CAR_Public/110922.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 22, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 188

                             Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Class Suit in New York Remains Pending
BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Headlight Violation Ticketing Challenged
CLARCOR INC: Illinois Court Further Stays MDL Proceeding vs. Unit
GOV'T OF CANADA: May Face Class Suit over Power Relicensing Deal
HURD MILLWORK: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

MOBILE COUNTY, AL: School Board Sued Over Discrimination
NATIONAL CITY BANK: Judge Tosses $7-Mil. Class Action Settlement
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals in IPO Suit Settlement Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in Light Cigarettes Class Action Begins
RALCORP HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over ConAgra Foods Buyout

SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in N.Y.
UBS AG: Claims on Foreign-Traded Securities Can't Proceed
UBS AG: Exposure to Rogue Trade Class Actions May Be Limited




                             *********

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Class Suit in New York Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc., (along with Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as
defendants in an action purporting to assert claims against the
Company alleging violations  arising under the  Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act among other statutes, and for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-
transaction marketing practices in which certain of the Company's
subsidiaries previously engaged with certain third-party vendors.
Plaintiffs seek to have this case certified as a class action and
seek restitution and other damages, all in an amount in excess of
$5 million.  The Company says it intends to defend this action
vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 16,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 3, 2011.


BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Headlight Violation Ticketing Challenged
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Neale, writing for Florida Today, reports that since January
2010, the Brevard County Sheriff's Office has issued 12 citations
and 13 warnings for flashing-light violations, said Debra Holt,
records manager.

However, a handful of those motorists contacted by Florida Today
said they were not ticketed for headlight violations.  Rather,
they displayed colorful LED lights on their vehicle undercarriages
and license-plate holders, which the statute bans.

Lt. Alex Herrera said he had never heard of a driver ticketed for
flashing headlights on the Space Coast.

"It's just not something that's commonly seen on our end. But we
do have the issues where people have the LEDs that are blue or
red, and they're flashing," Mr. Herrera said.  "We don't want
anyone out here to be construed that they're law enforcement when
they're not."

After Erich Campbell passed two Florida Highway Patrol cruisers
parked in the median near Tampa International Airport in December
2009, he used his headlights to warn oncoming drivers of the radar
patrol.

That's when -- to his surprise -- one of the troopers pulled over
his silver Toyota Tundra and ticketed him for improper flashing of
high beams.

"Within 60 seconds, literally within one minute, they had me
stopped on the side of the road," recalled Campbell, 38, a former
electrician and full-time student.

Late last month, the Land O'Lakes resident filed a class-
action lawsuit in Tallahassee against the FHP and other Sunshine
State traffic-enforcement agencies.  He seeks an injunction
barring law enforcement from issuing headlight-flash tickets, plus
refunds and civil damages for previously cited motorists.  Gary
Biller, executive director of the National Motorists Association,
said he has not heard of a similar lawsuit in the country.

Rich Roberts, spokesman for the International Union of Police
Associations, said the Florida statute is intended to ban after-
market flashing lights to prevent people from impersonating a
police officer.  He said the law's language needs clarification
from the court or legislators.

Mr. Campbell's lawyer, J. Marc Jones of Oviedo, claims his
client's First Amendment right to free speech was violated.

"It's not about traffic.  This is about government going too far,
the intentional misapplication of a statute solely to produce
money.  That's just wrong," Mr. Jones said.

"The flashing of lights to communicate with another driver is
clearly speech.  The statute in question has nothing to do with
communication with another driver," he said.

David Hudson Jr., a scholar at the First Amendment Center at
Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., said motorists
previously have challenged headlight-flashing tickets in New
Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, but those were individual cases,
rather than the statewide class-action lawsuit in Florida.

"The First Amendment protects all sorts of nonverbal conduct, it
protects more than the spoken or printed word," Mr. Hudson Jr.
said.  "Courts have found that a wide variety of actions -- such
as honking one's horn or flashing one's headlights -- are forms of
communication under the First Amendment."


CLARCOR INC: Illinois Court Further Stays MDL Proceeding vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has
continued its stay of further discovery in the antitrust
multidistrict litigation involving CLARCOR Inc.'s subsidiary,
according to the Company's September 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended August 27, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter
manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters,
Inc. (the "Defendant Group"), engaged in a conspiracy to fix
prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket
filters.  This lawsuit is a purported class action on behalf of
direct purchasers of filters from the Defendant Group.  Parallel
purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs against
the Defendant Group in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada.

In addition, the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the
County of Suffolk, New York, have filed complaints against the
Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney
General of the State of Washington requested various documents,
information and cooperation, which the Company has agreed to
provide.

All of the U.S. cases, including the actions brought by and/or on
behalf of governmental entities, have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Company believes all of these lawsuits and the
claims made therein to be without merit and is vigorously
defending them.

On June 24, 2011, William Burch, a former employee of two other
defendants in the Defendant Group and the key instigator of the
lawsuits, and key witness for the plaintiffs, pleaded guilty to a
charge brought by the United States Attorney for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania of making false statements to the United
States Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ").
In pleading guilty to this charge, Mr. Burch admits that he
fabricated certain key evidence relevant to the lawsuits at issue
and thereafter lied about it to the DOJ.  He is scheduled to be
sentenced in October 2011.  As a result of this development, the
court overseeing the civil antitrust litigation in the Northern
District of Illinois has continued its stay of further discovery
and ordered plaintiffs to respond to several defense motions
seeking to exclude evidence associated with Mr. Burch.


GOV'T OF CANADA: May Face Class Suit over Power Relicensing Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hudson, writing for Niagara Falls Reporter, reports that
documents made available to the Niagara Falls Reporter this week
show clearly that an environmental impact study mandated by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the New York Power
Authority's relicensing agreement with the Tuscarora Nation never
occurred, calling into question the legality of the entire accord.

Concerned members of the tribe have contacted noted Niagara Falls
attorney John Bartolomei to explore various legal options that
might be open to them, including the possibility of a class action
lawsuit.

The C$100 million agreement between the Power Authority and the
Tuscarora has been the subject of heated debate on the
reservation.  Critics charge that tribal Clerk Leo Henry and Neil
Patterson Sr. -- who negotiated the deal and signed the final
documents -- have done little to improve the lives of tribal
members despite the newfound wealth.

Much of the C$12,484,752 the tribe has already received under the
agreement is tied up in mutual funds and money market accounts,
and a shroud of secrecy cloaks Messrs. Henry and Patterson's plans
for what to do with it.

An Aug. 2, 2005 memorandum of agreement between the nation and the
Power Authority is quite specific about the environmental work.

"The Power Authority intends to notify the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission of its intent to apply for a new license for
the Niagara Power Project and will conduct pre-filing consultation
with the (Tuscaroras), resource agencies and other stakeholders,
including the development of environmental data required for
relicensing," the memorandum states.

Curiously, Neil Patterson Sr. signed the document using the title
"Chief" before his name, despite the fact that he is not a chief
and was in fact denied elevation to that rank at a ceremony on the
Tonawanda Seneca Reservation this past April.  Mr. Henry also
signed the memorandum.

Interestingly, the first C$5 million payment made by the Power
Authority to the Tuscaroras came in December 2005, just four
months after the signing.  This has led some on the reservation to
question whether the payment was connected to the sudden dropping
of the environmental requirements.

The final environmental impact statement, issued in December 2006,
states, "The Tuscarora Nation has not raised environmental justice
concerns, and we assume, by signing their agreement with the Power
Authority, their concerns about the project have been addressed."

A third document, filed on behalf of the Public Power Coalition
and the Eastern Niagara Power Project Alliance, also speaks to
environmental concerns, specifically those relating to a complaint
filed by a Tuscarora rights group.

"In addition, the order does not address a pending complaint filed
by the Tuscarora Nation Landholders Coalition describing the
impact of the project on water pollution and the surrounding
environment.  The Commission must address this complaint before it
can issue a new license," it says.

Clearly, an environmental impact study was a requirement under the
agreement between the Tuscarora Nation and the Power Authority.
And just as clearly, no such study was undertaken.  Furthermore, a
formal complaint filed by the landholders was ignored in the rush
to get the agreement signed.

What, if any, impact this will have on the agreement as a whole
will be discussed when tribal members meet with Mr. Bartolomei
this week.  They are hopeful a court case could compel Messrs.
Patterson and Henry, and the tribe's attorney, Kendra Winkelstein,
to be deposed under oath concerning the settlement and other
matters.

The controversy over the C$100 million settlement has fueled
dissension on the reservation, where many live below the poverty
level and often are denied access to basic services like
electrical power and medical treatment at the Tuscarora Clinic.
The settlement agreement also gives one megawatt of power to the
nation annually, enough to provide free electricity to every home
on the reservation.

It is uncertain what this power allotment is being used for, and
many believe it is being sold back to Niagara Mohawk or some other
power company for cash.

The U.S. Justice Department has opened an investigation into the
case, and state Sen. George Maziarz has asked state Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman to look into the situation as well.

"These checks, payable to the Tuscarora Nation of Indians, have
been being delivered to Leo Henry's house," Sen. Maziarz said.
"There is no accounting to anyone what happens to the money after
the checks are cashed."

Sen. Maziarz also questions why state officials would allow the
deal to go down as it did.

"I have a hard time justifying in my mind the fact that this small
group of people is getting C$100 million without any
accountability whatsoever, not even to their own people," he said.
"It's crazy."

A June 8 letter sent by Tuscarora Elder Douglas S. Anderson and
addressed to both President Barack Obama and New York Gov. Andrew
Cuomo stated in plain English that the C$100 million settlement
the Tuscarora received had been "misappropriated" and that the
state and federal governments should immediately freeze all tribal
assets.

Repeated attempts over the past several months to get Messrs.
Patterson and Henry or Ms. Winkelstein, to comment on the record
have been unsuccessful.  Frustrated Tuscaroras have told the
Reporter their own efforts to find out what their money is being
spent on have been likewise rebuffed.

The tribe has no written constitution, and decisions are often
made on the fly in the living room of the Patterson home, where
"tribal council" meetings are held.  No public records are made of
these meetings.

Ross Johnson, one of the most vocal opponents of the Henry-
Patterson leadership, expressed the frustration of many on the
reservation.

"I personally became involved in this after I couldn't tolerate
this type of dysfunctional government any longer, and I know I'm
not alone," he said.  "Our nation could have so many programs for
our children, money for businesses, a source of income for the
nation that each member would benefit from, and more.  But with
our current leaders, it will never happen. We will continue to
become more reliant on public assistance from New York state."


HURD MILLWORK: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wausau Daily Herald reports that a federal judge has preliminarily
approved a $1.65 million settlement for Hurd Millwork Inc.
customers who claim they bought leaky windows and doors in the
1990s.

The suit filed by a Milwaukee man in 2005 contends that doors and
windows Hurd made from Jan. 1, 1994, to Dec. 31, 1998, leaked,
which reduced the products' insulating capacity.

Hurd has denied the suit's allegations but has proposed a
settlement to avoid additional costs and risks of protracted
litigation.

The suit's claim for breach of warranty was dismissed in 2009, but
that decision now is being appealed.  Earlier this year, both
sides in the class-action suit proposed the settlement and
District Judge Lynn Adelman granted initial approval to it on
Sept. 2, finding it "fair, reasonable and adequate."

Plaintiffs' attorney fees will be paid from the $1.65 million
settlement.


MOBILE COUNTY, AL: School Board Sued Over Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that seven assistant principals
say in a federal class action that the Board of School
Commissioners of Mobile County, and School Superintendent Roy
Nichols Jr. will not let black principals work at schools with
predominantly white student bodies.

A copy of the Complaint in July, et al. v. Board of School
Commissioners of Mobile County, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00539 (S.D.
Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/19/SchoolSeg.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory B. Stein, Esq.
          Mary E. Pilcher, Esq.
          STEIN AND PILCHER, L.L.C.
          104 St. Francis Street, Ste. 601
          Post Office Box 1051
          Mobile, AL 36633
          Telephone: (251) 433-2002
          E-mail: Gstein@mobilebaylaw.com
                  Mpilcher@mobilebaylaw.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Wiggins, Esq., Esq.
          Robert F. Childs, Esq., Esq.
          Candis A. McGowan, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANZASIS, LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          E-mail: Rwiggins@wcqp.com
                  Rfc@wcqp.com
                  Cmcgowan@wcqp.com


NATIONAL CITY BANK: Judge Tosses $7-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge threw out a $7 million settlement to a class action alleging
discriminatory loan practices, citing class-certification issues
that arose after the Supreme Court ruled on the Wal-Mart case.

The May 2008 lawsuit accused National City Bank of violating the
Fair Housing Act by "placing minority mortgagors into higher-
priced sub-prime loans because of their race."

Clients said the bank's "discretionary pricing policy" allowed
loan officers to tack on higher fees to an otherwise objective
financing rate, and that minorities got more expensive mortgages.

The suit cited an ACORN study that said black and Latino
homeowners were 2.7 times and 2.3 times more likely than white
people to receive subprime loans, respectively.

"Differences in economic status are not to blame," the lawsuit
states.  "These racial disparities were found to persist even
among borrowers of the same income level."

The disparities "are not mere coincidences," according to the
complaint.  "They are the result of a systematic and predatory
policy of targeting minority borrowers for high cost loans."

Homeowners also claimed that discriminatory credit-pricing
policies "cause persons with identical or similar credit scores to
pay differing amounts for obtaining credit.  Such subjective loan
pricing -- which by design imposes differing finance charges on
persons with the same or similar credit profiles -- disparately
impacts defendants' minority borrowers."

The class later named PNC Financial Services as a successor-in-
interest to National City.  Discovery began after the parties
stipulated to dismissal of claims concerning mortgages from
National City subsidiary First Franklin Corp.  Those pending
claims have been consolidated in California's Northern District.

During discovery, National City produced data related to more than
two million loans made from 2001 to 2008.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno said the data detailed all the
loans made to white, Latino and black borrowers during that time
period, and "included the annual percentage rate, the term of the
loan . . . the interest rate for the loan, the borrower's income,
the borrower's ethnicity and race, the borrower's credit score,
the borrower's debt-to-income ratio" and a litany of other
information.

After a May 2010 mediation session, parties agreed to a $7 million
settlement for a class of more than 153,000 borrowers, which the
judge granted conditional approval.

In addition to the $7 million payout, the proposed settlement
required National City to provide a toll-free hotline where
mortgagors could discuss loan modification and foreclosure
avoidance with English- and Spanish-speaking consultants.

The deal also included a provision directing payment of $75,000
each to the National Council of La Raza and Neighborhood Housing
Services of Chicago (NHSC) "for providing loss mitigation and/or
foreclosure avoidance counseling services."

In a December 2010 fairness hearing, Judge Robreno ordered
briefing on some issues he found concerning.

He wanted to know what the differences were between the
foreclosure avoidance program already provided by defendants and
the ones set to be implemented by La Raza and NHSC, and how the
two organizations were selected, including "any connections
between counsel and the organizations, whether or not the
organizations provide referrals for counsel, and why two
organizations were selected instead of one."

In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark reversal
in Wal-Mart Stores. v. Dukes, a sex-discrimination case brought on
behalf of 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart workers,
accusing the company of favoring men over women with respect to
pay and promotion.

Judge Robreno said the parties had recognized Dukes -- one of the
largest civil rights class actions in American history -- as
"highly relevant" to the National City case.  The five-justice
majority had reversed certification of the class, finding that the
plaintiffs had not sufficiently shown that they shared common
questions of law and fact.

He agreed on Sept. 8 "under the Supreme Court's recent precedent .
. . the class fails to establish the requirement of commonality
and typicality."

In the National City case, "there were many loan officers that
were involved in using discretion that created the alleged
discrimination," Judge Robreno wrote.

"Thus, despite the regression analysis alleging an overall
disparate impact [on minority mortgagors], the fact that each loan
officer would likely proffer different reasoning for how she
applied her discretion to loan applications further supports the
conclusion that the issues involved in the case will differ based
on which loan officer each plaintiff received her loan from," the
18-page decision states.

"Applying Dukes, plaintiffs would likely have to show the
disparate impact and analysis for each loan officer or at a
minimum each group of loan officers working for a specific
supervisor," he wrote.

A telephone conference is set for Sept. 30.

A copy of the Memorandum in Rodriguez, et al. v. National City
Bank, et al., Case No. 08-cv-02059 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/19/nat.%20city%20opinion.pdf


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals in IPO Suit Settlement Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2001, Oplink Communications, Inc., and certain of its
officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action
shareholder complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  In the amended complaint,
the plaintiffs alleged that Oplink, certain of Oplink's officers
and directors and the underwriters of Oplink's initial public
offering ("IPO") violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
based on allegations that Oplink's registration statement and
prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices
of, the IPO underwriters.  Similar complaints were filed by
plaintiffs against hundreds of other public companies that went
public in the late 1990s and early 2000s and their IPO
underwriters (collectively, the "IPO Lawsuits").  During the
summer of 2008, the parties engaged in a formal mediation process
to discuss a global resolution of the IPO Lawsuits.  Ultimately,
the parties reached an agreement to settle all 309 cases against
all defendants, and entered into a settlement agreement in April
2009.  The settlement provides for a $586 million recovery in
total, divided among the 309 cases.  Oplink's share of the
settlement is roughly $327,458, which is the amount Oplink will be
required to pay if the settlement is finally approved.  In October
2009, the Court certified the settlement class in each case and
granted final approval to the settlement.

A number of appeals have been filed with the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals, challenging the fairness of the settlement.  A number
of shareholder plaintiffs have also filed petitions for leave to
appeal the class certification portion of Judge Scheindlin's
ruling.  These appeals and petitions are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 16,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 3, 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in Light Cigarettes Class Action Begins
------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Schremp Hahn, writing for STLtoday.com, reports that
lawyers are seeking up to a billion dollars in a class action suit
on behalf of Missouri smokers against tobacco giant Philip Morris,
accused of claiming light cigarettes were safer than regular
cigarettes when they weren't.

About 700 million packs of Marlboro Light cigarettes were sold in
Missouri from early 1995 until the end of 2002, the time period
the suit covers, plaintiff's attorney Stephen Swedlow argued as
the case opened on Sept. 19 in St. Louis.

The suit, filed in 2000, is not meant to blame Philip Morris for
the personal choice of someone choosing to smoke perfectly legal
cigarettes, he said.

"The problem is, this product is mislabeled," he said.  "You don't
get to sell low-fat yogurt that isn't low-fat."

The light cigarette packages promised lower tar and nicotine when
they were made with the same tobacco as regular cigarettes, and
smokers might compensate for the lower nicotine by inhaling more
deeply, he said.

"The reason this is the most genius fraud in the state of Missouri
is because smokers can't figure this out for themselves," he said.

He said Marlboro Light cigarettes are the best-selling cigarette
product in the state.

Philip Morris attorney Beth Wilkinson argued that Marlboro Light
cigarettes are different than regular Marlboro Reds, and include
eleven percent less tobacco, more ventilation, and a longer
filter.

Both types of cigarettes carried the same surgeon general's
warnings, she said.  She said many sources say the light
cigarettes deliver less nicotine, and that by 1981 the public
health community knew that people might compensate by inhaling
more deeply with light cigarettes, she said.

"So how is that a secret?" she said.

She said the class action lawyers can't say how large their class
is, when its members began smoking, and its habits of smoking
Marlboro Light cigarettes.

Philip Morris attorneys said the plaintiffs produced an economic
model that estimated damages at around one billion dollars.  If
the jury finds in favor of the plaintiffs, punitive damages would
be determined in a second phase of the trial.

The trial is expected to last until around Thanksgiving.  Twelve
jurors and eight alternates were seated on Sep. 19.

Several class representatives were originally part of the suit,
but the last remaining one is Deborah Larsen, 60, of Jefferson
County.  She smoked about a pack and a half of Marlboro Lights a
day from 1979 until 2002, when she quit.  Philip Morris attorneys
say she was sought out by the plaintiff's attorneys to represent
the class.

This is the second large tobacco trial in St. Louis Circuit Judge
Michael David's courtroom this year.  In April, big tobacco
companies prevailed in a sweep of verdicts against hospitals
seeking to recoup the costs of treating smokers' diseases.  That
trial started in January and took two and a half months to
present.

In 2003, another case involving the marketing of light and low-tar
cigarettes as safer led to a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip
Morris in Madison County Circuit Court. The Illinois Supreme Court
overturned it, and earlier this year the case was revived by a
lower appeals court.


RALCORP HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over ConAgra Foods Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Ralcorp
Holdings executives breached their duty to shareholders by
shunning buyout offers from ConAgra Foods at well above market
value, according to a class action in city court.  Ralcorp is a
leading producer of store-brand foods.

"Ralcorp's Board of Directors has repeatedly and unreasonably
refused to even discuss a potential transaction with ConAgra in
spite of numerous premium offers for all of the outstanding
company shares," the complaint states.  "Instead, Ralcorp has
erected barriers to any unsolicited takeover, and hastily and
belatedly created and introduced its own plan to break up the
company."

Named plaintiff Jennifer Howard says ConAgra's offer was 32%
higher than Ralcorp's closing stock price on March 21, a 25%
premium to Ralcorp's one-month average closing price as of
April 28, and a 20% premium of Ralcorp's closing stock price on
April 28.

She says that rather than discuss the bid with ConAgra, Ralcorp
executives created barriers to a takeover such as spinning off
Post Foods, even though ConAgra sweetened the offer.

"On September 14, 2011, Bloomberg published a story entitled
'Ralcorp Board Costing Investors $1 Billion in ConAgra
Opposition,'" the complaint states.  "The news story pointed out
the ConAgra's $94 per share offer could go as high as $104 were
the companies to engage in a dialogue."

The class asks that Ralcorp be ordered to enter into negotiations
with ConAgra and negotiate the best deal for shareholders.  They
are represented by Mark Goldenberg with Goldenberg Heller
Antognoli, of Edwardsville, Ill.

Ralcorp, founded in 1995, has about 10,800 employees, many of them
in Missouri, according to the complaint.

Ralcorp and 11 members of its Board of Directors are named as
defendants.

ConAgra is not a party to the complaint.

A copy of the Complaint in Howard v. Stiritz, et al., Case No.
1122-CC09665 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/19/Ralcorp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND P.C.
          2227 South State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com
                  tom@ghalaw.com

              - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Alan D. Weiss, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
                  aweiss@whafh.com
                  guiney@whafh.com


SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP, a shareholder rights litigation firm, disclosed
that a federal securities class action has been filed by an
investor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Sequans Communications S.A.
American Depositary Shares between April 15, 2011, and July 27,
2011.

The complaint alleges that beginning on April 15, 2011, certain
officers and directors at Sequans issued a series of positive
statements to investors about the business condition, future
prospects, and true performance of the company that were
materially false and misleading, and that were designed to
artificially inflate the value of the company.  In particular, the
complaint alleges that officials at Sequans withheld material
adverse facts about declining revenue from its WiMAX product line,
the decreasing demand for WiMAX in the 4G market, the ability of
Sequans to generate revenue in the 4G LTE market, and the
company's growing dependency on sales to HTC, its largest
customer.

On July 28, 2011, Sequans released its second quarter results for
fiscal year 2011.  These results were in stark contrast to
optimistic statements made by officials, and seemed to confirm
that the company was performing well below expectation.  On this
news, the company's stock lost $6.88 per share, or 45% of their
value, to close on July 28, 2011 at just $8.55.  As more
allegations continue to surface, the value of Sequans' stock
continues to decline; after trading as high as $15.43 on July 27,
2011, shares of Sequans closed on September 12, 2011 at just $4.83
per share.

If you invested in Sequans during the Class Period and would like
more information about your shareholder rights, please contact
attorney Gregory E. Del Gaizo at 800-350-6003 or via the
shareholder information form on our Web site.  One option that may
be available is to move for lead plaintiff in the class action,
which serves an important role in the potential prosecution of
this case.

Robbins Umeda LLP represents individual and institutional
shareholders in derivative, direct, and class action lawsuits.
The law firm's skilled litigation teams include former federal
prosecutors, former defense counsel from top multinational
corporate law firms, and career shareholder rights attorneys.


UBS AG: Claims on Foreign-Traded Securities Can't Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that in the
summer of 2010, as the securities class action bar was trying to
come up with ways to get around the U.S. Supreme Court's ban on
claims based on foreign-traded securities in Morrison v. National
Australia Bank, some intrepid plaintiffs' lawyers posited a
creative theory.  Many foreign companies offered American
Depository Receipts, which are traded on U.S. exchanges.  Since
ADRs are based on the foreign-traded shares, they argued, those
shares are, by extension, "listed" on U.S. exchanges.

The theory was derided by defense lawyers, including George Conway
of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, who won Morrison at the Supreme
Court.  Mr. Conway called the "listed" theory "N-U-T-S," and a
succession of federal judges eventually agreed.  In the 14 months
since the Morrison ruling, judges have interpreted the court's
stricture expansively, applying Morrison's ban on extraterritorial
application of securities laws to cases involving not just
securities fraud, but also claims under the 1933 Securities Act,
claims involving unlisted credit default swaps, and even
allegations of racketeering.

As judges tossed case after case against foreign defendants, one
securities class action was left undecided.  But it was a huge
one: Plaintiffs asserted more than $100 billion (with a b) in
losses, alleged that UBS deceived shareholders about its exposure
to subprime mortgages and its allegedly illegal sheltering of U.S.
tax evaders.  Moreover, class counsel from Grant & Eisenhofer,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, and Motley Rice had the strongest
argument of any securities plaintiffs on the "listed" theory.  UBS
doesn't trade ADRs or American Depository Shares on U.S.
exchanges.  It trades common shares.  About 12% of UBS shares are
listed in the United States (according to Harvard law professor
Allen Ferrell, in a declaration in the UBS litigation).  Given
that an investor could buy a share of UBS on the Swiss exchange in
the morning and trade it on the NYSE in the afternoon, plaintiffs
argued, all UBS stock was, in essence, listed on U.S. exchanges
and thus immune from Morrison's bar.

Unfortunately for the class -- and for all investors hoping to
salvage some scrap of hope from the Morrison wreckage -- federal
judge Richard Sullivan of the Southern District of New York
disagreed.  In a long-awaited 10-page ruling on Sept. 13, Judge
Sullivan found that shareholders could only proceed with claims
based on shares actually listed in the United States.  Foreign-
listed shares are out.  The ruling wipes out almost 90% of UBS's
exposure.

UBS was represented by Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell.  "We
are pleased with the court's decision dismissing all claims based
on purchases of UBS's shares outside of the United States," he
said in an e-mail.  Class counsel Jay Eisenhofer of Grant &
Eisenhofer didn't respond to an e-mail.

For the broader securities bar, said Mr. Conway of Wachtell, Judge
Sullivan's UBS ruling means an end to plaintiffs' attempts to get
around Morrison.  "The 'listed securities' argument in this case
was the last gasp," he said in an e-mail.  "Now it's all over
-- (plaintiffs) don't even bother to bring these cases anymore."

In fact, in a Sept. 9 brief in the Vivendi case, one of Morrison's
biggest casualties, a coalition of some of the biggest securities
class action firms in the business was left hoping for help from
Congress, via the Securities and Exchange Commission's mandate in
Dodd-Frank, or else from some wistfully imagined future Supreme
Court.  "The undersigned further submit that Morrison was wrongly
decided and look forward to a day when a future Supreme Court
corrects the error and reinstates the conduct and effects tests
that had prevailed in (the Second) Circuit and elsewhere for
decades."


UBS AG: Exposure to Rogue Trade Class Actions May Be Limited
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that UBS AG is
under pressure for failing to monitor an equity trader suspected
of causing a $2.3 billion loss for the Swiss bank, but its
exposure to U.S. class-action litigation over the scandal may be
limited.

Following negative announcements from companies, lawyers for U.S.
shareholders routinely file class-actions in American courts
alleging that misrepresentations were made to investors.  But so
far, plaintiffs' lawyers who specialize in these kinds of cases
have been quiet in response to the UBS scandal.

As of Sept. 19, there had been no public announcements of any
securities fraud lawsuits filed over the UBS trading losses,
although some lawyers said they are keeping their options open.

"We'll look closely at it," said Steven Toll, a prominent class-
action lawyer from law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in
Washington, D.C.

On Sept. 15, UBS stunned markets when it announced that a London
trader concealed "unauthorized speculative trading in various S&P
500, DAX and EuroStoxx index futures over the last three months"
by creating fictitious hedging positions in internal systems.
Trader Kweku Adoboli was charged on Friday with fraud and false
accounting dating to 2008.

It was the latest embarrassment for UBS, which has sought to
recover from its near collapse during the financial crisis and an
investigation into allegations it helped wealthy U.S. clients
evade paying taxes.

But the scandal will present obstacles to investors who try to
seek redress in U.S. courts.

Shareholder damages appear relatively small.  On the day before
UBS announced its trading losses, the company's shares on the New
York Stock Exchange closed at $12.68.  The next day they closed at
$11.41.

Under U.S. securities laws, damages cannot exceed the difference
between the price investors paid for their shares and the average
price of the stock over a 90-day period beginning on the date when
the information correcting the misstatement was disseminated.

If, during the 90-day period, shares of UBS rise significantly, it
could negate any potential damages.

Another obstacle for plaintiffs is a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
that recently stopped a case against Societe Generale over the
company's failure to stop unauthorized trades by employee Jerome
Kerviel, who racked up a $6.7 billion loss in 2008.  Mr. Kerviel
was sentenced to three years in prison in October 2010 by a Paris
court.

In a lawsuit brought in Manhattan federal court, shareholders
alleged Societe Generale ignored internal red flags of
Mr. Kerviel's trading and misrepresented the quality of its
management policies and internal controls to investors.

As a result, Societe Generale's corporate and investment banking
division was forced to restate 98% of its originally reported net
income for the six-month period ended June 30, 2007, according to
the plaintiffs.

But in dismissing the case, U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in
Manhattan last September cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010
ruling, Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., which barred
shareholders from bringing claims for shares purchased on foreign
exchanges.

Judge Berman found that because the plaintiffs -- Vermont Pension
Investment Committee and Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Fund -- had purchased their Societe Generale shares on foreign
exchanges, they were barred from bringing claims in the United
States.

UBS itself was the beneficiary of the Morrison ruling just last
week in a case alleging the bank misled investors about its
exposure to subprime mortgages and its allegedly illegal
sheltering of U.S. tax evaders.

The plaintiffs, who claimed more than $100 billion in losses,
attempted a novel argument to avoid the Supreme Court's Morrison
ruling.  They argued that, while their shares were purchased
abroad, they should be able to bring claims in the United States
because UBS common shares are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange.

In a decision on Sept.13, U.S. District Court Judge Richard
Sullivan in Manhattan rejected that argument and in the process
wiped out almost 90% of UBS's exposure in the lawsuit.

Because only about 12% of UBS shares are listed in the United
States, the bank's exposure would be limited if shareholders
brought a class-action case over the trading scandal, said Hannah
Buxbaum, a professor at Indiana University's law school.

"It's a relatively small number of plaintiffs' claims that would
survive a Morrison review," she said.


                           *********

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  * * *