CAR_Public/111221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, December 21, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 252

                             Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Sued Over "No Expiration Date" Gift Cards
ALTMAN/TA'AM TEVA: Mega Gluflex Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: State Employees' Class Action Can Proceed
APPLE: Virtual At-Home Call Center Employees File Class Action

BUILD-A-BEAR: Agrees to $600T Penalty Over Defective Toy Chairs
CARRIER IQ: Accused of Unlawful Wiretapping in California
CARRIER IQ: Accused of Violating Privacy Act in California
CARRIER IQ: Faces Another Wiretapping Suit in California
CARRIER IQ: Illegally Intercepts Consumers' Data, Suit Claims

CARRIER IQ: Sued Over Illegal Interception of Consumers' Data
CARRIER IQ: Sued Over "Mobile Intelligence" in Electronic Devices
CHINA CENTURY: Class Action Over TV Advertising Space Dismissed
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Class Action Over Bank Fees
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware

COOPER COMPANIES: Faces Securities Suit Over Recalled Lenses
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in Kansas
GLG LIFE: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
GOV'T OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Suspected Drunk Drivers Mull Suit
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida

KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
MAGMA DESIGN: Faces Suit Over Proposed Merger with Synopsys
MAGMA DESIGN: Insurer's Appeal in "Genesis" Suit Remains Pending
MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Monopoly Game Promotion
MEGA BRANDS: Court Okays "Magnet Toys" Class Action Settlement

PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
PANTRY INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Amason" Suit
PANTRY INC: Still Defends Consolidated Fuel Temperature Suit
SINO-FOREST: BCIMC Joins Fraud Class Action
TAYLOR FRESH: Faces Class Suit in Calif. for FLSA Violation

WALGREEN CO: Sued for Selling Lead & Arsenic Contaminated Juices





                          *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Sued Over "No Expiration Date" Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Abercrombie & Fitch advertised a gift-card promotion in December
2009 as having no expiration date, but voided the cards on
Jan. 30, 2010.

A copy of the Complaint in Seaver v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc., Case No. CV-11-771466 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga Cty.)
(O'Donnell, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/16/Abercrombie.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Erick Kennedy, Esq.
          Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
          WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
          1600 Midland Building
          101 Prospect Ave., W.
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 781-1111
          E-mail: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com
                  dgoetz@weismanlaw.com


ALTMAN/TA'AM TEVA: Mega Gluflex Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports
that the Supreme Court on Dec. 15 recognized as a class-action
suit a group of osteoarthritis patients' legal action against the
Altman/Ta'am Teva company, which has claimed for years that the
food supplement Mega Gluflex heals, treats or relieves pain from
the painful condition.

During the past seven years at least, according to medical adviser
Dr. Gad Shmueli who spoke for the plaintiffs, the company has sold
NIS1 billion of the food supplement.  Known generically as
glucosamine/chondroitin sulfate, the non-drug may not make
therapeutic claims for a food supplement.

Dr. Shmueli testified on behalf of plaintiff Yitzhak Hoshen -- an
osteoarthritis patient who took seriously the company's radio and
other media ads claiming initially that it rebuilds cartilage
eroded by disease, and thus improves joint movement and relieves
pain.

After complaints to the Health Ministry by patients who purchased
the NIS300-per-bottle product that it did not help them, the
company downplayed the claims in its advertisements, quoting
people saying the capsules turned their lives around and making
statements that the produce was beneficial because "the body has
no spare parts."

Mr. Hoshen told Dr. Shmueli that he had to undergo four operations
on his joints even though he had taken Mega Gluflex.  The
physician, who retired earlier this year, told The Jerusalem Post
that he spent a year studying the medical literature on
glucosamine/ chondroitin sulfate and found that studies "showed
Mega Gluflex has no proven medical benefits, only a placebo effect
that may help patients feel better only because they believe it
will ease the pain."

Dr. Shmueli said that according to studies, the food supplement
goes through the digestive system and turns into sugar near the
appendix, without any active ingredients that build up cartilage.

The Tel Aviv District Court accepted Dr. Shmueli's argument that
Mega Gluflex provides no medical effect and that the company's
advertisements were misleading, but Altman/Ta'am Teva appealed.

The court said a year ago that there were good arguments for
applying for recognition as a class-action suit, and it reached
the Supreme Court.  A three-justice panel of Asher Grunis, Edna
Arbel and Esther Hayut decided not to intervene on behalf of the
company and recognized the case as a class-action suit.

"Neither of the courts rejected any of my claims," Dr. Shmueli
said.

The case as a class-action suit, which was first applied for in
2006, will be returned to Judge Magen Altuvia in the Tel Aviv
District Court, Dr. Shmueli added.

Although the Health Ministry opposed the advertisements, it and
its legal department and the Attorney General's Office did not
join the patients' request for a class-action suit.

The Supreme Court said it attempted to bring the two sides to
agree, but it failed, thus it had to decide on the appeal against
the lower court's ruling.  The justices said the company's claims
for the food supplement "appear to be misleading," as it makes
therapeutic claims for the product even though there is no
research supporting this, including the lack of evidence that Mega
Glufex "rebuilds cartilage."

Thus, it approved the case as a class-action suit in which the
four plaintiffs are recognized as representing a large number of
customers and users over the course of years.

The company was charged NIS10,000 in court costs.

Reacting to the Supreme Court announcement, Altman/ Ta'am Teva --
through its public relations company -- said that the Supreme
Court "decided not to intervene at this time in the main
procedure."

"The District Court decided that the food supplement Mega Gluflex
is effective against joint pain and helps increase the scope of
movement of those suffering from joint pain," the statement
continued.  "The discussion at present relates to commentary given
to the version of old advertisements for Mega Gluflex, and we
reiterate our position that all the ads in the past, and those in
the resent, were and are true.

We thank all its hundreds of thousands of customers who continue
to show their faith in the company and the product."

Dr. Shmueli said the company's official reaction was itself
misleading because the Supreme Court "did not intervene" in the
lower court's ruling against the company and rejected Altman/
Ta'am Teva's claims, thus recognizing the class action suit.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Alert Corp. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to resolve a consolidated shareholder lawsuit
arising from American Medical's proposed merger with a unit of
Tunstall Healthcare Group Limited, according to the Company's
December 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On September 22, 2011, American Medical Alert Corp. ("AMAC")
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Tunstall Healthcare Group Limited ("Tunstall")
and Monitor Acquisition Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary
of Tunstall ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will
merge with and into AMAC and AMAC will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Tunstall (the "Merger").  In September 2011,
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Nassau and in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Queens.  In October 2011, a
second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Queens.

On October 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in the actions commenced in
Queens, Diane Kent and Joyce Fauci (together, the "Queens
Plaintiffs"), filed a motion seeking to consolidate their actions
as well as any subsequently filed related actions, into the action
commenced by Diane Kent, designating the resulting consolidated
action as In re American Medical Alert Corp. Shareholder
Litigation and appointing the law firms of Robbins Umeda LLP and
Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Co-Lead Counsel in the requested
consolidated action.  The Queens Plaintiffs advised the Court in
their motion that Joseph Weiss (the "Nassau Plaintiff"), who
commenced the action pending in Nassau County, supports the motion
and has agreed to coordinate efforts and jointly prosecute a
consolidated action in Queens County.  The Queens Plaintiffs'
motion was granted on November 29, 2011.

Each of these lawsuits challenges the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
purported holders of AMAC common stock ("AMAC Shareholders") and
are purportedly acting on behalf of a putative class of AMAC
Shareholders.  These lawsuits name as defendants AMAC, the members
of AMAC's Board of Directors ("our board of directors") and, in
the action started by Diane Kent, Tunstall and Merger Sub.

While AMAC and the other defendants believe that each of the
lawsuits is without merit, in an effort to minimize the cost and
expense of any litigation relating to such lawsuits, on
December 12, 2011, AMAC and other defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs in In re
American Medical Alert Corp. Shareholder Litigation, and the
Nassau Plaintiff pursuant to which AMAC and such parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle the
shareholder lawsuits.  Subject to approval of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Queens, and further definitive
documentation, the MOU establishes a framework to resolve the
allegations against AMAC and other defendants in connection with
the Merger Agreement and contemplates a release and settlement by
the AMAC Shareholders of all claims against AMAC and other
defendants and their affiliates and agents in connection with the
Merger Agreement.  In exchange for such release and settlement,
pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the parties agreed, after arm's-
length discussions, that AMAC would file this Current Report on
Form 8-K amending and supplementing the applicable disclosure in
its proxy statement and related press release.  The settlement is
also contingent upon, among other things, consummation of the
Merger.  In addition, in connection with the settlement and as
provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's
counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part
of the settlement.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.  The
settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration
that AMAC Shareholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.  In
the event that the MOU is not approved and such conditions are not
satisfied, AMAC will continue to vigorously defend these actions.


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: State Employees' Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund H. Mahony, writing for The Hartford Courant, reports that a
judge has ruled that more than 30,000 state employees can sue as a
class in an attempt to recover $93 million they claim health
insurer Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield denied them and wrongly
paid to the state when the health insurer went public 10 years
ago.

Superior Court Judge Michael R. Sheldon issued the order, made
public on Dec. 15, in a suit by state employees and retirees
against Anthem.  The case dates to the decision a decade ago by
the firm to convert from a mutual insurance company to a stock
company.

The suit disputes the transfer of $93 million in stock that took
place during the conversion process, known as demutualization.

Mutual insurance companies are co-operatives owned by their
customers, or policy holders.  If a mutual insurer decides to
convert to a publicly traded stock company, it typically issues
its customers some combination of cash and stock in the new
company.

During the conversion in 2001, private-sector employees with
health coverage received stock in Anthem or cash as a result of
the conversion, according to lawyers for the state employees.

The suit claims, however, that state employees with the same sort
of coverage received nothing.  Rather, in early 2002, the suit
contends, Anthem issued the stock to the state, which sold it for
more than $93 million.

Anthem spokeswoman Sarah Yeager said in an e-mail late on Dec. 15
that Anthem had not yet reviewed the ruling and could not comment
on it.

"However," she said, "Anthem strongly believes that it properly
distributed stock to the State of Connecticut as its eligible
statutory member in accordance with all applicable laws, and we
will continue to vigorously defend the case."

Prior to the conversion, the mutual company was known as Anthem
Insurance Companies Inc.  The new entity is Anthem Blue Cross and
Blue Shield in Connecticut, a subsidiary of WellPoint Inc. of
Indianapolis and the state's largest health insurer by membership.

The named plaintiffs in the case, Ronald Gold and Lois O'Connor,
initially sued in 2002.  They are represented by E.J. Greenspan
and Matthew Wax-Krell of Rogin Nassau of Hartford and Daniel Blinn
of Consumer Law Group in Rocky Hill.

"This is a very exciting day for the over 30,000 state employees
and retirees who were insured with Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield
in 2001," Mr. Greenspan said on Dec. 15. We are one step closer to
securing the compensation they should have received from Anthem a
decade ago."

Judge Sheldon's decision certifies as a class state employees and
retirees who continuously held a certificate of coverage under a
1999 group insurance policy or had continuous health care benefits
coverage under that 1999 group policy from June 18, 2001, through
November 2001.

The suit initially named both Anthem and the state as defendants.
The state Supreme Court dismissed the suit against the state,
saying it has sovereign immunity against such actions.


APPLE: Virtual At-Home Call Center Employees File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 8, 2011, the employment lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Apple
alleging that Apple devised an illegal scheme of classifying at-
home call center employees as independent contractors in order to
avoid paying Apple's share of payroll taxes and other business
related expenses through the use of a Yellow Dog Contract.  Hilton
v. Apple is currently pending in Santa Clara Superior Court as
Case No. 111-CV-214597.

