CAR_Public/111220.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 251

                             Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Claims in "Hashimoto" Suit Settled in Nov.
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues to Defend "Cruz" Class Suit
AEROPOSTALE INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 7,100 Snowmobiles Due to Crash Hazard
BANK OF AMERICA: Legal Fee Row Won't Be Heard in Federal Court

BERNARD L. MADOFF: Investors to File Class Suit v. Picower
BNY MELLON: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
BUILDING PRODUCTS: Parker Waichman Alonso Files Class Action
CARRIER IQ: Faces 51 Class Actions Over Tracking Software
DOLLAR GENERAL: Awaits Approval of "Womack" Suit Settlement

DOLLAR GENERAL: "Brickey" Suit Still Pending in New York
DOLLAR GENERAL: Dec. 30 Discovery Deadline in "Richter" Suit Set
DONALD RUMSFELD: Judges Junks Military Sexual Abuse Class Action
DYNEX CAPITAL: Settles Securities Class Action
EXPRESS INC: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Class Suit

EXPRESS INC: Paid All Amounts in Calif. Suit Settlement in Nov.
FRITO-LAY: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Chips
GLG LIFE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York
HAMILTON BEACH: Recalls 14,000 2-Slice Toasters Due to Fire Risk
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Basile" Class Suit Remains Pending

H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Drake" Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Court Approved Deal in Suit vs. EquiCo on October 20
H&R BLOCK: Motion to Decertify Class in "Barrett" Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Trial Date in "Williams" Class Suit Set for April 30
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Settles Chinese Drywall Litigation

MACY'S INC: "Shanehchian" Class Suit Remains Pending in Ohio
MAGMA DESIGN: Being Sold to Synopsys for Too Little, Suit Claims
PETROHAWK ENERGY: Negotiates Terms of Merger-Related Suits Deal
POPE & TALBOT: Former Harmac Employees File Class Action
ROBISON OIL: Judge to Hear $700,000 Class Action Settlement

UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Defective New Beetle Transmission

* New York City to Probe Claims in Taxi Medallion Class Actions





                          *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Claims in "Hashimoto" Suit Settled in Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All claims of individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit originally
commenced as a class action by Lisa Hashimoto were settled for an
immaterial amount in November 2011, according to Abercrombie &
Fitch Co.'s December 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2011.

On June 23, 2006, Lisa Hashimoto, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.  In that action, plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of a
putative class of California store managers employed in Hollister
and abercrombie kids stores, that they were entitled to receive
overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and
hour laws.  The complaint sought injunctive relief, equitable
relief, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  The defendants answered
the complaint on August 21, 2006, denying liability.  On June 23,
2008, the defendants settled all claims of Hollister and
abercrombie kids store managers who served in stores from
June 23, 2002, through April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the
plaintiffs' remaining claims.  On January 29, 2009, the Court
certified a class consisting of all store managers who served at
Hollister and abercrombie kids stores in California from May 1,
2004, through the future date upon which the action concludes.
The parties then continued to litigate the claims of that putative
class.  On May 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice that they did
not intend to continue to pursue their claim that members of the
class did not exercise independent managerial judgment and
discretion.  They also asked the Court to vacate the August 9,
2010 trial date previously set by the Court.  On
July 20, 2010, the trial court vacated the trial date and the
defendants then moved to decertify the putative class.  On
April 7, 2011, the trial court granted defendants' motion and
decertified the putative class.  The parties continued to litigate
the claims of the individual plaintiffs until November of 2011,
when all of those claims were settled for an immaterial amount and
released.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues to Defend "Cruz" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2007, Spencer de la Cruz, a former employee, filed
an action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Superior
Court of Orange County, California.  He sought to allege, on
behalf of himself and a putative class of past and present
employees in the period beginning on December 19, 2003, claims for
failure to provide meal breaks, for waiting time penalties, for
failure to keep accurate employment records, and for unfair
business practices. By successive amendments, plaintiff added 10
additional plaintiffs and additional claims seeking injunctive
relief, unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and
costs.  Defendants have denied the material allegations of
plaintiffs' complaints throughout the litigation and have asserted
numerous affirmative defenses.  On July 23, 2010, plaintiffs moved
for class certification in the action.  On December 9, 2010, after
briefing and argument, the trial court granted in part and denied
in part plaintiffs' motion, certifying sub-classes to pursue meal
break claims, meal premium pay claims, work related travel claims,
travel expense claims, termination pay claims, reporting time
claims, bag check claims, pay record claims, and minimum wage
claims.  The parties are continuing to litigate questions relating
to the Court's certification order and to the merits of
plaintiffs' claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 5,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

The Company says it intends to defend the pending matter
vigorously, as appropriate.  The Company is unable to quantify the
potential exposure of pending matter.  However, the Company's
assessment of the current exposure could change in the event of
the discovery of additional facts with respect to legal matters
pending against the Company or determinations by judges, juries,
administrative agencies or other finders of fact that are not in
accordance with the Company's evaluation of the claims.


AEROPOSTALE INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Aeropostale, Inc., is facing a securities class action lawsuit in
New York, according to the Company's December 5, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended October 29, 2011.

In October 2011, Aeropostale, Inc. and senior executive officers
Thomas P. Johnson and Marc D. Miller were named as defendants in
Arbuthnot v. Aeropostale, Inc., et al., No. 11-7132, a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The lawsuit was filed in New York federal court on behalf of
purchasers of Aeropostale securities between February 3, 2011, and
August 3, 2011.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects.  The lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to
adequately disclose that: (i) Aeropostale was experiencing
declining demand for its women's fashion division; (ii)
Aeropostale was facing increased inventory and higher clothing
discounts that put pressure on its profit margins; and (iii) as a
result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company or its prospects during the class
period.  In the opinion of management, disposition of this matter
is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  The
Company says it is vigorously defending this matter.

Also in October 2011, Aeropostale directors and/or senior
executive officers Julian R. Geiger, Ronald R. Beegle, Robert B.
Chavez, Michael J. Cunningham, Evelyn Dilsaver, John Haugh, Karin
Hirtler-Garvey, John D. Howard, Thomas P. Johnson, and David B.
Vermylen were named as defendants in Bell v. Geiger, et al., No.
652931/2011, a shareholder lawsuit filed in New York state court
seeking relief derivatively on behalf of Aeropostale.  The action
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Aeropostale between February 3, 2011, and August 3, 2011, by
failing to establish and maintain internal controls that would
have prevented the Company from disseminating allegedly false and
misleading and inaccurate statements and other information to
shareholders, and to manage and oversee the Company.  As a result,
plaintiff alleges that the defendants exposed the Company to
potential liability in the federal securities class action
lawsuit.  In the opinion of management, disposition of this matter
is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  The
Company says it is vigorously defending this matter.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 7,100 Snowmobiles Due to Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
About 7,100 Arctic Cat Snowmobiles were voluntarily recalled by
Arctic Cat Inc., of Thief River Falls, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the product
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The headlamp fuse can fail, disorienting the operator during
periods of limited visibility and posing a crash hazard.

Arctic Cat discovered this condition during production testing of
these models.  There have been no reports of headlamp failures or
injuries.

The recall involves these 2012 F, XF, and M model snowmobiles:

   Model   Model Name/Number
   -----   -----------------
     F     F800 LXR, F1100 LXR, F800 Sno Pro,
           F1100 Sno Pro/Limited/50th

     XF    XF800 LXR, XF1100 LXR, XF800 Sno Pro High Country,
           XF1100 Limited/50th

     M     M800, M1100, M800 Sno Pro, M1100 Sno Pro/Limited/50th,
           M800 HCR

Recalled snowmobiles can be identified by the last six numerals of
the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) in the following ranges:
105092 through 112175 or 800001 through 800033.  The model name is
located on each side of the hood.  The VIN is located on the right
side tunnel.  The snowmobiles come in a variety of color
combinations: Black, White and Orange, Black and Orange, and Black
and Green.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12708.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Arctic Cat dealerships nationwide from May
2011 through September 2011 for approximately $10,500 to $13,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using these snowmobiles and
contact their local Arctic Cat snowmobile dealer to schedule a
free repair.  Arctic Cat has notified owners of these snowmobiles
directly by mail.  For additional information, call Arctic Cat at
(800) 279-6851 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.arctic-
cat.com/


BANK OF AMERICA: Legal Fee Row Won't Be Heard in Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Business Review reports that a federal judge has rejected
motions to intervene by two Argentine law firms claiming a slice
of the $123 million in legal fees set aside when Bank of America
settled an overdraft class action.  The judge ruled it is not his
place to divide legal fees, and state court is the proper venue
for such a decision.


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Investors to File Class Suit v. Picower
----------------------------------------------------------
Lana Birbrair at Bankruptcy Law360 reports that former investors
of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC sought permission
on Dec. 13 in New York bankruptcy court to launch a series of
class actions in Florida against former investor Jeffrey Picower's
associates who allegedly received more than $7.2 billion in
Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

According to Law360, the plaintiffs, "net winners" from Madoff's
Ponzi scheme, filed separate motions on behalf of putative class
actions led by A&G Goldman Partnership and investor Pamela Goldman
asking the New York bankruptcy judge to declare that they are not
prohibited from launching class actions.

                       About Bernard L. Madoff

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff
orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, with losses
topping US$50 billion.  On Dec. 15, 2008, the Honorable Louis A.
Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the application of the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation for a decree adjudicating that the
customers of BLMIS are in need of the protection afforded by the
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.  The District Court's
Protective Order (i) appointed Irving H. Picard, Esq., as trustee
for the liquidation of BLMIS, (ii) appointed Baker & Hostetler LLP
as his counsel, and (iii) removed the SIPA Liquidation proceeding
to the Bankruptcy Court (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789)
(Lifland, J.).  Mr. Picard has retained AlixPartners LLP as claims
agent.

On April 13, 2009, former BLMIS clients filed an involuntary
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against Bernard Madoff (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 09-11893).  The case is before Hon. Burton Lifland.  The
petitioning creditors -- Blumenthal & Associates Florida General
Partnership, Martin Rappaport Charitable Remainder Unitrust,
Martin Rappaport, Marc Cherno, and Steven Morganstern -- assert
US$64 million in claims against Mr. Madoff based on the balances
contained in the last statements they got from BLMIS.

On April 14, 2009, Grant Thornton UK LLP as receiver placed Madoff
Securities International Limited in London under bankruptcy
protection pursuant to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 09-16751).

The Chapter 15 case was later transferred to Manhattan.  In June
2009, Judge Lifland approved the consolidation of the Madoff SIPA
proceedings and the bankruptcy case.

Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 29, 2009, sentenced Mr. Madoff to
150 years of life imprisonment for defrauding investors in United
States v. Madoff, No. 09-CR-213 (S.D.N.Y.)

As of July 15, 2011, a total of US$6.88 billion in claims by
investors has been allowed, with US$794.9 million to be paid by
the Securities Investor Protection Corp.  Investors are expected
to receive additional distributions from money recovered by Mr.
Picard from lawsuits or settlements.

Mr. Picard has filed 1,000 lawsuits seeking $100 billion from
banks such as HSBC Holdings Plc and JPMorgan Chase & Co.  The
trustee has seen more than $28 billion of his claims tossed by
district judges.


BNY MELLON: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Dec. 15 disclosed
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
its client the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System ("LAMPERS") against The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
and certain of its senior executives and directors, as well the
underwriters of two public offerings of BNY Mellon common stock
conducted in May 2009 and June 2010.  The action, which is
captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, No. 11-cv-9175
(S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of investors in BNY Mellon common stock during the
period of February 21, 2008 through August 11, 2011, and seeks
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired BNY Mellon common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offerings.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, BNY Mellon and
certain of its senior executives violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases,
financial statements, filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and statements during investor conference calls.  As
alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, BNY Mellon
and certain of its senior executives misled investors regarding
the Company's financial condition by reporting inflated revenue
and concealing risks attributable to BNY Mellon's participation in
a scheme to fraudulently overcharge its custodial clients for
foreign currency trades.  The Complaint also seeks remedies under
the Securities Act against BNY Mellon, certain of the Company's
senior officers and directors, and certain underwriters for
material misstatements and omissions contained in materials issued
in connection with the Offerings.

Beginning in January 2011, a series of corrective disclosures
began to reveal the truth concerning BNY Mellon's FX trading
scheme, the profits derived from that misconduct and the Company's
true financial condition and business prospects.  Specifically,
disclosures concerning the unsealing of several whistleblower
lawsuits against BNY Mellon, including those in Virginia and
Florida, the intervention in those suits by the attorneys general
of Florida and Virginia, as well as a series of news articles
examining the Company's improper FX trading practices, caused the
price of BNY Mellon stock to drop precipitously.  As alleged in
the Complaint, one news article published in The Wall Street
Journal on August 12, 2011 quoted internal Company e-mails from a
BNY Mellon executive that admitted that providing "full
transparency" into the Company's FX trading practices to its
custodial clients would reduce BNY Mellon's profit margins
"dramatically."  As a result of these disclosures, BNY Mellon's
shares fell from $31.95 per share on January 21, 2011 to a closing
price of $19.99 per share on August 12, 2011 -- a decline of over
37% that represents a market capitalization loss of over $14
billion.  Since the end of the Class Period, both the New York
Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice filed actions
against BNY Mellon alleging claims arising out of the Company's FX
trading practices, which are also reportedly the subject of an
investigation by the SEC.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class in this
action, you must file a motion with the Court no later than 60
days from Dec. 15.  Any member of the proposed class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed
class.

LAMPERS is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 50 attorneys with
offices in New York, California, Illinois, and Louisiana.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact Gerald H. Silk
of BLB&G at 212-554-1282, or via e-mail at jerry@blbglaw.com or
Avi Josefson at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.

        CONTACT:

        Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
        Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
        1285 Avenue of Americas, 38th Floor
        Telephone: (212) 554-1282

        Avi Josefson, Esq.
        Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
        1285 Avenue of Americas, 38th Floor
        Telephone: (212) 554-1493


BUILDING PRODUCTS: Parker Waichman Alonso Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP on Dec. 15 disclosed that they and
their co-counsel have filed a class action lawsuit against
Building Products (BP) of Canada Corp., and its parent, Emco
Limited, in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of a Massachusetts resident who purchased organic
shingles manufactured by BP of Canada.  The lawsuit seeks class
action status to benefit owners of homes, buildings, and other
structures throughout the U.S. where BP of Canada Organic
Shingles, including Eclipse G and ProStandard Organic Shingles,
are installed (Civil Action No. 11-12189).

According to the Complaint, Kathryn Bowry of Wellesley,
Massachusetts, purchased BP of Canada Organic Shingles for her
home in 1999.  She first became aware of a problem with her
Organic Shingles in 2011.  When Ms. Bowry advised the Defendants
of the problems, they allegedly refused to repair or replace the
Organic Shingles.

The lawsuit alleges that BP Organic Shingles are defective, in
that they are subject to moisture penetration, cracking, curling,
blistering, blowing off the roof, and premature failure.  As such,
the Complaint claims, the shingles are not suitable for use as an
exterior roofing product for the length of time advertised,
marketed, and warranted.  The Complaint further alleges that the
defects inherent in the BP Organic shingles result in damage to
underlying structures that have caused, and will continue to
cause, members of the proposed Class to incur expenses repairing
and/or replacing their roofs as well as the resultant, progressive
property damage.

The lawsuit charges the Defendants with negligence; strict
products liability; breach of express and implied warranties;
fraudulent concealment; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; and
breach of implied warranty of merchantability.  Among other
things, Bowry is seeking to recover, for herself and the Class,
damages and enhanced damages under statutory and common law, in an
amount to be determined at trial; as well as equitable and
injunctive relief enjoining Defendant BP from pursuing the
policies, acts, and practices described in her lawsuit.
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP continues to offer free case
evaluations to consumers who purchased BP Organic Shingles through
the firm's Web site at http://www.yourlawyer.com

Free case evaluations are also available by calling 1-800-LAW-INFO
(1-800-529-4636).

                 About Parker Waichman Alonso LLP

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP -- http://www.yourlawyer.com-- is a
personal injury law firm that represents plaintiffs nationwide.
The firm has offices in New York, New Jersey, Florida and
Washington, D.C. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP has assisted thousands
of clients in receiving fair compensation for injuries and damages
resulting from defective construction materials, toxic substances,
defective medical devices, drugs side effects and other products.


CARRIER IQ: Faces 51 Class Actions Over Tracking Software
---------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that Carrier IQ, a California company that's
recently come under fire over concerns about tracking software
installed on 140 million smartphones, now faces 51 proposed class
actions in state and federal courts.  Co-defendants include Apple,
AT&T, Google, HTC, Samsung and LG Electronics.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Awaits Approval of "Womack" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of the class action lawsuit captioned Wanda Womack, et
al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., according to the Company's December 5,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 28, 2011.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Janet Calvert
v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH ("Calvert")), in
which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was
paid less than male store managers because of her sex, in
violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII") (now captioned, Wanda
Womack, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH).
The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional
plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males
because of their sex, and to add allegations that the Company's
compensation practices disparately impact females.  Under the
amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under
the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back
wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked
the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current
and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act.  The
Company opposed plaintiffs' motion.  On November 30, 2007, the
court conditionally certified a nationwide class of females under
the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General as store managers
between November 30, 2004, and November 30, 2007.  The notice was
issued on January 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was
sent were required to opt into the lawsuit by
March 11, 2008.  Approximately 2,100 individuals have opted into
the lawsuit.

On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification
relating to their Title VII claims.  The Company filed its
response to the certification motion in June 2010.  Briefing has
closed, and the motion remains pending.  The Company's motion to
decertify the Equal Pay Act class was denied as premature.  If the
case proceeds, the Company expects to file a similar motion in due
course.

The parties agreed to mediate this action, and the court stayed
the action pending the results of the mediation.  The mediation
occurred in March and April 2011, and the Company has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the matter on behalf of the
entire putative class.  The proposed settlement, which still must
be approved by the court, provides for both monetary and equitable
relief.  Under the proposed terms, the Company will pay $15.5
million into a fund for the class members that will be apportioned
and paid out to individual members (less any additional attorneys'
fees or litigation costs approved by the court), upon submission
of a valid claim.  It will pay an additional $3.25 million for
plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.  Of the total $18.75 million
anticipated payment, the Company expects to receive reimbursement
from its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier
of approximately $15.9 million, which represents the balance
remaining of the $20 million EPLI policy covering the claims.  In
addition, the Company has agreed to make certain adjustments to
its pay setting policies and procedures for new store managers.
If the settlement is approved, the Company expects to implement
the new pay policies and practices no later than April 2012.
Documents related to the parties' request for preliminary approval
of the proposed settlement were filed on October 28, 2011.  A
hearing on the proposed settlement was conducted on November 29,
2011, and will be continued on a date to be determined by the
court.  Because it deemed settlement probable and estimable, the
Company accrued for the net settlement as well as for certain
additional anticipated fees related thereto during the 13-week
period ended April 29, 2011, and concurrently recorded a
receivable of approximately $15.9 million from its EPLI carrier.

At this time, the Company says that although probable it is not
certain that the court will approve the settlement.  If it does
not, and the case proceeds, it is not possible at this time to
predict whether the court ultimately will permit the action to
proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under
Title VII.  Although the Company intends to vigorously defend the
action, no assurances can be given that it would be successful in
the defense on the merits or otherwise.  At this stage in the
proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims raised in this action
if it proceeds.  For these reasons, the Company is unable to
estimate any potential loss or range of loss in such a scenario;
however, if the Company is not successful in defending this
action, its resolution could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Brickey" Suit Still Pending in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
On May 18, 2006, Dollar General Corporation was served with a
lawsuit entitled Tammy Brickey, Becky Norman, Rose Rochow, Sandra
Cogswell and Melinda Sappington v. Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar
General Corporation (Western District of New York, Case No. 6:06-
cv-06084-DGL, originally filed on February 9, 2006, and amended on
May 12, 2006 ("Brickey")).  The Brickey plaintiffs sought to
proceed collectively under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and as a class under New York, Ohio, Maryland and North Carolina
wage and hour statutes on behalf of, among others, assistant store
managers who claim to be owed wages (including overtime wages)
under those statutes.  On February 22, 2011, the court denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion in its entirety and ordered
that the matter proceed only as to the named plaintiffs.  On March
22, 2011, the plaintiffs moved the court for reconsideration of
its Order denying their class certification motion.  On March 30,
2011, the plaintiffs' reconsideration motion was denied, and the
plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling.  The case will proceed now
only as to the named plaintiffs, and the Company does not expect
the outcome to be material to its financial statements as a whole.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 5,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 28, 2011.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Dec. 30 Discovery Deadline in "Richter" Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for fact discovery in the class action lawsuit commenced
by Cynthia Richter is December 30, 2011, according to Dollar
General Corporation's December 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 28, 2011.

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v.
Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-
01537-LSC) ("Richter") in which the plaintiff alleges that she and
other current and former Dollar General store managers were
improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 15,
2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the
court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store
managers.  The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion.  On March
23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class.
On December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or
former Dollar General store managers, and approximately 3,860
individuals opted into the lawsuit.

On September 16, 2011, the court entered an amended scheduling
order that governs, among other things, deadlines for fact
discovery (December 30, 2011) and any potentially dispositive
motions (January 16, 2012) and trial (June 18, 2012).  Currently,
no filing deadline exists for the Company's anticipated
decertification motion.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action
treatment.  The Company has obtained summary judgment in some,
although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff
store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

The Company says it is vigorously defending the Richter matter.
However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether
Richter ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively, and
no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in
its defense of the action on the merits or otherwise.  Similarly,
at this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims asserted in Richter.
For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss in the matter; however, if the Company is
not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of Richter
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
statements as a whole.


DONALD RUMSFELD: Judges Junks Military Sexual Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Press International reports that a federal judge has
dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by 28 men and women who
said they were sexually abused while in the military.

U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady dismissed the suit against former
Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, citing
precedent advising against judicial interference in military
matters.

The 28 plaintiffs -- three men and 25 women -- said they were
harassed, sexually assaulted or raped during their time in the
military, and their cases were either not handled well or
dismissed by their units.  Many of the plaintiffs said they were
forced to leave the military after the attacks even though their
alleged attackers received little or no punishment.

Plaintiffs' attorney Susan Burke said she will appeal the
decision.

"We are not surprised, but we are disappointed," she told Marine
Corps Times.  "We do not believe that rape and sexual assault
should be deemed incidental to serving in the military."


DYNEX CAPITAL: Settles Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Dec. 15 issued a statement
regarding the Dynex Capital Inc. settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE DYNEX CAPITAL, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civ. No.: 05-
1897 (HB)

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE FOLLOWING MERIT
SECURITIES CORPORATION COLLATERALIZED BOND SERIES 12 AND SERIES 13
BONDS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 7, 2000 AND MAY 13, 2004, INCLUSIVE




            Series 12         Series 13
        --------------    --------------
         Class   Cusips    Class   Cusips
        -----  ---------  -----  ---------
         1-A1   589962CK3   A1    589962CR8
        -----  ---------  -----  ---------
         1-A2   589962CL1   A2    589962CS6
        -----  ---------  -----  ---------
         1-A3   589962CM9   A3    589962CT4
        -----  ---------  -----  ---------
         1-M1   589962CN7   A4    589962CU1
        -----  ---------  -----  ---------
         1-M2   589962CP2   M1    589962CV9
        -----  ---------  -----  ---------
         1-B1   589962CQ0   M2    589962CW7
        -----  ---------  -----  ---------
                            B1    589962CX5
                          -----  ---------

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a settlement of this Class Action
against Dynex Capital, Inc., Merit Securities Corporation, Stephen
J. Benedetti, and Thomas H. Potts (collectively, "Dynex") in the
amount of Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($7,500,000)
has been proposed.  A hearing will be held before the Honorable
Harold Baer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, in Courtroom 23B, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, New York, at 10:00 a.m. on March 13, 2012, to determine (i)
whether the Settlement and Plan of Allocation should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Class; (ii) whether Lead Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees, which will not exceed one-third
of the Settlement Amount, and the reimbursement of expenses, which
will not exceed $750,000, should be approved; and (iii) whether
the Court should approve the release of Released Claims against
Dynex and any and all Dynex Released Parties, and dismiss the
Action with prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Expenses and Settlement Fairness Hearing and
Proof of Claim and Release form you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting:

          In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          PO Box 9349
          Dublin, OH 43017-4249
          Telephone: 1-800-231-1815
          Web site: http://www.gcginc.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and Proof
of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          Joel Laitman, Esq.
          Christopher Lometti, Esq.
          Richard Speirs, Esq.
          Kenneth Rehns, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-838-7797
          Facsimile: 212-838-7745

Web site: http://www.cohenmilstein.com/cases/234/dynex-capital

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim
no later than June 4, 2012.  As more fully described in the
Notice, the deadline for submitting objections to the Settlement
is February 29, 2012.  You also have the right to exclude yourself
from the class by submitting no later than February 21, 2012, a
written request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with
the procedures described in the more detailed notice.  If the
settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the
settlement and the Court's final order and judgment, including the
releases provided for in the final order and judgment, unless you
submit a request to be excluded.

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, The Garden City Group,
Inc., at the address listed above.  Please do not contact the
Court.  BY ORDER OF THE COURT


EXPRESS INC: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Express, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the
Company's December 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 29, 2011.

In a complaint filed on July 7, 2011, Express was named as a
defendant in a purported nationwide class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and of applicable state
wage and hour statutes related to alleged off-the-clock work.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees.
Express says it is vigorously defending these claims.  At this
time, Express is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or the amount of any loss that may arise from it.


EXPRESS INC: Paid All Amounts in Calif. Suit Settlement in Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express, Inc. paid in November 2011 all amounts due under its
settlement of a class action alleging various California state
labor law violations, according to the Company's December 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.

Express was named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit alleging various California state labor law violations.
The complaint was originally filed on February 18, 2009, and
amended complaints were subsequently filed.  To avoid the expense
and uncertainty of further litigation with respect to this matter,
on March 31, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve all claims of the plaintiff and other similarly
situated class members that were asserted or could have been
asserted based on the factual allegations in the final amended
complaint for the case.  In September 2011, the court granted
final approval of the settlement, and in November 2011, the
Company paid all amounts due under the settlement.  The accrual
was adjusted to the actual payment amount in the unaudited
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of October 29, 2011.  The Company
says the adjustment was not material to the financial statements.


FRITO-LAY: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Chips
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Frito-Lay falsely advertises its Tostitos and SunChips as "made
with all natural ingredients," though its vegetable oil is made
from genetically modified plants.

A copy of the Complaint in Gengo v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-10322 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/15/Frito.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com


GLG LIFE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired GLG Life Tech
Corporation securities on the NASDAQ between February 1, 2011 and
November 13, 2011 inclusive.

A copy of the complaint can be viewed on the firm's Web site at
http://www.faruqilaw.com/GLG

GLG and certain of its officers are charged with issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to inform investors: (1) the truth
surrounding GLG's production issues; (2) the poor consumer
response to the Company's AN0C and stevia products; and (3) that
the Company would not meet its February 1, 2011 earnings
projections.

On October 6, 2011, the Company disclosed for the first time a
negative business outlook associated with its stevia and AN0C
products, causing GLG stock to drop 42% by the close of business.
Subsequently, on November 14, 2011, GLG announced disappointing
financial results for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2011
and refused to provide any further guidance on future performance.

Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other investors who purchased or acquired GLG securities on
the NASDAQ between February 1, 2011 and November 13, 2011,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.  Plaintiff is
represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a national securities law
firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions and
actions involving corporate fraud.

If you wish to obtain information concerning joining this action,
you can do so under the "Join Lawsuit" section of our Web site or
by clicking here: http://www.faruqilaw.com/GLG

If you purchased GLG securities during the Class Period, you may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class no later
than February 13, 2012.  If you have any questions concerning this
notice, the action, or your rights, please contact:

        Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
        369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
        New York, NY 10017
        ATTN: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
              Francis P. McConville, Esq.
        E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                fmcconville@faruqilaw.com
        Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
        Telephone: (212) 983-9330


HAMILTON BEACH: Recalls 14,000 2-Slice Toasters Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hamilton Beach Brands Inc., of Glen Allen, Virginia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 14,000 Hamilton Beach(R) classic chrome
2-slice toasters.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

When the toasters are first plugged into the outlets, the heating
element can be energized although the toaster lifter is in the up
or off position, which can pose a fire hazard if the toaster is
near flammable items.

Hamilton Beach has received 5 reports of toasters being energized
when first plugged into an outlet.  There have been no reports of
injuries or property damage.

The Hamilton Beach recall involves model 22602 toasters.  The
model number is printed on the bottom of the toaster.  The toaster
has a chromed steel exterior, a front control panel with a rotary
toast shade selector and function buttons arranged in an arc, a
front removable crumb tray and "Hamilton Beach" printed below the
control panel.  A picture of the recalled products is available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12057.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at mass
merchandisers and department, grocery and home center stores
nationwide from August 2011 through November 2011 for between $19
and $34.  Also, some of these toasters were sent to consumers as
replacements for model 22600 toasters recalled in June 2011.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toasters and
contact the firm to receive instructions on how to obtain a free
replacement toaster.  For additional information, contact Hamilton
Beach at (800) 576-6600 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hamiltonbeach.com/ General toaster safety information
available from Hamilton Beach at http://tinyurl.com/43va5sd/


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Basile" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The Company has been named in a putative class action styled
Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term
1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
instituted on April 23, 1993.  The plaintiffs allege inadequate
disclosures with respect to the refund anticipation loan (RAL)
product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection
statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty,
common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending
Act.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  A Pennsylvania
class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in
December 2003.  An appellate court subsequently reversed the
decertification decision.  The Company is appealing the reversal.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 5,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to this case and intends to defend it vigorously.  There can be no
assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or its impact
on the Company's consolidated results of operations.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Drake" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action lawsuit commenced by Jeanne Drake
remains pending, according to H&R Block, Inc.'s December 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

H&R Block, Inc.'s portfolio includes loans originated by Sand
Canyon Corporation (SCC) and purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB
Bank) which constitute 63% of the Company's total loan portfolio
at July 31, 2011.

On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450
CJC).  Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud,
intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful
withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection
with the failure to pay severance benefits to employees when their
employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
in connection with the sale of certain assets and operations of
Option One.  Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of
approximately $8 million, interest and attorney's fees, in
addition to penalties and punitive damages on certain claims.

On September 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor
of the defendants on all claims.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal,
which remains pending.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it established a loss contingency
related to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or
its impact on the Company's consolidated results of operations.


