Discover Bank); December 17, 2010, in the
Western District of Tennessee (Sack v. DFS Services LLC; Discover
Financial Services, Inc.; and Discover Bank); January 14, 2011, in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Boyce v. DFS Services LLC;
Discover Financial Services Inc.; Discover Bank); February 15,
2011, in the Southern District of Florida (Triplett v. Discover
Financial Services, Inc., DFS Financial Services LLC, Discover
Bank and Morgan Stanley); and March 7, 2011, in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Carter v. Discover Financial Services,
Inc., DFS Financial Services LLC, Discover Bank, Morgan Stanley et
al.).

All of the cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to a multi-district
litigation order issued by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in February 2011.  These class actions challenge the
Company's marketing practices with respect to its payment
protection fee product to cardmembers under various state laws and
the Truth in Lending Act.  The plaintiffs seek monetary remedies
including unspecified damages and restitution, attorneys' fees and
costs, and various forms of injunctive relief including an order
rescinding the payment protection fee product enrollments of all
class members.  In June 2011, the Company and class counsel
entered into a preliminary global settlement of all of the pending
class actions.  The settlement is subject to judicial approval.

The Company says it will seek to vigorously defend all claims
asserted against it.


FIRST NIAGARA: Hearing on NewAlliance Settlement Set for Aug. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing to consider the final approval of a settlement in the
consolidated shareholder action against NewAlliance Bancshares,
Inc., is set for August 22, 2011, according to First Niagara
Financial Group Inc.'s July 1, 2011, Form 8-K/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated August 18,
2010, among First Niagara, NewAlliance and FNFG Merger Sub, Inc.,
FNFG merged with and into NewAlliance, with NewAlliance as the
surviving corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of First
Niagara.

On August 20, 2010, a lawsuit was filed by Stanley P. Kops against
NewAlliance and its directors in the Connecticut Superior Court
for the Judicial District of New Haven (NNH-CV10-6013984)
challenging the proposed merger between NewAlliance and First
Niagara.  The purported class action alleges that the NewAlliance
board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to NewAlliance
stockholders by failing to maximize stockholder value in approving
the merger agreement with First Niagara and that NewAlliance and
First Niagara aided and abetted this alleged breach of fiduciary
duty.

Since the first action was commenced, nine additional lawsuits
have been filed against NewAlliance, First Niagara, FNFG Merger
Sub, Inc., and/or the NewAlliance directors and certain officers
of NewAlliance.  The plaintiffs in the additional lawsuits are:
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan (NNH-
CV10-6014110); Cynthia J. Kops (NNH-CV10-6014155); Joseph
Caldarella (NNH-CV10-6014192); Michael Rubin (NNH-CV10-6014328);
Arlene H. Levine and Gertrude M. Nitkin (NNH-CV10-6014477); Port
Authority of Alleghany County Retirement & Disability Allowance
Plan for Employees Represented by Local 85 of the Amalgamated
Transit Union (NN-CV10-6014634); Alan Kahn (Case No. 5785); Moses
Eilenberg (Case No. 5796); and Erie County Employees' Retirement
System (Case No. 5831).  The latter three lawsuits were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the remainder
was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court.  The claims in the
nine additional lawsuits are substantially the same as the claims
in the first lawsuit and seek, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed merger on the agreed upon terms.  Certain of the new
actions, however, also seek attorneys' and experts' fees and
actual and punitive damages if the merger is completed.

On September 28, 2010, the three Delaware actions were
consolidated into In re NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation (No. 5785-VCP), and the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed an amended complaint which adds allegations
challenging the accuracy of disclosures in the preliminary Form S-
4, a motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from taking any
action to consummate the merger and a motion seeking expedited
discovery.  On October 22, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for expedited discovery and tentatively scheduled a
preliminary injunction hearing for December 1, 2010.

On October 19, 2010, the seven Connecticut actions were
transferred to the complex litigation docket in the Judicial
District of Stamford.  The cases were consolidated on October 20
and, on October 22, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which adds allegations challenging the accuracy of disclosure in
the preliminary Form S-4.  The plaintiffs in the Connecticut
actions also have indicated that they intend to seek a preliminary
injunction and expedited discovery.

On October 18 and 19, 2010, the Company and other defendants filed
motions in the seven Connecticut actions and in the consolidated
Delaware action requesting that the courts direct the plaintiffs
in all the actions to confer and agree on a single forum in which
to litigate their claims, or if the plaintiffs are unable to
agree, that the courts confer and designate a single forum, and
that the cases in the other forum be stayed.  The defendants'
motions are pending.