According to the class action complaint filed by the employment
attorneys, Apple "hires workers to answer calls from its customers
in regard to billing questions and technical support" but has
devised an unlawful scheme of classifying the employees as
independent contractors in order to avoid paying for regular and
overtime hours worked as well as the "the cost of the employer's
share of tax payments to the federal and state governments for
income taxes, social security taxes, medicare insurance,
unemployment insurance and payments for workers' compensation
insurance."  The complaint specifically alleges that in order to
avoid the payment of these costs as required by law, the at home
call center employees "are required by APPLE to each form a
separate Virtual Services Corporation to act as a shell
corporation as part of the scheme to insulate APPLE from APPLE's
liability for APPLE's Business Related Expenses."  The class
action lawsuit against Apple refers to these agreements between
Apple and the employees as "Yellow Dog Contracts" that violate not
only employment laws, but also fundamental public policy.

When asked about the class action lawsuit filed against Apple, the
managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal, stated, "AT&T, Apple and any other company involved in
this illegal scheme of classifying at-home call center employees
as independent contractors must be stopped."  Blumenthal
emphasizes that "by engaging in this scheme, the employers are
trying to avoid laws involving payroll taxes, minimum wage,
overtime pay and workers' compensation insurance -- all in an
effort to gain an unfair advantage on the competition."

Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik also has a class action lawsuit
against AT&T for the same allegedly unlawful practice.  Perry vs.
AT&T, Case No.3:2011cv01488 was filed in the Northern District of
California on March 28, 2011.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm that
focuses on claims involving California labor laws.


BUILD-A-BEAR: Agrees to $600T Penalty Over Defective Toy Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc. (Build-A-Bear), of St. Louis, has
agreed to pay a civil penalty of $600,000.  The penalty settlement
agreement [http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12058.pdf]
has been provisionally accepted by the Commission.

The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that Build-A-Bear
failed to immediately report a defect involving its toy bear beach
chair that resulted in incidents and injuries to consumers.  The
sharp edges of the chair's folding wooden frame can pinch,
lacerate or amputate a child's fingertip if the finger is caught
between the frame as the chair is folded.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12058.html

Build-A-Bear sold the beach chairs through its Web site and at
Build-A-Bear stores between March 2001 and October 2008.  The
company became aware of 10 reports of injury between July 2007 and
January 2009, yet did not report to the Commission until March
2009.

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

CPSC and Build-A-Bear announced a recall
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09220.html]of about
260,000 beach chairs in May 2009.

In agreeing to the settlement, Build-A-Bear denies CPSC staff
allegations as to the existence of a defect or hazard or that it
violated the law.


CARRIER IQ: Accused of Unlawful Wiretapping in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Roseanne Castro, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc.; Samsung Electronics
America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc.; and Does
1-25, Inclusive, Case No. 5:11-cv-06201 (N.D. Calif., December 9,
2011) is brought based on the alleged unlawful and undisclosed
logging of cell-phone user's activity, including keystrokes,
numbers dialed, encrypted web searches and the contents of text
messages on the part of Carrier IQ, as well as its cell phone
manufacturer partners, Samsung.

The Plaintiff alleges that Carrier IQ has software pre-installed
in over 341 million cell phones, smart phones and mobile devices
which, without the authorizations of the users whose mobile
devices contain this software, can track and record the highly
private and confidential information of the users.  She contends
that the Defendants violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, and the California Penal Code based on the
Defendants' unlawful wiretapping and recording of cellular
communications without knowledge or consent of its users.

Ms. Castro is a resident of San Bernardino County, California.
She purchased a Samsung Epic cellular phone from the Samsung
Defendants, without knowledge of the Carrier IQ software being
pre-installed and without giving prior authorization to Carrier IQ
or Samsung to record and track the private information Carrier IQ
stored with every key-stroke she made.

Carrier IQ, a Delaware corporation, develops, manufactures,
maintains and installs the Carrier IQ software in Samsung phones.
The Samsung Defendants manufacture, market, and sell their
cellular devices with the Carrier IQ software pre-installed.  The
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP, A Professional Corporation
          895 Dove Street, Suite 425
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  jhardin@trialnewport.com


CARRIER IQ: Accused of Violating Privacy Act in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Shumate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:11-cv-06281 (N.D. Calif., December 13, 2011) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
the California Privacy Act, the California Unfair Competition Law,
and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Through its software, Carrier IQ has been illegally intercepting,
collecting and sharing electronic communications that are sent and
received by the Electronic Devices in which the Carrier IQ
Software is installed, Mr. Shumate alleges.  He contends that this
deeply intrusive surveillance campaign has occurred unbeknownst to
him and Class members, who were not given an opportunity to
provide informed consent to such surveillance.

Mr. Shumate is a citizen of the state of Colorado.  He purchased
three smartphones with cellular service provided by Sprint Nextel
Corporation: an HTC Evo 4g, an HTC Evo 3D, and a Samsung Galaxy S2
Epic 4G Touch.

Carrier IQ, which maintains its principal executive offices in
Mountain View, California, develops software that it, cellular
service providers and original equipment manufacturers use to
collect and intercept data and communications sent or received by
a wide variety of Electronic Devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq
          Mark A. Butler, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS, Attorneys at Law
          570 Seventh Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 986-4501
          E-mail: pparadis@hhplawny.com
                  gtufaro@hhplawny.com
                  MButler@hhplawny.com

               - and -

          James V. Bashian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 921-41l0
          E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com


CARRIER IQ: Faces Another Wiretapping Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc.; Samsung Electronics
America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc.; and Does
1-25, Inclusive, Case No. 5:11-cv-06202 (N.D. Calif., December 9,
2011) is brought based on the alleged unlawful and undisclosed
logging of cell-phone user's activity, including keystrokes,
numbers dialed, encrypted web searches and the contents of text
messages on the part of Carrier IQ, as well as its cell phone
manufacturer partners, Samsung.

The Plaintiff alleges that Carrier IQ has software pre-installed
in over 341 million cell phones, smart phones and mobile devices
which, without the authorizations of the users whose mobile
devices contain this software, can track and record the highly
private and confidential information of the users.  She contends
that the Defendants violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, and the California Penal Code based on the
Defendants' unlawful wiretapping and recording of cellular
communications without knowledge or consent of its users.

