CAR_Public/110920.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 186

                             Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Order on Bid to Decertify "Khadera" Class
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Bucio" Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Cert.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Vacates Sept. 12 Trial in "Augustus" Suit
ABM INDUSTRIES: Expects to Get OK of "Diaz" Deal in Early 2012
ALDERWOODS GROUP: Judge Decertifies Class in "Prise" Suit

AVIAT NETWORKS: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Objector Lacks Standing to Oppose Deal
CARROLL ELECTRIC: Intends to Vigorously Defend Class Action
CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Suits
CHINA GREEN: Must File Response in Securities Suit By Oct. 7

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Accrued $116-Mil. Liability as of July 31
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Awaits October Hearing in "Deutsch" Suit
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "Maverick" Suit
DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suit in Minnesota

DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend "Littlefield" Class Action Suit
DEL MONTE: Ordered by Del. Court to Pay $2.75-Mil. Attorney Fee
DESTINATION MATERNITY: Sued in N.Y. Over Labor Law Violations
DSW INC: Awaits Final Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
FINISAR CORP: Appeals From Securities Suit Deal Order Pending

FINISAR CORP: Securities Suit Consolidation Bid Hearing This Month
GENESCO INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Strike Song-Beverly Suits
GENESCO INC: Unit Accused of Violating California Labor Code
HBLC INC: Accused of Unlicensed Debt Collection in Illinois
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal from Settlement of Suits in Calif. Pending

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in "Skold" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend FLSA Class Action Suits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Gets Final Approval of "Baggett" Settlement
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Drafting Settlement Docs. in "Sewell" Suit
HSBC HOLDINGS: Dropped From Silver Futures Class Action

KENNEDY KRIEGER: Faces Class Action Over Lead Paint Study
L & L ENERGY: Faces Suit in Seattle For Filing False Reports
MAGMA DESIGN: Insurer's Brief in Calif. Suit Appeal Due October 3
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Texas Court Dismissed Material Yard Suit in July
MILLER ENERGY: Faces 5 Securities Class Suits in Tennessee

NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Retired Players File Class Action
OCLARO INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Approval Pending
OCLARO INC: Defends Shareholders' Suit Pending in California
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Appellant Lacks Standing to Oppose Deal
SAFEWAY: Class Action Over Kona Blend Labeling to Push Through

SAKS INC: FLSA-Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
SATYAM COMPUTER: U.S. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
SEMTECH CORP: Court Dismissed Consolidated Securities Suit in June
SONY: Updates PSN User Agreement to Stop Class Actions
TALBOTS INC: Amended "Washtenaw" Complaint Pending in Mass.

TARGET CORP: Recalls 304,000 Chefmate 6-Speed Blenders
TELENAV INC: Hearing on Securities Suit Deal Set for November
TIVO INC: Appeals From Approval of IPO Suit Deal Remain Pending
ULTA SALON: Still Awaits Approval of Calif. Suit Settlement
UTI WORLDWIDE: Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in New York

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Defendants' Briefs in Calif. Suit Due Sept. 28
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits OK of Settlement of Merger-Related Suits
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Israeli Court Reaffirms Ruling on Applicable Law
VERINT SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Oct. 11 Hearing in "Deutsch" Suit
VERIZON: Law Firm Files Reply to Class Certification Opposition

WALNUT PLACE: Judge to Decide on BoFA Mortgage Removal
WORLD ONE: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Claims on Coconut Water




                             *********

ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Order on Bid to Decertify "Khadera" Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to decertify the class in the "Khadera" lawsuit, according
to the Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

The Company is a defendant in the lawsuit captioned Khadera v.
American Building Maintenance Co.-West and ABM Industries filed on
March 24, 2008, in U.S District Court of Washington, Western
District.  The action involves allegations relating to unpaid
overtime and meal and rest claims.  As previously reported, the
class was conditionally certified only with respect to certain
overtime claims under federal law.  The Company filed a motion to
decertify the class on July 6, 2011.


ABM INDUSTRIES: "Bucio" Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM
Janitorial Services took an appeal from the denial of their
request for reconsideration of the trial court's denial of their
motion to certify a class, according to ABM Industries
Incorporated's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

The Company is a defendant in the consolidated cases of Bucio and
Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.  The
lawsuit is a purported class action involving allegations that the
Company failed to track work time and provide breaks.  On
April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class.  At the conclusion of that hearing,
the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.
On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider,
which was denied.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal and have
requested a stay of the proceedings until the appeal is decided.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Vacates Sept. 12 Trial in "Augustus" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, vacated the
previously scheduled trial date of September 12, 2011, in the
consolidated lawsuits of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American
Commercial Security Services (ACSS), according to ABM Industries
Incorporated's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

The Company is a defendant in the consolidated cases of Augustus,
Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services (ACSS)
filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.  The class action alleges that the Company
violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest breaks.  On
July 11, 2011, the Court closed the class period as of July 1,
2011, and vacated the previously scheduled trial date of
September 12, 2011.  No trial date has been scheduled.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Expects to Get OK of "Diaz" Deal in Early 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated expects to receive preliminary
approval of an agreement to settle the consolidated cases of
Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking in the first quarter of
2012, according to the Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in the consolidated cases of
Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking filed on December 5,
2006, in L.A. Superior Court.  On April 21, 2011, the Court
granted a stay in the case.  On June 22, 2011, the parties
accepted a mediator's proposal which involves settling all the
claims made in the first amended complaint for the period of
October 1, 2002, to the date on which the Court grants preliminary
approval of the settlement.  The preliminary approval of the Court
is expected to be received in the first quarter of 2012.  Under
the proposed settlement, the maximum amount which could be paid to
claimants is $ 4.7 million.  The anticipated payment under the
terms of the mediator's proposal is approximately $2.9 million.
The Company has accrued $2.9 million with respect to this matter,
which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation
matters.


ALDERWOODS GROUP: Judge Decertifies Class in "Prise" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge decertified a
class suing the Alderwoods Group funeral-home giant for unpaid
overtime, citing lack of commonality among claimants.

A copy of the decision in Prise, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
Case No. 06-cv-01641 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/15/funeral.pdf


AVIAT NETWORKS: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks, Inc., is awaiting final approval of a settlement
resolving a consolidated securities lawsuit, according to the
Company's September 12, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended July 1,
2011.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers and
directors were named in a federal securities class action
complaint filed on September 15, 2008, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk
County Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the Company's securities from January 29, 2007, to
July 30, 2008, including stockholders of Stratex Networks, Inc.,
who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc. for the Company's
shares as part of the merger between Stratex Networks and the
Microwave Communications Division of Harris Corporation ("MCD").
This action relates to the restatement of the Company's prior
financial statements as discussed in the Company's fiscal 2008
Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 25, 2008.  Similar complaints were filed
in the United States District Court of Delaware on October 6 and
October 30, 2008.  Each complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other
relief, determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.  The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009, and a
consolidated class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009,
("Dutton").  On July 27, 2010, the Court denied the motions to
dismiss that the Company and the officer and director defendants
had filed.  On September 9, 2010, the Company and the officer and
director defendants filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the consolidated class action complaint.

On May 31, 2011, the Company and the other named defendants
entered into a stipulation of settlement ("Stipulation") with
respect to the Dutton action, pursuant to which the Company is to
cause $8.9 million to be paid into a settlement fund.  The entire
settlement amount is covered by insurance and has been assumed by
the insurance company.  A motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was filed with the Court on June 1, 2011, and the Court
issued its order preliminarily approving the settlement on \
June 21, 2011.  The hearing on final approval of the settlement
was set for September 16, 2011.

The effectiveness of the Stipulation and the settlement
incorporated therein is conditioned on these remaining conditions:

   (a) the Company's and Harris Corporation's option to terminate
       the Stipulation if prior to the settlement hearing the
       aggregate number of shares of Aviat Network's common stock
       purchased during the class period by all class members who
       would otherwise be entitled to participate in the
       settlement but who validly request exclusion equals or
       exceeds the sum specified in a supplemental agreement
       between the parties;

   (b) the Court entering an order of final approval of the Class
       Action settlement;

   (c) the Court entering judgment in the Class Action; and

   (d) the judgment becoming final.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the settlement
will be approved or become effective.


BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Objector Lacks Standing to Oppose Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York concluded that the remaining objector in the IPO Litigation
settlement involving Bottomline Technologies (de), Inc. and its
subsidiary lacked standing to oppose settlement, according to the
Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
June 30, 2011.

On August 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York: Paul Cyrek v. Bottomline Technologies, Inc.;
Daniel M. McGurl; Robert A. Eberle; FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.; CIBC World Markets;
and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. A consolidated amended class action
complaint, In re Bottomline Technologies Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on April 20, 2002.

On November 13, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company's subsidiary, Optio Software Inc., in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Kevin
Dewey v. Optio Software, Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc.; Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.; Dain Rauscher
Inc.; U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.; C. Wayne Cape; and F.
Barron Hughes.  A consolidated amended class action complaint, In
re Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, was filed on April 22, 2002.

The amended complaints filed in both the actions against the
Company and Optio assert claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
amended complaints assert, among other things, that the
descriptions in the Company's and Optio's prospectuses for the
Company's initial public offerings were materially false and
misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the
underwriters of the offerings, and in not describing certain
alleged arrangements among underwriters and initial purchasers of
the common stock from the underwriters.  The amended complaints
seek damages (or, in the alternative, tender of the plaintiffs'
and the class's common stock and rescission of their purchases of
the common stock purchased in the initial public offering), costs,
attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other expenses.

In July 2002, the Company and Optio joined in an omnibus motion to
dismiss, which challenged the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs'
claims.  The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits.  On February 19,
2003, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss as
to Bottomline and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to
Optio.  In addition, in October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl, Robert A.
Eberle, C. Wayne Cape and F. Barron Hughes were dismissed from
this case without prejudice.  Both Bottomline and Optio authorized
the negotiation of a settlement of the pending claims, and the
parties negotiated a settlement, which was subject to approval by
the court.  On August 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned
the District Court's certification of the class of plaintiffs who
are pursuing the claims that would be settled in the settlement
against the underwriter defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit on
January 5, 2007, in response to the Second Circuit's decision.  On
April 6, 2007, plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing of the Second
Circuit's decision was denied.  On June 25, 2007, the District
Court signed an order terminating the settlement.  On September
27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
certain designated "focus cases" in the District Court.  That
motion was withdrawn.  Neither Bottomline nor Optio's cases are
part of the designated focus case group.  On November 13, 2007,
the issuer defendants in the designated focus cases filed a motion
to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints
that were filed in those cases.

On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying, in large part, the motions to dismiss the amended
complaints in these focus cases.  On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval of a new proposed
settlement between plaintiffs, the underwriter defendants, the
issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer defendants.  On
June 10, 2009, the Court issued an opinion preliminarily approving
the proposed settlement, and scheduling a settlement fairness
hearing for September 10, 2009.  On August 25, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement
fund, and certification of the settlement classes.  The settlement
fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009.  On October 5,
2009, the Court issued an opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the settlement, approval of the plan of
distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the
settlement classes.  An order and final judgment was entered on
November 25, 2009.  Various notices of appeal of the Court's order
have been filed.  On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had
filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the court
withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two remaining
objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals.  On December
8, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice the appeal
filed by one of the two objectors based on alleged violations of
the Second Circuit's rules, including failure to serve, falsifying
proofs of service, and failure to include citations to the record.
On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appeals
and remanded the one remaining appeal to the District Court for
further proceedings to determine whether the remaining objector
has standing.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court concluded
that the remaining objector lacked standing.

The Company and its subsidiary Optio, intend to vigorously defend
themselves in these actions.  The Company does not currently
believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
adverse impact on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.


CARROLL ELECTRIC: Intends to Vigorously Defend Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Smartmeters.com reports that the Arkansas Public Service
Commission (APSC) has ordered defendant Carroll Electric
Cooperative Corporation (CECC) and the plaintiffs in a class
action suit to file briefs.  The complaint against Carroll
Electric, its board members, and administration was originally
filed July 19.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
"increased transparency, more democratic governance, repayment of
capital credits, a halt to the use of herbicides without the
landowners' permission and more."