On December 6, 2010, the parties to the Connecticut and Delaware
actions reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
Connecticut Action and the Delaware Action.  Part of the agreement
was that the defendants would not object to the payment of
plaintiffs' attorney fees up to $750,000.  The settlement
contemplated by the agreement will be submitted to the Connecticut
court for approval.  Immediately following final approval by the
Connecticut court of the settlement, the parties to the Delaware
actions shall dismiss those actions with prejudice.  As part of
the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing
and deny that the disclosures in the joint proxy/statement
prospectus were inadequate but have agreed to provide supplemental
disclosures.  The settlement did not affect the timing of the
merger or the amount of consideration paid in the merger.  There
are no injunction proceedings pending at this time.  The
settlement was preliminarily approved by the Connecticut court on
May 18, 2011, and, in accordance with court practice, a hearing on
the matter has been scheduled for August 22, 2011, for the purpose
of giving shareholders an opportunity to object to the settlement,
and to allow the court to approve the settlement or determine
otherwise how to proceed.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Can't Compel Arbitration in Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to reconsider Goldman Sachs' bid to compel
individual arbitration against one of the lead plaintiffs in a
putative class action lawsuit claiming the bank subscribes to an
"outdated corporate culture" of bias against women.

H. Cristina Chen-Oster, Lisa Parisi, and Shanna Orlich filed the
class action on Sept. 16, in a 42-page complaint with dozens of
pages of redacted exhibits.

In November, Goldman Sachs moved to stay Ms. Parisi's claims, and
compel her to arbitrate her claims individually.

Hired in August 2001 as vice president in the firm's asset
management division, Ms. Parisi says Goldman Sachs gave her
harsher reviews, paid her less and passed her over for promotions
more regularly than her male colleagues.

One of her co-plaintiffs, Ms. Chen-Oster, said her manager
sexually assaulted her, while the other, Ms. Orlich, claimed her
manager hired female escorts "wearing short black skirts,
strapless tops, and Santa hats" to a holiday party.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV refused the motion to
stay and arbitrate Ms. Parisi's claims in late April.  On July 7,
he rejected Goldman Sachs request for him to rehear their
arguments.

Ms. Parisi's attorney praised the ruling in an e-mail to
Courthouse News.

"We are pleased the Court affirmed its earlier decision denying
Goldman Sachs' motion to compel arbitration of one of our named
plaintiff's claims," wrote Kelly Dermody of Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.  "We believe the Court carefully and
thoroughly reviewed the law and followed clear precedent.  We look
forward to moving ahead with the case."

According to the class action complaint, the women represented in
management positions at Goldman Sachs "dwindles as the level of
management rises -- from Associates, to Vice Presidents, to
Managing Directors, to Partners, and finally to the firm's
management committee and executive officers."

They say that the bank's 2009 figures show that women made up only
29% of the firm's vice presidents and 17% of managing directors.

"Of its nine executive officers, only a single one is female; she
co-heads the Legal Department with the firm's other General
Counsel, a man," the complaint says.

Attorneys for Goldman Sachs declined to comment.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order in Chen-Oster, et al. v.
Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., Case No. 10-cv-06950 (S.D.N.Y.), is
available at http://is.gd/QtmzrY


GOOGLE INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Streetview Wiretapping Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a district
court has refused Google's motion to dismiss a federal class
action for wiretapping after it used so-called "wireless sniffers"
to ferret out personal e-mails, passwords and other personal data
from unsuspecting WiFi users in more than 30 countries.

A plaintiff class claimed that the defendant multinational
Internet search, cloud computing and advertising technologies
company used hyper-outfitted vehicles to collect and store about
600 gigabytes of personal information beginning in 2007.

The amassing, the class argued, violated the Federal Wiretap Act,
California Business and Professions Code and state wiretap
statutes.

Google, they said, issued only a press release announcing its
intent to use Google Street View vehicles, outfitted with
specialized data collection and photography equipment, to capture
photo, not WiFi, data.

Google then quietly intercepted "data packets," comprising users'
personal information, using its "packet sniffer" software.

Street View vehicles were equipped with directional cameras meant
to capture 360-degree street-level images, to be used with Google
Maps, and featured 3G/GSM/Wi-Fi antennas paired to the data
acquisition software.

The company also used smaller vehicles, known as Google Trikes, to
capture data from areas inaccessible to cars.

In 2006, prior to the launch of the vehicles, Google-employed
engineers created the data collection system -- commonly known as
a packet analyzer, wireless sniffer, network analyzer, packet
sniffer or protocol analyzer.

When exposed, the ruling states, Google admitted to storing the
data on its servers and issued an apology on its blog in
Australia.  The content of the packets included whole e-mails,
usernames, passwords and other private data.

According to the ruling, in 2010, "in response to an inquiry from
an European privacy authority," Google admitted to collecting
". . . 'fragmentary' samples of 'publicly broadcast' payload data
from non-password-protected Wi-Fi networks and that, through this
conduct, it had collected about 600 gigabytes of data from more
than 30 countries."

Google also "admitted that it had been collecting Wi-Fi data in
the United States via Google Street View vehicles since 2007."

In a motion to dismiss the wiretapping charges, Google claimed
that the plaintiffs failed to plead that their WiFi broadcasts
were not "readily accessible," exempting the company from
wiretapping charges.

The class countered that "readily accessible to the general
public" applied solely to "radio communications," not WiFi data.

Ruling on the motion, District Chief Judge James Ware said, "The
matter before the Court presents a case of first impression as to
whether the Wiretap Act imposes liability upon a defendant who
allegedly intentionally intercepts data packets from a wireless
home network."

Judge Ware continued, "[T]he Court finds that the wireless
networks were not readily accessible to the general public as
defined by the particular communication system at issue, wireless
internet networks, which are not 'radio communications.'"

According to the complaint, "Unlike in the traditional radio
services context, communications sent via Wi-Fi technology, as
pleaded by Plaintiffs, are not designed or intended to be public.
Rather, as alleged, Wi-Fi technology shares a common design with
cellular phone technology, in that they both use radio waves to
transmit communications, however they are both designed to send
communications privately, as in solely to select recipients, and
both types of technology are architected in order to make
intentional monitoring by third parties difficult."

Google's contention that the class failed to state a valid claim
for violation of the Wiretap Act, as the plaintiffs' networks were
open and unencrypted, "was misplaced," Judge Ware added.

"Thus, the Court finds that, without more, merely pleading that a
network is unencrypted does not render that network readily
accessible to the general public and serve to remove the
intentional interception of electronic communications from that
network from liability under the ECPA."

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, or Federal
Wiretap Act, was last amended in 1986 and titled the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.

At that time, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called the regulations
"hopelessly out of date," and the amendment was passed to "update
and clarify Federal privacy protections and standards in light of
dramatic changes in new computer and telecommunications
technologies."

Judge Ware granted Google's motions to dismiss the California
Business and Professions Code and state wiretap statutes
violations, but upheld the Wiretap Act charges, and ordered the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint consistent with his order
by August 1.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend in In re Google
Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, Case No.
10-md-02184 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/08/googlestreetview.pdf


GUNNS: Disputes Shareholder Class Action Over 2009 Profit Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Gunns will defend a shareholder class action over a large
profit drop in 2009 by pointing to market volatility caused by the
global financial crisis and to forecasts by stockbroking analysts
of "a material decrease" in earnings.

In a formal defense document filed in the Federal Court, the
company denied it contravened the continuous disclosure regime or
misled investors about the performance of its woodchip export
business.

It conceded foreseeing "short-term" difficulties and beginning,
but not concluding, work on a profit forecast at the time.

The continuous disclosure law allows companies to withhold
information that is "insufficiently definite" or "incomplete".

A class action run by solicitors Maurice Blackburn and funded by
IMF (Australia) was filed against Gunns in April.

Its members claim they suffered losses because the company failed
to alert them early enough to problems with its exports of
woodchips to Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia.

On February 22 last year, Gunns reported a net profit for the six
months to December 2009 of AU$400,000, a 99% drop from its profit
for the December 2008 half of AU$33.6 million and a 98% drop from
its profit for the June 2009 half of AU$22.6 million.

The share price fell 35% in the week after the negligible earnings
were announced.

The class action claims that Gunns knew from August 31, 2009, when
it reported its June results and announced a AU$145 million
capital raising, that its next results were likely to be
significantly worse.

The statement of claim refers to a company statement that day that
"significant uncertainty remains but Gunns is optimistic that
'bottom of cycle' has been reached".

The defense said that in early November 2009 the company "formed
the view there was a difficult short-term outlook for its main
wood fibre business" but the extent of the impact and the likely
performance of other parts of the business was "not at that time
sufficiently clear".  It said the global financial crisis affected
exchange rates, consumer demand and the availability of credit in
Australia and in its export markets, all of which was "known to
the market at all material times".  Research published by equities
analysts had predicted "a material decrease" in its profit for the
December 2009 half, it said.

The trial is not expected to begin until next year.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Retired Players File Another Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell Whitney at Courthouse News Service reports that the
National Football League faces another class action from retired
players, this one led by wide receiver Fred Barnett, who claims
the league profits by exploiting retirees' identities.
Mr. Barnett says that while standard NFL contracts allow the
league exploit the identities of active players, these rights
expire with the contract when players retire.

Mr. Barnett, who played for the Philadelphia Eagles in the early
'90s and retired with the Miami Dolphins, says the NFL is milking
its "the glory days" by using his identity "as a marketing and
advertising technique to convey authenticity, enhance the NFL's
brand awareness and increase its revenue."

Mr. Barnett says he seeks only his "fair share" of this revenue.
His federal complaint says the value of retired players' images is
self-evident, as the NFL has taken extreme measures to restrict
access to NFL films.

"For instance, the NFL restricts media, including local news
outlets, to showing only 45 seconds per day of footage of NFL
players shot at league or team facilities in any fashion.  This
includes non-playing situations such as news conferences,
interviews and practice-field reports," according to the
complaint.

It adds: "If a media outlet, such as a local news station, wishes
to use footage of retired players as part of reporting the news,
it must pay the NFL steep fees."

And the NFL has created an entire "filmmaking wing" to profit from
game films.

The complaint adds: "The NFL also creates an entire line of NFL
Films productions for each team, for each year.  Regardless of the
team's performance, the productions paint the season in the most
positive, promotional light possible.  NFL Films produced and
distributed 'Video Yearbook' productions for the Philadelphia
Eagles throughout the 1990's.  Plaintiff Barnett was the team's
starting wide receiver from 1990-95 and as such appears regularly
in these promotional films."

The NFL describes NFL Films as "the backbone of the NFL Network"
and its "year-round channel" draws "heavily" on NFL Films'
resources, which include "more than 100 million feet of film in
its library," Mr. Barnett says.

The retired players who created the glory days deserve their fair
share, Mr. Barnett says, particularly in light of the fact that
"now-retired NFL players, as a group, suffer severe physical
maladies and disabilities as a result of the sacrifices they made
to the NFL what it is today."

He seeks class certification and damages for unjust enrichment,
violations of statutory and common-law rights of publicity,
misappropriation, false endorsement and Lanham Act violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Barnett v. National Football League,
Case No. 11-cv-01782 (D. Minn.) (Frank, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/08/BarnettvNFL.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, P.L.L.P.
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com
                  gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com


NEWS OF THE WORLD: Silverman Sherliker to File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Butcher, writing for The Lawyer, reports that city law
firm Silverman Sherliker has launched a News of the World (NotW)
action group for employees of the axed tabloid with the aim of
launching a class action against the newspaper.

The firm has set up the action group on its Web site and is urging
NotW employees to register interest with a view to potentially
launching a class action against News International for 'stigma
damages' and long-term impact on their careers following the
Sunday newspaper's ongoing phone-hacking scandal.

Silverman managing partner Chris Sherliker, who created the action
group on July 8, said the firm was already liaising with a
steering group of about 20 NotW employees and expected the number
could reach 100 this week.

"The appetite for a class action has not yet been established.
However the possibility of that action is going to drive
negotiations," he said.  "There's certainly an intention [to
launch legal action] by this firm if there's an insufficient
support package offered to staff by News International."

Mr. Sherliker and employment partner Nicholas Lakeland believe
their sacked NotW clients could have a strong case to claim
compensation for stigma damages and career damage, reminiscent of
the long-running BCCI litigation.

"These employees are going to have a difficult time finding other
positions because News of the World's reputation has been fairly
tainted," Mr. Sherliker said.

The firm may also look at fairness of dismissal issues on behalf
of the employees, and Mr. Sherliker said a lot would rest on
whether News International launches a replacement Sunday tabloid
and what job prospects that might present for NotW employees.

"If they're closing the entire establishment I expect it would be
a straightforward case of redundancies," Mr. Sherliker said.  "But
if the employees are transferred over to a new publication then I
doubt anyone will sue."

A spokeswoman for the National Union of Journalists said the
organization was also waiting to see what job prospects or
redundancy packages were offered to NotW employees before
contemplating any legal action.

"On July 7, we condemned the offer of 90 days' payment without
consultation.  This is another example of News International and
the Murdoch empire ignoring the law -- they're not learning any
lessons," she said.

"At the moment we're waiting to hear about the terms of the
redundancies or whether employees will be transferred to The Sun,
or whether they'll be sacked and made to reapply for jobs."

The NUJ regularly instructs Thompsons Solicitors and Bindmans on
legal matters.

NotW has been News International's most profitable title for many
years, according to guardian.co.uk.


ONLINE TRAVEL AGENCIES: Loses Hotel Occupancy Tax Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Schaal, writing for Tnooz, reports that major online travel
agencies, including Expedia, Priceline, Travelocity and Orbitz,
lost a class-action lawsuit by 173 cities in Texas and could owe
them more than $20 million in hotel occupancy taxes.

The case, the City of San Antonio vs. Hotels.com, was initially
filed in May 2006 and is one of the longest-running cases against
the OTAs.  It received class-action status in 2008 and all cities
in Texas are involved, with the exception of Houston and Watauga,
which opted out.

A jury in Texas on Oct. 30, 2009, decided that the OTAs were
"controlling hotels" using the merchant model because they set the
retail prices of hotel rooms and collected taxes from consumers,
and were liable for nearly $20.6 million in hotel occupancy taxes.

The San Antonio Division of U.S. District Court was charged with
deciding remaining issues and on July 1 Judge Orlando Garcia
affirmed the jury's findings and ruled that the OTAs have a duty
to collect taxes on the full retail rate they charge consumers --
not the wholesale rate they get from hotels -- including the OTAs'
margins and service fees.

The exact amount of the OTAs' tax liability in the case likely
will be considerably higher than the $20.6 million amount set by
the jury in 2009.

The court hasn't yet issued a judgment, but held that the OTAs
would also be liable for the tax liabilities which accrued in the
interim, including tax on their markup, breakage, service fees,
extra person fees, plus damages, penalties and interest.

The court ruled that the OTAs were liable for tax on their service
fees, but not for damages on their service fees or taxes on
cancellation fees.

The court ruled that the OTAs must pay taxes directly to Texas
cities on the retail rate and not remit them via the hotels.

The OTAs already are paying taxes directly to New York City and
Columbus, Ga., the court said.

The OTAs plan to appeal the case.


RED HAT: Second Circuit Remands Appeal From Settlement Order
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court remanded back to the District Court an appeal
from the approval of a settlement agreement resolving a class
action lawsuit against Red Hat, Inc., according to the Company's
July 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2011.

Commencing in March 2001, the Company and certain of its officers
and directors were named as defendants in a series of purported
class action suits arising out of the Company's initial public
offering and secondary offering.  Approximately 310 other IPO
issuers were named as defendants in similar class action
complaints.  On August 8, 2001, Chief Judge Michael Mukasey of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued
an order that transferred all of the IPO Allocation Actions,
including the complaints involving the Company, to one judge for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings (Case No. 21 MC 92).  The
plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing registration statements and prospectuses that
contained materially false and misleading information and failed
to disclose material information.  Plaintiffs also challenge
certain IPO allocation practices by underwriters and the lack of
disclosure thereof in initial public offering documents.  On April
19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the 310
consolidated actions, including the Red Hat action.  The relief
sought consists of unspecified damages, attorneys' and expert fees
and other unspecified costs.  In October of 2002, the individual
director and officer defendants of the Company were dismissed from
the case without prejudice.

In October 2004, the District Court certified a class in six of
the 310 actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide
strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in
the remaining cases.  The Company's action is not one of the focus
cases.  On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the District Court's class certification
with respect to the focus cases and remanded the matter for
further consideration.  In September 2007, discovery moved forward
in the focus cases and plaintiff filed and amended complaints
against the focus case issuer and underwriter defendants.
Defendants in the focus cases filed motions to dismiss the second
amended complaints in November 2007 and filed their oppositions to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in December 2007.  The
motions to dismiss in the focus cases were granted in part.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs' executive committee on behalf of
the proposed class filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit, to which the Company
has consented and for which payments called for by the settlement
agreement are to be paid by the defendant insurers.  The trial
court heard arguments on September 10, 2009, on the fairness of
the settlement.  In an opinion and order filed October 5, 2009,
the trial court approved the class, granted plaintiffs' motion for
approval of the settlement and directed the clerk of the court to
close the action.  Appeals have been filed and briefed before the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On May 17, 2011, the
Second Circuit issued a ruling on the two pending appeals,
granting the motion to dismiss one of the appeals, and remanding
the other appeal back to the District Court to determine
procedural issues relating to the standing of the remaining
objector-appellant.


SC JOHNSON: Settles Two Class Actions Over Greenlist Logo
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bardelline, writing for GreenBiz.com, reports that
SC Johnson has settled two class action lawsuits that challenged
its Greenlist logo -- an image the company put on products that
met its internal standards for less-harmful products -- by
agreeing to stop putting the label on Windex bottles.

"In retrospect we could have done a better job at being more
transparent and clearer with our label and what it meant,"
Fisk Johnson, SC Johnson's chairman and CEO, told GreenBiz.

SC Johnson -- whose brands include Windex, Glade, Raid, Shout, and
Ziploc -- created Greenlist, a process for bringing green
chemistry to its products by rating raw materials based on their
environmental and human health impacts, in 2001, and began putting
a Greenlist logo on products that met certain criteria in 2008.

But questions arose over the legitimacy of the label and what it
meant, since all product vetting was conducted only by SC Johnson,
and not a third-party certifier, as with most credible green
labels.

The lawsuits, settled for undisclosed amounts, had been brought by
individuals in California and Wisconsin, who argued that the use
of the Greenlist logo on Windex products did not clearly show it
was an internal process as opposed to a third-party seal, and
implied that these products were made with environmentally
friendly ingredients.  Product packaging included the Greenlist
logo and the statement, "Greenlist is a rating system that
promotes the use of environmentally responsible ingredients,"
found behind the packaging label.

SC Johnson said it used the Greenlist logo to show that Windex
products met the company's highest environmental ratings.  "The
environment is something that I am incredibly passionate about.
It's something we've been working on for literally four decades,
and I have to say that when you're out in front of an issue like
this, it means that you're not always going to get it completely
right, as was the case with this particular issue," Fisk Johnson
said.

While the use of the logo brought about accusations of
greenwashing, the Greenlist process itself has been lauded with a
U.S. Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award, and has helped
SC Johnson continually reduce the environmental impacts of its
ingredients.

The company said that product reformulations have reduced volatile
organic compounds by GBP48 million in the last five years, and led
to SC Johnson ordering suppliers to no longer use hormone-
disrupting chemicals called phthalates in product fragrances.

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuits, SC Johnson would likely
have had to rethink how it portrays Greenlist on it products due
to new guidelines coming from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
later this year.

Proposed changes to the Green Guides, formally called the Guides
for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, say that it is
deceptive to falsely imply that a product has been endorsed or
certified by a third-party group.  The guidelines also discourage
the use of general environmental benefit claims, including logos,
like Greenlist, that lack specific qualifications about product
attributes.

"Where I'd like to get to is full transparency around our
Greenlist system:  How we rate our chemicals, why we rate our
chemicals the way we rate them, and do it in a consumer-
understandable way," Mr. Johnson said.

Guidelines aside, the settlement of the lawsuits allows SC Johnson
to remove a nagging reputational problem.  Says Kelly Semrau, the
company's senior vice president of global corporate affairs,
communication and sustainability, "We want to simply learn from
the experience and move on."

Mr. Johnson also thinks a big problem is that consumers are so
confused by the varying green labels, certifications and seals
that they don't trust any of them.

"I would love to get to a point where everybody looks at chemicals
the same way, and it's got to be based in science, so that we have
a common set of standards and a common language that we use to
talk about those standards," Mr. Johnson said.  "But honestly, we
are a long way from getting there.  There is too much hysteria out
there not grounded in science, and there is too much greenwashing
going on out there on the industry side and we need to move in a
better direction."


SIGNATURE GROUP: Awaits Court's Final Okay of Calif. Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Group Holdings, Inc., is awaiting final court approval
of its stipulation settling a consolidated lawsuit in California,
according to the Company's July 5, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

From April through June of 2007, six complaints seeking class
certification were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against the Company, formerly
known as Fremont General Corporation, and various officers,
directors and employees by participants in Fremont's Investment
Incentive Plan, 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
in connection with Fremont stock held by the Plans.  The six
complaints were consolidated in a single proceeding.  On
April 15, 2010, the Court granted the Order for Class
Certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

On March 22, 2011, Signature entered into a settlement
stipulation, whereby Signature's insurance carriers will pay $21.0
million to settle the claims of the certified class.  On April 25,
2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
stipulation.  The settlement stipulation requires final approval
which could take several months before the Court makes a final
determination.

The Company says litigation is often unpredictable and the actual
results of litigation cannot be determined with certainty, and
therefore, the ultimate resolution of a matter and the possible
range of loss associated with certain potential outcomes cannot be
established with confidence.  Based on the Company's current
understanding of the pending legal proceeding, management does not
believe that judgments or settlements arising from pending or
threatened legal matters, individually or in the aggregate, would
have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial
position, operating results or cash flows of the Company.


SIGNATURE GROUP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against Signature Group Holdings, Inc., formerly
known as Fremont General Corporation, remains pending, according
to the Company's July 5, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In September 2007, three separate complaints seeking class
certification were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against Fremont and various
officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities
laws in connection with published statements by Fremont regarding
its loan portfolio and loans held for resale during the period
from May 9, 2006, through February 27, 2007.  These three class
action lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding and a
consolidated class action complaint was filed on March 3, 2008.
On January 9, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Securities Complaint ("SAC").  Fremont
was not a named defendant in the SAC because of its Chapter 11
bankruptcy filing.  The named defendants in the SAC were former
directors and officers of Fremont: Louis J. Rampino, Wayne R.
Bailey, Patrick E. Lamb, Kyle R. Walker, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr.
and James A. McIntyre.  On November 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed
a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Securities Complaint
("TAC").  Fremont's potential exposure in this matter arises out
of its indemnification agreements and obligations with these
individual defendants.  On March 29, 2010, the trial court entered
an Order Granting Fremont's Motion to Dismiss the TAC with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs timely appealed the Court Order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and this appeal is
currently pending.  Fremont has notified its insurance carriers
and has requested coverage under its directors and officers
insurance policies, in which the primary insurance carrier has
accepted coverage under a reservation of rights.  Plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company says litigation is often unpredictable and the actual
results of litigation cannot be determined with certainty, and
therefore, the ultimate resolution of a matter and the possible
range of loss associated with certain potential outcomes cannot be
established with confidence.  Based on the Company's current
understanding of the pending legal proceeding, management does not
believe that judgments or settlements arising from pending or
threatened legal matters, individually or in the aggregate, would
have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial
position, operating results or cash flows of the Company.


STEC INC: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say founding
brothers Manouch and Mark Moshayedi dumped $268 million of
Stec Inc. shares at prices inflated by false and misleading
statements.

A copy of the Complaint in West Virgina Laborers' Trust Fund v.
STEC, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2011-00489022 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty.) (Bauer, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/08/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
          Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070
          E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com
                  nikim@blbglaw.com
                  takeok@blbglaw.com


TICKETMASTER: Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Alfred Branch Jr., writing for TicketNews, reports that a
multi-million dollar settlement to a class action lawsuit over
delivery fees that Ticketmaster reached late last year has been
rejected by a California judge, setting the stage for a trial this
fall.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth R. Freeman turned down
the settlement reportedly because it was not big enough.
Ticketmaster's parent company, Live Nation, had set aside $22.3
million to pay for settlement costs and legal fees in the case, a
move that resulted in the company having to lower its earnings
figures for 2010.

Under the settlement, Ticketmaster planned to give aggrieved fans
either a small cash payment or discount on future ticket
purchases, according to the Los Angeles Times, but Judge Freeman
found that the remedy "offered virtually no benefit to the class
member."

The rejection is a big blow to Ticketmaster, which is in the midst
of a separate but similar class action lawsuit over fees and must
now prepare for an October 5 trial that it did not anticipate.  In
addition, there is also the possibility that the company might
have to pay more money if it loses the case.

A spokesperson for Ticketmaster and Live Nation did not return a
message seeking comment.

In the rejected settlement class action, Ticketmaster was sued
over its delivery fees, which totaled $14.50 to $25, because fans
were allegedly misled into believing the fees were passed on to
UPS or other carriers and were not revenue drivers for the
ticketing company.  Had the plaintiffs known that the fees were
not passed on, they claimed they would have either not bought the
tickets or decided on a different delivery method, such as the
U.S. mail which did not carry a fee.

Ticketmaster has long stoked fans' ire over the various fees it
charges, some of which can end up costing 40% or more of the face
value of the ticket.  Most of these fees are negotiated with --
and paid entirely to -- venues, teams or promoters, and others are
split between Ticketmaster and the other entity.

Delivery fees are often tacked on top of the sale at the end of
the transaction.  In a move to help hide the fees and assuage fan
anger, Ticketmaster has become utilizing an "all-in" pricing
scheme for some tickets, which offers fans a single price for a
seat.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing
the former settlement and the financial ramifications, Live Nation
did not admit to any wrongdoing and wrote:

Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., have
not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection
with the matter, but have agreed to the settlement in order to
eliminate the uncertainties and expense of further protracted
litigation.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, among other
things, Ticketmaster will pay the fees of the claims administrator
as well as the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain costs that
are approved by the Court and subject to a set maximum, and class
members who meet certain conditions will be entitled to receive
from Ticketmaster a cash payment and/or discounts off one or more
future ticket purchases.

In addition to the rejected settlement, the case is part of
another legal proceeding over a payment dispute between
Ticketmaster and its insurance company, Illinois Union Insurance.

Ticketmaster is suing Illinois Union for about $4 million in legal
fees Ticketmaster believes the insurer should cover as part of its
$10 insurance policy.  Illinois Union reportedly denied the claim
in part because it believes the class action lawsuit is based on
profit Ticketmaster should not be receiving.


WASHINGTON: Court Rejects MWAA Class Action Over Toll Road Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, a Virginia federal court judge has dismissed a class action
lawsuit over the alleged unconstitutionality of tolls on the Omer
L. Hirst - Adelard L. Brault Expressway, better known as the
Dulles Toll Road.

The plaintiffs in the case, drivers who use the road on a regular
basis, filed a notice of appeal almost immediately after Judge
Anthony Trenga, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, issued his decision on July 7.

The drivers allege that the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority exceeded its authority by setting toll rates and then
using those funds to pay for Metrorail expansion to Dulles
Airport, a project they allege is not directly related to the
maintenance of the road.  Under these circumstances, they claim,
the tolls function as taxes, which the drivers argue can be levied
by elected bodies alone.

Judge Trenga wrote that the class members lacked prudential
standing, meaning that the claims are "so inextricably bound up"
in political and legislative matters in other branches of
government that it would be unwise for the court to get involved.

MWAA's existence and authority stems from political decisions made
by Congress and legislative and executive branches in the
District, Maryland and Virginia, Judge Trenga wrote.  As a result,
the class members' claims are policy issues that should be handled
in those forums.

Judge Trenga did reject MWAA's argument that the class members
lacked general standing to file suit, though, writing that regular
users of the road who pay tolls could allege an injury from paying
what they believed were unconstitutionally-leveraged taxes.

Robert Cynkar of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca in Alexandria, Va., said
on July 8 that while he was disappointed, he was not surprised and
is ready to challenge the ruling on appeal.

"Frankly, these kinds of cutting-edge constitutional cases, if you
look back in history, the party that ultimately wins and makes
those new principles of law, loses in the District Court and Court
of Appeals," Mr. Cynkar said.

MWAA was represented by Stuart Raphael of Hunton & Williams in
McLean, Va., who referred questions to the authority's general
counsel, Phil Sunderland.

"We're certainly very pleased with the outcome," Mr. Sunderland
said.  "This is the third go-around of litigation raising
essentially the same issues . . . We hope with the opinion from
Judge Trenga, which was a very thorough analysis of all the
issues, that we will now have seen the last of these lawsuits."

The drivers filed suit in April, claiming that the authority's use
of tolls to pay for the Silver Line Metrorail expansion project
converted "what is supposed to be a legitimate user fee into a
tax."  As an unelected body, they argued, the authority lacked
authority under the Virginia Constitution and Commonwealth
Transportation Board to levy taxes.

In 2008, the authority entered into an agreement with the Virginia
Department of Transportation to take over control of the toll road
and the Metrorail expansion project.

In MWAA's motion to dismiss, the authority noted that this case is
the third such lawsuit aimed at curbing the use of tolls for the
Metrorail expansion.  A judge in the Circuit Court for the City of
Richmond dismissed the first suit, the authority notes, finding
that the tolls were not taxes.  As in the most recent case, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that the
plaintiffs in the second lawsuit lacked prudential standing.

Although Judge Trenga dismissed the suit on the prudential
standing issue, he also dismissed the plaintiffs' individual
claims, agreeing with the Fourth Circuit that the tolls were not
the same as a tax.  He also found that MWAA did have legal
authority to set the tolls and use them for the Metrorail
expansion project.


WEICHERT REALTORS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Camilli, writing for phillyBurbs.com, reports that a
Superior Court judge on July 8 approved the settlement of a class-
action lawsuit filed by Burlington County residents against
Weichert Realtors seeking the refund of an administration fee the
company charged at closings.

Weichert, admitting no fault, agreed to pay $525,000 to settle the
suit brought in March by Harry and Rita Schmoll, Paul Conti, Jr.
and Jovany Blasini.  The class, which could include as many as
8,000 potential claimants, would share in a portion of the reward
under the settlement approved by Judge Karen Suter.

Judge Suter said she found the settlement to be fair, reasonable
and adequate, and approved attorney fees and costs to come out of
the settlement before reimbursement to class members are made.

The lawsuit alleged that the administration fees, which ranged
from about $160 to $250, charged by Weichert were "junk fees" for
which the company performed no separate, identifiable service
beyond what it already does to earn its share of the commission.

The suit alleged that such fees violated the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and the New Jersey Truth in Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act.

"We think the fee is permissible," said Weichert attorney
Jay Varon, who noted that the company successfully defended a
similar lawsuit in the state but chose to settle the Burlington
County suit considering, in part, the expense of litigation.

The fee is no longer charged, Mr. Varon said.

The class includes "all persons or entities who sold residential
real estate in New Jersey between Feb. 25, 2005, and April 1,
2011, who in connection with that sale were charged an
administrative fee by Weichert, sometimes known as Weichert
Realtors . . . where the sale involved a federally related
mortgage loan."

Attorney Joseph Osefchen of Shabel & DeNittis of Evesham said
anyone who sold a residential single-family home with Weichert
during the stated time frame would likely be eligible for a
refund.

Mr. Osefchen said that claimants could be fully reimbursed, but
that the amount would depend on how many claims are received.
Rarely do all eligible parties pursue claims, he said.

Those who want to pursue a claim have until Sept. 2 to file forms,
which can be accessed at http://www.adminfeeclassaction.com

Also, in a separate lawsuit that alleged the same administration
fee practices, Prudential Fox & Roach has agreed to pay a
settlement of $270,000.  A fairness hearing and final approval of
the proposed settlement is pending in Superior Court.

"We are very happy with the result in these class settlements.
We think it is a win for consumers in New Jersey," class attorney
Stephen P. DeNittis said.  "We hope that these suits will deter
other real estate brokers from trying to charge these types of
fees."


                             *********

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  * * *