Ms. Gonzalez is a resident of San Bernardino County, California.
She purchased a Samsung Epic cellular phone from the Samsung
Defendants, without knowledge of the Carrier IQ software being
pre-installed and without giving prior authorization to Carrier IQ
or Samsung to record and track the private information Carrier IQ
stored with every key-stroke she made.

Carrier IQ, a Delaware corporation, develops, manufactures,
maintains and installs the Carrier IQ software in Samsung phones.
The Samsung Defendants manufacture, market, and sell their
cellular devices with the Carrier IQ software pre-installed.  The
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP, A Professional Corporation
          895 Dove Street, Suite 425
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  jhardin@trialnewport.com


CARRIER IQ: Illegally Intercepts Consumers' Data, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Massey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:11-cv-06279 (N.D. Calif., December 13, 2011) accuses Carrier IQ
of illegally intercepting, collecting and sharing electronic
communications that are sent and received by electronic devices,
including smartphones, traditional feature phones, tablets, and
electronic-readers in which Carrier IQ Mobile Intelligence
Software was installed.

The Plaintiff contends that this deeply intrusive surveillance
campaign has occurred unbeknownst to him and Class members, who
were not given an opportunity to provide informed consent to such
surveillance.  He asserts that as a result, the Defendant has
violated federal and state laws governing the protection of his
and the Class members' privacy.

Mr. Massey is a resident of Florida.  He purchased a Huawei
smartphone with cellular device provided by MetroPCS
Communications Inc.  He alleges that unbeknownst to him, his
device had Carrier IQ's electronic interception software installed
in it.

Based in Mountain View, California, Carrier IQ develops software
that it, cellular service providers and original equipment
manufacturers use to collect and intercept data and communications
sent or received by a wide variety of Electronic Devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq
          Mark A. Butler, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS, Attorneys at Law
          570 Seventh Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 986-4501
          E-mail: pparadis@hhplawny.com
                  gtufaro@hhplawny.com
                  MButler@hhplawny.com

               - and -

          James V. Bashian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 921-41l0
          E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com


CARRIER IQ: Sued Over Illegal Interception of Consumers' Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yonatan Wadler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:11-cv-06278 (N.D. Calif., December 13, 2011) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others, who either (i) own an
electronic device, including smartphones, traditional feature
phones, tablets, and electronic-readers in which Carrier IQ Mobile
Intelligence Software was installed, or (ii) own an Electronic
Device that sent an electronic communication to an electronic
device in which Carrier IQ's software was installed or received an
electronic communication sent from an electronic device in which
Carrier IQ's software was installed.

Through its software, Mr. Wadler alleges, Carrier IQ has been
illegally intercepting, collecting and sharing electronic
communications that are sent and received by the Electronic
Devices in which the Carrier IQ Software is installed for several
years.  He argues that this deeply intrusive surveillance campaign
has occurred unbeknownst to him and Class members, who were not
given an opportunity to provide informed consent to such
surveillance.

Mr. Wadler is a citizen of the state of New York.  He purchased an
HTC 4G smartphone with cellular service provided by Sprint Nextel
Corporation.

Mountain View, California-based Carrier IQ, which was established
in 2005, develops software that it, cellular service providers and
original equipment manufacturers use to collect and intercept data
and communications sent or received by a wide variety of
Electronic Devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq
          Mark A. Butler, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS, Attorneys at Law
          570 Seventh Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 986-4501
          E-mail: pparadis@hhplawny.com
                  gtufaro@hhplawny.com
                  MButler@hhplawny.com

               - and -

          James V. Bashian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 921-41l0
          E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay P. Saltzman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAY SALTZMAN, P.C.
          110 Wall Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 374-4282


CARRIER IQ: Sued Over "Mobile Intelligence" in Electronic Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Carrier IQ, Inc., Case No. 5:11-cv-06280 (N.D. Calif.,
December 13, 2011) alleges that Carrier IQ has been illegally
intercepting, collecting and sharing electronic communications
that are sent and received by electronic devices, including
smartphones, traditional feature phones, tablets, and electronic-
readers in which Carrier IQ Mobile Intelligence Software was
installed.

In reality, Carrier IQ's "Mobile Intelligence" amounts to illegal
surveillance and interception conducted without the consent of the
consumers, Mr. Schwartz contends.  He asserts that the Electronic
Device users were unaware that Carrier IQ was illegally
intercepting their communications until a systems administrator,
Trevor Eckhart, publicly revealed the truth.

Mr. Schwartz is a citizen of the state of New York.  He purchased
an HTC-G2 smartphone with cellular service provided by T-Mobile
USA, Inc. and, unbeknownst to him, his device had Carrier IQ's
electronic interception software installed in it.

Carrier IQ, which is based in Mountain View, California, develops
software that it, cellular service providers and original
equipment manufacturers use to collect and intercept data and
communications sent or received by a wide variety of Electronic
Devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq
          Mark A. Butler, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS, Attorneys at Law
          570 Seventh Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 986-4501
          E-mail: pparadis@hhplawny.com
                  gtufaro@hhplawny.com
                  MButler@hhplawny.com

               - and -

          James V. Bashian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 921-41l0
          E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay P. Saltzman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAY SALTZMAN, P.C.
          110 Wall Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (646) 374-4282


CHINA CENTURY: Class Action Over TV Advertising Space Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
WestPark Capital, Inc. on Dec. 16 disclosed that a Los Angeles
Federal Court has dismissed a shareholder class action against all
defendants including China Century Dragon Media, Inc. (CCDM), a
company that sells television advertising space in China.

In a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California dated November 30th, the action was dismissed as to
all defendants including CCDM because the Court concluded that the
plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief could be
granted.  CCDM listed on the NYSE Amex exchange in connection with
an IPO in February of this year.

                  About WestPark Capital, Inc.

WestPark Capital -- http://www.wpcapital.com-- is an investment
banking and securities brokerage firm serving the needs of private
and public growth companies worldwide.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Class Action Over Bank Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Shelley Hadfield, writing for Herald Sun, reports that another
115,000 bank customers on Dec. 16 joined Australia's biggest class
action against bank fees, with proceedings being issued against
four more banks.

Proceedings were issued in the Federal Court against the
Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, National Australia Bank and Citibank.
They join ANZ in being subject to the massive class action.

The class actions now takes in 150,000 bank customers, with claims
estimated at up to AUD200 million.

Maurice Blackburn's head of class actions Andrew Watson said the
claims alleged fees imposed on customers for overdrawn accounts,
late payments, honor and dishonor charges did not reflect the
actual cost to the bank.

He said the sheer size of the actions "says something about how
aggrieved ordinary customers are with their banks".

Earlier this month, Justice Michelle Gordon ruled that late
payment fees were capable of being categorized as penalty fees.

But she found that over limit, honor and dishonor as well as non-
payment fees were not penalty fees.  Maurice Blackburn intends to
appeal against that decision.

Regardless, Mr. Watson said the firm intended to pursue the action
against those fees on the basis that they claim they were
unconscionable.

The class actions are being funded by IMF.

The managing director of IMF subsidiary Financial Redress, James
Middleweek, described the cases as a "real bellwether", saying
they had clearly touched a nerve with bank customers.

"You get some people saying 'you can have all the money, don't
mind, just take the banks on'," Mr. Middleweek said.


CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces Securities Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say in a class
action that directors of ConocoPhillips violated securities laws
and wasted corporate assets by filing a false proxy statement with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, claiming that executive
bonuses are tax deductible.

A copy of the Complaint in Swords v. Mulva, et al., Case No. 11-
cv-01250 (D. Del.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/16/ExecPay.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph J. Farnan, III, Esq.
          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


COOPER COMPANIES: Faces Securities Suit Over Recalled Lenses
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Wallen, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. The Cooper Companies, Inc., Robert S. Weiss, Eugene J.
Midlock, and Albert G. White, III, Case No. 3:11-cv-06214 (N.D.
Calif., December 12, 2011) is a securities fraud class action on
behalf of persons, who purchased Cooper's common stock during the
period from March 4, 2011, through November 15, 2011, against
Cooper and several of its key executives.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading public
statements concerning the Company's quality control, defects in
its manufacturing processes, business fundamentals and financial
guidance during the Class Period.  The Plaintiff asserts that
Cooper's common stock price fell following its announcement of an
expanded recall of Avaira lenses manufactured by its subsidiary.

The Plaintiff is a holder of Cooper common stock during the Class
Period.

Cooper, which operates in over 35 countries, is a global medical
device company publicly traded on the NYSE Euronext.  Defendant
Weiss, during the Class Period, has been the President, Chief
Executive Officer and a director of Cooper.  Defendant Midlock,
during the Class Period, has been a Senior Vice President and the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company.  Defendant White, during
the Class Period, has been the Vice President of Investor
Relations, Treasurer and Chief Strategic Officer of Cooper.

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
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
          Scott J. Farrell, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          825 East gate Boulevard, Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@ridrodskylong.com
                  tjm@rigrodskylong.com
                  sjf@rigrodskylong.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. has been named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in
Kansas.  The complaint alleges that Ferrellgas violates consumer
protection laws in the manner Ferrellgas sets prices and fees for
its customers.  Based on Ferrellgas' business practices,
Ferrellgas believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend the claims vigorously.

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


GLG LIFE: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
GLG Life Tech Corporation on Dec. 16 disclosed that the Company
learned that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GLG for
alleged failures to disclose certain information under US federal
securities laws.

The Company has reviewed the allegations, believes they are
without merit, and stands behind its continuous public disclosure
record.  GLG believes that there is no basis for the lawsuit, and
GLG will defend itself vigorously.

                  About GLG Life Tech Corporation

GLG Life Tech Corporation -- http://www.glglifetech.com--
supplies high purity stevia extracts, an all-natural zero-calorie
sweetener used in food and beverages.  The Company's vertically
integrated operations cover each step in the stevia supply chain
including non-GMO stevia seed breeding, natural propagation,
stevia leaf growth and harvest, proprietary extraction and
refining, marketing and distribution of finished product.


GOV'T OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: Suspected Drunk Drivers Mull Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that lawyers are predicting the B.C. government
could be hit with a class action lawsuit to recover millions of
dollars paid by suspected drunk drivers based on part of a law
that has been declared unconstitutional.

Earlier this month, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled that the
immediate roadside license suspensions and fines issued to drivers
who register a blood alcohol level above .08 constitute an
infringement of Charter rights.

Jeremy Carr, one of the lawyers leading the constitutional
challenge, says a class action lawsuit will almost certainly be
filed on behalf of those punished under that section of the law.

"I definitely think that's going to be the case, and I'm quite
sure that's where it's going to go," he told CTV News.

Mr. Carr is already fighting for the government to refund the
money paid by his clients under the law, and says he would likely
be involved in the class action.

Beginning last September, when B.C. introduced its tough new law,
15,000 drivers failed the roadside breath test and paid millions
of dollars in penalties.

That includes people like Navi Tagger, who blew a fail after he
was pulled over on Nov. 19.  Mr. Tagger was the designated driver
that night, and says he had only consumed a single beer.

"I was in shock," he told CTV News.

His license was immediately taken away, and his father's car was
impounded.  He appealed the penalty with the Office of the
Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, but that didn't work out the way
it was supposed to.

"After 21 days, if a decision hasn't been rendered, they have to
return that license to you and the vehicle has to be released from
impoundment, but in my case that did not happen," Mr. Tagger said.

His lawyer Sarah Leamon says she's getting mixed messages from the
government when it comes to getting drivers back on the road.

"It seems that there's a great deal of inconsistency," she said.

She agrees that drivers punished under the tough law deserve some
sort of recourse.

"People should get some kind of a remedy at the very least,
whether that's having all of their money refunded to them, having
their license granted back to them or having the ignition
interlock removed from their vehicle," Ms. Leamon said.

The government hasn't said what its position will be on refunding
the fines.

But the province says that more than 200 people who registered a
"fail" under the impugned legislation have had their driving bans
lifted on a temporary basis since the judge issued his ruling.
Two hundred more are challenging their bans through the Motor
Vehicles Branch and are expected to get their licenses back.

Both sides in the constitutional challenge was set to be back in
court on Dec. 19 to discuss what should be done about the law.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say the share
price of Imperial Holdings, "a specialty finance company that
focuses on providing premium financing for individual life
insurance policies issued by insurance companies," plummeted when
the FBI searched its offices less than 8 months after its IPO.

A copy of the Complaint in Pondick v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-81347 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/16/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher S. Jones, Esq.
          Maya Saxena, Esq.
          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561 394-3399

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: skaskela@ktmc.com
                  dpromisloff@ktmc.com
                  abell@ktmc.com


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of Keynote Systems, Inc.'s settlement
of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit remains pending,
according to the Company's December 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended September 30, 2011.

In August 2001, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in two securities class-action
lawsuits based on alleged errors and omissions concerning
underwriting terms in the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws ("Consolidated
Complaint") was filed on or about April 19, 2002, and alleged
claims against the Company, certain of its officers, and
underwriters of the Company's September 24, 1999 initial public
offering ("underwriter defendants"), under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
lawsuit alleged that the defendants participated in a scheme to
inflate the price of the Company's stock in its initial public
offering and in the aftermarket through a series of misstatements
and omissions associated with the offering.  The lawsuit is one of
several hundred similar cases pending in the Southern District of
New York that have been consolidated by the Court.

The Company was a party to a global settlement with the plaintiffs
that would have disposed of all claims against it with no
admission of wrongdoing by the Company or any of its present or
former officers or directors.  The settlement agreement had been
preliminarily approved by the Court.  However, while the
settlement was awaiting final approval by the District Court, in
December 2006 the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's
determination that six focus cases could be certified as class
actions.  In April 2007, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the District Court
might certify a more limited class.  At a June 26, 2007 status
conference, the Court approved a stipulation withdrawing the
proposed settlement.  On August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the focus cases, and a motion for class
certification in the focus cases on September 27, 2007.  On
November 13, 2007, defendants in the focus cases filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaints for failure to state a claim, which
the District Court denied in March 2008.  Plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants (including the Company), the underwriter defendants,
and the insurance carriers for the defendants, engaged in
mediation and settlement negotiations.  The parties reached a
settlement agreement, which the District Court preliminarily
approved on June 10, 2009.  After a September 10, 2009 hearing,
the District Court gave final approval to the settlement on
October 5, 2009.  As part of this settlement, the Company's
insurance carrier has agreed to assume the Company's entire
payment obligation under the terms of the settlement.  Several
objectors have filed notices of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  All but two of the objectors
withdrew their appeals, and Plaintiff moved to dismiss the
remaining appeals, one for violation of the Second Circuit's rules
and one for lack of standing.  On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit
granted the motion to dismiss one objector's appeal for violations
of the Court's rules and remanded the other appeal to the District
Court to determine whether objector Hayes was a class member.

On August 25, 2011, the District Court issued its decision
determining that Hayes was not a class member.  On September 30,
2011, objector Hayes filed a notice of appeal from the District
Court's decision.  Although the District Court has granted final
approval of the settlement agreement, the Company says there can
be no guarantee that it will not be reversed on appeal.  The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims.
If the settlement is not implemented and the litigation continues
against the Company, the Company would continue to defend against
this action vigorously.


MAGMA DESIGN: Faces Suit Over Proposed Merger with Synopsys
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magma Design Automation, Inc., is facing a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit over its proposed merger with Synopsys Inc.,
according to the Company's December 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 30, 2011.

On November 30, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Synopsys Inc. and
Lotus Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Synopsys ("Merger Sub").  The Merger Agreement
provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Synopsys (the
"Merger").  The Merger is expected to close in the first half of
calendar year 2012.

On December 5, 2011, the Company, the members of the Company's
Board of Directors, Synopsys and Merger Sub, were named as
defendants in a purported stockholder class action lawsuit that
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in negotiating and entering into the Merger
Agreement and by agreeing to sell the Company at an unfair price,
pursuant to an unfair process and pursuant to unreasonable terms,
and that the Company, Synopsys and Merger Sub aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, to enjoin consummation of the Merger.

At this stage, the Company says it is not possible to predict the
outcome of this proceeding or its impact on the Company.  The
Company believes the allegations made in this complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action.


MAGMA DESIGN: Insurer's Appeal in "Genesis" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Union's appeal from a ruling in the lawsuit commenced by
Genesis Insurance Company against Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the Company's December 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 30, 2011.

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

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

On April 1, 2011, National Union appealed the trial court's
judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  National Union
filed its opening brief on October 17, 2011, and the Company's
reply brief was due December 12, 2011.

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


MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Monopoly Game Promotion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
McDonald's violated state law in its Monopoly game promotion.

A copy of the Complaint in Siegel v. McDonald's Corporation, et
al., Case NO. 11CH5519 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Lake Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/16/McDs.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 North LaSalle Street, Ste. 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950


MEGA BRANDS: Court Okays "Magnet Toys" Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
MEGA Brands Inc. on Dec. 15 disclosed that the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey has approved the previously
announced settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against the
Corporation in 2008 by a resident of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased and/or received "Magnet Toys" in the United
States.

MEGA Brands denied any and all liability but agreed to settle the
matter to avoid the expense and resources that would be needed for
further litigation.  The Corporation has made a provision for this
lawsuit in its financial statements and considers that, based on
the approved settlement, such provision is adequate.

This lawsuit does not allege personal injury claims.  Rather,
plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that certain Magnet Toys
contained defective magnets, and they asked for their money back.

                        About MEGA Brands

MEGA Brands Inc. http://www.megabrands.com-- is a family of
global brands in construction toys, games & puzzles, arts & crafts
and stationery.


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Pain Therapeutics, Inc. are reminded of the
securities class action lawsuit filed against Pain Therapeutics
and certain of its officers.  The class action (1-11-CV-1034),
filed in the United States District Court, Western District of
Texas, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased PTIE securities during the period from
February 3, 2011 through June 23, 2011.  This class action is
brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased PTIE securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 31, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, PTIE made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material facts about a new drug, REMOXY.  Specifically, PTIE
failed to disclose that REMOXY was not approvable by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration due to chemistry, manufacturing, and
control deficiencies that caused inconsistent results during
laboratory tests.

On June 24, 2011, the Company announced that the Company had
received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA on the New Drug
Application for REMOXY.  As a result of this revelation, PTIE's
shares declined $3.94 per share or nearly 43%, to close at $5.30
per share on June 24, 2011.

On June 27, 2011, the Company disclosed that the FDA's Complete
Response Letter raised concerns related to, among other things,
the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls sections of the NDA for
REMOXY.  As a result of this revelation, PTIE's shares declined an
additional $1.37 per share or nearly 26%, to close at $3.93 per
share on June 27, 2011.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C.


PANTRY INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Amason" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a putative class action lawsuit pending in Alabama,
according to the Company's December 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended September 29, 2011.

On October 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit
against The Pantry in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v.
Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).  On
September 9, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed adding
Enger McConnell on behalf of herself and a putative class of
similarly situated individuals.  The plaintiffs seek class action
status and allege that The Pantry included more information than
is permitted on electronically printed credit and debit card
receipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g).  The
amended complaint alleges that: (i) plaintiff Patrick Amason seeks
to represent a subclass of those class members as to whom the
Company printed receipts containing the first four and last four
digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers; and (ii)
Plaintiff Enger McConnell seeks to represent a subclass of those
class members as to whom the Company printed receipts containing
all digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers.  The
plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000
for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent
injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.

On July 25, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' initial motion for
class certification but granted the plaintiffs the right to file
an amended motion.  On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended
motion for class certification seeking to certify two classes.
The first purported  class, represented by Mr. Amason,  consists
of (A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used
at an in-store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from
June 4, 2009 through the date of the final judgment in the action,
(B) where the transaction was in a Company store located in the
State of Alabama; and (C) in connection with the transaction, a
receipt was printed by Retalix software containing the first four
and last four digits of the credit/debit card number on the
receipt provided to the customer.  The second purported class,
represented by Ms. McConnell, consists of (A) all natural persons
whose credit and/or debit card was used at an in-store point of
sale owned or operated by the Company from June 1, 2009, through
the date of the final judgment in the action, and (B) in
connection with the transaction, a receipt was printed containing
all of the digits of the credit/debit card numbers on the receipt
provided to the customer.  The Company is opposing the motion for
class certification, and also has made a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing
or alternatively to stay the case until the Supreme Court of the
United States rules in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards,
another case involving a standing issue.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate its ultimate loss or liability, if any,
related to this lawsuit because there are a number of unknown
facts and unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of
the Company's potential liability, including, without limitation:
(i) whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims;
(ii) whether a class or classes will be certified; (iii) if a
class or classes are certified, the identity and number of the
putative class members; and (iv) if a class or classes are
certified, the resolution of certain unresolved statutory
interpretation issues that may impact the size of the putative
class(es) and whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to
statutory damages.  An adverse outcome in this litigation could
have a material adverse affect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.


PANTRY INC: Still Defends Consolidated Fuel Temperature Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  Initially, The Pantry,
Inc., was named as a defendant in eight of these cases, three of
which have recently been dismissed without prejudice.  The Company
remains as a defendant in five cases: one in North Carolina
(Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C.,
No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); one in Alabama  (Cook,et al.
v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 2:07-cv-750-WKW-CSC,
filed 8/22/07); one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil
USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07); one in
Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed 7/13/07); and one in South Carolina
(Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C.,
No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed 9/24/07).  Pursuant to an Order
entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of
the cases, including those in which the Company is named, have
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants
agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of
motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons
which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These cases
seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to
install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel
dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases, including some of
the cases in which the Company is named, plaintiffs also have
alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.  The plaintiffs in these
cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and
punitive damages.  Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment
interest.  The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for
failure to state a claim, which were denied by the court on
February 21, 2008.  A number of the defendants, including the
Company, subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable
"political questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and
defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31,
2010.

In May 2010, in a lawsuit in which the Company is not a party, the
Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel purchasers
seeking implementation of automated temperature controls and/or
certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages.
Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the Tenth
Circuit in June 2010, and that request was denied on August 31,
2010.  At this stage of proceedings, the Company cannot estimate
its ultimate loss or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits
because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal
issues that will impact the amount of any potential liability,
including, without limitation: (i) whether defendants are
required, or even permitted under state law, to sell temperature
adjusted gallons of motor fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual
temperature of fuel purchased by plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or
not class certification is proper in cases to which the Company is
a party.  The Company says an adverse outcome in this litigation
could have a material adverse affect on its business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 13,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 29, 2011.


SINO-FOREST: BCIMC Joins Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Andy Hoffman, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that one of
Canada's largest pension funds has joined a lawsuit seeking
millions in compensation from Sino-Forest Corp., its management,
directors, auditors and a slew of Bay Street firms that helped the
scandal-plagued forestry firm raise capital from investors.

The British Columbia Investment Management Corp. (BCIMC), which
has C$90-billion in assets under management and is an agent of the
provincial government, has joined a proposed class action lawsuit
led by Toronto legal firm Kim Orr Barristers P.C. and Milberg LLP
of New York City, according to documents filed with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice and obtained by The Globe and Mail.

BCIMC is, by far, the largest single investor to commence legal
action against Sino-Forest, which was once the most valuable
forestry company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, boasting a
market value of more than C$6-billion before fraud allegations
made by U.S. short-selling firm Muddy Waters caused the stock to
collapse in July.

"We believe that our clients and the Canadian marketplace were
deceived.  We also believe that many parties including the
officers, directors, auditors and underwriters of Sino-Forest have
failed in their duty to protect the Canadian investing public,"
BCIMC said in a statement.

According to an affidavit sworn by Bryan Thomson, BCIMC's vice-
president of equity investments, the B.C. pension fund manager
currently owns 1,468,218 Sino-Forest shares and has owned as much
as much as 6.5 million Sino-Forest shares.

The BCIMC legal action caps a brutal week for Sino-Forest, which
is now teetering on the brink of collapse.  On Dec. 12, Sino-
Forest warned it could not file its financial results and expects
to be tipped into default by holders of its C$1.8-billion in debt.
The company, which is based in Mississauga, Ont., and
headquartered in Hong Kong, had less than C$600-million in cash in
early November.

Sino-Forest's largest shareholder, Singapore's Richard Chandler
Corp., is demanding that the Sino-Forest board of directors resign
and that the company's new chief executive officer, Canadian
Judson Martin, be sacked.  Mr. Chandler and Sino-Forest's second
largest shareholder, Davis Advisors, are demanding that the
company stop preserving cash and make a C$10-million interest
payment on its debt due Dec. 15.

Sino-Forest's directors, and the advisers to a special committee
probing the fraud allegations, say the company can't file its
financial results or make interest payments on its debt because
they can't unravel the complex web of relationships between the
company and its business partners.  Some of Sino-Forest's
relationships with timber suppliers and the brokers who sell its
trees appear to be potential related-parties.

In his affidavit, Mr. Thomson said that BCIMC had previously
raised governance issues with Sino-Forest management.  In 2007,
2008 and 2010, BCIMC withheld its votes for Sino-Forest's slate of
directors because of poor attendance at meetings by several board
members.

In 2010, BCIMC filed a shareholder proposal asking Sino-Forest to
adopt individual director election.  The company did so in 2011,
but BCIMC withheld its votes for several Sino-Forest directors
that year because of "excessive short-term bonus payments" and the
fact that some directors served on too many other corporate
boards.

The Ontario Securities Commission halted Sino-Forest shares from
trading in August and is now investigating the company and
management.  The OSC says it appears that Sino-Forest executives,
including co-founder and former chairman and CEO Allen Chan, may
have engaged in fraudulent activity.  The RCMP is also
investigating.

At least three separate proposed class actions have been filed
against Sino-Forest and its advisers.  An Ontario judge will begin
deciding whether to certify the proposed class actions later this
month.

In addition to Sino-Forest management and directors, the Kim Orr
proposed class action names auditors Ernst and Young LLP and BDO
Ltd. as defendants, as well as the brokerage firms that helped
Sino-Forest raise more than $2-billion from investors.  These
firms include Dundee Securities Corp., UBS Securities Canada,
Haywood Securities Inc., Credit Suisse Securities Canada Inc., TD
Securities Inc., RBC Dominion Securities Inc., Scotia Capital
Inc., CIBC World Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch Canada Inc.,
Canaccord Financial Ltd., Maison Placements Canada Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. Inc. and Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

In a statement, RBC said, "We conduct an appropriate level of due
diligence on all transactions, and strictly adhere to our
responsibilities and obligations as part of any underwriting
syndicate.  We believe the allegations in the claim against RBC
Dominion Securities are without merit, and we are defending
against the suit."

Canaccord, Haywood, UBS and Scotia declined to comment and the
other firms named in the suit did not respond to e-mail requests
for comment.


TAYLOR FRESH: Faces Class Suit in Calif. for FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria del Carmen Pena, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals v. Taylor Fresh Foods, Inc.,
dba Taylor Farms, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:11-cv-06224
(N.D. Calif., December 12, 2011) is brought to challenge Taylor's
policy and practice of requiring their non-exempt employees to
work substantial amounts of time "off-the-clock" and without pay,
and failing to provide their non-exempt employees with the meal
and rest periods to which they are entitled by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and the members of the Class are
non-exempt production and support employees.  She contends that
under Taylor's wage compensation system, Taylor does not pay her
and class members for all required pre- and post-production work
activities that are necessary and integral to their overall
employment responsibilities, including donning and doffing
sanitary equipment and gear, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, California Labor Code, California Industrial
Welfare Commission wage orders, and the California Unfair
Competition Law

Ms. Pena, a resident of San Joaquin County, California, was
formerly employed by Taylor on the production lines at Taylor's
California food production facilities.

Taylor, a Delaware Corporation, is a processor and packer of
various food products at its Tracy, Salinas and Gonzalez,
California food production facilities.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart R. Chandler, Esq.
          STUART CHANDLER
          761 E. Locust, Suite 101
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 431-7770
          Facsimile: (559) 431-7778
          E-mail: stuart@chandlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Philip A. Downey, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 1021
          Unionville, PA 19375
          Telephone: (610) 324-2848
          Facsimile: (610) 813-4579
          E-mail: downeyjustice@gmail.com


WALGREEN CO: Sued for Selling Lead & Arsenic Contaminated Juices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Boysen, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly  situated v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois
Corporation d.b.a. Walgreens; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
4:11-cv-06262 (N.D. Calif., December 13, 2011) is brought to cause
the Defendant to disclose the presence of dangerous substances in
its juice products sold throughout the United States and consumed
by adults and children, and to restore monies to the consumers,
who purchased the products during the time that the Defendant
failed to make such disclosures.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells "Walgreens 100% Grape Juice" and "Walgreens
100% Apple Juice," which contain material and significant levels
of arsenic and lead that are carcinogens and developmental toxins
known to cause health problems to consumers, especially children.
The Plaintiff adds that the Defendant has advertised and sold the
Contaminated Juices without any label or warning indicating to
consumers that these products contain arsenic and lead, or that
one or both of these toxins can over time accumulate in the
drinker's body to the point where lead or arsenic poisoning,
injury and disease, including cancer, will occur.

The Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco County, California.
During the class period, the Plaintiff purchased the Contaminated
Juices in reliance on the omission and concealment of warnings
regarding the presence and levels of arsenic and lead, and
suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of the unfair
competition and material omissions perpetrated by the Defendants.

The Defendant, an Illinois corporation, sells the Contaminated
Juices in its stores and online.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          J. Kirk Boyd, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
                  kboyd@rocklawcal.com


                           *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *