CAR_Public/110929.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 29, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 193

                             Headlines

APPLE INC: Conspired to Increase eBook Prices, Suit Claims
AT&T MOBILITY: Accused of Violating California Labor Laws
COMMERCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Suit Over California Law Violations
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Tosses Gender Discrimination Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Sued in Calif. Over All-In-One Inkjet Printers

GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Alleges
INTESA SANPAOLO: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
LEXISNEXIS: Pre-Certification Discovery Process Ongoing
NATIONAL MILK: Limits Production to Raise Milk Price, Suit Says
NONNI'S FOODS: Sued in Calif. Over Biscotti "All Natural" Label

NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Court OKs Immigrant Class Action Settlement
SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Bay Street Firms File Class Actions
STATE OF OHIO: AG Wants Unclaimed Funds Class Action Settled
SOUTH AFRICAN MINING COMPANIES: Retired Miners Mull Class Action
UNITED STATES: DHS Chooses Riggs-Abney to Defend Class Action

YAZ BIRTH CONTROL PILLS: Lieff Cabraser Comments on FDA Warning
ZIPREALTY: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
ZST DIGITAL: Deadline to Seek Dismissal of "Scott" Suit on Nov. 4




                             *********

APPLE INC: Conspired to Increase eBook Prices, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Key, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Apple, Inc.; Hachette Book Group; HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc.; Macmillan Publishers, Inc.; Penguin Group (USA)
Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-04754 (N.D.
Calif., September 23, 2011) alleges that the Defendants
coordinated to force Amazon to abandon its pro-consumer pricing.

The Publisher Defendants worked together to force the eBook sales
model to be entirely restructured, which would halt the
discounting of eBook prices and uniformly raise prices on all
first release fiction and nonfiction published by the Publisher
Defendants, according to the lawsuit.  Under the Publisher
Defendants' new pricing model, known as the "Agency model", they
have restrained trade by coordinating their pricing to directly
set retail prices higher than had existed in the previously
competitive market, Ms. Key argues.

Ms. Key is a resident of Alabama.  She asserts that she paid
higher prices for her eBooks as a direct and foreseeable result of
the unlawful conduct of the Defendants.

Apple is a California corporation and is a leading manufacturer of
mobile devices designed to distribute, store, and display digital
media.  Hachette Book is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and its
imprints include Little, Brown & Co. and Grand Central Publishing.
HarperCollins is a leading U.S. trade publisher and its imprints
include Ecco, Harper, Harper Perennial and William Morrow.
Macmillan is a group of leading publishing companies and its U.S.
publishers include Farrar Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt & Company,
Picador, and St. Martin's Press.  Penguin Group (USA) is the U.S.
affiliate of Penguin Group, one of the largest English-language
trade book publishers in the world.  Penguin's imprints include
Viking, Riverhead Books, Dutton and Penguin Books.  Simon &
Schuster is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and is part of CBS
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  kanderson@scott-scottt.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Frankowski, Esq.
          BURKE HARVEY & FRANKOWSKI, L.L.C.
          One Highland Place
          2151 Highland Avenue, Suite 120
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9091
          E-mail: rfrankowski@bhflegal.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Accused of Violating California Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------
George Gallardo, Carlos Barragan, Kyle Binns, Carlos Cruz,
Jennifer De Witt, Hector Rodriguez, Denise Roman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
a limited liability corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. RG 11591396 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., August 19,
2011) is brought to recover penalties under the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 and the Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs say that they brought the lawsuit to address an
employer's violations of the California Labor Code.  The
Plaintiffs also accuse the Defendants of failing and refusing to
provide suitable seating for the Plaintiffs and other current and
former employees of AT&T.

The Plaintiffs are residents of California and current employees
of AT&T.

AT&T is a limited liability corporation headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia, and authorized to do and doing business in California.
AT&T is a nationwide company that retails wireless telephones and
related equipment, accessories and services to the general public.
The Plaintiffs do not know the names of the Doe Defendants at the
moment.

AT&T removed the lawsuit on September 23, 201, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company argues that the removal is proper because the
complaint involves a federal question for it involves claims and
issues that arise under, are intertwined with, derive from, and
require application and interpretation of the federal Labor
Management Relations Act.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:11-cv-04749 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Roberta D. Perkins, Esq.
          WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
          A Professional Corporation
          1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Alameda, CA 94501-1091
          Telephone: (510) 337-1001
          Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
          E-mail: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net
                  rperkins@unioncounsel.net

               - and -

          Miles E. Locker, Esq.
          LOCKER FOLBERG LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 835
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 962-1626
          Facsimile: (415) 962-1628
          E-mail: mlocker@lockerfolberg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Michael D. Mandel, Esq.
          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          Email: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                 mmandel@mcguirewoods.com
                 skim@mcguirewoods.com


COMMERCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Suit Over California Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Calvo-Perez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc., Case No.
3:11-cv-04764 (N.D. Calif., September 23, 2011) challenges the
actions of Commercial Recovery with regard to its unlawful and
surreptitious recording of telephone calls between it and Ms.
Calvo-Perez, in violation of California law.

The Plaintiff asserts that in May 2011, the Defendant began
telephoning her in an effort to try to convince her to pay an
alleged debt.  She alleges that the Defendant surreptitiously
monitored, eavesdropped on, recorded, or made other unauthorized
connections to the conversations between them, which took place
and was accomplished through a machine, instrument, or
contrivance, or any other manner prohibited by the California
Penal Code.

Ms. Calvo-Perez is a resident of the city of San Francisco,
California.

The Defendant is a Texas corporation and conducts business within
the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  bob@westcoastlitigation.com
                  david@westcoastlitigation.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Tosses Gender Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal appeals court's rejection of class action status in a
gender discrimination case against Costco Wholesale Corp., which
is based on a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is a victory for
employers, but only a partial one, legal experts say.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the first
major class action case to be decided since the Supreme Court's
June decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vs. Betty Dukes et al.,
where the high court ruled against a proposed class of some 1.5
million members.

Employers had hoped that in light of Wal-Mart, the 9th Circuit
would dismiss Shirley "Rae" Ellis et al. vs. Costco Wholesale
Corp. While it did reverse the lower court's grant of class
certification, the appeals court remanded the case for further
consideration, thus keeping it alive, observers say.

Kevin M. McGinty, a member of law firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris
Glovsky & Popeo P.C. in Boston, said the ruling in Ellis "is
typical, I think, of what you'll be seeing in a lot of
circumstances, where cases that were certified (as class actions)
prior to the Wal-Mart decision are sent back down" to the district
court to apply the principles set by the Supreme Court.

Not just from an employment law perspective, but from "a class
action standpoint, it's an interesting and potentially significant
case as the lower courts try to flesh out and apply what the
Supreme Court tried to do," said Sean P. Wajert, a partner with
Dechert L.L.P. in Philadelphia.

The plaintiffs accused Issaquah, Wash.-based Costco of promotional
practices that discriminated against women.  The district court
issued its decision in the case in 2007, before the Supreme Court
ruled in Wal-Mart.

"This complicated case requires us to consider a number of issues
relating to class verification," the three-judge 9th Circuit panel
said in its unanimous Sept. 16 ruling.  "Several of these issues
have recently been clarified by the Supreme Court's decision" in
Wal-Mart.

Under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
standards that are required for cases to become certified as class
actions include whether there are questions of law common to the
class, and whether the claims of the representative parties are
typical of the class as a whole.

In its ruling in Ellis, the appeals court said the district court
"abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard in its
analyses of commonality and typicality" under Rule 23(a).
"Accordingly, we vacate the district court's findings on those
issues and remand for application of the correct standard," it
ruled (see related story).

"The most significant takeaway is that the Wal-Mart decision is
going to make it very difficult of for nationwide class actions in
employment law to proceed," said D. Gregory Valenza, a partner
with San Francisco-based Shaw Valenza L.L.P.  "It's quite clear
that the nationwide promotion practices of Costco are not going to
be able to be litigated in a single class action."

Anthony J. Oncidi, a partner with Proskauer Rose L.L.P. in Los
Angeles, said he was pleased "that the 9th Circuit heard the
Supreme Court loud and clear and applied across the board the most
important aspects of the Wal-Mart decision in the similarly
situated Costco litigation, so we now have an important holding
from the 9th Circuit" on the issues of typicality and commonality
in class action suits.

"It's comforting to see that the 9th Circuit does accept that the
Supreme Court has fundamentally changed the analysis that the
district courts have to go through in California in the 9th
Circuit," said Marcia E. Goodman, a partner with Mayer Brown
L.L.P. in Chicago.

However, Rae T. Vann, general counsel for the Washington-based
Equal Employment Advisory Council, which submitted an amicus brief
on behalf of Costco, said she is "somewhat disappointed" by the
decision.

"I still think that the case should have been decertified
altogether.  I don't see how the Costco plaintiffs can establish
common issues of fact or law that are subject to single, classwide
remedy, which is now the standard post-Dukes," she said.

However, "I think it's good that the court clearly now has
directed the district court to conduct the type of rigorous
analysis that's always been called for, within the parameters set
by the Supreme Court," Ms. Vann said.

While his overall reaction is positive, Gregory V. Mersol, a
partner with Baker & Hostetler L.L.P. in Cleveland, said the
downside is "they remanded the case to the trial court for a
second bite at the apple."

Brad Seligman, executive director of the Berkeley, Calif.,-based
Impact Fund, represented the Ellis and Wal-Mart plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs knew that Ellis would have to be reconsidered "because
the (Supreme Court) changed the rules" and asked that the case be
remanded "for consideration in light of Dukes."  He said he is
"quite confident" that Ellis will meet the standards needed to
establish a class action.

However, Costco attorney Gerald L. Maatman Jr., a partner with
Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in Chicago, said, "Plaintiffs' theory met
with a horrendous loss at the 9th Circuit."  While the 9th Circuit
had no choice but remand the case, the Supreme Court's guidelines
in Wal-Mart "essentially doom any chances the plaintiffs would
have of moving forward on the theories both as to the facts and as
to the new legal standards," he said.

Separately, Business Insurance's Ms. Greenwald reports that major
points in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in Shirley
"Rae" Ellis et al. vs. Costco Wholesale Corp., which overturned a
lower court ruling granting class certification to plaintiffs,
included:

    * The district court "abused its discretion by applying the
wrong legal standards" in determining whether there were questions
of law common to the class and whether the representative parties'
claims were typical of the class as a whole.  The issues were
remanded to the district court.

    * The 9th Circuit vacated the district court's certification
of the class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which primarily is limited to classes seeking
injunctive relief.  It said the district court must consider
certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3), which is not limited to
injunctive relief, but is a tougher standard, because plaintiffs
must prove that class issues predominate in the case and that
class action is the superior way of handling it.

   * The 9th Circuit ruled that plaintiff Elaine Sasaki, a current
employee, is an adequate class representative as a current
employee who continues to be denied promotion.  But it said two
plaintiffs who have left the company -- Ms. Ellis and Leah Horstman
-- were not, because they had no incentive to pursue injunctive
relief.  The issue in their case was remanded.


EASTMAN KODAK: Sued in Calif. Over All-In-One Inkjet Printers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
claims that Eastman Kodak failed to tell consumers that its All-
In-One inkjet printers deplete color ink reserves, even on pages
that contain only black text.

A copy of the Complaint in Apostol v. Eastman Kodak Company, et
al., Case No. 30-2011-00510342 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)
(Dunning, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/26/ink.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net
                  gcarpenter@strangendcarpenter.com
                  jkristensen@strangendcarpenter.com

               - and -

          Brett Shainfeld, Esq.
          Jessica Anvar, Esq.
          SHAINFELD & ANVAR, PC
          10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 424-901-8501
          E-mail: brett@shainfeld-anvar.com
                  jessica@shainfeld-anvar.com


GOODRICH CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Rice, On Behalf of himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Goodrich Corporation, Marshall O. Larsen, Carolyn
Corvi, Harris E. Deloach, Jr., William R. Holland, Alfred M.
Rankin, Jr., Diane Creel, James W. Griffith, John P. Jumper, Lloyd
W. Newton, United Technologies Corporation, Charlotte Lucas
Corporation, Case No. 652619/2011 (N.Y. Sup Ct., September 23,
2011) is a shareholder class action brought to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the publicly-owned shares of Goodrich common stock
by United Technologies Corporation.

The Plaintiff contends that the consideration offered in the
Proposed Transaction is unfair and grossly inadequate because the
intrinsic value of Goodrich's common stock is materially in excess
of the amount offered, given the Company's significant growth,
anticipated operating results, and future profitability.

Mr. Rice is a shareholder of Goodrich common stock.

Goodrich is a New York corporation headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina.  Goodrich, a Fortune 500 company, is a global
supplier of systems and services to aerospace, defense and
homeland security markets.  United Technologies is a diversified
company providing high technology products and services to the
global aerospace and building industries.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Nicholas W. Moyne, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  nmoyne@faruqilaw.com


INTESA SANPAOLO: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Cohen, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that an
Italian consumer group class action suit against Intesa Sanpaolo
SpA on its overdraft fees can go ahead, an Italian court ruled on
Sept. 19.

In an e-mailed statement Italian consumer group Altroconsumo said
that a court in Turin ruled that the class action suit against one
of Italy's largest lenders can proceed.

Altroconsumo filed a lawsuit against Intesa Sanpaolo for ovedraft
fees charged to some Intesa Sanpaolo clients after August 2009.

The Turin court has now to schedule the timing of the hearings as
well as organize the participation of the Intesa Sanpaolo
customers who were forced to pay high overdraft fees since
mid-2009, the Italian association said in the statement.

The Italian class-action law was approved by the country's
lawmakers in 2009 and was effective from January 2010.  A class
action lawsuit is one in which one party or a limited number of
parties sue on behalf of a larger group to which the parties
belong.

Intesa Sanpaolo declined to comment on the potential damages from
the lawsuit.


LEXISNEXIS: Pre-Certification Discovery Process Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah L. Balter at Courthouse News Service reports that a hearing
to discuss the pre-trial progress of a class action against
LexisNexis Courtlink and Fulton County ended with a decision to
table consideration of outstanding motions until the pre-
certification discovery process is complete.

The lawsuit revolves around the issue of whether the Fulton County
court has the authority to mandate the use of LexisNexis' e-filing
system or else lose access to the court.

Among those in attendance at the Sept. 21 hearing at the DeKalb
County Superior Court was Steven J. Newton, attorney for The Best
Jewelry Manufacturing Co. and Kenneth Clowdus, administrator for
the estate of Kenneth Larry Clowdus, Fulton County attorney
William Miles, and William K. Whitner, attorney for LexisNexis.

Its intent was to discuss the results of discovery exchanges that
have occurred in the slow-moving case over the past few months.

However, as the discussion got under way, it quickly became clear
that the process was far from complete.  Mr. Whitner claimed he is
still awaiting feedback on submissions to the Best Jewelry-Clowdus
team, while the plaintiffs' attorneys complained of receiving
Fulton County's documents literally days before the hearing.

"We got some 20,000 documents from Fulton County only three days
ago.  Obviously, we haven't had the chance to look through [that
many] documents, but we feel that with those documents we may have
enough to go forward with class certification," said Irwin Stolz,
Mr. Newton's co-council.

Mr. Stolz said Mr. Miles filed "various and sundry little motions"
that had done little but delayed the case.  As a case in point, he
pointed to Mr. Miles' intention to file a motion for dismissal of
any damage liability against Fulton County that very day.

Mr. Stolz asked DeKalb Superior Court Judge Clarence Seeliger to
set a deadline first for class pre-certification discovery before
starting merit discovery, after which LexisNexis owner Reed
Elsevier and Fulton County might file their merit-based motions.

Mr. Miles insisted that the motion to dismiss damages didn't
involve merits.

"It has to do with the fact that [Fulton County is] entitled to
sovereign immunity as a matter of law," Mr. Miles said.  "It
doesn't matter how true their facts are, or how badly we acted,
we're still entitled to sovereign immunity against damages."

He inferred that the sovereignty right negated the need for a
class action, stating that "it wouldn't matter if it was one
person, two people, or a thousand".

Mr. Miles also anticipates filing for summary judgment in the
future.

"I'm not going to address that yet," said Judge Seeliger, after
Mr. Stolz countered that Fulton County has no immunity for
violating the law.

Mr. Whitner agreed with Mr. Miles, stating that a class action in
this case was not appropriate, and responded to Newton co-council
Shuli Green's on-the-spot request for facts that might preclude
class certification.

"Our position is these interrogatories are premature.  We have not
yet seen [Best Jewelry-Clowdus'] motion for class certification.
It would be inadequate to ask us at this time to answer with
facts," said Mr. Whitner.

The Best Jewelry-Clowdus team has until December 1 to formally
file for class certification, and to submit requests for any
further discovery needed.

The parties will have until February 1 to complete the class
certification discovery process, after which the certification
hearing will be scheduled.  Judge Seeliger also agreed to delay
discovery on merits until certification discovery is completed.


NATIONAL MILK: Limits Production to Raise Milk Price, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Edwards, Georgia Browne and Torah Montessori School,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working
Together; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.; Land O'Lakes, Inc.;
Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.; and Agri-Mark, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-
04766 (N.D. Calif., September 26, 2011) alleges that CWT and its
members have taken coordinated efforts over the past eight years
to limit the production of raw farm milk through premature "herd
retirements" in order to increase the price of raw farm milk,
which is used to supply milk and other fresh milk products to
consumers.

By manipulating the supply of raw farm milk through herd
retirement, price competition has been suppressed and prices have
been supported at artificially high levels throughout the United
States of America, the Plaintiffs allege.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit for violation of state antitrust
statutes and the common law of unjust enrichment.

Mr. Edwards is a resident of San Francisco, California, while Ms.
Browne is a resident of Cold Spring Harbor, New York.  Torah
Montessori is an Illinois nonprofit corporation located in
Chicago.  The Plaintiffs say that they purchased milk and other
fresh milk products during the Class Period and was injured as a
result of the Defendants' illegal conduct.

NMPF was established in 1916 and is based in Arlington, Virginia.
The members of NMPF's cooperatives, which are over 40,000 dairy
producers, make the majority of the nation's milk supply.  CWT "is
a voluntary, producer-funded national program developed by NMPF,
to strengthen and stabilize milk prices."  DFA has its
headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, and is the largest dairy
farmer cooperative in the country.  Land O'Lakes is the second
largest cooperative in the nation.  Dairylea is headquartered in
Syracuse, New York, and is the fifth largest U.S. dairy
cooperative.  Agri-Mark is located in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and
markets more than 300 million gallons of milk each year for more
than 1,300 producer members.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  george@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          820 North Boulevard, Suite B
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 776-5604
          Facsimile: (708) 776-5601
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com


NONNI'S FOODS: Sued in Calif. Over Biscotti "All Natural" Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tamar Davis Larsen and Kimberly S. Sethavanish, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nonni's Foods, LLC
and Chipita America, Inc., Case. No. 4:11-cv-04758 (N.D. Calif.,
September 23, 2011) accuses Nonni's Foods of packaging, marketing
and selling its biscotti products as being "All Natural" despite
the fact that they contain one or more ingredients that are
recognized as synthetic chemical or ingredient by federal
regulations.

Nonni's Foods and Chipita America misrepresent their biscotti as
all natural even though the cookies contain synthetic ingredients,
the class claims in federal court.

While the "All Natural" biscotti products' labels did disclose
that they contained cocoa processed with alkali, glycerin,
monocalcium phosphate, sodium acid pyrophosphate, monoglycerides,
and diglycerides, the labels did not disclose that these
ingredients were synthetic, the Plaintiffs contend.

Ms. Larsen is a resident of Berkeley, California.  Ms. Sethavanish
is a resident of Windsor, California.  The Plaintiffs assert that
they try to avoid consuming foods that are not natural, and are
willing to and have paid a premium for foods that are all natural
and have refrained from buying their counterparts that were not
all natural.

Chipita America, Inc., formerly Nonni's Food Company, Inc., was
incorporated in the state of Florida, and maintains its principal
place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

A copy of the Complaint in Larsen, et al. v. Nonni's Foods, LLC,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-04758 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/26/biscotti.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlsp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEDV DOYLE & PAYNE LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: ikravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  wlison@stemberfeinstein.com


NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Court OKs Immigrant Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that five years after the Nova Scotia
government took control of a problem-plagued immigration program,
a court approved a settlement on Sept. 26 that offers $25 million
in compensation to immigrants who say the program failed to
deliver what it promised.

Ward Branch, the lawyer leading a class-action lawsuit against the
province, said the deal represents the largest settlement of its
kind in Nova Scotia history.

"We're really pleased with the way the government responded once
we started the litigation to make it easy for people to get their
money back," Mr. Branch told Nova Scotia Supreme Court Judge John
Murphy.

Under the settlement agreement, the province's Office of
Immigration is offering 364 immigrants up to $75,000 each in
compensation.  So far, about 60% of those people have been
contacted by Mr. Branch's law firm.

The settlement can be scuttled if 50 or more people object before
Jan. 5, but Mr. Branch said that was unlikely to happen.

The program started in 2003 under the former Conservative
government and was operated by Cornwallis Financial Corp.  But the
Tories assumed responsibility in 2006 and stopped accepting
applications for the program's so-called investment stream after
problems began to surface.

Typically, immigrants in that stream paid Cornwallis about
$100,000 to take part.  In exchange, the immigrants were told they
would be given a middle-management job placement in the province,
and a portion of their fee would be returned to them as a salary.

However, some of the 790 immigrants who paid into the program said
they didn't get the job experience they were promised.  Today,
only 300 of the participants are still in the province.

A proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in December 2009 on
behalf of Peter King, who moved to Halifax from the United Kingdom
in April 2006.

In a statement of claim, Mr. King alleges he paid the fee and
applied unsuccessfully for a number of jobs before he gave up and
moved to British Columbia, where he still resides.

In 2007 and 2008, the province offered refunds to participants,
but Mr. King couldn't qualify because the money went only to those
who had lived in Nova Scotia for a minimum of 12 months.

The provincial government has already paid out about $38 million
in refunds.

Mr. King's class-action was certified and settled during the
Sept. 26 court hearing.

The judge was quick to approve the agreement: "I'm satisfied that
the parties have approached this in good faith," Judge Murphy
said.

Elizabeth Mills, a spokeswoman for the Office of Immigration, said
the province's immigrant nominee program has been a success, but
the so-called investment stream went off the rails.

"We have learned that this type of program . . . with passive
investment streams are very difficult to manage and difficult to
oversee," she said outside the courtroom.  "It is not an area that
we would go again."

Ms. Mills said a total of C$30 million has been set aside to cover
the costs of the settlement agreement.  That figure includes
administrative fees and interest.

The members of the class-action include 105 immigrants who did
find work with mentor firms, and another 259 who never got the
chance, Ms. Mills said.  One immigrant has dropped out of the
group, saying he was satisfied with the program.

Mr. Branch said those who did receive a salary under the program
will have that amount deducted from their $75,000 settlement.

As well, the legal fee paid to Mr. Branch's law firm will be
between 15 and 20 per cent of each check, depending on how many
immigrants come forward.

"The response to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive,"
Mr. Branch told the court.  "I commend the defendants for not
pushing back on this . . . Class-actions tend to be lumbering
beasts."


SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Bay Street Firms File Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that two big
institutions are taking aim at Bay Street's largest firms with a
C$5.8-billion proposed class action lawsuit that alleges Sino-
Forest Corp. and several of its key advisors profited from
misrepresentations about the company's financial condition.

Northwest & Ethical Investment LP, which manages Ethical Funds,
and Comite Syndical National de Retraite Batirente Inc., a Quebec-
based labor-sponsored retirement plan, are suing Sino-Forest, its
auditors and investment bankers on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's securities between Aug. 17, 2004, and
June 2, 2011.

The proposed class action is unique both from the broad list of
powerful Bay Street financial institutions and advisors named as
defendants, and from the heft of the two representative
plaintiffs.

NEI v. Sino-Forest

The C$5.8-billion class action lawsuit targets some of Bay
Street's biggest firms

"This is the next level in securities class actions," says one
veteran Bay Street litigator.  "It's like crossing the Rubicon
because it's the first time that one of the big boy heavyweights
-- in the form of a large mainstream fund company -- has sued the
Street."

Class actions are usually filed in the name of small investors.
NEI, which manages C$4.7-billion in assets, is 50% owned by
Desjardins Group and 50% owned by Provincial Credit Union
Centrals.

The scope of action is massive.  The defendants in the multi-
billion dollar lawsuit include Sino-Forest's auditors, Ernst &
Young LLP and BDO Ltd., 15 firms that underwrote Sino-Forest
market offerings, several forestry consulting firms, and 20
directors and senior officers of the company.

Shares of Sino-Forest, Canada's leading forestry stock for several
years, fell by 70% after Muddy Waters LLC released a report in
June questioning the integrity of the company's asset valuation,
revenues, business practices and financial reporting.

Late last month, the Ontario Securities Commission ordered that
trading of Sino-Forest's securities be suspended, stating that the
company and some officer and directors appeared to be engaging in
conduct "they know or reasonably ought to know perpetuate a fraud
on any person or company."

If the Sino-Forest allegations are proven to be true, legal
experts have said there is little recourse for investors to get
their money back aside from bringing claims against the vast
network of bankers, auditors and others that helped the company
raise almost C$3-billion on Bay St.

"One of the things that I think is interesting is the fact that
there are major players in the financial industry on both sides of
this," said Cristie Ford, an assistant professor in the Faculty of
Law at the University of British Columbia.  "In a financial market
like Canada's, where so many shareholders are institutional
investors . . . I think it's appropriate for them to be looking
after their constituencies' interests in this way."

NEI and Batirente allege that the defendants fundamentally
misrepresented the scope of Sino-Forest's business operations and
materially overstated its assets and financial results.

"NEI Investments has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of
our investors and in commencing this action we believe we are
acting strongly to uphold the integrity of the investment
industry," Bob Walker, vice president, Ethical Funds, NEI
Investments said in a news release.

NEI and Batirente, working with British Columbia Investment
Management Corp., had shown their concern with the company's
governance even before the explosive allegations came to light.
The two filed a shareholder proposal in January encouraging the
company to adopt a revised majority voting policy.

While the proposal was withdrawn when the company agreed to make
the change, both NEI and Batirente withheld their votes for most
of the company directors at Sino-Forest's last annual general
meeting, in May.

On June 8, just six days after Muddy Waters research analyst
Carson Block released his report, Toronto's Rochon Geneva filed a
shareholder lawsuit in Ontario.  The next, Siskinds LLP of London,
Ontario filed a suit in Quebec Superior Court and followed up with
a similar filing in Ontario on June 20.

It remains unclear who will have carriage of the proceedings.  The
prospect of a nasty carriage fight among the law firms looms.

Quebec is a first-to-file jurisdiction, meaning that the
plaintiffs' firm that files first in that province, which is
Siskinds in this case, is the one likely to get carriage there --
and the biggest slice of the fee pie -- from proceedings against
Sino-Forest.


STATE OF OHIO: AG Wants Unclaimed Funds Class Action Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Strathman, writing for newsnet5.com, reports that the
interest earned by unclaimed funds has been the center of debate
for several years in a lawsuit involving the state of Ohio.

For seven years, the state has fought a class action lawsuit over
interest that unclaimed funds earn.  Now, the Ohio Attorney
General says this lawsuit may be wrapped up soon, which could put
more money back in your pocket.

"Everybody pays interest, so the state should not be exempt from
that," consumer Kathy Tomaro said.

The state holds unclaimed funds from dormant checking and savings
accounts, old rent and utility deposits, uncashed checks, and
uncashed insurance policies.

The state of Ohio earns interest on the money, but when you claim
the money, you don't get that interest.

An Ohio man thought it was wrong and filed a class action lawsuit
in 2004.  The state has been fighting that suit ever since.  The
Ohio Supreme Court even said consumers are owed this money, but
that decision didn't end the court battle.

During our investigation last November, the Commerce Department
didn't have much to say.

The Commerce Department is represented by the State Attorney
General, which puts the AG in an unusual position since he also
represents the interests of the consumer.

Almost a year into his term, Attorney General Mike DeWine is
bringing a new opinion to the case.

"It's a case that we inherited.  The law says we represent the
state, and all state agencies.  They are a client so we have to
represent them in court.  We certainly will do that in this case.
But, the courts have made it clear that the game is over,"
Mr. DeWine said.

It's a big development for consumers especially considering since
the man defending the state is saying it.

"I hope it gets settled very soon," Mr. DeWine added.

The AG says the courts have made it clear consumers have a right
to this money, but how will the state find the money to pay?

The court estimated the payout at $74 million, and that was a few
years ago.

"The state will simply have to find the money.  The court tells
you you have to do something, you gotta do it," Mr. DeWine said.

It's unclear when the case will be settled.  Mr. DeWine only said
"fairly soon."


SOUTH AFRICAN MINING COMPANIES: Retired Miners Mull Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dineo Matomela, writing for Business Report, reports that more
than 300,000 retired gold mine workers, who contracted silicosis
or tuberculosis (TB) during or after their employment in the
industry, were pushing for the start of a multibillion-rand class
action next year, lawyer Richard Spoor said on Sept. 23.

He said the class action would be against AngloGold Ashanti,
Barrick Gold Africa, DRDGold, Gold Fields, Harmony Gold, JCI Gold,
Randgold & Exploration, Rand Uranium, African Rainbow Minerals and
Pamodzi Gold.

The retired miners from across South Africa and neighboring
countries could receive billions in compensation.

The case would represent all employees who contracted silicosis in
local mines from the 1950s onwards, as well as the widows and
estates of workers who contracted tuberculosis.

Mr. Spoor said it was standard practice for the companies to
dismiss workers once they had contracted silicosis.  This was most
unfortunate as workers then lost their income and incurred medical
debts they could in no way afford.

"South African mining companies are responsible for the burden of
the staggering number of TB cases in southern Africa, they are
also responsible for silicosis among employees."

Mr. Spoor, who has teamed up with US-based firm Motley Rice, said
NGOs based in the areas of the miners' origins had been providing
information for the "mammoth undertaking".

"Statistics show that the mining industry has not protected its
employees.  We are doing this (class action) because it is the
only way that we can address legacy issues."

Mr. Spoor said there was currently a process of clarification
under way, as the lawyers were seeking confirmation from the
courts on whether they could proceed with the action.

On Sept. 21, a group of 450 former gold mine workers lodged papers
in the London High Court claiming Anglo American South Africa did
not properly protect them from dust and that this led to them
contracting silicosis or TB.

Earlier this year, the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of an
AngloGold Ashanti employee, Thembekile Mankayi, which allowed him
to sue the Anglo American group company for contracting silicosis.
The ruling has opened the way for retired mineworkers to sue
companies for contracting lung diseases on the mines.

Analysts said that the judge on the Mankayi case acknowledged the
right of the individuals to lodge claims and also noted that the
compensation measures in the mining industry were not sufficient.

In 2001, Gencor, a South African company that took over some of
Cape plc's South African asbestos operations when Cape left the
country in 1979, had to compensate 7,500 claimants who contracted
asbestos-related diseases.

In May, a judge decided that mines would have to assume
responsibility for deficits in the Compensation Fund for miners
with pulmonary disease.


UNITED STATES: DHS Chooses Riggs-Abney to Defend Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Ellis, Nolan Clay and Robby Trammell, writing for
NewsOK.com, report that The Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison &
Lewis law firm was selected in 2008 to defend the Department of
Human Services in a class-action lawsuit.

Making the choice was DHS Director Howard Hendrick and the DHS
general counsel.

Riggs-Abney is a large, politically connected law firm with
offices in Oklahoma City, Tulsa and Denver.  It gained attention
in the past for helping represent Oklahoma in a lawsuit against
the tobacco industry, for which it was awarded $30 million in
legal fees.

The firm, which includes former Attorney General Mike Turpen, has
several members who are well-known contributors to political
campaigns.

Law firm members involved in the suit have contributed more than
$100,000 to various candidates and political action committees
since the start of the 2006 election cycle.  Those donations
included more than $21,000 to former Attorney General Drew
Edmondson's 2006 re-election campaign and his failed 2010
gubernatorial campaign.  Those members gave $2,950 to current
Attorney General Scott Pruitt's 2010 campaign.

State agencies are not required to solicit bids or proposals for
outside legal services contracts.  Instead, they must select
attorneys from a long list of approved attorneys maintained by the
attorney general's office.

The DHS general counsel, Charles Waters, said he recommended DHS
seek outside legal help because of the great complexity of the
class-action lawsuit.  A child advocacy group called Children's
Rights of New York is alleging that Oklahoma's system of caring
for abused and neglected children is so bad that children are
being injured and otherwise harmed while in shelters and foster
homes.

The selection of Riggs-Abney had nothing to do with political
connections, Mr. Waters said.

"Never had a conversation with Drew Edmondson about this case," he
said.

Instead, he said Riggs-Abney was selected because it is a large
firm capable of handling complex litigation and because Bob Nance
is one of its attorneys.  Mr. Nance has a wealth of experience as
a federal trial attorney and has engaged in major class-action
litigation involving state institutions, Mr. Waters said.

Nobody has more experience handling class-action lawsuits in
Oklahoma than Nance, Mr. Hendrick said.

"This wasn't a political deal at all," Mr. Nance said.  "No
political contribution any of us made or did not make had anything
to do with us getting this piece of work."

In fact, Mr. Nance said he is a Democrat and Oklahoma State
Cowboys fan, while Mr. Waters is a Republican and Oklahoma Sooners
fan.

Mr. Nance said he worked on several class-action lawsuits while an
assistant attorney general.  Those included cases that dealt with
state prisons, juvenile institutions and institutions for
individuals with mental disabilities.

Mr. Waters said Children's Rights has a history of going from
state to state and overwhelming poorly staffed child welfare legal
departments and attorneys general offices with voluminous court
filings and document requests.  Mr. Waters said that has led to
forced settlements.

Mr. Waters said he thought it was important to bring in top
quality private attorneys early in the litigation to try to
prevent that from happening in Oklahoma.

Riggs-Abney attorneys have been charging the state $185 to $200 an
hour, and providing additional discounts on some bills.
Mr. Waters said that is relatively cheap for the expertise they
provide.  Mr. Waters said Children's Rights attorneys will demand
the state pay their legal fees -- at rates of $400 to $500 an hour
-- if the group wins the lawsuit at trial or the case is settled.

Mr. Hendrick has said the state will not settle.  The trial is set
to begin in Tulsa next year.  A settlement or loss by DHS could
force the state to pay millions of dollars more each year to make
changes in the foster care system.  Payments also could go to
those who claim they were hurt while in DHS foster care.


YAZ BIRTH CONTROL PILLS: Lieff Cabraser Comments on FDA Warning
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a statement that the
FDA remains concerned, but has not yet reached a conclusion, about
the potential increased risk of blood clots from Drospirenone-
containing birth control pills such as YAZ, YASMIN, BEYAZ, and
OCELLA, among others.  Preliminary results from an FDA-sponsored
study of 800,000 women taking birth control pills shows that there
is a 1.5 increased risk among Drospirenone-containing pill users.

To address these concerns, the FDA has scheduled an important
meeting for December 8, 2011.  The FDA will hear testimony
concerning these studies and the safety of these medications.  The
meeting is open to the public.

Commenting on the FDA warning, Wendy Fleishman, a prominent
personal injury attorney with the national plaintiffs' law firm
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, stated, "Too many active
and healthy women have suddenly died from, or suffered severe,
life-threatening blood clots allegedly caused by taking
Drospirenone-containing birth control pills, like YAZ.  We are
wholly supportive of birth control choices for young women, but
women need to be accurately informed of the potential risks when
they take a birth control pill.  We hope that the FDA's review
will cause Bayer to take the responsible course of action and
fully disclose the dangers this drug poses."  Ms. Fleishman
represents women across America in Yaz injury lawsuits against
Bayer.

The lawyer may be reached at:

          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com


ZIPREALTY: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Paul T. Rosynsky, writing for Oakland Tribune, reports that the
state Department of Industrial Relations filed a $17 million
lawsuit on Sept. 26 against Emeryville-based ZipRealty, claiming
the firm has failed to properly compensate its employees since at
least 2006.

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is based on
three class-action lawsuits filed against ZipRealty and complaints
waged by four employees working for the realtor's Kern County
office.

ZipRealty settled the class-action lawsuits for an unspecified sum
and was forced to pay its Kern County-based workers $330,000 in
past wages and penalties.

The state's lawsuit hopes to recoup past wages not paid to other
employees who have not joined the class-action lawsuits or who
have not filed formal complaints with the state.

"It is our job to provide basic protections for all employees
working in California," said Christine Baker, acting director of
the Department of Industrial Relations.  "Wage compression and
violations of the minimum labor standards are now occurring in a
wide variety of occupations, even affecting employees outside
traditional low-wage occupations."

According to the lawsuit, ZipRealty repeatedly refused to pay its
real estate agents overtime, neglected to pay them for hours spent
in mandatory training seminars, failed to pay a minimum wage and
refused to pay employees who are fired or laid-off a final
paycheck that fully covers the hours they worked.

The claims cover a time period ranging from 2006 until Sept. 26.

Talia DeBene, a spokeswoman for ZipRealty, declined to comment.

The company has argued in past cases that it did not have to pay
its agents a minimum wage or overtime because it considered agents
"outside sales persons" who work on a contract basis.  But a
federal judge ruled earlier this month that the agents are
employees required to receive minimum wage and overtime.

"We learned in the course of the Bakersfield case that ZipRealty
real estate agents frequently received no pay at all," said Labor
Commissioner Julie Su.  "The lawsuit filed today seeks to remedy
the multiple violations statewide and to get these workers the
wages they earned."

How ZipRealty would pay its damages should the state win its suit
remains to be seen.  The company has reported annual income losses
every year since 2006, according to its 2009 annual report.  In
2009, ZipRealty lost almost $13 million, the report states.

Nevertheless, the state believes it's important to set an example
by showing that all firms in the state are responsible for paying
its employees properly.

"This enforcement is important not just for employees, but for
hardworking employers who shouldn't have to compete against
lawbreakers," Ms. Su said.  "We want the message to be clear."


ZST DIGITAL: Deadline to Seek Dismissal of "Scott" Suit on Nov. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for ZST Digital Networks, Inc., and other defendants
to file an answer to, or move to dismiss, the securities lawsuit
filed by Robert Scott is on November 4, 2011, according to the
Company's September 22, 2011, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

The Company and several of its directors and officers have been
named as defendants in a purported securities class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The complaint was filed on April 25, 2011, and is
captioned Robert Scott v. ZST Digital Networks, Inc., et al.  The
complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors violated Federal securities laws by
making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects, performance, and internal controls.  Named in the
complaint as individual defendants are Zhong Bo, the Company's CEO
and Chairman of the Board; Zhong Lin, COO and a member of Board;
and John Chen and Zeng Yun Su, two former CFOs.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the
Company pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus filed in connection with the Company's October 20, 2009
public offering (the "Registration Statement"), and claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period October 20, 2009, to April 21, 2011.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement contained falsely stated revenue for fiscal 2008 and the
first six months of fiscal 2009 and that the Company's Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 ("2009 Form 10-K")
provided false revenue amounts for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.  In
support of its allegations, the complaint, inter alia, references
an April 21, 2011, report published by an online financial news
Web site entitled http://seekingalpha.comthat reported that
documents filed by the Company's subsidiary Zhengzhou Shenyang
Technology Company Limited with the State Administration of
Industry and Commerce ("SAIC") in the People's Republic of China
(the "PRC") reported revenue amounts for the applicable periods
that were substantially lower than revenue reported in the
Company's Registration Statement and 2009 Form 10-K.

The plaintiff has also asserted claims under Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) against the underwriters of the Company's public
offering, who are also named as defendants to the action.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, in an amount to be proven at
trial including interest, reasonable litigation costs and
expenses, rescission damages, and such further relief as the Court
may deem proper.

On July 13, 2011, the Court entered an order appointing J. Malcolm
Gray as lead plaintiff.  On August 22, 2011, the Court entered a
scheduling order whereby lead plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint, if any, on September 23, 2011, and the Company and the
underwriters of the Company's public offering shall answer or move
to dismiss the amended complaint by November 4, 2011.  If the
Company and/or the underwriters file motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, lead plaintiff shall file his opposition to
such motions by December 16, 2011, and the Company and/or the
underwriters shall file their reply briefs in further support of
their motions by January 17, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against each of
the lawsuits.  However, no assurance can be given that these
matters will be resolved in the Company's favor.


                           *********

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  * * *