H&R BLOCK: Court Approved Deal in Suit vs. EquiCo on October 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court granted in October 2011 final approval of a
settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit against H&R Block,
Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's December 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

The Company's subsidiary, RSM EquiCo, Inc. (EquiCo), its parent
and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a
class action filed on July 11, 2006, and styled Do Right's Plant
Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al. (the "RSM Parties"),
Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court, Orange
County.  The complaint contains allegations relating to business
valuation services provided by EquiCo, including allegations of
fraud, conversion and unfair competition.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified actual and punitive damages, in addition to pre-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees.  On March 17, 2009, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on all
claims.  To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with
litigation, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case
for a maximum payment of $41.5 million, although the actual cost
of the settlement will depend on the number of valid claims
submitted by class members.  The California Superior Court granted
final approval of the settlement on October 20, 2011.  The Company
says it previously recorded a liability for its best estimate of
the expected loss.


H&R BLOCK: Motion to Decertify Class in "Barrett" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sand Canyon Corporation's motion to decertify the class in a class
action lawsuit pending in Massachusetts remains pending, according
to H&R Block, Inc.'s December 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2011.

H&R Block, Inc.'s portfolio includes loans originated by Sand
Canyon Corporation (SCC) and purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB
Bank) which constitute 63% of the Company's total loan portfolio
at July 31, 2011.

On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-
10157-RWZ).  Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices relating
to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the Fair
Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek declaratory
and injunctive relief in addition to actual and punitive damages.
The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the lawsuit for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  In March 2011, the court issued an order
certifying a class, which defendants sought to appeal.

On August 24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to
hear the appeal, noting that the district court could reconsider
its certification decision in light of a recent ruling by the
United States Supreme Court in an unrelated matter.  SCC has filed
a motion to decertify the class, which remains pending.

The Company says a portion of its loss contingency accrual is
related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that it considers
probable and estimable.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or
its impact on the Company's consolidated results of operations.


H&R BLOCK: Trial Date in "Williams" Class Suit Set for April 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has been set in the wage and hour class action
lawsuit commenced by Alice Williams for April 30, 2012, according
to H&R Block, Inc.'s December 5, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 31, 2011.

The Company has been named in several wage and hour class action
lawsuits throughout the country, including Alice Williams v. H&R
Block Enterprises LLC, Case No. RG08366506 (Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008) (alleging
improper classification of office managers in California);
Arabella Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-
09-489251 (United States District Court, Northern District of
California, filed June 9, 2009) (alleging failure to timely pay
compensation to tax professionals in California); Delana Ugas v.
H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. BC417700 (United
States District Court, Central District of California, filed
July 13, 2009) (alleging failure to compensate tax professionals
in California for all hours worked and to provide meal periods);
and Barbara Petroski v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-CV-00075 (United States District Court, Western
District of Missouri, filed January 25, 2010) (alleging failure to
compensate tax professionals nationwide for off-season training).

A class was certified in the Lemus case in December 2010
(consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned
offices in California from 2007 to 2010); in the Williams case in
March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in company-
owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011); and in the Ugas
case in August 2011 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in
company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011). In
Petroski, a conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor
Standards Act in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals
nationwide who worked in company-owned offices and who were not
compensated for certain training courses occurring on or after
April 15, 2007).  Two classes were also certified under state law
in California and New York (consisting of tax professionals who
worked in company-owned offices in those states).  A trial date
has been set in the Williams case for April 30, 2012.

The plaintiffs in the wage and hour class action lawsuits seek
actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, in
addition to statutory penalties under state and federal law, which
could equal up to 30 days of wages per tax season for class
members who worked in California.  A portion of the Company's loss
contingency accrual is related to these lawsuits for the amount of
loss that it considers probable and estimable.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in these
lawsuits and intends to defend them vigorously.  The amounts
claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances and the
ultimate liability with respect to these matters is difficult to
predict.  There can be no assurances as to the outcome of these
cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated results of
operations, individually or in the aggregate.


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Settles Chinese Drywall Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon, United States District Court Judge for the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana,
presiding over MDL 2047 In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall
Products Liability Litigation, advises that the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee (PSC) and Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin (KPT) on
Dec. 15 jointly announced a landmark global class action
settlement that will help thousands of American homeowners
affected by problems with KPT Chinese drywall.  This settlement
effectively signals an end to the ongoing litigation and class-
action lawsuits against KPT and certain of its affiliated
companies.

The agreement creates two funds from which plaintiffs may recover:
the Remediation Fund and the Other Loss Fund.  The Remediation
Fund, which is uncapped, will pay costs of the three types of
relief the class members can choose from: (i) remediation by Moss
& Associates, the contractor for the remediation program
established by the parties in October 2010; (ii) self-remediation
by a qualified contractor of the homeowner's choosing; and (iii) a
cash out option, in which the homeowner can elect to receive a
cash payment.  The Other Loss Fund, which is capped, will
reimburse for certain provable economic loss and provide a review
process for individuals who believe they have bodily injury
claims.  In addition, attorneys' fees and costs will be paid.
Arnold Levin, Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, stated "We are delighted
that thousands of homeowners will have an opportunity to have
these Chinese drywall complaints addressed.  They will now be able
to repair their property, receive compensation and move forward
after suffering the effects of Chinese drywall."

Russ Herman, Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, assisted by his partner,
Leonard Davis, both of Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP in New
Orleans, as well as Mr. Levin, assisted by his partner, Fred
Longer, both of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia,
were involved in negotiating the agreement on behalf of the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee.  The court appointed Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee who participated in the litigation and approved
the resolution included: Dawn M. Barrios, Daniel K. Bryson, Ben
Gordon, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Ervin Amado Gonzalez, Robert C.
Josefsberg, Hugh P. Lambert, Gerald E. Meunier, Arnold Levin,
Jerrold Seth Parker, James Robert Reeves, Christopher Seeger,
Richard J. Serpe, Bruce William Steckler and Scott Weinstein.
Kerry J. Miller, Defendants' Liaison Counsel, of Frilot, LLC in
New Orleans and Gregory Wallance and Steven Glickstein of Kaye
Scholer LLP in New York, represented KPT.

"We have always believed that the drywall problem was best solved
through a collaborative effort involving all parties rather than a
courtroom," said Mr. Miller.

"From the outset, KPT has been committed to developing a
comprehensive and efficient approach to resolve the problematic
and complex issues arising from Chinese drywall.  This global
settlement is the culmination of those efforts," added Messrs.
Wallance and Glickstein.

All the attorneys, on behalf of the PSC and KPT, express gratitude
for the "extraordinary and tireless efforts of Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon in making this
settlement possible."

"This result is a product of the American legal system.  After the
trial of the Hernandez case and the Pilot Program, a model was
created based upon the decisions rendered by Judge Fallon and
experience in actually repairing homes that culminated in this
settlement which took 18 months to resolve," according to Herman.
The terms of the agreement were driven by the interests of
consumers, offering flexible resolutions to a complex problem in
an unparalleled timeframe.  It is not uncommon for comparable
litigation to drag on for ten years or more which not only clogs
the court system but also defers assistance to the homeowners in
need.  This resolution reflects the parties' desire to take a
complex piece of litigation and make a resolution that enables
homeowners to repair their properties and move on with their
lives.

"Despite various studies which have thus far been unable to
support permanent injury, plaintiffs who claim injury will be able
to attempt to prove a claim and, if successful, to recover from
the settlement fund," Mr. Levin stated.

Professor Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington
University Law School, and an expert in mass tort settlements,
reviewed the settlement terms, stating that "the settlement is a
very creative solution to a very complex problem."  He added, "The
plaintiffs received complete remediation -- all costs covered --
with no reduction in plaintiffs' recovery for attorneys' fees or
costs.  It is unlikely that plaintiffs will do better in separate
litigation.  It is, in short, a settlement that appears fair,
comprehensive and just."

Under the settlement agreement, KPT will continue to retain and
supervise Moss & Associates, which is in the process of
remediating more than 1,300 homes with KPT drywall, for class
members electing that remediation option.  All of the remediated
homes will be inspected by environmental engineers, who will
certify to homeowners that their homes are free of problem drywall
odors and contamination.  Remediation is carried out without cost
to the homeowner.

The settlement ultimately is subject to final approval by Judge
Fallon, pending a fairness hearing that will be scheduled in 2012.

Settlement Highlights

Settlement is intended to cover all plaintiffs in the drywall
litigations in both federal and state court whose homes or
businesses have KPT drywall.  Approximately 5200 plaintiffs have
specifically alleged that their homes contain KPT drywall; of
these, approximately 2700 have submitted in some form evidence of
the presence of KPT drywall.

These plaintiffs include homeowners, commercial owners and
tenants, as well as multi-unit properties and prior owners of
foreclosed properties or those who have engaged in short sales due
to the presence of KPT drywall.

The Remediation Fund has three options:

Program Contractor Remediation Option.  The Program Remediation
Option provides the class member with the convenience of having
Moss & Associates, who has been approved by the PSC and the Knauf
Defendants, remediate the class member's property.  For more
information on the drywall remediation program, please visit:
http://www.mosscm.com/drywall/

Self-Remediation Option.  The Self-Remediation Option provides the
class member with the choice to select his or her own qualified
contractor to remediate the property.

Cash-Out Option.  The Cash-Out Option provides a cash payment with
no obligation to remediate the property but the amount of cash
will be less than the amount that would be expended under the two
remediation options and the homeowner must take steps to assure,
among other things, notice to subsequent purchasers of the
presence of KPT drywall.

Scope of remediation: all affected drywall, and with limited
exceptions, unaffected drywall, will be removed from the home, and
replaced with domestic drywall; the electrical wiring, smoke
alarms, fire alarms, and other safety systems will be replaced;
and the parties have agreed on a protocol for replacement of
built-in appliances, such as refrigerators and microwaves.

Moving and storage Expenses: Under the two remediation options,
homeowners will receive a stipend to cover the costs of moving and
storage, during the remediation, and to pay for damaged personal
appliances, such as computers and flat screen televisions.

Other Loss Fund: The Other Loss Fund will reimburse class members
for provable economic loss, short sales, and foreclosures caused
by KPT Drywall.  The Fund also will provide a mechanism for
resolving disputed personal injury claims.

Ombudsmen: The Plaintiff Steering Committee will appoint two
construction experts to answer questions of claimants regarding
construction, remediation, coordination, and communication with
remediation contractor Moss & Associates or Moss-selected sub-
contractors on various issues.

KPT will pay attorney's fees and costs in addition to the relief
afforded to plaintiffs under the Remediation Fund and Other Loss
Fund.


MACY'S INC: "Shanehchian" Class Suit Remains Pending in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 3, 2007, Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in
the Macy's, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Investment Plan (formerly known
as the Macy's, Inc. Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan) (the
"401(k) Plan"), filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who
participated in the 401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores
Company Profit Sharing Plan (the "May Plan") between February 27,
2005, and the present.  The lawsuit has been conditionally
certified as a class action.  The complaint alleges that the
Company, as well as members of the Company's board of directors
and certain members of senior management, breached various
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the
May Plan, by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the
integration of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed
"artificial inflation" of the Company's stock price and "imprudent
investment" by the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan in Macy's stock.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and costs.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and
intends to contest it vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 5,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 29, 2011.


MAGMA DESIGN: Being Sold to Synopsys for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say directors of
Magma Design Automation are selling the company too cheaply
through an unfair process to Synopsys, for $7.35 a share or $507
million.

A copy of the Complaint in Willis v. Jewell, et al., Case No. 11-
cv-214232 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/15/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN WELLING, P.C.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560


PETROHAWK ENERGY: Negotiates Terms of Merger-Related Suits Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to merger-related stockholder actions are negotiating the
terms of a stipulation of settlement to resolve the cases,
Petrohawk Energy Corporation disclosed in its December 5, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

On August 25, 2011, BHP Billiton Limited, a corporation organized
under the laws of Victoria, Australia (BHP Billiton Limited),
acquired 100% of the outstanding shares of Petrohawk through the
merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of BHP Billiton Petroleum
(North America) Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Purchaser," which
is a wholly owned subsidiary of BHP Billiton Limited), with and
into Petrohawk, with Petrohawk continuing as the surviving entity.
Petrohawk remains an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of BHP
Billiton Limited.

Subsequent to its execution of the Merger Agreement, the Company
and the members of its Board were named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits brought by the Company's stockholders
challenging the proposed transaction (the Stockholder Actions).
The Stockholder Actions were filed in: the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, Astor BK Realty Trust v. Petrohawk Energy
Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6675-CS, Grossman v. Petrohawk Energy
Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6688-CS, Marina Gincherman, IRA v.
Petrohawk Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6700, and Binkowski v.
Petrohawk Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6706; in the District of
Harris County, Texas, Iron Workers District Counsel of Tennessee
Valley & Vicinity Pension Plan v. Petrohawk Energy Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. 42124, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund v. Petrohawk
Energy Corp., et al., C.A. No. 42590, and L.A. Murphy v. Wilson,
et al., C.A. No. 42772; and in United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Rob Barrett v. Floyd C. Wilson, et
al., C.A. No. 4:11-cv-02852.  The Stockholder Actions seek
certification of a class of the Company's stockholders and
generally allege, among other things, that: (i) each member of the
Board breached his fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement by failing to
maximize stockholder value, agreeing to preclusive deal protection
provisions, and failing to protect against conflicts of interest;
(ii) the Company aided and abetted its directors' purported
breaches of their fiduciary duties; and/or (iii) BHP Billiton
Limited, BHP Billiton Petroleum (North America) Inc. and Purchaser
parties aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Company's directors.  The Stockholder Actions seek,
among other relief, rescission of the consummated transactions,
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Barrett has been settled and dismissed by the Southern District of
Texas with prejudice.  BHP Billiton Limited agreed to pay $125,000
to Plaintiff's counsel for the attorney's fees and expenses
incurred.  On August 11, 2011, the parties to the Stockholder
Actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding wherein the
Defendants acknowledged that the Stockholder Actions were a causal
factor leading to the issuance of certain supplemental disclosures
included in the Company's supplemental form 14D-9, filed on August
10, 2011.  The parties also agreed to negotiate in good faith and
execute an appropriate stipulation of settlement, subject to court
approval, which shall include payment to Plaintiffs' counsel for
their attorneys' fees and expenses incurred (such amount to be
negotiated by the parties, subject to court approval, or
determined by the court).  The parties are in the process of
negotiating the terms of the stipulation of settlement.


POPE & TALBOT: Former Harmac Employees File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Nanaimo Daily News reports that a class-action lawsuit has been
filed against the province and the Superintendent of Pensions by a
group of 88 retired Pope & Talbot workers, including many former
Harmac pulp mill employees in Nanaimo, due to steep reductions to
their pensions.

The lawsuit states that the employees have lost approximately $3
million in losses to their pensions to date, with total ongoing
losses estimated to be in the range of $15 million.

At the time Pope & Talbot went bankrupt in 2008, the company's
pension plan was underfunded by 30% and the retirees are claiming
that their pensions should have been safeguarded by provincial
legislation.


ROBISON OIL: Judge to Hear $700,000 Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ernie Garcia, writing for LoHud.com, reports that the state
Supreme Court is considering a $700,000 settlement of an 8-year-
old class-action lawsuit against an Elmsford energy company
accused of defrauding its customers.

Vincent J. Emilio of Mount Vernon sued the Robison Oil Corp. in
2003, accusing the company at 500 Executive Blvd. of unilaterally
and deceptively changing fixed-rate electricity contracts between
Jan. 28, 1997, and Sept. 6, 2006, without first notifying its
customers.

The lawsuit eventually grew to include 2,549 aggrieved Robison
customers, who would receive $275,000 of the proposed settlement
as compensation.

According to documents posted on the Web site of the Law Offices
of William R. Weinstein, the parties agreed to a settlement on
Nov. 14.  The fairness hearing on the settlement will be held
Feb. 3 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 105 at the Supreme Court in White
Plains to take plaintiffs' comments on whether the court should
approve the proposed settlement, dismiss the action against
Robison with prejudice and approve fees for the plaintiffs'
lawyers.

The bulk of the proposed settlement money, $425,000, will be used
to pay the costs of the settlement administrator, the plaintiffs'
lawyers and other parties who worked on the case.

Class-action members would have to submit a claim form no later
than Jan. 19.  Robison customers who are not part of the class
action cannot receive any compensation.

In the proposed agreement, the plaintiffs' attorney cited the
length and cost of the litigation as a reason for the settlement,
as well as the uncertain outcome of any trial.

Robison has denied all the plaintiffs' allegations; the company
states in the proposed agreement that it is settling the case to
avoid "continuing additional expense, inconvenience, distraction
and risk of this litigation, without admitting any wrongdoing or
liability whatsoever."


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

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 5,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Defective New Beetle Transmission
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the 2003-07 Volkswagen New Beetle has a defective Tiptronic
automatic transmission.

A copy of the Complaint in White v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02243 (W.D. Ark.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/15/VWCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          E-mail: rak@katrielaw.com


* New York City to Probe Claims in Taxi Medallion Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that New York
City's Taxi and Limousine Commission said it will investigate
allegations in four class actions accusing taxi medallion owners
of gouging drivers on their weekly leases.

Four cab drivers on Dec. 12 sued their medallion owners for
allegedly charging them far more than the city's legal caps of
$800 per week for gas guzzlers and $842 for hybrids.

Drivers Diego De La Rosa, Henry Desmangles, Khalid Pervaiz and
Haroon Rashid say their bosses at All Taxi Management, Woodside
Management, Queens Medallion Leasing, and B. Taxi Management,
respectively, charged them from $900 to more than $1,000 for their
medallions.

The companies also charged drivers 5% "pass-along" charges every
time passengers paid with credit cards, even though processing
fees were only 2 to 3%, according to the complaints.

Days after the cabbies sought millions in class damages, Taxi and
Limousine Commission spokesman Allan J. Fromberg said that the
city will investigate.

"The lease cap rules are intended to make sure that taxi drivers
can earn a decent wage for the long hours they work, and the TLC
takes violations of these rules very seriously," Mr. Fromberg said
in a statement.  "We investigate any reports of violations that we
receive and prosecute as the facts dictate, and we will
investigate these allegations accordingly."

When he filed the complaint, the drivers' attorney Dan Ackman
criticized the TLC for its delay: "Price gouging of drivers is
pervasive in the taxi industry," Mr. Ackman wrote.  "The great
irony is that 18 months ago, the TLC announced a massive
investigation and prosecution of drivers for allegedly
overcharging a few bucks at a time.  But this kind of gouging
where cabdrivers are the victims is routine and ongoing, and is
many times greater in dollar terms."

The drivers seek punitive damages for the class, for violations of
TLC rules and general business law.

A copy of the Complaint in de la Rosa v. Woodside Management Inc.,
Index No. 653424/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/15/TaxiMedallion.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
          12 Desbrosses Street
          New York, NY  10013
          Telephone: (917) 282-8178
          E-mail: d.ackman@comcast.net


                           *********

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  * * *