The complaint singles out some of Carroll Electric's practices
such as its alleged refusal of "free and unfettered access to the
cooperative's financial, operational and managerial information"
and its "unjust enrichment" of board members.

CECC officials say the utility intends to vigorously defend itself
before the APSC and is confident the issues will be resolved in
favor of the Cooperative.  CECC notes that in a survey conducted
prior to the annual board meeting, more than 10,000 respondents
rated Carroll Electric "excellent in all categories surveyed."

Carroll Electric recently announced the deployment of smart meters
for all its customers.  There is no opt out option, which has
angered some residents who are concerned over possible breaches of
privacy; there are also some who believe the devices pose a health
hazard.

In response, Carroll Electric's Web site stresses that the smart
meters do not use radiofrequencies to take readings.  "The
cooperative's computers communicate with equipment installed at
the substation, which sends a signal over existing power lines to
the smart meter.  The meter responds by sending the meter reading
back to the cooperative via the same path. The smart meters being
installed by Carroll Electric do not use radio frequencies to
communicate.  All communication to and from the smart meter is
transmitted on existing power lines by using a secure embedded
digital signal."

Plaintiff's attorney Bill Ikard told the Lovely County Citizen,
that not giving consumers a choice over whether to have a smart
meter is wrong.  "We feel that's one of the many different areas
where the management has ignored the concerns of member
participation."

Both sides have to file opening briefs by September 30 and will
have until October 21 to file replies to those briefs.  A hearing
will be set at that time.

The docket of the complaint can be viewed at
http://www.state.ar.us/psc/

The docket number is 11-077-C.


CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc., is named as a defendant in four
lawsuits ("hot fuel" cases) brought in the federal courts in
Kansas and Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers.  The
complaints generally allege that the Company, along with numerous
other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at
its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion that occurs when
fuel is sold at temperatures above 60 F.  Fuel is measured at 60 F
in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel
taxes in Kansas and Missouri.  The complaints all seek
certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers
within those two states, and one of the complaints also seeks
certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all
states.  The actions generally seek recovery for alleged
violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising
practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.  The amounts sought are not quantified.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits that have
been filed since November 2006 in 27 jurisdictions, including 25
states, the District of Columbia, and Guam against a wide range of
defendants that produce, refine, distribute and/or market gasoline
products in the United States.  On June 18, 2007, the Federal
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
pending hot fuel cases (officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including
rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class
certification.  Discovery efforts by both sides were substantially
completed during the ensuing months, and the plaintiffs filed
motions for class certification in each of the pending lawsuits.

In a Memorandum and Order entered on May 28, 2010, the Court ruled
on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, American Fiber & Cabling, LLC v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC, et. al., Case No. 07-2053, and Wilson v. Ampride, Inc., et.
al., Case No. 06-2582, in which the Company is a named Defendant.
The Court determined that it could not certify a class as to
claims against the Company in the American Fiber & Cabling case,
having decided that the named Plaintiff had no standing to assert
such claims.  However, in the Wilson case the Court certified a
class as to the liability and injunctive aspects of the
Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) against the Company and
several other Defendants.  With respect to claims for unjust
enrichment, the class certified consists of all individuals and
entities (except employees or affiliates of the Defendants) that,
at any time between January 1, 2001, and the present, purchased
motor fuel at retail at a temperature greater than 60 F, in the
state of Kansas, from a gas station owned, operated, or controlled
by one or more of the Defendants.  As to claims for violation of
the KCPA, the class certified is limited to all individuals, sole
proprietors and family partnerships (excluding employees or
affiliates of Defendants) that made such purchases.

The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why
the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not
be consolidated for all purposes.  The matter is now under
consideration by the Court.  The court has scheduled the trial to
commence on May 17, 2012.  Management cannot estimate or quantify
the relief sought nor the amount of possible loss or potential
range of loss related to these actions.  Management does not
believe the Company is liable to the Plaintiffs for the conduct
complained of, and intends to contest the matter vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.


CHINA GREEN: Must File Response in Securities Suit By Oct. 7
------------------------------------------------------------
China Green Agriculture, Inc. and other defendants' response to
the amended complaint in the securities class action lawsuit
pending in Nevada is due October 7, 2011, according to the
Company's September 12, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30,
2011.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 12,
2009, and September 1, 2010.  On April 27, 2011, the court
appointed the lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.  On
June 13, 2011, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
adds several additional defendants and expands the class period to
include purchasers who purchased the Company's common stock
between May 12, 2009, and January 4, 2011.  The amended complaint
alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's financial statements,
securities offering documents, and related disclosures during the
class period.  The plaintiffs claim that such allegedly misleading
statements inflated the price of the Company's common stock and
seek monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.  By
stipulation of the parties, defendants' response to the amended
complaint is due October 7, 2011.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Cannane at Lateline reports that law firm Slater and Gordon
is planning to take a class action against the Church of
Scientology over claims the church has underpaid its workers.

On Sept. 13, Lateline revealed that a draft report by the Fair
Work Ombudsman had found that the church had wrongly classified
employees as volunteers.

Slater and Gordon believes that under the Fair Work Act, those
employees and ex-employees are owed large sums of money in wages,
holiday pay, overtime and superannuation.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Accrued $116-Mil. Liability as of July 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc., had an accrued liability of $116.2
million as of July 31, 2011, in connection with the $165 million
settlement of the lawsuits arising from the Company's Special
Committee investigation in 2006, according to the Company's
September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

On March 14, 2006, CTI announced the creation of a Special
Committee of its Board of Directors (the "Special Committee")
composed of outside directors to review CTI's historic stock
option grant practices and related accounting matters, including,
but not limited to, the accuracy of the stated dates of option
grants and whether all proper corporate procedures were followed.
In November 2006, the Special Committee's investigation was
expanded to other financial and accounting matters, including the
recognition of revenue related to certain contracts, errors in the
recording of certain deferred tax accounts, the misclassification
of certain expenses, the misuse of accounting reserves and the
misstatement of backlog.  The Special Committee issued its report
on January 28, 2008.  Following the commencement of the Special
Committee's investigation, CTI, certain of its subsidiaries and
some of CTI's former directors and officers and a current director
were named as defendants in several class and derivative actions,
and CTI commenced direct actions against certain of its former
officers and directors.

           Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture

In July 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed a forfeiture action against
certain accounts of Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, CTI's former Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, that resulted in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District entering an order freezing
approximately $50.0 million of Mr. Alexander's assets.  In order
to ensure that CTI receives the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts, in July 2007, CTI filed with the U.S. Attorney a
Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture requesting remission of
any funds forfeited by Mr. Alexander.  The United States District
Court entered an order on November 30, 2010, directing that the
assets in such accounts be liquidated and remitted to CTI.  The
process of liquidating such assets has been completed and the
proceeds from the assets in such accounts have been transferred to
a class action settlement fund in conjunction with the settlements
of the Direct Actions, the consolidated shareholder class action
and shareholder derivative actions.  The agreement to settle the
shareholder class action was approved by the court in which such
action was pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to settle the
federal and state derivative actions was approved by the courts in
which such actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and September 23,
2010, respectively.

                    Shareholder Class Action

Beginning on or about April 19, 2006, class action lawsuits were
filed by persons identifying themselves as CTI shareholders,
purportedly on behalf of a class of CTI's shareholders who
purchased its publicly traded securities.  Two actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, and three actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  On
August 28, 2006, the actions pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  A consolidated amended complaint under the caption In re
Comverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV- 1825, was filed
by the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Menorah Group, on March 23,
2007.  The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf of
a purported class of CTI shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly
traded securities between April 30, 2001, and November 14, 2006.
The complaint named CTI and certain of its former officers and
directors as defendants and alleged, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in connection with prior statements made by CTI with respect to,
among other things, its accounting treatment of stock options.
The action sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties to this action entered into a settlement agreement on
December 16, 2009, which was amended on June 19, 2010, and
approved by the court in which such action was pending on
June 23, 2010.  The Company recorded a charge associated with the
settlement during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007.

                      Settlement Agreements

On December 16, 2009, and December 17, 2009, CTI entered into
agreements to settle the consolidated shareholder class action and
consolidated shareholder derivative actions, respectively.  The
agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action was
amended on June 19, 2010.  Pursuant to the amendment, CTI agreed
to waive certain rights to terminate the settlement in exchange
for a deferral of the timing of scheduled payments of the
settlement consideration and the right to a credit (the "Opt-out
Credit") in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that
would have been payable to a class member that elected not to
participate in and be bound by the settlement.  In connection with
such settlements, CTI dismissed its Direct Actions against Messrs.
Alexander, Kreinberg and Sorin, who, in turn, dismissed any
counterclaims they filed against CTI.

As part of the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class
action, as amended, CTI agreed to make payments to a class action
settlement fund in the aggregate amount of up to $165.0 million
that were paid or remain payable as follows:

   * $1.0 million that was paid following the signing of the
     settlement agreement in December 2009;

   * $17.9 million that was paid in July 2010 (representing an
     agreed $21.5 million payment less a holdback of $3.6 million
     in respect of the anticipated Opt-out Credit, which holdback
     is required to be paid by CTI if the Opt-out Credit is
     less);

   * $30.0 million that was paid in May 2011; and

   * $112.5 million (less the amount, if any, by which the
     Opt-out Credit exceeds the holdback) payable on or before
     November 15, 2011.

Of the $112.5 million due on or before November 15, 2011, $30.0
million is payable in cash and the balance is payable in cash or,
at CTI's election, in shares of CTI's common stock valued using
the ten day average of the closing prices of CTI's common stock
prior to such election, provided that CTI's common stock is listed
on a national securities exchange on or before the payment date,
and that the shares delivered at any one time have an aggregate
value of at least $27.5 million.  In addition, under the terms of
the settlement agreement, CTI had the right to make the $30.0
million payment made in May 2011 in shares of CTI's common stock
if, prior thereto, CTI had met such conditions to using shares as
payment consideration.  CTI, however, did not meet such conditions
and accordingly, made such $30.0 million payment in cash.

If CTI receives net cash proceeds from the sale of certain auction
rate securities ("ARS") held by it in an aggregate amount in
excess of $50.0 million, CTI is required to use $50.0 million of
such proceeds to prepay the settlement amounts and, if CTI
receives net cash proceeds from the sale of such ARS in an
aggregate amount in excess of $100.0 million, CTI is required to
use an additional $50.0 million of such proceeds to prepay the
settlement amounts.  As of July 31, 2011 and January 31, 2011, CTI
had $33.6 million and $33.4 million of restricted cash received
from sales or redemptions of ARS (including interest thereon) to
which these provisions of the settlement agreement apply,
respectively.  In May 2011, CTI used $30.0 million of such
restricted cash to make the payment due under the terms of the
settlement agreement.  As a result of certain redemptions of ARS,
through July 20, 2011, CTI had received net cash proceeds from the
sale of certain ARS held by it in an aggregate amount in excess of
$50.0 million and, as a result, believes it is required to prepay
$20.0 million of the remaining $112.5 million due under the
settlement agreement on November 15, 2011, on or before October
18, 2011 (as $30.0 million of such net proceeds were used to fund
the May 2011 payment).

In addition, CTI granted a security interest for the benefit of
the plaintiff class in the account in which CTI holds its ARS
(other than the ARS that were held in an account with UBS) and the
proceeds from any sales thereof, restricting CTI's ability to use
the proceeds from sales of such ARS until the amounts payable
under the settlement agreement are paid in full.  As of July 31,
2011, and January 31, 2011, the Company had $33.6 million and
$33.4 million, respectively, of cash received from sales and
redemptions of ARS (including interest thereon) to which these
provisions of the settlement agreement apply which were classified
in "Restricted cash and bank time deposits."

In addition, as part of the settlements of the Direct Actions, the
consolidated shareholder class action and shareholder derivative
actions, Mr. Alexander agreed to pay $60.0 million to CTI to be
deposited into the derivative settlement fund and then transferred
into the class action settlement fund.  All amounts payable by Mr.
Alexander have been paid.  Also, as part of the settlement of the
shareholder derivative actions, Mr. Alexander transferred to CTI
shares of Starhome B.V. representing 2.5% of its outstanding share
capital.

Pursuant to the amendment, Mr. Alexander agreed to waive certain
rights to terminate the settlement and received the right to a
credit in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that would
have been payable to a class member that elected not to
participate in and be bound by the settlement.  CTI's settlement
of claims against it in the class action for aggregate
consideration of up to $165.0 million (less the Opt-out Credit) is
not contingent upon Mr. Alexander satisfying his payment
obligations.  Certain other defendants in the Direct Actions and
the shareholder derivative actions have paid or agreed to pay to
CTI an aggregate of $1.4 million and certain former directors
agreed to relinquish certain outstanding unexercised stock
options.  As part of the settlement of the shareholder derivative
actions, CTI paid, in October 2010, $9.4 million to cover the
legal fees and expenses of the plaintiffs.  In September 2010, CTI
received insurance proceeds of $16.5 million under its directors'
and officers' insurance policies in connection with the
settlements of the shareholder derivative actions and the
consolidated shareholder class action.

Under the terms of the settlements, Mr. Alexander and his wife
relinquished their claims to the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozen
accounts that were subject to the forfeiture action, and the
United States District Court entered an order on November 30,
2010, directing that the assets in such accounts be liquidated and
remitted to CTI.  The process of liquidating such assets has been
completed and the proceeds from the assets in such accounts have
been transferred to the class action settlement fund.

The agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action,
as amended, was approved by the court in which such action was
pending on June 23, 2010.  The agreement to settle the federal and
state derivative actions was approved by the courts in which such
actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and September 23, 2010,
respectively.

As of July 31, 2011, and January 31, 2011, the Company says it had
accrued liabilities for this matter of $116.2 million and $146.1
million, respectively.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Awaits October Hearing in "Deutsch" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc., awaits the preliminary hearing in the
"Deutsch" lawsuit, which has been scheduled for October 2011, in
Tel Aviv, Israel, according to the Company's September 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

CTI and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in
four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly
prevented certain current or former employees from exercising
certain stock options.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.  To date, the stay has not yet been lifted.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on
March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation
(Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  The Katriel case has been consolidated with the
Katriel case filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number
1334/09) and is subject to the stay.  The Deutsch case has been
scheduled for a preliminary hearing in the Tel Aviv District Court
in October 2011.

The Company did not accrue for these matters as the potential loss
is currently not probable or estimable.


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend "Maverick" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Comverse Technology, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit commenced
by Maverick Fund, L.D.C., according to the Company's September 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

On September 28, 2010, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the
caption Maverick Fund, L.D.C., et al. v. Comverse Technology,
Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-4436.  Plaintiffs allege that they are CTI
shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly traded securities in
2005, 2006 and 2007.  The plaintiffs, Maverick Fund, L.D.C. and
certain affiliated investment funds, opted not to participate in
the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class action.  The
complaint names CTI, its former Chief Executive Officer and
certain of its former officers and directors as defendants and
alleges, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and negligent misrepresentation in connection with prior
statements made by CTI with respect to, among other things, its
accounting treatment of stock options, other accounting practices
at CTI and the timeline for CTI to become current in its periodic
reporting obligations.  The action seeks compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in December 2010, and a hearing on the motion was
conducted on March 4, 2011.  On July 12, 2011, the Court dismissed
the plaintiffs' claims related to their purchase of CTI's
securities in 2007 and the claims against Andre Dahan, CTI's
former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Avi Aronovitz,
CTI's former Interim Chief Financial Officer, and otherwise denied
CTI's motion to dismiss.  The Company reserved for the potential
liabilities as if the plaintiffs had not opted-out and the Company
has no information that indicates that any other amount is
probable and estimable at this time.

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

DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suit in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation continues to defend a putative class action
lawsuit pending in Minnesota alleging wage and hour violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), according to the Company's
September 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

On September 30, 2010, a putative class action complaint was
served against the Company, to be filed in Hennepin County,
Minnesota, alleging wage and hour violations of the FLSA.  The
complaint was served on behalf of five named plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated at a manufacturing facility in
Minnesota.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
violated the FLSA and state wage and hour laws by failing to
compensate plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers unpaid
overtime.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and statutory
damages.  Additionally, the plaintiffs sought class certification.
On November 5, 2010, in connection with the Company's removal of
this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, the complaint was filed along with the Company's
answer.  The Company also filed a motion for partial dismissal on
November 5, 2010.  The parties jointly stipulated that the causes
of action in plaintiff's complaint for unjust enrichment and
quantum meruit would be dismissed without prejudice and further
stipulated that the cause of action under the Minnesota minimum
wage law would be dismissed without prejudice.  The court signed
an order dismissing those claims on December 28, 2010.  The
Company and the plaintiffs jointly stipulated to a conditional
certification of the class on April 28, 2011.  The plaintiffs sent
out notices to the potential class on April 28, 2011.  The notice
period is now closed, and 53 plaintiffs have opted in to the
lawsuit.

The Company denies plaintiffs' allegations and plans to vigorously
defend itself.  The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably
estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.


DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend "Littlefield" Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 17, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Del Monte Corporation by Lydia Littlefield, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging intentional
misrepresentation, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability and unjust enrichment.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company engaged in false and misleading
representation of certain canned fruit products in representing
that these products are safe and healthy, when they allegedly
contain substances that are not safe and healthy.  The plaintiffs
seek certification of the class, injunctive relief, damages in an
unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

The Company says it intends to deny these allegations and
vigorously defend itself.  On April 19, 2011, the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating
Littlefield with several similar consumer class actions filed in
other jurisdictions (in which the Company is not a defendant) in
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of
exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 12,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.


DEL MONTE: Ordered by Del. Court to Pay $2.75-Mil. Attorney Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order adding Del Monte
Corporation as a defendant in In re Del Monte Foods Company
Shareholders Litigation, and directing the Company to pay the
$2.75 million interim attorney fee award, according to the
Company's September 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

On November 25, 2010, Del Monte Foods Company announced that it
had signed a definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") under
which an investor group led by funds affiliated with Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. ("KKR"), Vestar Capital Partners
("Vestar") and Centerview Capital L.P. ("Centerview") agreed to
acquire all of the outstanding stock of Del Monte Foods Company
for $19.00 per share in cash (the "Transaction"), subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement.  Following the
announcement of the Transaction, fifteen putative class action
lawsuits (the "Shareholder Cases") relating to the Transaction
were filed against Del Monte Foods Company, certain of its now-
former officers and directors, and other parties including (in
certain cases) Blue Merger Sub. Inc. ("Blue Sub"), the acquisition
entity which, upon consummation of the Transaction, merged with
and into Del Monte Foods Company, with Del Monte Foods Company
continuing as the surviving corporation (the "Merger").

Two previously disclosed cases, which were among the original
fifteen Shareholder Cases arising from the Transaction were
voluntarily dismissed on June 6, 2011:

   * Heintz v. Wolford, et al.  The Heintz case was filed by
     Sarah P. Heintz on behalf of herself and a putative class of
     shareholders against the Directors, Del Monte Foods Company,
     Parent and Blue Sub on December 20, 2010, in the United
     States District Court, Northern District of California; and

   * Faulkner v. Wolford, et al.  The Faulkner case was filed by
     Dallas Faulkner on behalf of himself and a putative class of
     shareholders against the Directors, Del Monte Foods Company,
     Parent and Blue Sub on January 21, 2011, in the United
     States District Court, Northern District of California.

In addition, plaintiffs in two previously disclosed cases, which
were also among the original fifteen Shareholder Cases arising
from the Transaction filed requests for dismissal on March 4,
2011, and June 13, 2011, respectively:

   * Sinor v. Wolford, et al.  The Sinor case was filed by James
     Sinor on behalf of himself and a putative class of
     shareholders against Del Monte Foods Company, the Directors,
     KKR, Vestar, Centerview (named as Centerview partners;
     together with KKR and Vestar, the "Sponsor Defendants"),
     Parent and Blue Sub on December 1, 2010, in Superior Court
     in San Francisco, California; and

   * Kaiman v. Del Monte Foods Co., et al.  The Kaiman case was
     filed by Libby Kaiman on behalf of herself and a putative
     class of shareholders against Del Monte Foods Company, the
     Directors, the Sponsor Defendants, Parent and Blue Sub on
     December 1, 2010, in Superior Court in San Francisco,
     California.

As a result of the voluntary dismissals and orders consolidating
other shareholder cases, only two of the original fifteen
Shareholder Cases arising from the Transaction remain pending, one
of which has been stayed:

   * In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation (the
     "Delaware Shareholder Case").  The Delaware Shareholder Case
     was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and consolidated
     with other related cases filed in the same court.  The
     latest complaint filed in the case asserts claims on behalf
     of lead Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Pension Fund and a putative
     class of shareholders against each of the now-former
     directors of Del Monte Foods Company (together, the
     "Directors"), Del Monte Foods Company's former Chief
     Executive Officer in his capacity as such, Barclays Capital,
     Inc. ("Barclays"), the Sponsor Defendants, Blue Acquisition
     Group, Inc. ("Parent") and Blue Sub; and

   * Franklin v. Del Monte Foods Co., et al.  The Franklin case
     was filed by Elisa J. Franklin on behalf of herself and a
     putative class of shareholders against the Directors, Del
     Monte Foods Company and the Sponsor Defendants on
     December 10, 2010, in Superior Court in San Francisco,
     California.  On February 28, 2011, the Court in the Franklin
     case granted the motion of Del Monte Foods Company and the
     Directors to stay the proceeding pending resolution of the
     Delaware Shareholder Case, and the case remains stayed.

The plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder Case, which is the only
active and pending Shareholder Case, alleges that the Directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by agreeing to
sell Del Monte Foods Company at a price that was unfair and
inadequate and by agreeing to certain preclusive deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement.  The plaintiff further alleges
that the Sponsor Defendants, Parent, Blue Sub and Barclays aided
and abetted the Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
In addition, the plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against the former Chief Executive Officer of Del Monte Foods
Company in his capacity as an officer.  The plaintiff also alleges
that the Sponsor Defendants violated certain Confidentiality
Agreements with Del Monte Foods Company, and that Barclays induced
the Sponsor Defendants to violate the Confidentiality Agreements,
committing tortious interference with contract.  The plaintiff in
the Franklin case asserts similar claims against the Directors,
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties of care and
loyalty by, among other acts, agreeing to sell Del Monte Foods
Company at an inadequate price, running an ineffective sale
process that relied on conflicted financial advisors, agreeing to
preclusive deal protection measures, and pursuing the Transaction
for their own financial ends.  The plaintiff in the Franklin case
also asserts claims against the Sponsor Defendants and Del Monte
Foods Company for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

Each of the complaints seeks injunctive relief, rescission of the
Merger Agreement, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees.  The
Company denies the plaintiffs' allegations and plans, as the
successor to Del Monte Foods Company and Blue Sub, to vigorously
defend against these claims.

The Company says it has a continuing obligation to defend and
indemnify the Directors and Del Monte Foods Company's former Chief
Executive Officer for their legal fees and potential liability in
the Shareholder Cases, subject to certain limitations under
Delaware law or contract.  Similarly, the Company may have
contractual obligations to indemnify other parties to the
Shareholder Cases and other matters arising out of the
Transaction, subject to certain limitations under applicable law
or contract.  The Company has $50 million of director and officer
insurance coverage for itself and the former directors and
officers of Del Monte Foods Company.  The insurers have reserved
their rights with respect to coverage and have not agreed at this
point that coverage is available for losses the Company may
sustain as a result of the Shareholder Cases.  The Company has
accrued in the accompanying financial statements an amount equal
to the current estimate of the Company's exposure in this matter.
Given the inherent uncertainty associated with legal matters, the
actual costs of resolving the Shareholder Cases may be
substantially higher or lower than the established accrual.  The
amount that the Company may ultimately be responsible for in
connection with the Shareholder Cases may vary based on a number
of factors, including, final settlement or award amounts, the
allocation of such amounts among the various parties to the
litigation, insurance coverage and resolution with its carriers,
indemnification obligations, the discovery of new or additional
facts that impact the strength or weakness of the parties' claims
and defenses and other factors.

On February 14, 2011, following expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction hearing in the Delaware Shareholder Case,
the Court of Chancery entered an order preliminarily enjoining the
shareholder vote on the Merger, which was scheduled to occur at a
special meeting on February 15, 2011, for a period of 20 days.  In
addition, the Court of Chancery enjoined the parties, pending the
vote on the Merger, from enforcing various provisions in the
Merger Agreement, including the no-solicitation and match right
provisions in Sections 6.5(b), 6.5(c), and 6.5(h), and the
termination fee provisions relating to topping bids and changes in
the board of directors' recommendations on the Merger in Section
8.5(b).  The Court's order was conditioned upon the lead
plaintiff's posting a bond in the amount of $1.2 million, which
was posted on February 15, 2011.

The scheduled special meeting was convened on February 15, 2011.
At such meeting, a quorum was determined to be present and, in
accordance with the Court's ruling, the meeting was adjourned
until March 7, 2011, without a vote on the Merger proposal.  The
special meeting was reconvened on March 7, 2011.  At such meeting,
a quorum was determined to be present and the Merger was approved.
The Merger closed on March 8, 2011.

Following the closing of the Merger, on March 25, 2011, the
plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder Case filed an application
for an interim attorneys' fee award in the amount of $12 million.
On June 27, 2011, the Court of Chancery awarded the plaintiff's
attorneys an interim fee award in the amount of $2.75 million for
the supplemental disclosures that Del Monte Foods Company made in
connection with the Merger.  The Court of Chancery deferred
decision regarding the balance of the fee application, which seeks
fees in connection with the preliminary injunction and suspension
of deal protections.

Since the filing of the 2011 Annual Report, on July 27, 2011, the
Court of Chancery issued an order adding the Company as a
defendant to the Delaware Shareholder Case and ordering the
Company to pay the $2.75 million interim attorney fee award.


DESTINATION MATERNITY: Sued in N.Y. Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Destination
Maternity Corporation in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, case number 11-cv-6253, alleging
that the international retail clothing store violated both federal
labor laws and New York labor laws by routinely requiring its
sales associates to undergo off-the-clock bag checks and security
screenings for which they were not compensated.

The suit alleges that Destination Maternity, A Pea in the Pod,
Motherhood Maternity, and Edamame stores all require their sales
associates to have their bags checked before they leave the stores
to have lunch and before they go home for the evening.  These
checks occur off-the-clock, adding as much as 30 minutes to sales
associates' workdays for which they receive neither overtime nor
straight time pay.  By bringing this suit, the attorneys hope to
end that practice and recover the wages and overtime pay each
sales associate is due under the law.

If you work or have worked as a sales associate at either a
Destination Maternity, A Pea in the Pod, Motherhood Maternity, or
Edamame store, you may request to be included in the proposed
class.  Please contact McLaughlin & Stern, LLP or the Law Firm of
Louis Ginsberg, PC, for any questions you have about the action.

Lee S. Shalov is a partner in the Litigation and Financial
Services Departments of McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, a full-service
law firm founded in 1898.  He concentrates his practice in complex
commercial litigation with an emphasis on prosecuting and
defending securities class actions, wage and hour actions, and
mutual and hedge fund actions.

Bradley Harris is an associate at McLaughlin & Stern, LLP.  He
focuses on litigation and real estate law.

Louis Ginsberg has concentrated on employment litigation for
decades, and as head of his firm has helped to establish new
precedents in New York labor law.  He has worked extensively on
employment matters including wage and overtime pay issues,
breaches of contract, and employment discrimination.  His impact
on the law and the results he achieves for his clients has been
well documented in the New York Daily News and the New York Post.


DSW INC: Awaits Final Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
DSW Inc. is awaiting final court approval of its settlement
agreement resolving a consolidated merger-related lawsuit,
according to the Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 30, 2011.

Purported shareholders of Retail Ventures Inc. filed two putative
shareholder class action lawsuits in an Ohio state court captioned
Steamfitters local #449 Retirement Security Fund v. Schottenstein,
et. al ("Steamfitters"), filed February 14, 2011, and Farkas v.
Retail Ventures, Inc. ("Farkas"), filed March 11, 2011.  The
Steamfitters action was brought against Retail Ventures and its
directors and chief executive officer and DSW.  The Farkas action
was brought against Retail Ventures and its directors, DSW and DSW
MS LLC, the entity that Retail Ventures will merge into ("Merger
Sub").  The Steamfitters action alleges, among other things, that
Retail Ventures and its directors breached their fiduciary duties
by approving the merger agreement and that Retail Ventures' chief
executive officer and DSW aided and abetted in these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Farkas action alleges, among
other things, that the Retail Ventures' board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties by approving the Merger agreement
and failing to disclose certain alleged material information, and
that Retail Ventures and DSW aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  Both complaints sought, among other
things, to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Merger, as well as
money damages.  On May 9, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate the actions.

In order to avoid the costs associated with the litigation, the
parties have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement
of the lawsuits set forth in an executed memorandum of
understanding that was filed with the court.  The memorandum of
understanding provided for, among other things, additional public
disclosure with respect to the Merger, which was included in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus sent to the shareholders of RVI
and DSW.  The memorandum of understanding is subject to definitive
settlement documents and final court approval.  The plaintiffs
have filed final settlement documents in Ohio state court, which
remain subject to final court approval.  If the parties are unable
to obtain final court approval of the settlement, then the
litigation may proceed, and the outcome of any such litigation is
inherently uncertain.


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

In February 2009, the parties reached an understanding regarding
the principal elements of a settlement, subject to formal
documentation and Court approval.  Under the settlement, the
underwriter defendants will pay a total of $486 million, and the
issuer defendants and their insurers will pay a total of $100
million to settle all of the cases.  On August 25, 2009, the
Company funded approximately $327,000 with respect to its pro rata
share of the issuers' contribution to the settlement and certain
costs.  This amount was accrued in the Company's consolidated
financial statements during the first quarter of fiscal 2010.  On
October 2, 2009, the Court granted approval of the settlement and
on November 19, 2009, the Court entered final judgment.  The
judgment has been appealed by certain individual class members.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.


FINISAR CORP: Securities Suit Consolidation Bid Hearing This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to consolidate and appoint lead plaintiffs in the
securities class action lawsuits against Finisar Corporation will
be heard this month, according to the Company's September 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

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

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


GENESCO INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Strike Song-Beverly Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motions to
dismiss and strike, and to consolidate, two class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971, according to the Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On March 3, 2011, there was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California a putative class action styled
Fraser v. Genesco Inc.  On March 4, 2011, there was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco a
putative class action styled Pabst v. Genesco Inc. et al.  The
Pabst action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 1, 2011.  Both complaints
allege that the Company's retail stores in California violated the
California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 and other
California law through customer information collection practices,
and both seek civil penalties, damages, restitution, injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, and other relief.  The
Company disputes the material allegations and has filed motions to
dismiss and strike both complaints, and to consolidate the actions
in the Northern District of California.


GENESCO INC: Unit Accused of Violating California Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
A Genesco Inc. subsidiary is defending a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the California Labor Code, according to the
Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2011.

On June 22, 2011, the Company removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California Overton v. Hat World, Inc.,
a putative class action against its subsidiary, Hat World, Inc.,
alleging various violations of the California Labor Code,
including failure to comply with certain itemized wage statement
requirements, failure to reimburse expenses, forced patronization,
and failure to provide adequate seats to employees.  The plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief, reimbursement of allegedly unpaid
business expenses, statutory penalties, restitution, interest, and
attorney fees.  The Company intends to defend the action.


HBLC INC: Accused of Unlicensed Debt Collection in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maytee Diez and Claudia Spruiel, individually and on behalf of the
classes defined herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex
rel. Maytee Diez and Claudia Spruiel v. HBLC, Inc., Case No. 2011-
CH-32410 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 15, 2011) seeks
redress for the Defendant's conduct in taking collection actions
prohibited by the Illinois Collection Agency Act.

The lawsuit seeks vacation of void judgments, alleges violation of
the Illinois Collection Agency Act, and alleges violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  The Plaintiffs accuses HBLC of
collecting debts from debtors in Illinois, without obtaining a
license.

Ms. Diez is a resident of Lake County, Illinois.  Ms. Spruiel is a
resident of Lake County, Indiana.  Ms. Spruiel previously resided
in Cook County, Illinois.

HBLC is an Illinois corporation, and is engaged in the business of
purchasing or claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts and
enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection
lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal from Settlement of Suits in Calif. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is involved in several lawsuits claiming
breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the
plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.  The
plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

The lawsuits in the Inkjet Printer Litigation are:

   -- A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
      Litigation is pending in the United States District Court
      for the Northern District of California where the
      plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution,
      damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief,
      interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On January 4, 2008,
      the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification
      and to add a class representative and HP's motion for
      summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court denied all
      three motions.  On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
      renewed motion for class certification.  A hearing on the
      plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for
      April 9, 2010, was postponed;

   -- A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17,
      2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern
      District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking
      class certification, restitution, damages (including
      enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
      attorneys' fees.  A class certification hearing was
      scheduled for May 21, 2010, but was taken off the calendar;

   -- A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on
      May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the
      Northern District of California.  The lawsuit alleges that
      HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use
      color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and
      white images and text.  The plaintiffs are seeking to
      certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only
      damages class.  A class certification hearing was scheduled
      for May 7, 2010, but was taken off the calendar; and

   -- Four class actions against HP and its subsidiary,
      Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., were filed in Canada, one
      commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, two
      commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
      respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006,
      where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification,
      restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and
      unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages.
      In March 2010, one of the Quebec cases was voluntarily
      dismissed by the plaintiff.  In February 2011, the other
      Quebec case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an
agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed
classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court
before it becomes final.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's Web site.  As part of the proposed
settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with
additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality
and to change the content of certain software and user guide
messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer
cartridges.  In addition, class counsel and the class
representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and
stipends.  On March 29, 2011, the court granted final approval to
the settlement.  On April 27, 2011, certain class members who
objected to the settlement filed an appeal of the court's order
granting final approval to the settlement.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in "Skold" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial
of class certification and remanded the "Skold" case back to the
trial court for further proceedings on the question of class
certification, according to Hewlett-Packard Company's September 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is
a lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004, that is pending
in state court in Santa Clara County, California.  The lawsuit
alleges that HP (along with Intel) misled the public by
suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems
that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and
slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor and
processors made by a competitor of Intel.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and
certification of a nationwide class.  On February 27, 2009, the
court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for nationwide
class certification for a third time.  On August 31, 2011, the
California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of
class certification and remanded the case back to the trial court
for further proceedings on the question of class certification.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend FLSA Class Action Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits seeking overtime pay and other damages due to
employee misclassification under the Fair Labor Standards Act in
violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws,
according to the Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2011.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of HP's subsidiary, Electronic
Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or in
violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws.  Those
matters include these:

   -- Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed
      on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
      Southern District of New York claiming that current and
      former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing
      and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
      misclassified as exempt employees.  Another purported
      collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007,
      is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
      facts.  The Steavens case has been consolidated for
      pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case.  On
      December 15, 2010, the court granted conditional
      certification of the class in the consolidated Cunningham
      and Steavens matter;

   -- Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation
      is a class action filed in November 2006 in California
      Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information
      technology workers in California were misclassified as
      exempt employees.  The case was subsequently transferred to
      the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
      California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of
      information technology workers in California.  On June 6,
      2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary
      judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with
      the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  A hearing
      on the appeal was held in August 2011, and the decision is
      pending.  Two other purported class actions originally
      filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v.
      Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on
      March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009,
      allege similar facts.  The Karlbom case is pending in San
      Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed
      based on the pending motions in the Steavens consolidated
      matter.  The George case is pending in the U.S. District
      Court for the Southern District of New York and has been
      consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham and
      Steavens cases; and

   -- Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
      collective action filed on February 17, 2011, in the U.S.
      District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming
      that a class of information technology and help desk
      support personnel were misclassified as exempt employees.
      No substantive rulings have been made in the case.

In addition, on May 24, 2011, a purported collective action
captioned Fenn, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho.  The
lawsuit alleges that customer service representatives working in
HP's U.S. call centers are not paid for time spent booting up and
shutting down their computers in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Plaintiffs have asked the court to conditionally
certify a putative class of alleged similarly situated employees.
HP has opposed the request.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Gets Final Approval of "Baggett" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval of the settlement in the
consumer class action lawsuit captioned Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard
Company, according to the Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2011.

Baggett v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP on
June 6, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging that HP employs a technology in
its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts
down prematurely, thus preventing customers from using the toner
that is allegedly left in the cartridge.  The plaintiffs also
allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be
unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the
printer shuts down.  The complaint seeks certification of a
nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers
and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  On September 29,
2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary judgment against
the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification as moot.  On November 3, 2009, the court entered
judgment against the named plaintiff.  On November 17, 2009,
plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On
August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiff entered into an agreement to
settle the lawsuit on behalf of the proposed class, which
agreement is subject to approval of the court before it becomes
final.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's Web site.  In addition, class
counsel and the class representative will be paid attorneys' fees
and expenses and stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved
by the court.  On October 13, 2010, the court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.  The court held a fairness
hearing on February 14, 2011, to determine whether to grant final
approval of the proposed settlement.  On August 31, 2011, the
court granted final approval of the settlement.  Any objectors to
the settlement have 30 days to appeal the grant of final approval.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Drafting Settlement Docs. in "Sewell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., is in the process of
drafting settlement documents resolving the purported class action
lawsuit commenced by Randolph Sewell, et al., according to the
Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

A subsidiary of the Company has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed on May 30, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Randolph Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al.,
alleging violations of the federal securities acts, among other
allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on October 19, 2007.  Plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of certain home purchasers in southwestern
Florida and sought damages, rescission of certain purchase
agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and attorneys'
fees and costs.  The Company's subsidiary filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on December 14, 2007.  Following
oral argument on the motion in September 2008, the court dismissed
the amended complaint with leave for plaintiffs to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2008.
The Company's subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss this second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed portions of the second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed additional portions of the
second amended complaint on April 28, 2010.

The Company says it has recently agreed with the plaintiffs to
settle this case for an immaterial amount, and the settlement
documents are in the process of being drafted by counsel.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Dropped From Silver Futures Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that HSBC Holdings PLC was dropped from a
suit by investors who claimed the bank and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
manipulated silver futures and options prices in violation of U.S.
antitrust law.

The investors said in consolidated class action complaint filed
Sept. 14 that they had signed a tolling agreement with HSBC and
weren't naming the bank as a defendant.  Tolling agreements are
often used to stop statutes of limitation from running while the
parties discuss settlement or dismissal of a claim.

The investors claim that, starting in March 2008, the banks
colluded to suppress silver futures so that call options, or the
right to buy, would decline, and put options for the right to sell
would increase, according to the complaint filed in federal court
in Manhattan.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission began probing allegations
of price manipulation in the silver futures market in September
2008.

Investors seek to represent a class of thousands of people and
companies that held or traded silver futures and options on
June 26, 2007, or from March 17, 2008 to October 27, 2010.

A call to London-based HSBC seeking comment on the matter after
business hours wasn't immediately returned.  Joseph Evangelisti, a
spokesman for New York-based JPMorgan Chase, declined to comment.

The case is: In re Commodity Exchange Inc. Silver Futures and
Options Trading Litigation, 11-CV-2213, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


KENNEDY KRIEGER: Faces Class Action Over Lead Paint Study
---------------------------------------------------------
Luke Broadwater, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that in a
class action lawsuit filed on Sept. 15, Kennedy Krieger Institute
is accused of exposing poor black children to "dangerous levels"
of lead as part of a housing experiment in the 1990s.

The suit, filed on Sept. 15 in Baltimore City Circuit Court by
attorney Billy Murphy, accuses the institute of negligence, fraud,
battery and violating the state's consumer protection act.  It
seeks damages, interest and unspecified attorney fees.

The hospital "used these children as known guinea pigs in these
contaminated houses to complete this study," the suit states.
"For this study, KKI selected children and their parents who were
predominantly from a lower economic strata and minorities."

Kennedy Krieger officials denied the allegations and said the
study benefited public health.  The study placed families in homes
less contaminated than where they previously lived, and the
state's lead paint laws grew from the study's findings, Krieger
President and CEO Gary Goldstein said.

"The lawyers have wrongly placed blame on our Institute,"
Mr. Goldstein said in a statement.  "This research was conducted
in the best interest of all of the children enrolled, and we are
confident that this will come to light when the facts are
presented."

The class action is the latest in a series of lawsuits filed over
the hospital's Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Repair and
Maintenance Study that began in 1993.

The study -- whose lead author was Mark Farfel, a former associate
professor at the Kennedy Krieger Institute and the Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health -- was an attempt to identify an
affordable measure that could reduce the danger of lead-paint
poisoning faced by children living in old homes.  The study
focused on more than 100 families who lived in homes that had
varying levels of partial lead abatement to determine whether
cheaper methods of containing lead would keep the toxin out of
children's bodies.

Earlier lawsuits were heard by the Court of Appeals, which ruled
that the legal actions could go forward.  In its 2001 decision,
the court found the researchers failed to warn families that their
children faced a health risk if they continued to live in the
homes.  The court also found that the researchers did not inform
the families of the youngsters' elevated blood-lead levels in a
timely manner.

Some of the cases were settled confidentially.

In addition to Mr. Murphy, Baltimore lawyer Thomas Yost is a
plaintiffs' attorney in the suit.  The lawyers contend the study
lasted six years, while the hospital says it was over by 1995.

At the time, 95% of the houses in Baltimore's low-income, high-
risk neighborhoods were contaminated by lead paint.

Most of the children involved in the study showed blood lead
levels that stayed consistent or went down, but in a few cases,
children's lead levels increased, according to the hospital.  The
study was approved and monitored by the federal government and
later replicated in 13 other cities and 1,200 houses.

The study was the basis for a 1996 state law that led to a 93
percent drop in lead-paint poisoning in Baltimore, the hospital
said.

"Although much has been misunderstood about it, this study
wouldn't have taken place if it wasn't in the best interest of the
children," hospital spokeswoman Elise Walker wrote in an e-mail.
". . . it can be hard today to grasp the gravity of the lead
poisoning epidemic that was happening twenty years ago."

No trial date has been set.  Mr. Murphy's firm did not respond to
questions about how many families have signed on to the suit.


L & L ENERGY: Faces Suit in Seattle For Filing False Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
L & L Energy, Inc., is facing a lawsuit for alleged filing of
false and misleading reports, according to the Company's September
9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

On August 26, 2011, a complaint was filed against the Company,
certain officers and directors and a former officer in the United
States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
(Case No. 11-cv-01423) on behalf of a single plaintiff (who holds
based on the complaint/certification about 200 shares of common
stock of the Company).  The complaint (which has not been served
upon the Company as of the 10-Q filing date) indicates that the
plaintiff's lawyers will seek to have it certified as a class
action.  It alleges that the Company filed false and misleading
reports with the SEC from August 13, 2009, to the present
primarily based upon an amendment the Company filed to its 2010
Annual Report on Form 10-K on July 28, 2010, and a report
published by the Glaucus Research Group on August 2, 2011.  The
Company vehemently denies that it filed any false reports with the
SEC, and it plans to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


MAGMA DESIGN: Insurer's Brief in Calif. Suit Appeal Due October 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The opening brief of National Union -- Magma Design Automation,
Inc.'s excess directors and officers liability insurers -- is due
on October 3, 2011, according to the Company's September 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

In Genesis Insurance Company v. Magma Design Automation, et al.,
Case No. 06-5526-JW, filed on September 8, 2006, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Genesis seeks a declaration of its rights and obligations under an
excess directors and officers liability policy for defense and
settlement costs arising out of the securities class action
against the Company, as well as a related derivative lawsuit.
Genesis seeks a return of $5.0 million it paid towards the
settlement of the securities class action and derivative lawsuits
from the Company or from another of the Company's excess directors
and officers liability insurers, National Union.

The Company contends that either Genesis or National Union owes
the settlement amounts, but not the Company.  The trial court
granted summary judgment for the Company and National Union,
finding that Genesis owed the settlement amount.  Genesis appealed
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Company cross-
appealed.  On July 12, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling
that Genesis does not owe the settlement amount under its policy,
and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
On December 20, 2010, the trial court ruled on various cross-
motions that National Union owes the settlement amount to Genesis.
The court entered a judgment in favor of Genesis and the Company
on March 2, 2011, requiring that National Union pay $5.0 million
plus prejudgment interest to Genesis.  National Union appealed the
trial court's judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
opening brief of National Union is due by October 3, 2011.

While there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of
the litigation, the Company does not believe that its resolution
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Texas Court Dismissed Material Yard Suit in July
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas dismissed on July 22, 2011, the securities class action
lawsuit commenced by Material Yard Workers Local 1175 Benefit
Funds, et al., against The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., according to the
Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2011.

On October 8, 2009, the Company was named in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  The case was
styled Material Yard Workers Local 1175 Benefit Funds, et al. v.
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc., Case No. 4:09-cv-03265.  The class
period alleged in the complaint ran from March 7, 2007, to
January 9, 2008.  The primary allegations were that the Company
issued false and misleading press releases regarding its guidance
for fiscal year 2007 on various occasions during the alleged class
period.  The complaint sought damages based on the decline in the
Company's stock price following the announcement of lowered
guidance on Oct. 10, 2007, Nov. 28, 2007, and Jan. 9, 2008.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 12, 2010.  On July 22,
2011, the Court dismissed the lawsuit without leave to amend, and
the plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal.


MILLER ENERGY: Faces 5 Securities Class Suits in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
Miller Energy Resources, Inc., is named as a defendant in five
class action lawsuits in Tennessee alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the Company's
September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

On August 12, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The case, styled Ruben Husu, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, and
Paul W. Boyd was filed on August 12, 2011.  The Company has not
yet been served with the lawsuit, and cannot predict when or
whether effective service may be made.  The Plaintiff alleges two
causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case seeks money damages against
the Company and the other defendants, and payment of the
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  The Company has retained DLA Piper
LLP to defend it in this action.

On August 16, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The case, styled James D. DiCenso, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Deloy Miller, Scott
M. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd and David J. Voyticky.  The Company
has not yet been served with the lawsuit, and cannot predict when
or whether effective service may be made.  The Plaintiff alleges
two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The case seeks money damages
against the Company and the other defendants, and payment of the
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  The Company has retained DLA Piper
LLP to defend it in this action.

On August 18, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The case is styled Yingtao Liu, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff,
Paul W. Boyd, Deloy Miller, David J. Voyticky, Herman
Gettelfinger, Jonathan S. Gross, David M. Hall, Merrill A. McPeak,
Charles Stivers, and Don A. Turkleson.  The Company has not yet
been served with the lawsuit, and cannot predict when or whether
effective service may be made.  The Plaintiff alleges two causes
of action against the Defendants: (1) violation of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The case seeks unspecified money damages
against the Company and the other defendants, and payment of the
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  The Company has engaged DLA Piper
LLP to defend it in this action.

On August 16, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The case is
styled Steven Arlow, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Miller Energy Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller
Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd.  The Company
has not yet been served with the lawsuit, and cannot predict when
or whether effective service may be made.  The Plaintiff alleges
two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The cases seek unspecified
money damages against the Company and the other defendants, and
payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  The Company has
retained DLA Piper to defend it in this action.

On August 19, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  The case is
styled Brandon W. Ward, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Miller Energy Resources, Inc. f/k/a Miller
Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd.  The Company
has not yet been served with the lawsuit, and cannot predict when
or whether effective service may be made.  The Plaintiff alleges
two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The cases seek unspecified
money damages against the Company and the other defendants, and
payment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  The Company has
retained DLA Piper to defend it in this action.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Retired Players File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn and Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service
reports that the fight over NFL benefits is not over.  Retired
players, led by Carl Eller, sued the NFL Players Association, Tom
Brady and other active players in Federal Court, claiming the
active players "had no authority to negotiate with the League the
terms of pension, retirement, and disability benefits with respect
to the class of retired NFL players described herein, something
the NFLPA's counsel already have conceded."

The Eller class also sued the Brady class and the NFLPA "for
interfering intentionally with the prospective economic advantage
of the putative class described herein and for breaches of
fiduciary duties assumed by the NFLPA with respect to NFL
retirees."

When active NFL players reached a deal with the league and its
owners, concerning billions of dollars in TV revenue, in time to
rescue the season that just began, some sports columnists
commented that the players had sold out the rookies and retirees.

In the new complaint, filed on Sept. 13, the retired players claim
that "During recent years, the NFLPA has consistently favored the
interests of active NFL players at the expense of NFL retirees'
rights and benefits."

They define their class as all NFL players "who do not fall within
the definition of the Collective Bargaining Unit ('CBU') contained
in either the 2006 or 2011 CBAs between the NFL and the NFLPA."

The retirees say they were not part of either collective
bargaining unit.

The 52-page complaint rehearses retirees' beefs with the Players'
Association, including their long dissatisfaction with former
NFLPA head Eugene Upshaw, who died in 2008.  The retirees quote
Bryant Gumbel, in 2006, calling Upshaw the "docile head of the
players union" and the "personal pet" of the NFL commissioner.
The retirees say that defendant DeMaurice Smith, who succeeded
Upshaw, promised to improve retirees' situation, but "he has
failed in both his words and deeds."  They say Mr. Smith even
inherited a "blacklist" from Mr. Upshaw, of "dissident" retirees.

The retirees point out that when the Brady class sued the NFL on
March 11 this year, for its lockout, the Brady class "did not seek
to represent a class of former NFL players."

The Eller class sued the NFL on March 28, and the U.S. District
Court consolidated the cases, under the Brady civil action number.
But the retirees say: "Counsel for the Brady defendants repeatedly
disclaimed any intent to represent the class of retired players
defined in the Eller I complaint".

Citing an e-mail from the Brady class counsel, the retirees say
that in negotiations over the spring and summer, the Brady class
wrote to the Eller I plaintiffs an offer that "'Eller would make
the proposal on the retired player issues.'  This was an explicit
concession that the Eller I plaintiffs were to be in charge of
negotiating issues relating to the claims of retired NFL players."

Among the demands the retirees made was medical monitoring to
diagnose brain injuries, and a proposal that 2.5% of NFL revenue
be set aside for retirees, according to the complaint.

The retirees say they repeatedly told the judge and the Brady
class that their concerns would have to be represented in any
settlement.  But they say they were excluded from the intense
negotiations that concluded the lockout, and that it had become
clear by June "that the Brady defendants (and through them, the
NFLPA) and the NFL were negotiating issues relating to retired NFL
players (negotiations that ultimately led to the settlement of the
Brady action and the creation of the 2011 CBA.)"

The retirees say the Brady class and the NFLPA claims that retired
player Cornelius Bennett was representing them in the
negotiations, but they say "No one among the Eller I plaintiffs
authorized the NFLPA or the Brady defendants to assume that role."

And they say that when U.S. District Judge Arthur Boylan ordered
the Brady defendants and the NFL to appear before him in July for
settlement negotiations, "Counsel for the Eller I plaintiffs asked
Judge Boylan to convey a request to the other parties that the
Eller I plaintiffs wanted to participate in these discussions.  He
did so and the request was refused."

The complaint adds: "Counsel for the Eller I plaintiffs asked if
they could negotiate retiree issues directly with the NFL.  They
were told the League could not do so."

The retirees seek declaratory judgment that the 2001 collective
bargaining agreement "did not release any claims that could be
asserted by the Eller I plaintiffs or by the plaintiffs herein";
that the Brady defendants and NFLPA had no right to represent them
in the negotiations "and were disqualified from doing so because
of the inherent conflict of interest between such retirees and
active NFL players"; and that any agreement covering retirees "be
excised from that agreement and be renegotiated between plaintiffs
and the League."

And they seek damages for intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage and breach of fiduciary duty.

A copy of the Complaint in Eller, et al. v. National Football
League Players, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02623 (D. Minn.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/15/EllervBrady.pdf

          Mark J. Feinberg, Esq.
          Michael E. Jacobs, Esq.
          Shawn D. Stuckey, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMMAN VOELBEL & MASON, LLP
          500 Washington Avenue, South
          Suite 400
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 339-2020
          E-mail: mfeinberg@zelle.com
                  mjacobs@zelle.com
                  sstuckey@zelle.com

               - and -

          Daniel S. Mason, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-0700
          E-mail: damson@zelle.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Greenbaum, Esq.
          COBURN & GREENBAUM
          710 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 657-5006
          E-mail: jg@coburngreenbaum.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Jon T. King, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          Bruce Wecker, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  jking@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com
                  bwecker@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Arthur Bailey, Sr., Esq.
          ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
          Suite 4500
          111 West Second St.
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          Telephone: (716) 483-3732
          E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net


OCLARO INC: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Approval Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 26, 2001, the first of a number of securities class
actions was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Oclaro, Inc.'s subsidiary,
New Focus, Inc., now known as Oclaro Photonics, Inc. ("New
Focus"), certain of the Company's officers and directors, and
certain underwriters for New Focus' initial and secondary public
offerings.  A consolidated amended class action complaint,
captioned In re New Focus, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 5822, was filed on April 20, 2002.  The
complaint generally alleges that various underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in New Focus' initial public offering and seeks unspecified
damages for claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of common stock from May 17, 2000, to
December 6, 2000.

The lawsuit against New Focus is coordinated for pretrial
proceedings with a number of other pending litigations challenging
underwriter practices in over 300 cases, as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), including actions
against Bookham Technology plc, now known as Oclaro Technology
Ltd. ("Bookham Technology") and Avanex Corporation, now known as
Oclaro (North America), Inc. ("Avanex"), and certain of each
entity's respective officers and directors, and certain of the
underwriters of their public offerings.  In October 2002, the
claims against the directors and officers of New Focus, Bookham
Technology and Avanex were dismissed, without prejudice, subject
to the directors' and officers' execution of tolling agreements.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a
settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement.
Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of the
settlement share allocated to New Focus, Bookham Technology and
Avanex, and New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex will bear no
financial liability.  New Focus, Bookham Technology and Avanex, as
well as the officer and director defendants who were previously
dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling agreements, will
receive complete dismissals from the case.  Certain objectors have
appealed the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  If for any reason the settlement does not
become effective, the Company believes that Bookham Technology,
New Focus and Avanex have meritorious defenses to the claims and
therefore believe that such claims will not have a material effect
on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 9,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 2, 2011.


OCLARO INC: Defends Shareholders' Suit Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, Inc., is defending itself against a securities class
action lawsuit filed in California, according to the Company's
September 9, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended July 2, 2011.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, allegedly on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
May 6 and October 27, 2010.  The complaint, captioned as Westley
v. Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC (N.D. Cal. filed May 19,
2011), alleges generally that defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements during the relevant time period
regarding the Company's current business and financial condition,
including projections for the Company's revenues, earnings, and
gross margins, for the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well
as the full fiscal year.  The complaint alleges violations of
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as well as section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks damages and costs of
an unspecified amount.  Discovery has not commenced, and no trial
has been scheduled in this action.  The Company says it intends to
defend this litigation vigorously.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Appellant Lacks Standing to Oppose Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York ruled that the last remaining appellant was not a class
member and, thus, lacked standing to object to a coordinated IPO
Litigation settlement, according to OmniVision Technologies,
Inc.'s September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

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

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  The Company and the
other defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.
In 2009, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  Certain objectors filed appeals, a number of which
were dismissed.  Following remand from the appellate court, the
district court in August 2011 issued an order determining that the
last remaining appellant was not a class member and thus lacked
standing to object to the settlement.  If for any reason the
settlement does not become effective, and litigation against the
Company proceeds, the Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the action
vigorously.


SAFEWAY: Class Action Over Kona Blend Labeling to Push Through
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that a spat involving Safeway and Hawaii coffee growers is still
brewing, even after the supermarket giant agreed to change
labeling on its Kona blend coffee.

A $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in
Northern California claiming Safeway profited off the reputation
of Kona coffee while selling an inferior product with very little
Hawaii-grown coffee.

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 30, a day before Safeway's letter
informing the Kona Coffee Farmers Association the company would
change its packaging to reflect the percentage of Kona it
contains.  The farmers had called for a boycott of Safeway's 1,700
stores nationwide after a farmer saw the Kona blend for sale in a
California store.

In an effort to protect a world-famous Hawaii product, the state's
Board of Agriculture Chairman Russell Kokubun sent a letter to
Safeway officials asking them to comply with a law here requiring
labels to specify the percentage of Hawaii-grown coffee included
in the blend.  The law requires those blends have at least 10
percent Hawaii-grown coffee. But because Safeway's Kona blend
isn't sold in any of the 19 Hawaii locations, Mr. Kokubun could
only ask for voluntary compliance.

The farmers' battle inspired the class-action lawsuit, said Janet
Lindner Spielberg, a Los Angeles attorney representing the
plaintiffs.

"It affects their livelihoods and how their product is viewed in
the world," she said in a phone interview with The Associated
Press on Sept. 15.

Coffee drinker Chanee Thurston, of Benicia, Calif., is the only
plaintiff named in the lawsuit, which is also on behalf of
consumers who purchased the Safeway Select Kona Blend since
Aug. 30, 2007.  According to the complaint, Ms. Thurston bought
the coffee believing it "was comprised largely or entirely of high
quality coffee beans from the Kona region of Hawaii and relied on
these representations in making her purchases."

She paid more money for the Kona blend than she would have for
other similar coffee products made up of a large amount of non-
Kona beans.

"They're really using the reputation of Kona beans.  They're using
it to sell something that's essentially an inferior product,"
Mr. Spielberg said.

A Safeway spokeswoman said on Sept. 15 that the company doesn't
comment on pending litigation.

Hawaii is the only place in the United States where coffee is
grown.  Coffee aficionados pay a premium for coffee grown in farms
in the Kona district, known for its rich volcanic soil and
tropical climate.

Mr. Spielberg said the lawsuit won't be dropped despite Safeway
agreeing to change the label.


SAKS INC: FLSA-Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
On February 2, 2011, the plaintiffs in Dawn Till and Mary Josephs
v. Saks Incorporated et al, filed a complaint, with which the
Company was served on March 10, 2011, in a purported class and
collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs
were improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
California Labor Code and that the Company failed to pay overtime,
provide itemized wage statements and provide meal and rest
periods.  On March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding a claim for penalties under the California
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  The plaintiffs seek to
proceed collectively under the FLSA and as a class under the
California statutes on behalf of individuals who have been
employed by OFF 5TH as Selling and Service Managers, Merchandise
Team Managers, or Department Managers.  The Company believes that
its managers at OFF 5TH have been properly classified as exempt
under both federal and state law and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.  It is not possible to predict whether the court will
permit this action to proceed collectively or as a class.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.


SATYAM COMPUTER: U.S. Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenan Machado, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. on Sept. 15 said that a U.S. court
has approved the company's $125 million class-action settlement
with a group of shareholders.

The U.S. court's judgment can be appealed within 30 days, the
Indian software services exporter said in a regulatory filing.

Satyam agreed in February to settle with some investors who had
filed lawsuits claiming damages after former chairman B. Ramalinga
Raju in early 2009 confessed to overstating profits and declaring
a fictitious cash balance of more than $1 billion.  The lawsuits
were later combined into a class-action suit by a court in New
York.

The February settlement doesn't cover a separate lawsuit by the
Aberdeen Group, which in November 2009 brought a class-action suit
in the U.S., combining about 20 holders of American depositary
receipts of Satyam and claiming total losses of more than $68
million.

In June, a senior Satyam executive said the company was seeking an
out-of-court settlement with Aberdeen.


SEMTECH CORP: Court Dismissed Consolidated Securities Suit in June
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California entered a final judgment and dismissal order in the
consolidated class action lawsuit against Semtech Corporation in
June 2011, according to the Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2011.

Two separate purported class action lawsuits were filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers in August and
October 2007, on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired
Company securities from dates in 2002 to July 2006.  The cases
alleged violations of Federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's past stock option practices.  In February 2008, the
Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System ("MPERS") filed a
motion in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California for consolidation of the cases, appointment
of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel.
The MPERS motion was granted in late March 2008, and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in May 2008,
initiating the consolidated action with MPERS as the lead
plaintiff.  The lawsuit is captioned In Re: Semtech Corporation
Securities Litigation, United States District Court, Central
District of California, Case No. 2:07-CV-07114-CAS.  In August
2010, the Court issued its class certification order, certifying
the plaintiff class as persons who acquired common stock of the
Company between August 27, 2002, and July 19, 2006 (inclusive).

At a mediation meeting held on December 5, 2010, an agreement in
principle to settle the class action litigation was reached.  The
Company agreed to pay $20 million to settle all claims in the
litigation.  As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded
an additional charge of $10 million in fiscal year 2011 to
increase its total accrued liability for this matter to $20
million.  Payment in full of the $20 million settlement amount was
made on April 14, 2011, into the applicable escrow account
associated with the proposed settlement and preliminary Court
approval of the settlement was issued on April 11, 2011.

Final approval of the proposed settlement was issued by the Court
on June 27, 2011, per the Court's Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal (the "Final Judgment").  No class member opted out of or
otherwise presented any objection to the proposed settlement prior
to entry of the Final Judgment.  The Final Judgment fully resolves
all claims against the Company, all current officers and directors
of the Company named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers
and directors of the Company named in the lawsuit.  No parties
admit any wrongdoing in connection with the entry of the Final
Judgment.  All claims asserted against the Company and the named
defendants in connection with the subject litigation have been
released and dismissed with prejudice as part of the Final
Judgment.  All related civil legal proceedings, including separate
appellate proceedings (that had been stayed pending settlement
discussions) involving certain matters relating to prospective
evidentiary matters impacting trial proceedings, have also now
been dismissed with prejudice.


SONY: Updates PSN User Agreement to Stop Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Scott Grill, writing for Console Gaming Examiner, reports that
Sony is updating the user agreement for the Playstation Network
starting on September 15 and one of the changes included in the
update seeks to stop class action lawsuits against the company.

In place of the right for PSN users to file a class action lawsuit
against Sony, section 15 of the PSN user agreement leaves "Binding
Individual Arbitration" as the only option to solve disputes.

ANY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER IN ARBITRATION OR
COURT, WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A
CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION OR AS A NAMED OR UNNAMED MEMBER IN
A CLASS, CONSOLIDATED, REPRESENTATIVE OR PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGALACTION, UNLESS BOTH YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU
HAVE A DISPUTE SPECIFICALLY AGREE TO DO SO IN WRITING FOLLOWING
INITIATION OF THE ARBITRATION.  THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE
YOUR PARTICIPATION AS A MEMBER IN A CLASS ACTION FILED ON OR
BEFORE AUGUST 20, 2011.

Sony does leave open the possibility to opt out of this binding
arbitration agreement but you must do so within 30 days from
accepting the agreement.

IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND
CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 15, YOU MUST NOTIFY SNEI IN
WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT.
YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO 6080 CENTER DRIVE,
10TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90045, ATTN: LEGAL
DEPARTMENT/ARBITRATION AND MUST INCLUDE:  (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR
ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PSN ACCOUNT NUMBER, IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A
CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH ANY
SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.

The rest of the updates to the PSN user agreement mainly revolve
around changing Sony's legal entity from Sony Network
Entertainment America Inc. (SNEA) to Sony Network Entertainment
International LLC (SNEI).

The updated Playstation Network user agreement should appear the
next time you log on to the service from your PS3 or PSP.


TALBOTS INC: Amended "Washtenaw" Complaint Pending in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit commenced
by Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System against The
Talbots, Inc., et al., is pending in Massachusetts, according to
the Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2011.

On February 3, 2011, a purported Talbots shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Washtenaw County Employees'
Retirement System v. The Talbots, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-
10186-NMG, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Talbots and certain of its officers.  The
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Talbots common stock from December 8, 2009, through and including
January 11, 2011, asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and sought, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.  On July 27, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint which continues to assert claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) alleging certain false and misleading statements and
alleged omissions related to Talbots' financial condition,
inventory management and business prospects.  The amended
complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of Talbots common stock during the class period, thus
purportedly harming investors.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or an estimate of damages, if any.


TARGET CORP: Recalls 304,000 Chefmate 6-Speed Blenders
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and
manufacturer, Select Brands, of Lenaxa, Kansas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 304,000 units of Chefmate(R) 6-Speed
Blender.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

While in operation, the plastic pitcher can separate from the
blade assembly, leaving the blade assembly in the base and
exposing the rotating blades.  This poses a laceration hazard to
consumers.

Target and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission have
received 11 reports of the blade assembly separating from the
pitcher, seven of which reported serious lacerations to consumers'
fingers and hands.

This recall affects all Chefmate(R) 6-Speed Blenders, model BL-10.
The model number is located on the bottom of the base.  The
blender consists of a six-inch tall, white electrical base with
five, white speed-selector buttons labeled 1 through 5, one gray
button labeled "Pulse/Off" and the word "Chefmate(R)" in black
letters on the front; a clear plastic pitcher with a handle with
U.S. and metric volume measurement markings; a white plastic lid
with a removable clear plastic lid stopper; and a white plastic
blade assembly with two angled, stainless steel blades.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11328.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide from September 2007 to
February 2011 for about $14.

Consumers should immediately stop using the blenders and return
them to any Target store to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Target Guest Relations at (800) 440-0680
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, or visit their Web site at http://www.target.com/


TELENAV INC: Hearing on Securities Suit Deal Set for November
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to approve the $3.8 million settlement of the
stockholder class action lawsuit against TeleNav, Inc., will be
held in November 2011, according to the Company's September 9,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2011.

On September 2, 2010, a purported stockholder class action was
filed by David Smith in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:10-CV-03942-SC)
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of its underwriters for the Company's May 13, 2010 initial
public offering, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act.  On March 21, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint purporting to be brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to its IPO
and alleging that the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain of its underwriters for the IPO violated
the Securities Act by issuing the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, which the plaintiff alleges contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act.  The amended complaint sought class
certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem
proper.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint on May 4, 2011.  On June 2, 2011, following a successful
mediation between the parties, the Court entered a stipulation and
order regarding the settlement and staying all proceedings.  A
hearing to approve the settlement of the case will be held in
November 2011.  The settlement will include a payment of $3.8
million to resolve all claims as to all defendants to the
litigation.  The entire settlement amount will be paid by the
Company's insurance carrier.  The Company does not anticipate any
liability as a result of this matter.


TIVO INC: Appeals From Approval of IPO Suit Deal Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Company and certain of its officers and directors ("TiVo
defendants") were originally named as defendants in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  This
action, which is captioned Wercberger v. TiVo Inc. et al., also
names several of the underwriters involved in the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") as defendants.  This class action
is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from the time of the Company's IPO
(October 31, 1999) through December 6, 2000.  The central
allegation in this action is that the underwriters in the
Company's IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from,
and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors
who purchased the Company's stock in the IPO and the after-market,
and that the TiVo defendants violated the federal securities laws
by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the underwriters
had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed arrangements.  More
than 300 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits.  In February
2003, after the issuer defendants (including the TiVo defendants)
filed an omnibus motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed the
Section 10(b) claim as to the Company, but denied the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 claim as to the Company and virtually all
of the other issuer-defendants.  On October 8, 2002, the Company's
executive officers who were named as defendants in this action
were dismissed without prejudice.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit announced a
proposed settlement with the Company and the other issuer
defendants.  This proposed settlement was terminated on June 25,
2007, following the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on December 5, 2006, reversing the District
Court's granting of class certification in the six focus cases
currently being litigated in this proceeding.  The proposed
settlement had provided that the insurers of all settling issuers
would guarantee that the plaintiffs recover damages from non-
settling defendants, including the investment banks who acted as
underwriters in those offerings.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed Amended Master
Allegations.  On September 27, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Class Certification, which was subsequently withdrawn without
prejudice by the plaintiffs. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the focus cases on November 9, 2007.  On March 26, 2008, the Court
ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had
adequately pleaded their Section 10(b) claims against the Issuer
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants in the focus cases.  As
to the Section 11 claim, the Court dismissed the claims brought by
those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess
of the initial offering price, on the grounds that they could not
show cognizable damages, and by those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period, on the grounds that those
claims were time barred.  This ruling, while not binding on the
Company's case, provides guidance to all of the parties involved
in this litigation.  On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with the
Court a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement
between all parties to the consolidated action, including the
Company and its former officers and directors, as well as numerous
other companies and their officers and directors.  Any direct
financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be
borne by the Company's insurers.  The proposed settlement also
provides for full releases for the defendants, including the
Company and its former officers and directors.  On June 12, 2009,
the Federal District Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.  On September 10, 2009, the Federal District
Court held the fairness hearing for final approval of the
settlement.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an
order granting class certification and final approval of the
settlement.  Several individuals or groups of individuals have
filed petitions to appeal and/or notices of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Although certain
petitions to appeal and/or notices of appeal have been dismissed
or remanded, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet
addressed all of the pending petitions to appeal or notices of
appeal.  Therefore, the District Court's order granting class
certification and final approval of the settlement may still be
subject to appellate review by the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.  There can be no assurance that the District Court's
approval will not be overturned by the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The Company may incur expenses in connection with this
litigation that may become material in the future.  No loss is
considered probable or estimable at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.


ULTA SALON: Still Awaits Approval of Calif. Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., is still awaiting court
approval of its agreement to settle a class action lawsuit pending
in California, according to the Company's September 8, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

In May 2010, a putative employment class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain unnamed defendants in state court
in California.  The plaintiff and members of the proposed class
are alleged to be (or have been) non-exempt hourly employees.  The
lawsuit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the
California labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members
of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks,
certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these
alleged practices.  On June 21, 2010, the Company filed its answer
to the lawsuit.  On January 12, 2011, the Company and plaintiffs
engaged in a voluntary mediation.  Although the Company continues
to deny plaintiffs' allegations, in the interest of putting
certain of the claims behind it, the Company agreed in principle
to settle all claims of the putative class consisting of non-
exempt hourly hair designers in the salon department within the
California retail stores.  The settlement, which is not an
admission of liability, is subject to final documentation and
Court approval.  Counsel for the plaintiffs has agreed to dismiss
without prejudice the claims of all other putative class members.
The proposed settlement amount is not material.

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


UTI WORLDWIDE: Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. (along with several other global logistics
providers) have been named as a defendant in a federal antitrust
class action lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of New York (Precision
Associates, Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding)
Ltd., et. al.).  This lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged
in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 8,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

The Company says it has incurred, and expects to continue to
incur, significant legal fees and other costs in connection with
the lawsuit.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Defendants' Briefs in Calif. Suit Due Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' answering briefs in the appeal from the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in California
are due on September 28, 2011, according to VeriFone Systems,
Inc.'s September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against the Company and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director.  These lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP.  The original actions were: Eichenholtz
v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; Lien v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management
LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.  On August 22, 2008, the court
appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its
attorneys lead counsel.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims
under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that the Company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the Company's
business and operations during the putative class periods and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  The Company
filed its motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008.  The court
granted the Company's motion on May 26, 2009, and dismissed the
consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to amend
within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were stayed pending
a mediation held in October 2009, at which time the parties failed
to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.  Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009, followed by a
second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the
hearing on its motion was held on May 17, 2010.

In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on the Company's motion,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint on the basis that they have newly discovered evidence.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court, the Company
submitted its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and
plaintiffs filed their opposition, following which the court took
the matter under submission without further hearing.  On March 8,
2011, the court ruled in the Company's favor and dismissed the
consolidated securities class action without leave to amend.  On
April 5, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed its notice of appeal of the
district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  On June 24 and June 27, 2011, Lead Plaintiff dismissed
its appeal as against defendants Paul Periolat, William Atkinson,
and Craig Bondy.  Lead Plaintiff filed its opening brief on appeal
on July 28, 2011.  Defendants' answering briefs are due on
September 28, 2011.  Plaintiff's optional reply brief is due 14
days after service of defendant's answering briefs.  At this time,
the Company says it has not recorded any liabilities related to
this action as it is unable to determine the outcome or estimate
the potential liability.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits OK of Settlement of Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc., is still awaiting court approval of its
agreement to settle merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2011.

On May 12, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (the
"DOJ") filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia against VeriFone, Hypercom
Corporation ("Hypercom") and Ingenico S.A. ("Ingenico").  The
DOJ's complaint alleges antitrust claims with respect to the
Company's planned acquisition of Hypercom and with the April 1,
2011 Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement pursuant to which Hypercom
would have sold certain assets and liabilities of its U.S. payment
terminal business to Ingenico.  On May 19, 2011, VeriFone,
Hypercom and Ingenico terminated the April 1, 2011 Stock and Asset
Purchase Agreement, and VeriFone and Hypercom entered into an
agreement with the DOJ to suspend the civil antitrust lawsuit
filed against the parties by the DOJ, in order to explore various
options for the planned divestiture of Hypercom's U.S. business,
including the possibility of a divestiture to an alternative
buyer.  Ingenico also requested that the DOJ move to remove
Ingenico as a defendant in the litigation.  On August 4, 2011,
VeriFone, Hypercom and the DOJ agreed to settle the litigation,
Hypercom divested its U.S. payment systems business and VeriFone
completed its acquisition of Hypercom.  The settlement was
approved by the District Court on August 4, 2011.

In connection with the announcement of the Company's merger with
Hypercom, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in
Arizona and Delaware state courts alleging variously, among other
things, that the board of directors of Hypercom breached its
fiduciary duties in not securing a higher price in the merger and
that VeriFone, Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco, LLC and Francisco
Partners II, L.P. aided and abetted that alleged breach.  The
actions seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.  An
agreement in principle has been reached to resolve the litigation
based on confirmatory discovery, enhanced public disclosures, and,
reimbursement by Hypercom of a portion of the plaintiffs'
attorneys fees which the Company does not expect to be material to
the Company's results of operations.  The terms of settlement
between the parties are subject to court approval.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Israeli Court Reaffirms Ruling on Applicable Law
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Israeli District Court denied plaintiff's application for
reconsideration, and reaffirmed its ruling that U.S. law is the
applicable law in the class action lawsuit against VeriFone
Systems, Inc., pending in Tel Aviv, Israel, according to the
Company's September 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports.  The Company filed a motion to stay
the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the
United States, on March 31, 2008.  A hearing on the motion was
held on May 25, 2008.  Further briefing in support of the stay
motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of
applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008.  On September 11,
2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the Company's favor,
holding that U.S. law would apply in determining the Company's
liability.  On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to appeal the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme
Court.  The Company's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was
filed on January 18, 2009.  The District Court has stayed its
proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion
for leave to appeal.  On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before
the Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the District Court.
The Supreme Court instructed the District Court to rule whether
the Israeli class action should be stayed, under the assumption
that the applicable law is U.S. law.  Plaintiffs subsequently
filed an application for reconsideration of the District Court's
ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law.

Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010,
the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of
the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
right to appeal the District Court's decision regarding the
applicable law to the Supreme Court.  On May 25, 2010, plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision regarding the
applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court.  In August 2010,
plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme Court
arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al.
v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S.___, 130 S. Ct. 2869
(2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently pending
before the Court and requesting that this authority be added to
the Court's record.  Plaintiff concurrently filed an application
with the Israeli District Court asking that court to reverse its
decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to the Israeli
class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay the
Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light of
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israeli class action is U.S. law.  The
District Court also ordered that further proceedings in the case
be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action.
At this time, the Company has not recorded any liabilities for
this action as it is unable to determine the outcome or estimate
the potential liability.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Oct. 11 Hearing in "Deutsch" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. is still awaiting the October 11, 2011
preliminary hearing in the class action lawsuit commenced by Orit
Deutsch, according to the Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2011.

On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class action lawsuit (the
"Labor Motion"), and the class action lawsuit itself (the "Labor
Class Action") (Labor Case No. 4186/09), were filed against the
Company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), by a former
employee of VSL, Orit Deutsch, in the Tel Aviv Labor Court.  Ms.
Deutsch purports to represent a class of the Company's employees
and ex-employees who were granted options to buy shares of Verint
and to whom allegedly damages were caused as a result of the
blocking of the ability to exercise Verint options by the
Company's employees or ex-employees.  The Labor Motion and the
Labor Class Action both claim that the Company is responsible for
the alleged damages due to its status as employer and that the
blocking of Verint options from being exercised constitutes a
default of the employment agreements between the members of the
class and VSL.  The Labor Class Action seeks compensatory damages
for the entire class in an unspecified amount.  On July 9, 2009,
the Company filed a motion for summary dismissal and alternatively
for the stay of the Labor Motion.  A preliminary session was held
on July 12, 2009.  Ms. Deutsch filed her response to the Company's
response on November 10, 2009.  On February 8, 2010, the Tel Aviv
Labor Court dismissed the case for lack of material jurisdiction
and ruled that it will be transferred to the District Court in Tel
Aviv.  The case has been scheduled for a preliminary hearing in
the District Court in Tel Aviv on October 11, 2011.  As of
July 31, 2011, no amount has been accrued for this matter as the
Company was not able to estimate the probability or amount of any
potential loss at that date.


VERIZON: Law Firm Files Reply to Class Certification Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 9, 2011, the San Diego employment law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a reply to Verizon's
opposition to class certification in an overtime class action
lawsuit filed by Verizon First Level Local Managers. Aburto v.
Verizon, Case No. CV-11-03683, currently pending in the Central
District of California.

The lawsuit is based on the allegation that Verizon misclassified
a group of First Level Local Managers as exempt from overtime
compensation to avoid paying the local managers for the
substantial number of overtime hours they worked.  Under
California law, non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of eight in a workday and forty in
a workweek.

In the reply brief to Verizon's opposition to class certification,
the San Diego employment lawyers contend that class certification
should be granted because the First Level Local Managers perform
14 Finite and Definite tasks and the "predominant common question
in dispute is therefore not what these tasks are but whether one
or more of these tasks should be classified as exempt" from
overtime.

For more information about this Verizon first level local manager
class action lawsuit, you can contact a San Diego overtime
attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik or visit the Verizon
Local Manager Overtime Lawsuit Website.  With employment law
offices in San Diego, San Jose and San Francisco, the employment
attorneys offer local managers free legal consultations to help
assess if they have a viable claim for unpaid overtime wages.


WALNUT PLACE: Judge to Decide on BoFA Mortgage Removal
------------------------------------------------------
Grant McCool, writing for Reuters, reports that Bank of America
Corp's $8.5 billion proposed mortgage-backed securities settlement
is now in the hands of a New York federal judge.  But it could end
up back before state court in a legal tug-of-war over who should
decide whether the pact passes muster.

The stakes are high for Bank of America, which had hoped the
agreement would resolve uncertainty over potential liabilities
tied to pools of soured loans sold to investors by Countrywide
Financial Corp, the mortgage lender it bought in 2008.

While the proposed settlement was filed in state court in June as
a special proceeding and not as a class action, an investor group
called Walnut Place LLC removed the case to federal court in late
August, arguing it should be treated as a "mass action" under a
federal law.

The case is now before U.S. District Judge William Pauley, who may
have reasons under class-action law to return the case to New York
State Supreme Court, according to some experts.

Or, as sometimes happens in removals, the federal judge keeps the
case and the state action ceases unless there are developments
later that cause it to be remanded to state court for different
reasons.

The settlement was negotiated by Bank of New York Mellon, the
trustee for mortgage backed securities in Countrywide, with 22
institutional investors such as BlackRock Inc and Allianz SE's
Pimco.  Countrywide was the largest U.S. mortgage lender before
being taken over by BofA.  The agreement also calls for the
biggest U.S. bank by assets to improve its mortgage servicing
practices.

On September 21, Judge Pauley will hear oral arguments for the bid
by Walnut Place for the case to be resolved under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 that requires big-money class actions to be
supervised by a federal judge.

HIGH STANDARD FOR REMOVAL

"There have been various ways in which the federal court has
managed to kick removals out without giving it much of a review
but I prefer to think judges see it as part of their job," said
Eugene Beckham of Beckham and Beckham PA in Miami, who has written
about removal procedures but is not involved in the mortgage
settlement case.

"However, the federal courts can be very unforgiving and if you
don't follow the rules or you don't have the right allegations
they will usually remand it," Mr. Beckham said.

He said that can lead to an attorney fee award or sanctions
against lawyers deemed to have incorrectly removed a case.

Lawyers for law firm Grais & Ellsworth are leading the challenge
for Walnut Place against the Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM)
settlement.

Walnut Place owns certificates in three of the 530 trusts that are
part of the proposed agreement.  It argues that the negotiations
were held in secret, but BNYM says that BofA said in a December
2010 press release it was in talks with the trustee and
institutional investors over trusts, including one in which Walnut
Place holds certificates.

BNYM, and some lawyers who are not involved in the litigation said
that under the class-action law cited by Walnut, a party needs to
be a defendant and there needs to be a claim for monetary relief
to have standing to remove the case.

But Walnut's lawyers said in court papers on Sept. 14 that neither
of those arguments are plausible.

"Walnut Place intervened as an adverse respondent in the state
court proceeding, and BNYM did not oppose the petition to
intervene or disagree with its characterization of Walnut Place as
an adverse party," its memorandum said.  It said monetary relief
"surely" was the $8.5 billion that the trustee had asked the court
to direct Bank of America and Countrywide to pay.

MONTHS OF NEGOTIATIONS

Another CAFA requirement is that there must be 100 or more
plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits seeking monetary damages.  In
this case, there is only one plaintiff, the trustee, BNYM.

"It doesn't immediately appear obvious to me what the tactical
benefits would be of removal," said Chris Keller, partner at
Labaton Sucharow, whose two New York pension fund clients were
part of a $624 million settlement in Countrywide securities
litigation in February.

The proposed BofA settlement was made in New York State Supreme
Court under Article 77, a provision that usually covers family
trust matters.  The agreement covers 530 mortgage pools with $174
billion of unpaid principal balances.  BNYM said it took months of
negotiations to reach a deal.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Kapnick rejected
Walnut's efforts to change the case to a class action and to add
an "opt-out" provision typical in class actions but not in Article
77 proceedings.

Sara Shanahan, a litigation partner with law firm Sherin and
Lodgen in Boston, said BNYM could argue that "if you're going to
remove, you do it early on the proceedings, you don't get to
remove once you think things are going badly for you in the state
court proceedings."

Judge Pauley's job is to determine whether the case was properly
removed and properly pending in federal court, she said.

"If he's wrong, then that issue can be challenged later on appeal
after a lot of additional work," Ms. Shanahan said.

The cases are In re: The Bank of New York Mellon, New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, No. 651786/2011; and The Bank of
New York Mellon et al v. Walnut Place LLC et al, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-05988.


WORLD ONE: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Claims on Coconut Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that World One Enterprises pushes
its "One Natural Experience Coconut Water" with false claims about
its being a "good source of electrolytes," according to a federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff Patrick Vitale says the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration requires that products must provide 10 to 19% of
the daily value of a nutrient to be able to claim to be a "good
source" of it.  The coconut water only contains 0.5 percent of the
daily value for the electrolyte sodium, and 5% of the daily value
for the electrolyte magnesium, Mr. Vitale says.

He seeks an injunction and class damages for fraudulent business
practices.

A copy of the Complaint in Vitale v. World One Enterprises LLC, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-02126 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/15/Coconut.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          9466 Black Mountain Rd., Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070
          E-mail: psheehan@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Brian W. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH & VANTURE LLP
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 684-6330
          E-mail: bws@smithvanture.com


                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *