CAR_Public/110714.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 138

                             Headlines

ALBERTA CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Actions Piling Up
ARUBA: Codacons Mulls Class Action Over Server Blackout
AUDIOVOX CORP: Consolidated Suits Over RF Exposure Still Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss HAMP Class Action
BP: 107,000 Short-Form Joinder Claims Filed in Oil Spill MDL

CARMAX INC: Consolidated "Fowler" Suit Still Pending
CITISTORAGE LLC: Sued Over Misleading Billing Practices
CITY OF BILLINGS, MT: Police Officers Win Summary Judgment Bid
ENCORE CAPITAL: Sued Over Deceptive Collection Tactics
FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "Rothenberg" Suit in N.C.

FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violation Suits
FAMILY DOLLAR: "Scott" Suit Stayed to Pave Way for Settlement
HQ SUSTAINABLE: Faces Securities Class Suit in Washington
JP MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over SCRA Violations
MACY'S INC: Agrees to Pay $750T Civil Penalty Over Drawstrings

MARION COUNTY JAIL, FL: Faces Class Action Over Gain Time Policy
NEW KOOSHAREM: Accused of Underpaying Employees in California
NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Settles Immigrant Class Action
OILSANDS QUEST: Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending
ONTARIO, CANADA: Settles Caledonia Class Action for C$20 Million

RITE AID: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suits
RITE AID: California Wage and Hour-Violation Suits Still Pending
SERVIDYNE INC: Shareholders Seek to Enjoin Buyout by Scientific
SONY NETWORK: Sued Over Security Breach by Identity Theft Victim
TC GLOBAL: $375,000 Settlement in "Tully" Suit Disbursed

TWEETER OPCO: Buyer Schultze Liable for WARN Act Claims
UNITED ARTISTS: Settles Facsimile Advertising Class Action




                             *********

ALBERTA CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Actions Piling Up
----------------------------------------------------
Darcy Henton, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that
Awatef Alzien is struggling to care for her 11-year-old daughter
who was left blind and disabled after she received care for a
respiratory problem at Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary.

A lawsuit filed on behalf of her daughter Hanna is one of 375
legal actions filed against Alberta Health Services and the
Department of Health as of March 31, 2011, according to annual
reports released last week, which also indicate the liability
could surpass C$1 billion.

The family is suing the hospital, six doctors and a registered
nurse for nearly C$1 million for alleged negligence and
malpractice in the care of Hanna, who suffered a brain injury that
impaired her speech, put her in a wheelchair and left her with
only limited use of her hands.

Since the lawsuit was launched, Hanna's father, Bchar, 55,
suffered a serious heart attack and Awatef, 50, is surviving on
social assistance while caring for him as well as her daughter.

"I can't handle the situation any more," she said, choking with
emotion.  "It's been headache, headache, headache.  I am trying to
fight for her rights, but nothing is being done."

She can no longer lift her daughter, who has grown to nearly her
size, and can't afford the C$500 cost for a sling, she said.  She
can't take her daughter out because the family car, a 1993 Toyota,
has broken down and she can't afford to replace it, she added.

But the mills of justice grind slowly.  It has been 11 months
since the family filed the suit and it could be years before it is
settled.

It's one of the cases piling up at Alberta Health.  Combined, the
375 lawsuits seek C$576.9 million -- and that doesn't include 53
that claim no specific dollar amount.

Some huge class-action lawsuits not even on the list yet could
boost the liability by another billion dollars, if they are
successful.

A lawsuit launched in 2005 by Alberta seniors and the Elder
Advocates of Alberta Society could cost between C$100 million and
C$175 million per year, Alberta Health Services says in its annual
report.

The organization could also be on the hook for another C$25
million stemming from class-action claims related to the failure
of Vegreville's St. Joseph's Hospital to provide adequate
infection control and safety measures to prevent the contamination
of medical equipment, states the annual report.

"The outcome of the claims is not determinable, and no liability
is recorded at this time," says the report.

Ruth Adria, Elder Advocates chair, said her organization
spearheaded the class-action lawsuit against Alberta Health
Services after the province hiked long-term-care fees 40 to 48% in
2003 without adequate notice or justification.

She said there's no excuse for forcing seniors who can no longer
care for themselves to pay C$1,700 a month for what she called
barely edible meals, a room and a bed.

The province failed at the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court of Canada to prevent the class action suit from being
certified, and now faces a huge liability calculated on the amount
of the increase in long-term-care charges if it loses.

"The cost to taxpayers will be exorbitant if they don't soon
settle," Ms. Adria said.  "It will be outrageous."

The society wants the fees rolled back and seniors compensated for
the money they have already paid.

Liberal leadership candidate Hugh MacDonald said the government
claimed the revenue from the increased fees would go toward
improving services for seniors in long-term care, but that didn't
happen.

"It's certainly a reflection of how poorly our health-care system
is managed and how poorly policies are thought out," he said.
"They have forced seniors to pay hundreds of millions of dollars
and they never stopped to think whether they had the authority to
collect it or not."

Mr. MacDonald said the number of lawsuits against Alberta Health
is an indication a lot of people aren't satisfied with how the
system is run and they're going to court for justice.

"When you have all these cases filed in court, that's not an
indication of public confidence," he said.

Alberta Health spokesman Andy Weiler said the ministry can't
comment on specific cases before the courts, but it is not
admitting any liability in the class-action suits.

He added there has been no significant change in the number of new
lawsuits launched over previous years.  Nineteen claims were filed
last year, 22 in 2009, and 19 in 2008.


ARUBA: Codacons Mulls Class Action Over Server Blackout
-------------------------------------------------------
Agenzia Giornalistica Italia reports that Codacons, Italian
consumer association, announced they are filing a complaint to 104
Public Prosecutors' Offices in Italy asking for an inquiry against
Aruba, after a server black out on July 8 that caused "disruption
of service and heavy inconvenience to clients and providers".
"With the passing of hours", as the association claims in a note
-- "an increasing number of reports are arriving to us, denouncing
the heavy inconvenience because of the impossibility to enter
thousands of web-sites, in Italy and abroad . . .."


AUDIOVOX CORP: Consolidated Suits Over RF Exposure Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain consolidated class actions transferred to a Multi-District
Litigation Panel of the United States District Court of the
District of Maryland against Audiovox Corporation and other
suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of hand-held wireless
telephones alleging damages relating to exposure to radio
frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones are still
pending.

The Company says no assurances regarding the outcome of this
matter can be given, as the Company is unable to assess the degree
of probability of an unfavorable outcome or estimated loss or
liability, if any.  Accordingly, no estimated loss has been
recorded for the case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 31, 2011.


BANK OF AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss HAMP Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
MortgageOrb reports that a federal judge has denied Bank of
America's motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that alleges
the bank improperly denied loan modifications under the Home
Affordable Modification Program.

In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Rya Zobel of
Massachusetts also clarified which homeowners could continue to
pursue legal claims over the bank's handling of HAMP cases,
according to a press release from Seattle-based law firm Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which is representing borrowers in the
case.

The lawsuit originally sought to represent all homeowners whose
mortgages were serviced by Bank of America.  Judge Zobel ruled
that only those who were accepted in a HAMP trial-period plan but
were not given permanent HAMP modifications or written notice that
their application had been denied will be allowed to continue
their claims.

Judge Zobel also ruled that plaintiffs living in California,
Illinois, Arizona, Massachusetts, Oregon, Maryland, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin can pursue claims under their state
laws.

"We are looking forward to proving that Bank of America
intentionally postpones homeowners' requests to modify mortgages,
depriving borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them
from foreclosure," Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens
Berman, said in a statement.  "The bank ends up reaping the
financial benefits provided by taxpayer dollars financing TARP
funds and also collects higher fees and interest rates associated
with stressed home loans."


BP: 107,000 Short-Form Joinder Claims Filed in Oil Spill MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that during
the monthly oil spill litigation status conference on July 8,
attorneys addressed preservation of samples, a government motion
on confidentiality of settlements and other matters.  About
107,000 claimants have joined the litigation so far by filing
short-form joinders.

The Texas law firm Watts Guerra Craft is responsible for 44,510 of
those filings, according to a document filed last week by BP
counsel.

No procedure for dismissing short-form joinder claims is in place
for instances in which claimants take settlements from the Gulf
Coast Claims Facility, overseen for BP by Kenneth Feinberg.  But
attorneys for both sides said they are working out a procedure for
dismissal.

An estimated 463 cases are pending in the Eastern District of
Louisiana multidistrict litigation.  Each case has numerous
plaintiffs; plaintiffs are believed to number about 130,000.

Another 31 Deepwater Horizon-related lawsuits are pending in state
courts, including three in Alabama, 10 in Texas, 12 in Louisiana,
three in Florida, two in Mississippi and one in Georgia.

Among those are 18 personal injury suits, 15 from the oil rig
explosion, and three from oil spill response workers.

One lawsuit, filed pro se in Louisiana, alleges that BP was
negligent in failing to implement the plaintiff's process for
re-oxygenating Gulf waters in the region of the oil spill.

BP attorney Don Haycraft said several depositions were taken in
London in June.  Mr. Haycraft said 130 depositions have been taken
so far, including two on July 8, and 58 more are scheduled for
July.

Mr. Haycraft said BP has turned over 3 million pages of documents.
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the
consolidated litigation, presided over the status conference.

Andrew Langan, another attorney for BP, told Judge Barbier that
liaison counsel for both sides have worked out a framework for
sorting out what may be thousands of contract disputes alleging
that BP failed to honor contracts with fishermen and other ship
owners and operators for helping clean up the oil in BP's Vessels
of Opportunity Program.

Mr. Langan told the court the two sides will work together to
select three focus cases for trial, with trial "wrapped up by
September," and mediation over by October.

Mr. Langan said BP and the plaintiffs' steering committee will
work together to discuss whether mediation of those cases will be
kept private.

Steve Herman, of the plaintiff liaison counsel, said the number of
Vessel of Opportunity contract claimants may be in the thousands.

The Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel on May 27 denied BP's
motion to create a state-level multidistrict litigation for the
Texas state cases.

Texas courts have set trail dates from Oct. 17 this year to
April 16, 2012, in five personal injury cases brought by oil spill
response workers.

Also discussed during the status conference were pending motions,
including a motion filed by BP on preservation of samples.

Judge Barbier signed the order, which authorizes BP to "release
those physical items" described in the order, so long as BP
publishes "a list of all such items and provide[s] notice of its
intent to release those items to all parties to this action . . .
BP shall make all such items available for inspection by any party
to this litigation at a secure location for a period of no fewer
than five (5) business days following the notice to all parties
that BP intends to release those items . . . BP shall cause
photographs of all such items to be taken and made available to
all parties to this litigation; and . . . in the event that a
party to the litigation notifies BP in writing or by email that
the party objects to confirming the non-applicability of BP's
preservation of evidence obligations as to a specific item, BP
shall retain the item at a secure location pending resolution of
the issue . . ." the order states.

It continues: "'Preserve' shall mean to keep and not to alter any
potentially relevant information as to its form, content or manner
of filing."

Judge Barbier said he probably would sign a motion from the United
States on confidentiality of settlement negotiations.  After the
status conference, the judge did sign the order.

Document 3201 in the court docket provides specifics of the
confidentiality order: "A party receiving settlement
communications under the order shall keep them confidential and
not disclose them to persons or entities not a party to the
negotiations for which the settlement communications are being
exchanged.  Each party who receives settlement communications
shall take all necessary and appropriate measures to maintain the
confidentiality of settlement communications.  Settlement
Communications are not discoverable or admissible in this MDL
absent a court order issued after the party seeking discovery or
admission of such communications has demonstrated good cause."

The next status conference is scheduled for Friday, Aug. 12 at
8:30 a.m.

A copy of the Order in In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater
Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 10-md-
02179 (E.D. La.) (Barbier, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/11/BPPreservation.pdf


CARMAX INC: Consolidated "Fowler" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit commenced by its employees in
California remains pending, according to CarMax, Inc.'s July 11,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2011.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and
CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; and (5) unfair competition.  The putative class
consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly
employees who worked for the company in California from April 2,
2004, to the present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of
the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.
On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the
failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement
provisions.  The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary
adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay
overtime to the sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs
appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant
overtime claim.  On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeals
affirmed the court's ruling in favor of CarMax.  In response to
this ruling, the plaintiffs have filed a Petition of Review with
the California Supreme Court.

In addition to the plaintiffs' appeal of the overtime claim, the
claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; and (3) unfair competition.  On June 16, 2009, the court
entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California
Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related
legal issues.  The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special
damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties,
restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys'
fees.  The Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate
of the amount or range of loss that could result from an
unfavorable outcome in these matters.


CITISTORAGE LLC: Sued Over Misleading Billing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
The biggest independent storage company in the U.S.A., which
boasts it provides "simple" bills with "no hidden fees" is lying,
according to a class action complaint filed on July 11 in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

Manhattan resident Stacie Handwerker is suing New York-based
CitiStorage LLC, CitiPostal Inc. and Ares Capital Corporation,
collectively known as CitiStorage, on behalf of herself and all
other individuals and companies who have been misled by the
company's deceptive and misleading billing practices.  With more
than 3000 customers and nearly 3 million boxes, the company
describes itself as "the largest stand-alone independent records
storage company in the country."  According to the company's
Web site, "Many of Greater New York's largest hospitals, banks,
financial services providers, law firms and government
institutions depend on CitiStorage to store and manage their
records."

Ms. Handwerker and the class are represented in the matter by
Steven L. Wittels and Jeremy Heisler in the New York City office
of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP.

"In stark contrast to its advertising claims, CitiStorage's bills
and billing practices are designed to mislead customers and
generate millions of dollars in unwarranted late fee surcharges
for the company," said Mr. Wittels.  "Ms. Handwerker is one of
thousands of its customers in the New York metropolitan area who
have been bilked by this giant storage company's underhanded
billing scheme."

According to the complaint, CitiStorage crafts its bills to
include a 2% late fee surcharge in the total due on all invoices,
even though the surcharge is not owed by customers if they pay
their storage bill by the 15th of each month.  In addition, the
company sends its invoices four or five days into each month,
which reduces the time customers have to pay their bills to avoid
owing the surcharge, and it compounds its deception by failing to
credit or return the 2% surcharge to customers who pay their bills
on time.

The complaint characterizes CitiStorage's conduct as "a textbook
breach of contract and consumer fraud," in violation of the New
York Consumer Fraud Statute, as well as a breach of contract and
unjust enrichment to the company.

Ms. Handwerker's class action seeks to stop the company's
duplicitous billing strategy on behalf of herself and the class of
all CitiStorage customers who have been billed for a hidden late
surcharge, and whose late charges were not returned even though
the company received payment on time.  The class period extends
back 6 years from the July 11 filing.

"Only through the vehicle of a class action can the victimized
customers be empowered to remedy this wide-spread wrongdoing,"
said Mr. Heisler.  "This suit provides a means of leveling the
playing field to ensure that companies like CitiStorage engage in
fair and honest business practices."

CitiStorage has giant storage facilities; one at 5 N. Eleven St.,
Brooklyn and the other at 107 West Side Ave., Jersey City, New
Jersey.  Plaintiff- Ms. Handwerker's complaint asks the court to
enjoin CitiStorage from continuing its deceitful billing
practices, and to return to her and all other members of the class
all misappropriated 2% surcharges.

             About Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP -- http://www.swhlegal.com-- is a
boutique class-action litigation law firm with offices in New
York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.  SWH specializes in
civil rights and general public interest cases, representing
plaintiffs with employment discrimination, labor and wage
violations, predatory lending, whistleblower, consumer fraud, and
other claims.  SWH also represents select individuals and has
developed a particular expertise in the representation of
executives in employment disputes.


CITY OF BILLINGS, MT: Police Officers Win Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Tuttle, writing for The Billings Gazette, reports that a
state judge has ruled in favor of city police officers' wage claim
against the city of Billings saying that the contract between the
city and the union representing city police officers is "clear,
unambiguous, and easily understandable."

In a five-page ruling issued on July 8, District Judge Nels
Swandal granted a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the
class action lawsuit brought against the city by officers who
claimed that they had been underpaid for years.

The ruling in the police officers' case is the third such wage
claim won by city employees in recent years, including a lawsuit
by firefighters that was settled in 2007 for more than $4 million.
A similar complaint brought by six female city employees was
settled last year when the city agreed to pay them more than
$140,000.

Randy Bishop, an attorney for the police officers in the recent
case, said on July 8 that the amount the city owes the officers is
still unclear.

"Final judgment can't be entered until the amount can be
determined by experts," he said.

Both sides will probably submit briefs later setting forth the
amount the judge should order the city to pay the officers,
Mr. Bishop said.

Twenty-eight city officers filed the lawsuit in January 2009,
claiming that the city had for years underpaid them by incorrectly
calculating their longevity pay.

Judge Swandal of Livingston, presided over the case because the
lead plaintiff, Officer Ernie Watters, is married to Yellowstone
County District Judge Susan Watters.

Ernie Watters could not be reached for comment on July 8.
Mr. Bishop said Mr. Watters was pleased by the judge's ruing.

It was unclear on July 8 if the city intends to appeal the ruling.
An attorney for the city, Roger Witt of Great Falls, could not be
reached for comment.

City Attorney Brent Brooks said city staffers would meet with
their attorneys on the case this week to review the decision.

The officers claimed in the lawsuit that the city had failed to
add the officers' longevity pay to their base salary each year,
resulting in a calculation of their annual salary that
shortchanged the officers.

Attorneys for the city argued that the parties involved in
negotiating the collective bargaining agreements between the city
and the police union never intended to have the longevity pay
added to the base salary.

In his ruling, Judge Swandal said state law and prior case law
make it clear that written contracts must be interpreted by the
clear meaning of the contract language.  In this case, both sides
agreed that the contact language was clear, but they reached
different conclusions about the effect of the language, the judge
said.

"The question before this court is whether the language at issue
is ambiguous," the judge wrote.  "The court finds that the
language, 'longevity (pay) shall be added to each officer's hourly
rate . . .' is clear, unambiguous, and easily understandable.  It
is not ambiguous nor reasonably subject to two different
interpretations.  The court must apply the language as written."

Noting some minor differences in the contracts at issue in the
lawsuit, Judge Swandal offered in the ruling the correct formula
that should be used when calculating an officer's pay using the
longevity pay multiplier.

Judge Swandal also rejected arguments by the attorneys
representing the city that information not included in the
contract, such as the intent of those who negotiated the
agreements, should be considered.

"The defendant argues forcefully that this court should allow
extrinsic evidence to search for the truth, and that, in this
particular case, 'we know what the truth is,'" Judge Swandal said
in the ruling.  "However, the facts that this court is allowed to
consider are those contained within the four corners of the
(collective bargaining agreement)."

Earlier this year, Judge Swandal ruled that the officers' case
qualified as a class action lawsuit and covered current and former
officers back to Jan. 14, 2001.  In April, letters were mailed to
187 current and former officers informing them of the class action
status.  Mr. Bishop said 36 responded with letters opting out of
any possible benefit from the legal action.

The lawsuit filed against the city by firefighters in 2000 claimed
that the city had failed to pay them for all the hours they
worked.  The case was resolved four years ago and resulted in the
city paying the firefighters $4.3 million plus attorney fees.

More recently, a state investigator said in June of last year
that there was evidence to support a claim against the city of
Billings filed by six female city employees who said they had
received less longevity pay than their co-workers.  The individual
cases were filed with the state Human Rights Bureau and were later
consolidated into a single case.

In September, the city agreed to pay the female employees --
Anne Kindness, Diane Guy, Priscilla Martinez, Michelle Aman,
Valerie Ronquillo and Kathy Gibson -- a total of $140,553 to
settle the claims.  The City Council approved the settlement
agreement on Sept. 27.

The agreement also required that members of the City Council, the
city administrator and the city human resources director attend
two hours of training on equal-pay practices within one year.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Sued Over Deceptive Collection Tactics
------------------------------------------------------
Walt Nett, writing for Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, reports that the
state of Texas sued the nation's largest bad-debt buyer on July 8,
accusing Encore Capital Group and two subsidiaries of an unstated
number of violations of the state's regulations on third-party
collection practices and the state's deceptive trade practices
act.

The complaint, filed in Harris County District Court in Houston,
contends San Diego-based Encore and subsidiaries Midland Funding
and Midland Credit Management falsified supporting affidavits to
support breach of contract suits filed to collect delinquent
debts, and using unlawful and deceptive collection tactics.

The state legal document says Midland Funding and Midland Credit
Management have filed more than 60,000 lawsuits for collection in
Texas courts.

An Avalanche-Journal check of Lubbock County court filings
revealed the two Encore subsidiaries have filed about 450 suits
here since 2004.

Encore is a publicly traded company listed on the Nasdaq Stock
Market Inc.  The stock closed on July 8 at $26.53 a share, down
$4.65 from a closing price on July 7 on a volume of 1.4 million
shares.  Much of that drop came after the Texas legal filing was
announced.

Encore issued a statement saying the Texas complaint "appears to
largely restate concerns raised in a 2008 lawsuit against the
company," and that the debt collection firm looks forward to
working toward a resolution with Texas Attorney General Greg
Abbott's office.

The 2008 lawsuit referred to in that statement is a nationwide
class action lawsuit pending in federal court in Toledo, Ohio.
U.S. District Judge David A. Katz was scheduled to conduct a
fairness hearing on July 10 on a $5.7 million settlement offer to
the lawsuit's 1.4 million class members.

Mr. Abbott is one of 38 state attorneys general who, along with
the Federal Trade Commission, wants Judge Katz to throw the
settlement out.  They've argued the terms are paltry, and would
leave most of the class members worse off than before.

According to national media accounts, a Sandusky, Ohio, law firm
representing the plaintiffs would receive $1.5 million in fees,
"named" plaintiffs would receive about $8,000 each and Encore
would discharge their debts in full.  Payments would be capped at
$10 each to the unnamed class members, who would also have to give
up rights under federal and state debt collection laws to contest
the use of affidavits in their debt collection suits.

The outcome of the federal class action case would not affect the
state's suit in Houston.

The attorney general's suit seeks an injunction to halt Encore's
practices, asks the court to order creation of a restitution fund
to pay back all money illegally collected from Texans, and to pay
up to $20,000 in penalties per violation under the Texas Deceptive
Practices Act, plus $250,000 if any of the people illegally sued
were over 65 when they were sued, and unstated penalties for
violations of the state's regulations on third-party debt
collectors.

Debt-collection companies buy charged-off accounts from credit
card issuers and other lenders for very small amounts and can then
try to collect the full value of the debt.

However, in some cases, they buy only basic information from the
original creditor, rather than the full file on the borrower.

As a result, the Texas lawsuit says, in some cases, collection
actions were taken using incorrect or incomplete information,
leading to lawsuits against people who had either paid off the
debt or at least paid part of it, people who had either paid off
the debt have been sued, along with people who had paid.

One of the issues is Midland's practice of using "robo-signed
affidavits" to support the suit.  The affidavits, which under
Texas law have to be signed in the presence of an officer
authorized to administer oaths, such as a notary public, state
that the signer has personal knowledge of the facts leading to the
allegations in a lawsuit.

"From 2002 through 2009, it is undisputed that Defendants filed
thousands of false affidavits in their collection suits throughout
Texas," the Texas pleading states, citing depositions from three
Midland employees in Minnesota who said they signed as many as 300
to 400 affidavits per day in their offices, that they never signed
in front of notary, and they never read any documents regarding
the accounts connected with the suits.

"One employee testified that he simply picked up stacks of
affidavits off of the computer, signed them (hundreds at a time)
and forwarded them to the notary for signature and to be mailed to
the law firm filing the lawsuit," the Texas suit states.

In the prepared statement, Encore's chief executive officer,
Brandon Black, said the company changed its affidavit practices in
2009, as a result of the 2008 lawsuit and the company "believes
that its current practices are legally sound."

In March, shortly after it submitted the settlement in the federal
case, Encore issued its "Consumer Bill of Rights," a four-page
list of conditions for how it would handle debt-collection
practices in the future.

"Encore and its subsidiaries strive to work with consumers to help
them resolve their debt, but because 95% of consumers ignore
letters sent by the company, the legal channel is often the only
remaining option," Mr. Black's statement says.

According to the Texas lawsuit, about 90% of the defendants sued
by the two Midland firms in Texas failed to respond to the
lawsuits, leading to Texas courts entering default and summary
judgments in favor of Midland.

"The practical end result of Defendants' scheme is that Defendants
are asserting judgment liens against Texans which were
fraudulently obtained and in some cases were obtained against
individuals who complain they do not owe the debt at all or owe an
amount that is less than the amount of the judgment," the suit
contends.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend "Rothenberg" Suit in N.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit commenced by Ronald Rothenberg in North Carolina,
according to the Company's July 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 28, 2011.

On March 16, 2011, Ronald Rothenberg v. Howard Levine, et al., a
purported class action complaint relating to the rejection of a
proposal by Trian Group to acquire the Company and the adoption of
a stockholders' rights plan was filed in North Carolina State
Court, Mecklenburg County, and later removed to the North Carolina
Business Court, against the Company's Board of Directors by Ronald
Rothenberg, individually and on behalf of all of the Company's
stockholders other than defendants and their affiliates.  The
plaintiffs allege, among other allegations, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by not agreeing to sell
the Company and by adopting a stockholders' rights plan.  The
complaint seeks various forms of relief, including damages and an
order that the Board of Directors enter into negotiations to sell
the Company to Trian Group and redeem or rescind the stockholders
rights plan.  The Company believes that the complaint is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

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


FAMILY DOLLAR: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violation Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores Inc. continues to defend itself from numerous
lawsuits, including class action cases, filed against it alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws,
according to the Company's July 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 28, 2011.

Since 2004, certain individuals who held the position of Store
Manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and/or similar
state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who are not
entitled to overtime compensation.  The majority of the complaints
in each action also request that the cases proceed as collective
actions under the FLSA or as class actions under state laws and
request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and court costs.  The Company currently has 24
such cases pending against it.

Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. are both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division.  In those
cases, the N.C. Federal Court has returned orders finding that the
plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, that
neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA
is appropriate.  Hence, the Grace and Ward cases are proceeding as
43 individual plaintiff cases.

On July 9, 2009, the N.C. Federal Court granted summary judgment
against Irene Grace on the merits of her misclassification claim
under the FLSA.  The Company has filed summary judgment motions
related to each of the remaining 42 plaintiffs in the Grace and
Ward cases.  The plaintiffs appealed certain rulings of the N.C.
Federal Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit including the court's summary judgment order against Irene
Grace.  On March 22, 2011, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
district court's decision finding that Ms. Grace was exempt from
overtime compensation under the FLSA.  The Fourth Circuit did not
address the class certification issue in the Grace and Ward cases
since Ms. Grace's lawsuit would be dismissed on the merits.

Including Grace and Ward, a total of 19 class and/or collective or
single plaintiff misclassification cases are now pending before
the N.C. Federal Court.  The N.C. Federal Court stayed all
discovery in these cases pending the outcome of the Grace and Ward
appeals.  The stay will be lifted on or about July 1, 2011, and
discovery will continue.  Presently, there are a total of 41 named
plaintiffs and intervenors in the Grace and Ward cases, and 80
named plaintiffs and/or opt-ins in the remaining cases, for which
the court has not decided the class certification issue.

The Company has been sued in five additional class action lawsuits
alleging that Store Managers should be non-exempt employees under
various state laws. The plaintiffs in these cases seek recovery of
overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and court
costs.  Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri,
Inc., alleging violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, was
originally filed on January 26, 2010, and is pending in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.  The parties have
completed briefing on class certification and arguments on class
certification were held before the Circuit Court on April 29,
2011.  On May 10, 2011, the Circuit Court certified the class
under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and common law.  On May 20,
2011, the Company petitioned the Appellate Court for an
interlocutory appeal of the Circuit Court's decision certifying
the class.  The Appellate Court denied that petition on June 10,
2011.  The Company is evaluating further appeal.  Hegab v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on March 3, 2011.  Plaintiff seeks
recovery for himself and allegedly similarly situated Store
Managers under New Jersey law.  The Company has sought a stay of
the Hegab proceedings and is awaiting a decision from the district
court.  Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., alleging violations of the
Kentucky Wages and Hours Law, was filed in Circuit Court in
Jefferson County, Kentucky on February 17, 2010, and removed to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky.  On March 11, 2011, the district court denied the
Company's partial motion to dismiss the overtime claim under
Kentucky law and requested more discovery on that claim.  The
parties will be conducting that and other pre-certification
discovery through December 2011.  Youngblood, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., Family Dollar, Inc., Family Dollar Stores of
New York, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on April 2, 2009.
Rancharan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Queens County on March 4, 2009,
was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on May 6, 2009, and was subsequently
transferred to the Southern District of New York and has been
consolidated with Youngblood.  Class certification briefing has
been completed and the court's decision is pending.

In general, the Company continues to believe that its Store
Managers are "exempt" employees under the FLSA and have been and
are being properly compensated under both federal and state laws.
The Company further believes that these actions are not
appropriate for collective or class action treatment.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions.  While
the N.C. Federal Court has previously found that the Grace and
Ward actions are not appropriate for collective action treatment,
at this time it is not possible to predict whether one or more of
the remaining cases may be permitted to proceed collectively on a
nationwide or other basis.  No assurances can be given that the
Company will be successful in the defense of these actions, on the
merits or otherwise.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may result from these actions.

If at some point in the future the Company determines that a
reclassification of some or all of its Store Managers as non-
exempt employees under the FLSA is required, such action could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, liquidity or results of operation.  At this time, the
Company cannot quantify the impact of such a determination.


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Scott" Suit Stayed to Pave Way for Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action captioned Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., has been stayed to allow parties to negotiate a
settlement, according to the Company's July 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 28, 2011.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama, captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers.  This case was
pled as a putative class action or collective action under
applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store
Managers.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and
punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable
relief.  The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division.
Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case, with
no additional opt-ins.  The court has stayed the action to provide
the parties with an opportunity to discuss a potential settlement
of the litigation.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to predict
whether the N.C. Federal Court ultimately will permit the Scott
action to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a
class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Although the
Company intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances can
be given that it will be successful in the defense on the merits
or otherwise.  Similarly, at this time the Company cannot estimate
either the size of any potential class or the value of the claims
raised in this action.  For these reasons, the Company is unable
to estimate any potential loss or range of loss; however, if the
Company is not successful in defending this action, its resolution
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
statements as a whole.  The Company has tendered the matter to its
Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for
coverage under its EPLI policy.  At this time, the Company expects
that the EPLI carrier will participate in any resolution of some
or all of the plaintiffs' claims.


HQ SUSTAINABLE: Faces Securities Class Suit in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc., is facing a securities
class action lawsuit commenced by Jason Moomjy in Washington,
according to the Company's July 6, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A federal securities class action lawsuit and series of related
state and federal shareholder derivative actions were recently
filed against the Company and certain of its current and/or former
officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants").

The federal securities class action, captioned Jason Moomjy v. HQ
Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-
726-RSL, was commenced May 4, 2011, on behalf of certain
shareholders who purchased the common stock of HQSM between
May 11, 2009, and April 1, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington against defendant HQSM and one
or more of its officers and/or directors.  Class action plaintiffs
allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by
materially overstating the Company's sales, revenue and net income
since at least the first quarter of 2009, resulting in the
Company's stock to trade at artificially high levels throughout
the Class Period, and allowing the Company to make two public
offerings of its securities in 2009 and 2010.  The class action
plaintiffs do not provide any factual basis to support these
conclusory allegations.  Instead, they merely rely on the fact the
Company announced on March 16, 2011, that it would be unable to
file its financial statements and annual report with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission on that date, as
required by federal law, and was seeking a 15-day extension due to
delays in compiling information for the preparation of the
financial statements; and that trading of the Company's shares was
suspended by the Exchange on April 1, 2011, after the Company
failed to file the required documentation by the extended
reporting deadline.  Class action plaintiffs speculate that the
Company could not meet its reporting deadline because its Chief
Executive Officer allegedly would not cooperate with the auditors
and special counsel brought in by the audit committee to
investigate accounting improprieties at the Company.  Based on
these allegations, class action plaintiffs seek to hold all
defendants liable for allegedly violating Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as the Individual Defendants
additionally liable for allegedly violating Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The Company says this matter is in the early stages of the
proceedings.  Motions to appoint Lead Plaintiffs, and approve Lead
Plaintiffs' selection of Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel have only
recently been filed and the Company will not be required to
respond until a consolidated complaint is filed.


JP MORGAN: Settles Class Action Over SCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
AGBeat News reports that JP Morgan Chase has settled a class
action suit for violating the nearly 70 year old Servicemembers'
Civil Relief Act(SCRA) which states that even when legal and in
states that don't require it, only a judge can authorize a
foreclosure and only after a hearing where military members are
represented.  The law is in place to protect active duty military
members from financial duress.

In April of this year, a class action lawsuit was lost by JPMorgan
Chase, awarding $56 million to the troops and reforming Chase's
treatment of American military.  Similarly, Deutsche Bank was sued
for illegally foreclosing on a soldier.


MACY'S INC: Agrees to Pay $750T Civil Penalty Over Drawstrings
--------------------------------------------------------------

   * Drawstrings Pose Strangulation and Entanglement Hazards

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that Macy's
Inc., of Cincinnati, Ohio, has agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$750,000.  The penalty agreement [a copy of which is available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11274.pdf]has been
provisionally accepted by the Commission.

The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that Macy's
knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required by
federal law, that it had sold children's sweatshirts, sweaters and
jackets with drawstrings at the neck between 2006 and 2010.
Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings, including
sweatshirts, sweaters and jackets, poses a strangulation hazard to
children that can result in serious injury or death.

The sweatshirts, sweaters and jackets that are the subject of the
penalty agreement were sold by Macy's and Macy's-owned stores,
including Bloomingdale's, and Robinsons-May.  CPSC staff alleges
that Macy's knowingly sold some garments after a recall had been
negotiated, which the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008 made illegal.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails
to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,
regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC.

In 1996, CPSC issued drawstring guidelines to help prevent
children from strangling on or getting entangled in the neck and
waist drawstrings of upper outerwear, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.  In 2006, CPSC's Office of Compliance announced that
children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck
would be regarded as defective and presented a substantial risk of
injury to young children.

Beginning in 2006, CPSC and the garments' manufacturers and
distributors announced recalls of the following children's
garments with drawstrings that were sold at Macy's, Bloomingdale's
and Robinsons-May:

   * Quiksilver Inc. Hide & Seek hooded sweatshirts
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06223.html];

   * Jerry Leigh of California Inc. Harajuku Lovers Hooded
     Jackets
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09094.html];

   * La Jolla Sport USA Inc. O'Neill children's sweatshirts
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09163.html];

   * Dysfunctional Clothing LLC children's hooded sweatshirts
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09164.html];

   * Macy's Merchandising Group Inc. Epic Threads hooded
     sweatshirts and Greendog sweaters
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09246.html];

   * C-MRK Inc. Ocean Current boys' hooded sweatshirts
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09269.html];

   * NTD Apparel Inc. Hello Kitty hooded sweatshirts
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10054.html];

   * S. Rothschild & Co Inc. girls' coats
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10246.html];
     and

   * VF Contemporary Brands Inc. Splendid girls' hooded jackets
     and vest sets
     [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11071.html].

In agreeing to the settlement, Macy's denies CPSC staff
allegations that it knowingly violated the law.

Note: On June 29, 2011, the Commission approved a final rule that
designates children's upper outerwear in sizes 2T through 12 with
neck or hood drawstrings, and children's upper outerwear in sizes
2T through 16 with certain waist or bottom drawstrings, as
substantial product hazards.


MARION COUNTY JAIL, FL: Faces Class Action Over Gain Time Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Thompson, writing for Ocala.com, reports that Sheriff Ed Dean
and the County Commission might face a class-action lawsuit
accusing them of violating the constitutional rights of inmates at
the county jail.

Lawyers representing Ocala resident Bill Friss, a former inmate,
allege in court records that a policy intended to reward inmates
for good behavior was applied incorrectly, and thus Mr. Friss and
other inmates spent time behind bars after their sentences
expired.

Mr. Friss' lawsuit asserts that the number of inmates involved is
"unknown but large," perhaps amounting to thousands of people.

Specifically, Mr. Friss alleges that by not awarding time off for
good behavior as spelled out in state law, county officials
violated the inmates' constitutional protection against cruel and
unusual punishment and their right to due process.

Mr. Friss also seeks compensation for damages.  No amount is
mentioned, but according to court records, the dollar figure
should be "sufficient to deter and make an example of those
defendants."

County Attorney Guy Minter declined to comment on the details of
the lawsuit, saying the County Commission would defer to the
sheriff's legal team.

David Porter, an Ocala lawyer representing the Sheriff's Office,
said, "The sheriff's position is that the jail has not done
anything wrong and that Mr. Friss is not entitled to anything
other than what he's already received."

Mr. Friss' first step is to amend a lawsuit he filed against
Mr. Dean and the commissioners last year to expand it to class
action certification, which must be approved by a judge.

In court documents filed on July 8, Mr. Porter maintains that the
judge should block that move because the initial case is closed.

That, however, does not preclude Mr. Friss from filing a new
lawsuit.

The policy in question is known as gain time, whereby an inmate
gets days subtracted off the end of his or her sentence for good
conduct.

Florida law says counties that enact gain time must grant up to
five days per month off the first and second years of an inmate's
sentence.

According to the law, county commissions, which authorize the
policy, may with a sheriff's recommendation award up to an
additional five days a month for "meritorious conduct or
exceptional industry" -- for a maximum of 10 days.

Marion County altered its original 1991 gain-time policy in
February 2001, approving a plan that provided nine days a month
for inmates.

But the language of the resolution limited that to inmates
participating in the jail's work programs.

Mr. Friss, jailed for three months in 2008 after being released
from state prison, where he had served 8 1/2-years for attempted
murder, first complained to the commission in March 2009 that the
county's policy did not follow the state law.

Mr. Friss had been denied an opportunity to participate in the
work program while in the county jail, where he spent 90 days for
violating a court order.

When commissioners didn't change the policy, Mr. Friss followed up
by suing the county last year, serving as his own lawyer.

The Sheriff's Office and the County Commission have maintained
that the policy had complied with state law because the nine-day
provision covered both the rewarding of good conduct and
"exceptional industry."

In December, however, Circuit Judge Frances King sided with
Mr. Friss and nulled the county's policy.

Ryan Barack, a Clearwater-based lawyer representing Mr. Friss in
the more recent lawsuit, said the judge has yet to rule on whether
Mr. Friss' complaint warrants class-action status.

It's unclear how long that might take.

Lumping the inmates together would reduce the number of individual
cases that the court system would have to sort out.

Generally speaking, Mr. Barack added that the issues in Mr. Friss'
case now are correcting the policy to comply with the law into the
future and to compensate those who were wrongfully held after
their sentences were completed.

"Gain time is a good thing for the citizens, because it costs so
much to keep these people in jail," Mr. Barack said.  "We want to
have a system that encourages inmates to be well behaved while
they are in jail and rewards inmates for good behavior" so they
can be released sooner.

The County Commission recently took another shot at reworking the
gain-time policy.

In March, at Sheriff Dean's request, the commission adopted a
resolution that repealed the 2001 plan and launched a new system
that grants one day per month of "good conduct" gain time.

Inmates who qualify for and participate in jail's official work
programs would be eligible to receive an additional five days per
month.

Those prisoners, then, could get up to six days.

Mr. Porter, the sheriff's counsel, indicated that was more
generous than could otherwise be granted.

He pointed to a similar case involving another inmate,
Barry Luhellier, who had filed his own complaint arguing that the
new policy was a violation of the constitutional bar on ex post
facto legislation and asking to accrue gain time under the old
rules.

In response to Luhellier, Mr. Porter said the new plan was more
generous.  When Judge King struck down the previous policy, he
wrote, the commission did not have to provide any gain time.

The judge agreed, issuing an order on July 6 denying
Mr. Luheiller's request.  In the order, Judge King noted that the
formula outlined in the 2001 policy granted only nine hours of
gain time a month, and that the jail had been "incorrectly"
crediting prisoners for nine days.

Mr. Barack said there still might be problems.  The resolution
expressly delegates authority to administer the program to the
sheriff, although there is no provision in state law for that.

"The responsibility is with the Board of County Commissioners.
It's a non-delegable duty."

Mr. Porter disputed that, saying the commission is within its
discretion to designate Mr. Dean as the administrator of the jail.


NEW KOOSHAREM: Accused of Underpaying Employees in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Cuellar, Sr.; Henry Cuellar, Jr.; and all others similarly
situated and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 v. New Koosharem Corporation, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC463645
(Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 8, 2011) accuses the
Company of violating the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 7 and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Company committed labor law
violations in California, including wage underpayments.

The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly employees in Azusa,
California, in positions that the Defendants have classified as
non-exempt from overtime requirements of the California
Labor Code and applicable wage orders.

New Koosharem, a corporation organized under the laws of
California, is a temporary services employer within the meaning of
the Labor Code.  The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names,
capacities, relationships, and extents of participation in the
alleged violations of the defendants sued as Does 1-50, inclusive.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 499-4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499-4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com

          - and -

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Hayley Schwartzkopf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: setarehlaw@sbcglobal.net
          E-mail: hayley.setarehlaw@sbcglobal.net

          - and -

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com


NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Settles Immigrant Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Nova Scotia will pay out about
C$30 million to hundreds of immigrants who moved to the province
after paying into a failed mentorship program.

Each immigrant stands to receive up to C$75,000 as part of a
tentative settlement agreement of a proposed class-action lawsuit.

Elizabeth Mills, the Office of Immigration's executive director,
believes the settlement is fair.

The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in December 2009 on
behalf of Peter King, who moved to Halifax from the United Kingdom
in 2006 and paid into the program.

New immigrants were supposed to get on-the-job training with an
approved mentor company, but a statement of claim alleges King
applied unsuccessfully for a number of jobs and ended up moving to
B.C.

According to the documents, Mr. King ran a limousine and chauffeur
business in the U.K. before moving to Nova Scotia.

The province paid refunds to immigrants who met certain
requirements, but Mr. King didn't meet the criteria, mainly
because he didn't stay in Nova Scotia for 12 months.

The suit alleged the province breached its contract with Mr. King
by failing to provide suitable employers and management positions.

It also alleged the province misappropriated trust moneys and
breached Mr. King's rights under the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, including his mobility rights.

According to the document, Mr. King had been seeking C$100,000
plus interest paid in trust and unspecified damages or "the
disgorgement and accounting of all amounts held in trust plus
interest" received by the province, either directly or indirectly,
from members of the class.

The court still has to certify the class action and the settlement
also requires ratification by the plaintiffs.


OILSANDS QUEST: Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oilsands Quest Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended putative class
action lawsuit alleging claims of securities fraud is pending,
according to the Company's July 6, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April
30, 2011.

On February 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
on behalf of investors, who purchased or sold the Company's
securities between August 14, 2006, and July 14, 2009, alleging
claims of securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
control person liability for such fraud under Section 20(a) of the
same act, arising out of the Company's accounting for its
acquisition of an interest in Oilsands Quest Sask Inc. ("OQI
Sask") in August 2006.  On May 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in that
putative class action filed an amended complaint alleging the same
legal causes of action but making the following changes from the
Original Complaint: a) expanding the putative class period so that
it runs from March 20 2006, to January 13, 2011; b) naming as
additional defendants eight individuals who are current or former
directors of the Company as well as two additional corporate
defendants, McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd. and TD
Securities, Inc.; and c) basing the claimed fraud on a new theory
that the Company overstated the value of its mineral rights as a
result of misstatements about, among other things, the potential
for extracting bitumen from oil sands lands for which the Company
had exploration and development permits.  The Amended Complaint
seeks unspecified damages.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.  On June 6, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On June 20, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  The
Company filed its reply to the plaintiffs' opposition on June 27,
2011, and on July 29, 2011, the court is expected to hear oral
arguments.


ONTARIO, CANADA: Settles Caledonia Class Action for C$20 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Nolan and Danielle Wong, writing for TheSpec, report that
Ontario has agreed to pay Caledonia residents and businesses C$20
million to settle a class-action lawsuit launched five years ago
in the wake of the native occupation of a housing project that led
to blockades, frayed nerves and disrupted lives.

The compensation was announced on July 8 by the Liberal government
shortly after it was approved by Superior Court Judge David Crane
in a Hamilton courtroom.

"We're really pleased that we've been able to reach a settlement
in this case," Attorney General Chris Bentley said.  "And I really
hope that it will really provide some closure for the residents,
the business owners -- help them -- move forward with their
lives."

Members of Six Nations occupied the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE)
housing site on Argyle Street South at the end of February 2006,
claiming it was unsurrendered land.  The federal government, which
has jurisdiction for land claims, says the land was surrendered in
the 1840s.

Talks began in May 2006 between Six Nations, the federal
government and Queen's Park to settle the dispute, but they ground
to a halt in the fall of 2009 over compensation and languish in
limbo.  Natives remain in control of DCE, which the province
bought from the developers for C$16 million.

The lawsuit, launched in June 2006, focused on four incidents at
the height of the dispute when Argyle Street was closed, the
Highway 6 bypass was closed, court injunctions were not enforced
and hydro was interrupted after a transformer station was burned
on the Victoria Day weekend.  It involved 800 residents and
business owners and, at one point, the parties were seeking C$50
million in compensation.

"I'm pleased people are going to be compensated," said Caledonia
lawyer John Findlay, who oversaw the lawsuit against the province.

"It shows class action (lawsuits) can work in Canada," he said on
the steps of the courthouse.  "We think that we've been adequately
compensated."

Mr. Findlay believed there were signs the lawsuit could be settled
because the parties were sharing information to get a handle on
damages.  He said if no settlement was reached, the suit could
have gone to trial in the spring of 2012.

Kevin Clark, who lives beside DCE, was one of the representative
plaintiffs.  He said it had been a long five years and the
settlement does not take into account the emotional toll on his
family.

"The unfortunate thing is, it's not over until thing gets cleaned
up next door," said Mr. Clark, who lives on Braemar Avenue.
"We're always living with the fear that this might ramp up again
at any time."

He said many of those involved had wanted to go to court so they
could have on record what was allowed to happen during the height
of the dispute.

"Really, for us, it wasn't about the money," said Mr. Clark.  "It
was about some kind of justice for us."

Mr. Bentley said the settlement was "fair" and, had it gone to
court, would have taken "many hours, days, months -- who knows --
of time and much money spent on the lawyers."

Haldimand-Norfolk Conservative MPP Toby Barrett, who has long been
critical of the government for the way it handled the dispute,
questioned the timing of the settlement.  He noted the provincial
election is only weeks away.

"Like so many other things with respect to Caledonia in the last 5
1/2 years, is it just throw money at it and we want it to go
away," Mr. Barrett said.  "Is there a whiff of desperation and
panic here? . . . (I think) people in the community would say:
Keep your C$20 million, and just end this occupation of the
subdivision.  End this madness."

The province says it and Ottawa have spent more than C$82 million
dealing with the dispute since it began.  This includes more than
C$46 million for policing.


RITE AID: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation continues to defend itself against putative
class action lawsuits pending in various states alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards, according to the Company's
July 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 28, 2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative
collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state
courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Oregon,
purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current and former
assistant store managers or (ii) current and former store managers
and assistant store managers, respectively, working in the
Company's stores at various locations.  The lawsuits allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of certain state
wage and hour statutes.  The lawsuits seek various combinations of
unpaid compensation (including overtime compensation), liquidated
damages, exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.  In one of the cases, Craig et
al v. Rite Aid Corporation et al., pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, brought on
behalf of current and former assistant store managers, the Court,
on December 9, 2009, conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
assistant store managers since December 9, 2006.  Notice of the
Craig action has been sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 6,700 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,100 have joined the Craig action.
In another of the cases, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al.,
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, brought on behalf of current and former
store managers and assistant store managers, the Court, on
April 2, 2010, conditionally certified a nationwide collective
group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers
since March 31, 2007.  The Court ordered that Notice of the
Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective
group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and
approximately 1,550 have joined the Indergit action.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure
associated with the lawsuits.  The Company's management believes,
however, that the lawsuits are without merit and not appropriate
for collective or class action treatment.  The Company is
vigorously defending all of these claims.


RITE AID: California Wage and Hour-Violation Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation remains a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws, according to the Company's July 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 28, 2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws pertaining primarily
to pay for missed meals and rest periods.  These lawsuits purport
to be class actions and seek substantial damages.  At this time,
the Company is not able to predict the outcome of these lawsuits,
or any possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuits.
The Company's management believes, however, that the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit and that their claims are not
appropriate for class action treatment.  The Company is vigorously
defending all of these claims.


SERVIDYNE INC: Shareholders Seek to Enjoin Buyout by Scientific
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manzoor Hussain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Servidyne Inc., Alan R. Abrams, Samuel E. Allen,
Gilbert L. Danielson, Herschel Kahn, Robert T. McWhinney, Jr.,
Scientific Conservation, Inc., and Scrabble Acquisition, Inc.,
Case No. 2011CV202977 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., July 7, 2011)
is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Servidyne
seeking to enjoin a proposed acquisition by Scientific of
Servidyne's common stock for $13 million or $3.50 per share.

The Plaintiff contends that the proposed buyout is unfair and
undervalues Servidyne.  He adds that the individual defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and
due care by agreeing to sell Servidyne without first taking steps
to ensure that the Plaintiff and other public shareholders of
Servidyne would obtain adequate and fair consideration under the
circumstances.

Mr. Hussain is a Servidyne shareholder.

Servidyne is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and operates
globally through its wholly owned subsidiaries.  Servidyne
provides comprehensive energy efficiency and demand response
solutions, sustainability programs and other products that
significantly enhance the operating and financial performance of
existing buildings.  The individual defendants are officers and
directors of Servidyne.  Scientific is a leading provider of
energy efficiency solutions for commercial buildings.  Scrabble is
a Georgia corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of
Scientific.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven J. Estep, Esq.
          Jefferson M. Allen, Esq.
          COHEN COOPER ESTEP & ALLEN, LLC
          3330 Cumberland Boulevard, Suite 600
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 814-0000
          Facsimile: (404) 816-8900
          E-mail: sestep@ccealaw.com
                  jallen@ccealaw.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Marc Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com
          E-mail: mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


SONY NETWORK: Sued Over Security Breach by Identity Theft Victim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Hinkle, and all others similarly situated v. Sony Network
Entertainment America Inc., Does 1-25, Case No. cv-506303 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., June 10, 2011) is brought in
connection with the recent data security breach at Sony.

The Plaintiff alleges that he is a victim of identity theft and
suffered the withdrawal of over $1,100 from his checking account
as a result of the well-publicized PlayStation data security
breach.  He contends that Sony failed to secure and safeguard its
customers' private personal and financial data, including e-mail
addresses, passwords, login information, home addresses, dates of
birth, and credit and debit card information.

Mr. Hinkle is a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana.

Sony is a Delaware limited liability company with its executive
offices and principal place of business and corporate headquarters
in Foster City, San Mateo County, California.  Does 1-30 are
entities that participated in the transactions complained of in
the complaint in ways, which are unknown to the Plaintiff.

Sony removed the lawsuit on July 8, 2011, from the Superior Court
of the State of California, San Mateo County, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Sony
asserts that the removal and assignment of the action to the San
Francisco Division of the District Court is proper because Sony,
which is the only named defendant in the complaint, has its
principal place of business in Foster City, California.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. CV-11-3356 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark F. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON, OGILVIE & BREWER LLP
          600 California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 651-1951
          Facsimile: (415) 956-3233
          E-mail: mark@aoblawyers.com

               - and -

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Batesky, Esq.
          BATESKY LAW OFFICE
          22 East Washington St., Ste. 610
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 638-3471
          Facsimile: (317) 638-2524
          E-mail: rpbatesky@aol.com


TC GLOBAL: $375,000 Settlement in "Tully" Suit Disbursed
--------------------------------------------------------
A $375,000 settlement resolving a lawsuit filed against a unit of
TC Global, Inc., has been disbursed to the class, according to the
Company's July 6, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 3, 2011.

In December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against the Company's
Tully's Coffee in California state court by a former store
employee alleging that Tully's failed to provide meal and rest
periods for its employees.  The plaintiff sought class action
certification on behalf of all hourly employees in Tully's
California stores.  Similar lawsuits alleging missed meal and rest
periods have been filed in California against many other
companies.  The Company believes that Tully's complied with all
laws that require providing meal and rest periods for its
employees, but agreed to settle this lawsuit through binding
arbitration.  This matter was settled in September 2010 in the
amount of $375,000, all of which was disbursed to the class.


TWEETER OPCO: Buyer Schultze Liable for WARN Act Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath held that Schultze Asset
Management, LLC, is liable with Tweeter Opco LLC as a "single
employer" for alleged violations under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.  Judge Walrath said the plaintiffs in
a class action suit have shown common ownership, common directors
and officers and the de facto exercise of control by Schultze over
the Debtor.  The judge said the latter factor was particularly
egregious because Schultze exercised control over the Debtor's
hiring and firing decisions.

Andrew D'Amico, Eric Welter and Franklin Hemmings on their own
behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v.
Tweeter Opco, LLC, and Schultze Asset Management, LLC, Adv. Proc.
No. 08-51800 (Bankr. D. Del.), was filed on the same day Tweeter
Opco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The Plaintiffs' class
consists of former employees of the Debtor who were fired without
the 60-days' written notice required by the WARN Act.  Pursuant to
a stipulation, the proceeding is stayed against the Debtor but
continuing it as to Schultze.

A copy of Judge Walrath's July 8, 2011 Memorandum Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/joQIBzfrom Leagle.com

                       About Tweeter Opco

Tweeter Opco LLC, Tweeter Newco LLC, Tweeter Tivoli LLC, and
Tweeter Intellectual Property LLC were formed by Schultze Asset
Management LLC to acquire the assets of Tweeter Home Entertainment
Group, Inc.  In July 2007, Old Tweeter sold substantially all of
their assets to Tweeter Newco for $38 million.

Tweeter Opco and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on
Nov. 5, 2008 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 08-12646).  Lawyers at
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., assisted the company in its
restructuring effort.  The company estimated assets of $50 million
to $100 million and debts of $50 million to $100 million.

Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath converted the Opco Debtors' Chapter
11 cases to Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings effective Dec. 5,
2008.  George L. Miller at accounting firm Miller Coffey Tate was
appointed to serve as Chapter 7 trustee.  The firm may be reached
at:

         MILLER COFFEY TATE LLP
         8 Penn Center, Suite 950
         1628 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103
         Tel: 215-561-0950
         Fax: 215-561-0330
         E-mail: info@millercoffeytate.com

                      About Tweeter Home

Based in Canton, Mass., Tweeter Home Entertainment Group Inc.
-- http://www.tweeter.com/-- sold mid-to high-end audio and video
consumer electronics products.  Tweeter and seven of its
affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case
Nos. 07-10787 through 07-10796) on June 11, 2007.  Lawyers at
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, represented the
Debtors.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC acted as the Debtors'
claims and noticing agent.  Lawyers at Pachulski Stang Ziehl &
Jones LLP and at Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston & Rosen, P.C.,
represented the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

As of Dec. 21, 2006, Tweeter had total assets of $258,573,353 and
total debts of $190,417,285.


UNITED ARTISTS: Settles Facsimile Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lavoy & Chernoff, PC and Udall Law Firm, LLP on July 11 issued a
statement regarding the proposed settlement of the class action
Starkle Ventures, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. and
American Blast Fax, Inc.

In September 1999, United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. and
American Blast Fax, Inc. sent a fax advertising discount movie
tickets to phone numbers in Maricopa County, Arizona.  Plaintiff
filed a class action lawsuit against UA and ABF alleging the
facsimile advertising violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.  The Court certified the class, which
consists of those who received the fax.

Plaintiff has entered into a proposed settlement with UA.  The
Settlement creates a fund in excess of $6.8 million to pay class
members, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and class representative
incentive awards.

If you held (as of September 1999) one or more fax numbers on the
list used to send the facsimile advertisement, you may be entitled
to receive money pursuant to the Settlement or, if the Settlement
is not approved by the Court, through continued litigation in the
case.  You could potentially receive as much as $500 per facsimile
number that you held from the Settlement.

To determine if your fax number is on the list, you should visit
the Web site or call or write us.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU HELD A NUMBER ON THE LIST AND WISH TO
SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT (OR, IF THE SETTLEMENT IS NOT APPROVED,
FROM ANY RECOVERY THROUGH CONTINUED LITIGATION), YOU MUST A FILE A
CLAIM FORM BY SEPTEMBER 26, 2011.

IF YOU WISH TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THIS CLASS ACTION, YOU MUST
FILE AN EXCLUSION FORM BY SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.

IF YOU DO NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF, YOU MAY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT.  YOU MUST OBJECT BY SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.  THE COURT
WILL HOLD A HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 AT 1:30 P.M. AT 201 WEST
JEFFERSON, ROOM 704, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85003 TO DECIDE WHETHER TO
APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT.

THIS NOTICE IS A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY.  PLEASE REVIEW THE FULL
NOTICE ON THE WEB SITE OR CALL OR WRITE TO THE ADDRESS BELOW.  YOU
MAY ALSO OBTAIN CLAIM AND EXCLUSION FORMS ON THE WEBSITE.

http://www.azfaxclassaction.com;(877) 495-7963; Starkle Ventures
v. United Artists, c/o GCG, Inc., P.O. Box 9746, Dublin, OH,
43017-5646


                             *********

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  * * *