CAR_Public/120509.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 9, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 91

                             Headlines

AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Dismiss 'Sivolella' Suit Still Pending
BANCOLOMBIA SA: Awaits Pronouncement of Appeal in "Girona" Suit
BELL POTTER: Claimants Ordered to Pay Class Action Costs
BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Liraz Shareholder Suit Dismissed in May
BP PLC: January 2013 Trial Set for Oil Spill Class Action

CAMERON INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over Certificate Amendments
CASEY'S GENERAL: "Hot Fuel" Class Action Suits Still Pending
COINSTAR INC: August 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ENERGY PLUS: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
FORD MOTOR: Appeals Ct. Reverses $2BB Judgment, Orders New Trial

GOOGLE INC: Wants Authors' Suit Over Digital Library Tossed
HOVNANIAN: Payment to Settle Suit in Florida Completed in Dec.
HOVNANIAN: Still Faces Suit Over N.J. Building Code Violation
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: "Peters" Plaintiffs Must Amend Suit by May 30
JTH HOLDING: Continues to Defend Suit by Franchisee's Ex-Customer

JTH HOLDING: Continues to Face RAL Statute Violation Suits
JUSTICE DELAWARE: Parties in Suit vs. Burger King Finalizes Deal
MAGNA INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
MAINE: Judge Approves DHSS Class Action Settlement
MECOX LANE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Suit

MECOX LANE: To Contest Appeal From Dismissal of New York Suits
MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Canadian Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Minnesota
NOKIA CORP: To Defend Against Shareholder Class Action in N.Y.
PACIFIC HIGHWAY: CFMEU Mulls Class Action Over Toxic Chemicals

PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Parlux Acquisition Suits
PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Court Certifies Securities Class Action
RANCH AND FARM: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
ROCK-TENN COMPANY: Court OKs Smurfit-Stone-related Suit Settlement
SAINT CATHERINE: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan

SCBT FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
SEFER AJDINI: Faces Suit For Chicago RLTO Violations
SUNOPTA INC: Awaits Final Approval of Vargas Suit Settlement
TACO BELL: Faces Overtime Class Action in Florida
WAL-MART STORES: Faces 2nd Suit Over Oil Change Recommendation

WATTS WATER: Sued Over Faulty Toilet Water Line Connectors
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Ohio Consumers' Class Certification Upheld
WRIGLEY JR: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising

                          *********

AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Dismiss 'Sivolella' Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit against AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company is still pending, according to
the Company's March 8, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2011.

A lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the
District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds
Management Group, LLC.  The lawsuit was filed derivatively on
behalf of eight funds.  The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section
36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, for
alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable and FMG LLC for
investment management services.

In November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
claims under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the Investment Company
Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.  In addition,
plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class action in
addition to a derivative action.  In December 2011, AXA Equitable
and FMG LLC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments, or
alternatively, rescission of the contracts and restitution of
substantially all fees paid.


BANCOLOMBIA SA: Awaits Pronouncement of Appeal in "Girona" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bancolombia S.A. is awaiting pronouncement from the General
Attorney's office regarding its appeal to overturn a ruling in the
lawsuit commenced by Maria del Rosario Escobar Girona, according
to the Company's April 18, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

The constitutional public interest action filed by Maria del
Rosario Escobar Girona against the Public Ombudsman's Office and
Bancolombia is based on an alleged infringement of collective
rights and interests relating to administrative morality and the
defense of public finances, as a result of the alleged failure to
pay on the part of the Bank an amount the Bank was ordered to pay
in a class action lawsuit filed by Luis Alberto Duran.

The defendants were notified and the Bank responded to the lawsuit
on October 23, 2009.

On February 11, 2011, a new public interest conciliation hearing
was held, in which a plan of agreement approved by the plaintiff,
la Defensoria del Pueblo and the General Attorney's office was
presented.

On February 22, 2011, the judge did not approve the plan of
agreement presented by the plaintiff, la Defensoria Del Pueblo and
the General Attorney's office on February 11, 2011.

On February 28, 2011, the Bank and la Defensoria del Pueblo
presented an appeal (recurso de reposicion y subsidiariamente de
apelacion) against the decision made by the judge on February 22,
2011.

The appeal was unsuccessful according to decision of August 25,
2011, issued by Administrative Court of Cundinamarca (Tribunal
Administrativo de Cundinamarca).

In the ruling dated December 9, 2011, the office did not set a
date for signing a new agreement and it ordered notification to
apply for bankruptcy.  The Bank brought an appeal against this
ruling because of a lack of evidence.  As of December 31, 2011,
the office has yet to make a pronouncement regarding the appeal to
overturn the ruling.


BELL POTTER: Claimants Ordered to Pay Class Action Costs
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Urban, writing for The Australian, reports that a court
has ordered clients of Bell Potter Securities to pay the costs
associated with their bid to sue the firm, after a judge ruled
that their case should not proceed as a class action.

Following the decision late last month, the Federal Court has made
an order for costs in favor of the stockbroker.

"The lesson from this case is that a class action cobbled together
as such, which in reality constitutes a multitude of separate
actions, should never have commenced as a representative class
action in the first place," said Hugh Scott, of Speed and Stracey
Lawyers, which is representing Bell Potter in the matter.

"This is particularly so in relation to actions by investors, many
of whom were very experienced, concerning non-blue-chip
investments, which require detailed analysis of each investor's
background and circumstances."

Legal proceedings against Bell Potter began in 2010, with the 56
claimants accusing the firm of encouraging them to invest in the
speculative drug developer Progen Pharmaceuticals while failing to
disclose its role as an underwriter of a $34 million capital
raising for the company.  Judge Richard Edmonds found lead
claimant Jillian Meaden to be a "totally inappropriate"
representative of the claimants, due to a lack of commonality.  He
said any determination of her claim would offer no guide to how
the rest would be determined.

Ms. Meaden has claimed she and her husband had relied on the
representations of their son, Richard, a stockbroker at Bell
Potter, when they bought shares in Progen in December 2006.

Progen shares peaked at $9.49 in 2006 but later collapsed.  It
last traded at 17c.


BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Liraz Shareholder Suit Dismissed in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit commenced by a former Liraz Systems Ltd.
shareholder was dismissed in May 2011, according to BluePhoenix
Solutions Ltd.'s April 17, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In May 2011, the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court dismissed the claim
filed against the Company, in June 2003, by a former Liraz
shareholder.  The plaintiff applied to the court in order to
approve the claim which was related to the acquisition of Liraz
shares, as a class action.  The claim was dismissed after a long
period where the plaintiff has not made any action to proceed with
the claim.

As previously reported, in June 2003, a former Liraz Systems Ltd.
shareholder filed an application with the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District
Court to approve a claim filed by him against the Company, as a
class action.  The claim relates to the acquisition of Liraz
shares, which the Company completed in March 2003.  The
shareholder alleges that the share price the Company paid to
Liraz's shareholders in the tender offer and in a subsequent
mandatory purchase was lower than the fair price of Liraz shares.
The maximum amount of the claim is approximately NIS 38.9 million
($10.8 million) in the aggregate.  Under Israeli law, the court's
approval is required for the plaintiff to represent all of the
shareholders of Liraz who sold their shares to the Company
pursuant to the tender offer and the mandatory acquisition.  The
plaintiff has applied for such approval in the lawsuit.  Since the
critical issue in the Company's case concerns the basis upon which
the fair price of shares purchased within the context of a tender
offer is to be determined, and due to the fact that this
particular issue has come before the Supreme Court of Israel in an
appeal concerning another separate case, the plaintiff in the
Company's claim has agreed to postpone the proceedings until the
Supreme Court has given its decision in the appeal.  In December
2009, the Supreme Court held that, as a general rule, the fair
price of shares purchased within the context of a full tender
offer shall be determined in accordance with the discounted cash
flow method.


BP PLC: January 2013 Trial Set for Oil Spill Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the federal judge who will
decide whether to approve a class-action settlement of claims
against BP PLC has scheduled a January 2013 trial for other claims
spawned by the deadly blowout of the company's deepwater well in
the Gulf Mexico.

After meeting on May 4 behind closed doors with attorneys, U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier scheduled the start of the trial for
Jan. 14, 2013.

The Justice Department wanted the trial to start this summer, but
BP asked Judge Barbier to wait until after he decides whether to
give his final approval to the settlement agreement.  Judge
Barbier is scheduled to hold a "fairness hearing" on the proposed
settlement on Nov. 8, 2012.

The first phase of a three-phase trial originally was scheduled to
start Feb. 27, 2012.  Judge Barbier postponed it indefinitely
after BP and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee announced they had
reached a deal that would resolve billions of dollars in claims by
more than 100,000 claims by people and businesses blaming economic
losses on the 2010 spill off the coast of Louisiana.

In a court filing on May 1, government lawyers argued the
settlement agreement shouldn't delay a trial for claims that
aren't covered by the deal.  The state of Alabama also asked
Judge Barbier to set a new trial for this summer.

The proposed settlement doesn't have a cap, but BP estimates it
will pay about $7.8 billion to resolve the private claims.  It
doesn't resolve separate claims brought by the federal government
and Gulf states against BP and its partners on the Deepwater
Horizon drilling rig over environmental damage from the spill.

The deal also doesn't resolve private plaintiffs' claims against
Switzerland-based rig owner Transocean Ltd. and Houston-based
cement contractor Halliburton.

Jimmie E. Gates, writing for ClarionLedger.com, reports that the
proposed agreement has no cap other than for seafood claims that
will be capped at $2.3 billion.

"At this stage, the settlement agreement appears fair, has no
obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential
treatment to the class representatives or to segments of the
class, and does not grant excessive compensation to attorneys,"
Judge Barbier said in giving preliminary approval to the proposal
on May 2.

The proposed settlement will replace the Gulf Coast Claims
Facility fund, which BP set up with $20 million.

Mike Espy of Jackson, one of 15 attorneys from across the country
selected for the oil spill litigation, said on May 3 the
settlement is a great deal for those with claims.

"It will bring fresh air to the process," Mr. Espy said.  "It will
open the door for people who have never filed claims and for those
who were denied claims by GCCF."

If a claim is valid, it will be paid at 100 percent, Mr. Espy
said.

Thousands of Mississippians stand to benefit from the deal, but
Mr. Espy did not have an exact number.  More than 70,000 people
had filed claims with GCCF, with more than 20,000 paid.

Mr. Espy said several factors determine an average amount a person
or business might receive for economic loss, such as the type of
business and how close it was to the coastal area.

The ones closest to the coastal area will have the greater chance
of receiving the most for economic loss, he said.

Mr. Espy said a clean-up worker with no medical records could
expect to receive $1,300 for a medical claim, while a clean-up
worker with a chronic medical condition can expect to receive more
than $60,000.

There had been numerous complaints about how the $20 billion fund
BP set up had been administered and claims processed.

June Harris said her business claim was denied by GCCF.  She is
among those looking forward to submitting a new claim through the
settlement.


CAMERON INT'L: Faces Class Suit Over Certificate Amendments
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 18, 2012, Cameron International Corporation
disclosed that it and its directors -- C. Baker Cunningham,
Sheldon R. Erikson, Peter J. Fluor, Douglas L. Foshee, Rodolfo
Landim, Jack B. Moore, Michael E. Patrick, Jon Erik Reinhardsen,
David Ross III and Bruce W. Wilkinson -- were sued by Kenneth
Everhard, a Company stockholder, in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

On April 11, 2012, a complaint was filed against Cameron and its
Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Complaint").  The Complaint alleges, among other
things, that the proposals with respect to amendments to the
Company's certificate of incorporation on declassification of the
board of directors and exclusive forum, as well as the proposal to
restate the Company's certificate of incorporation, described in
the Company's 2012 Proxy Statement for its Annual Meeting of
Stockholders (the "Proxy Statement"), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 28, 2012, contain certain
errors and fail to provide all information material to the
Company's stockholders' vote.

The Plaintiff asserts that he brings the action individually and
as a class action, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23, on
behalf of all common stockholders of Cameron as of March 16, 2012,
the record date for the Annual Meeting.  Excluded from the Class
are defendants, and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other
entity related to or affiliated with any of the Defendants.

Mr. Everhard says that he brings this action to protect the
collective right of all stockholders of the Company to a fully
informed vote on a proposed amendment to the Company's certificate
of incorporation which provides that any action asserting a single
claim falling within four broad categories can only be litigated
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in no other court (the
"Exclusive Forum Amendment" or the "Amendment").  He notes that
the Defendants are the Company and the members of its board of
directors, who are recommending the Amendment to the Cameron
stockholders.  The Amendment would require stockholders of the
Company to litigate exclusively in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
while retaining the ability of the Board to choose a different
forum for claims subject to the Amendment, including claims by or
against the Board members.  If enacted, he avers, the Amendment
would require that Plaintiff or any other stockholder to challenge
the Amendment only in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Indeed, he
argues, he or any other stockholder that sues in any forum other
than the Delaware Court of Chancery could be sued by the Company
for breach of the Amendment's exclusive forum provision and held
liable for the Company's expenses in the other forum.


CASEY'S GENERAL: "Hot Fuel" Class Action Suits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores Inc. continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits filed by gasoline consumers in Kansas and
Missouri, according to the Company's March 8, 2012, 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
quarter ended January 31, 2012.

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

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

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

The Court also ordered the parties to show cause in writing why
the Wilson case and the American Fiber & Cabling case should not
be consolidated for all purposes.  The matter is now under
consideration by the Court.  The court has scheduled the trial to
commence on May 7, 2012.  Management cannot estimate or quantify
the relief sought nor the amount of possible loss or potential
range of loss related to these actions.  Management does not
believe the Company is liable to the Plaintiffs for the conduct
complained of, and intends to contest the matter vigorously.


COINSTAR INC: August 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on May 4 issued a statement regarding the In
re Coinstar, Inc. Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT
SEATTLE

IN RE COINSTAR INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. C11-133 MJP
This Document Relates To: The Securities Class Action

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF
COINSTAR, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 29, 2010 TO FEBRUARY
3, 2011, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
"CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned action has been preliminarily certified as a class
action and that a settlement for Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000)
has been proposed with Coinstar, Inc., Paul Davis and J. Scott Di
Valerio (collectively, "Defendants").  A hearing will be held
before the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington in the U.S.
Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101, at 9:00 a.m.,
on August 10, 2012, in Courtroom 14206 to, among other things,
determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate, determine whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the net settlement
proceeds should be approved as fair and reasonable, and to
consider the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses. The Court may change the date of the
hearing without providing another notice.

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
PROCEEDS. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice") and a Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

          In re Coinstar, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          Claims Administrator
          PO Box 9869
          Dublin, OH 43017-57691
          Telephone: 855-733-8309
          Web site: http://www.gcginc.com

The Claims Administrator can also help you if you have questions
about these documents.  Inquiries, other than requests for the
forms of Notice and Proof of Claim or the status of a claim, may
be made to Lead Counsel:

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, New York 100051
          Telephone: 888-219-6877
          E-mail: settlementquestions@labaton.com
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the settlement proceeds you must submit a Proof of
Claim postmarked or received no later than August 21, 2012.  To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than July 20, 2012.  If
you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class,
you will be bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court.
Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or Lead
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses must be filed with the Court and served on counsel for
the Parties in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than July 20, 2012.
If you are a Class Member and do not submit an acceptable Proof of
Claim, you will not share in the Settlement but you nevertheless
will be bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Claims
Administrator.

Dated: May 4, 2012

By Order of The Court
United States District Court Western District of Washington


ENERGY PLUS: Faces Class Action Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that to "line
its pockets at its customers' expense" an alternative energy
company promises lower rates and prizes if people switch to it,
then jacks up its rates after the first month, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Yue Yu sued Energy Plus Holdings LLC and Energy
Plus Natural Gas LP, electricity and natural gas suppliers
licensed in New Jersey.

"In 1999, New Jersey deregulated energy supply in the state," the
complaint states.  "Customers may now purchase electricity and/or
natural gas through 'alternative' third-party suppliers while
continuing to obtain delivery from their local public utilities.
These private suppliers are not subject to oversight and
regulation by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU).  For
example, by law, the BPU has primary jurisdiction over all
disputes concerning service, billing and payment by public
utilities but not private suppliers such as Energy Plus.  In
contrast to public utilities, the BPU does not have oversight of
the rates charged by Energy Plus.  The intent of the deregulation
law is to provide consumer choice and allow competition to drive
down customer rates."

Ms. Yu says she received a flyer for Energy Plus along with her
mileage statement from (nonparty) Continental Airlines.  The flyer
said that in addition to receiving 12,500 miles for signing up
with Energy Star, Ms. Yu would receive more reward miles for every
month she paid her bill and that customers "likely would save 10
percent over their local utility company."

"Energy Plus' advertisements, website and customer agreements
indicate that its rates are market-based and highly competitive,"
the complaint states.  "Energy Plus uniformly and consistently
represents that its rates are 'competitive' and reflective of
market conditions and that the company will provide 'the best
competitive rate possible.'  For example, the company represents
in mailers that 'Energy Plus offers a market-rate product, which
means we buy electricity every day on the open market.'  Energy
Plus' Web site states that its rates are 'market-driven' -- that
they are 'based on market prices and other factors' and are
calculated monthly using an average in the customer's region.  In
this market-driven process, the Energy Plus Web site represents,
the company scours the market to find the best rates for
customers: 'Our approach is to purchase energy from each of these
markets on a daily and monthly basis, which allows us to
incorporate the most-up-to-date energy costs from each market into
our rates.'  The clear implication is that Energy Plus is
purchasing energy at market rates, where vigorous competition
ensures the lowest possible prices for its customers.

"Furthermore, the company's salespeople represent to potential
customers that, in addition to receiving incentive rewards, they
should on average save on energy costs if they switch to Energy
Plus.  Salespeople even tell customers to expect a particular
percentage in savings."

In response to Energy Plus' ads, incentives and Web site, Ms. Yu
says, she filled out an online application and switched her gas
and electrical supplier to Energy Plus.

"For the first month of Energy Plus service, Ms. Yu received a
discount of almost 10 percent as compared to her former provider
PSEG.  Thereafter, the company jacked up its rates and charged her
from 30 to 71 percent more than PSEG each month," the complaint
states.

It adds: "After the first month with Energy Plus, customers' rates
will never reflect going market prices.  Like playing in a casino
using a stacked deck, a customer who sticks with Energy Plus
hoping to break even will only sink deeper into the quicksand and
enable the company to further line its pockets at its customers'
expense.  In fact, Energy Plus' rates are not competitive with
other suppliers or in line with market factors.  Customers who
switch to Energy Plus can wind up paying as much as two to three
times above the going rate in the area.  The company's customers
in New Jersey and nationwide regularly complain that Energy Plus'
rates far exceed that of any other supplier, that their rates have
doubled or more after the first month, and that they are often
being overcharged by more than 100 percent as compared to
remaining with their local utilities.  . . .

"Energy Plus does not disclose these material facts to its
customers but actively encourages the false perception that
switching to and remaining with Energy Plus will mean savings to
the cost-conscious consumer."

In the four months after her first bill, Ms. Yu says, she was
charged a total of $247 more than a PSEG customer would pay.

"Had Ms. Yu know that the rates she would be charged by Energy
Plus were in fact substantially higher than the rates she was
paying her previous energy supplier, PSEG, she would not have
enrolled with Energy Plus," the complaint states.

She seeks class damages and treble damages for consumer fraud,
breach of faith and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Yu v. Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 14804 in Case No. 33-
av-00001 on May 2, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/04/JackedUp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          Grant E. Morris, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          440 West Street
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (201) 585-5288
          E-mail: swittels@swhlegal.com
                  jheisler@swhlegal.com


FORD MOTOR: Appeals Ct. Reverses $2BB Judgment, Orders New Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deepa Seetharaman, writing for Reuters, reports that the Ohio
Court of Appeals reversed a $2 billion judgment against Ford Motor
Co. last week and ordered a new trial for a group of dealers who
said the No. 2 U.S. automaker overcharged them for commercial
trucks over an 11-year period.

In its May 3 ruling, the appeals court said the contract at the
heart of the dealers' class-action suit was "ambiguous."  It also
said evidence submitted by Ford was wrongly excluded.

"We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding
Ford's mitigating evidence at the damages trial," the court said
in its ruling.

Ford disclosed the reversal in a quarterly filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4.

The decision could potentially save the Dearborn, Michigan-based
automaker a significant amount of money it would have eventually
had to pay disgruntled dealers.

"We look forward to trying the case before a jury that will now
consider all the evidence that was improperly excluded during the
first trial," said Ford spokeswoman Marcey Evans.

The dealers can request a review by the Ohio supreme court.  James
Lowe, an attorney for the dealers, said they would consider their
options after reviewing the court's opinion.

The dealers first sued Ford in 2002.  According to the suit, Ford
breached its sales and service agreement with medium- and heavy-
truck dealers by offering unpublished discounts through a program
that effectively overcharged some dealers.

The suit covered all Ford dealers that bought 600-series larger
trucks from 1987 to 1997.

In February 2011, a jury awarded the named plaintiff in the suit,
Westgate Ford Truck Sales of Ohio, $4.5 million in damages.  In
June 2011, the court awarded the entire class of more than 3,100
dealers nationwide nearly $2 billion.

Nick Bunkley, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
lawsuit, filed in 2002, contended that Ford cheated the dealers
out of some $800 million in profits from 1987 through 1998 by
offering secret discounts in violation of its agreements to sell
commercial trucks at published prices.  Last June, Judge Corrigan
upheld a $4.5 million verdict that a Cleveland jury awarded to one
Ohio dealer and ruled that Ford also must pay damages and interest
to about 3,100 other dealers.

"Ford was entitled to show that offering all dealers across-the-
board discounts on every truck it sold would have been
economically unfeasible," Court of Appeals Judge Kenneth A. Rocco
wrote in the May 3 decision.  The opinion also described the
contract that the dealers said Ford had breached as "ambiguous."

The trial judge's award, which included $1.2 billion in interest,
was the largest ever against Ford, which sold its medium- and
heavy-duty truck business in 1998.  It disclosed the appeals court
ruling in a regulatory filing.

The plaintiffs hired experts who examined 475,000 transactions and
calculated that dealers paid an average of $1,650 more than the
price that Ford should have charged them.  In some cases, the
dealers were overcharged by up to $15,000, while in others they
paid less than the experts said they should have, they argued.

The dealers said Ford set wholesale prices on the trucks, which
included tractor-trailers, that were higher than what buyers were
willing to pay for them.  Through a program known as Competitive
Price Assistance, the dealers could request discounts from Ford,
but each dealer was unaware of how much Ford was discounting the
trucks to other dealers.  As a result, the prices that dealers
paid for identical trucks varied widely.

Ford maintained that the discount program "brought significant
benefit to the dealers."


GOOGLE INC: Wants Authors' Suit Over Digital Library Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Google Inc. urged a judge on May 3 to toss The Authors Guild and
an organization representing photographers out of 6-year-old
litigation over the future of the world's largest digital library,
a move that would force authors and photographers to individually
fight the online search engine giant.

Google attorney Daralyn Durie told Judge Denny Chin in federal
court in Manhattan that authors and photographers would be better
off fending for themselves because their circumstances varied
widely, especially since the copyright issue for authors involves
the display of small snippets of text.

"The question of ownership is very murky because of the
contractual relationships between the parties and because it is
conceded that in many cases authors receive no royalties from the
publisher for these displays," she said.

Joanne Zack, a lawyer for The Authors Guild, countered that the
judge should certify the authors as a class because millions of
them would not have the money to go to court and because the
potential financial reward for doing so would not be high enough
to make it practical.  She said they also might be intimidated
fighting a company as large as Google.

"This action does cry out for mass litigation to adjudicate the
mass digitization," she said.  "This is a classic case for a class
action because we're talking about blanket policies that affected
millions of people and we're talking primarily about legal issues
-- infringement, fair use -- that can be determined based on
common questions of law and fact."

She called it "a terrible burden on the courts if each individual
author chose to litigate, and, of course, Google hopes that nobody
will."

The judge agreed that Google is "hoping that individual authors
won't come forward."

Judge Chin did not immediately rule on what the law demands, but
he questioned whether Google really wanted to face multiple
lawsuits from authors and photographers.

"It would take forever.  It just seems to make sense to address
that on a group basis whether through an association or whether
through a class action," the judge said.

The arguments came a year after Judge Chin rejected a $125 million
deal that would have settled the case.  He tossed out the
settlement between Google and representatives of The Authors Guild
and publishers after studying objections from Google rivals,
consumer watchdogs, academic experts, literary agents, the
Department of Justice and even foreign governments.

A challenge to The Authors Guild and the American Society of Media
Photographers Inc. as litigants seemed unusual so many years after
lawsuits were first filed, Judge Chin said.  The Authors Guild
sued in 2005.  The photographers' lawsuit was filed two years ago.

"Now all of a sudden Google is saying, 'You don't have standing,'"
the judge said.

Ms. Durie responded that negotiations had consumed most of the
time since lawsuits were first filed, and that it was not unusual
to put off pretrial challenges while talks were going on.

Although negotiations appeared to have broken down with the
authors, they were still proceeding with publishers and the
photographers.  Attorney James McGuire said outside court on
behalf of the photographers: "We talk, but I wouldn't characterize
them as serious."

In court, Mr. McGuire said it was "somewhat unfair, inconsistent
and respectfully hypocritical for Google after willy-nilly
scanning 20 million books and 20 million covers in our view
without regard to individual rights to come back and say . . . the
burden is on us."

In court papers, Google said the groups representing authors and
photographers "are not owners of the copyrights asserted in this
case, and the associations do not possess the facts about
copyright ownership, individual economic impact, or the other
individualized questions required of a plaintiff in a copyright
litigation matter where ownership and fair use are at issue."

Google already has scanned more than 20 million books for the
project.  Under the original agreement, Google had planned to put
about 130 million titles into its digital library.

In rejecting the settlement last year, Judge Chin noted that many
objections would vanish if the library only consisted of works in
which authors and publishers had granted their permission rather
than a system in which books were included unless Google was
informed that an author or publisher objected.

The judge has supported the overall goal, saying a digital
universe for books would let libraries, schools, researchers and
disadvantaged populations gain access to far more books, would
help authors and publishers find new audiences and new sources of
income and would allow older books -- particularly those out of
print -- to be preserved and given new life.


HOVNANIAN: Payment to Settle Suit in Florida Completed in Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. completed the payment to settle a
class action lawsuit brought against its subsidiary in connection
with the sale of some of its homes in Florida, according to the
Company's March 8, 2012, 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarterly period ended January 31, 2012.

A subsidiary of the Company has been named as a defendant in a
purported class action suit filed on May 30, 2007 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Randolph
Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al., alleging
violations of the federal securities acts, among other
allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on October 19, 2007.  Plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of certain home purchasers in southwestern
Florida and sought damages, rescission of certain purchase
agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and attorneys'
fees and costs.  The Company's subsidiary filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on December 14, 2007.  Following
oral argument on the motion in September 2008, the court dismissed
the amended complaint with leave for plaintiffs to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2008.
The Company's subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss this second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed portions of the second
amended complaint.  The Court dismissed additional portions of the
second amended complaint on April 28, 2010.  The Company settled
this case with the plaintiffs for a total payment of $3.3 million,
a portion of which was covered by insurance.  The settlement was
paid in December 2011.


HOVNANIAN: Still Faces Suit Over N.J. Building Code Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit brought against the Company for alleged
violation of New Jersey building codes, according to the Company's
March 8, 2012, 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarterly period ended January 31, 2012.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C.
have been named as defendants in a class action suit.  The action
was filed by Mike D'Andrea and Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Gloucester County.  The action was initially filed
on May 8, 2006 alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain
of the Company's homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey
building codes and are a potential safety issue.  On December 14,
2011, the Superior Court granted class certification; the
potential class is 1,065 homes.  The defendants filed a request to
take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification
decision.  The Appellate Division denied the request, and the
defendants filed a request for interlocutory review by the New
Jersey Supreme Court, which is still pending. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ
Consumer Fraud Act.  The Company believes there is insurance
coverage available to it for this action.  While the Company has
determined that a loss related to this case is not probable, it is
not possible to estimate a loss or range of loss related to this
matter at this time.  On December 19, 2011, certain subsidiaries
of the Company filed a separate action seeking indemnification
against the various manufactures and subcontractors implicated by
the class action.


JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: "Peters" Plaintiffs Must Amend Suit by May 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York directed lead plaintiffs in a shareholder class action
lawsuit initiated by Marco Peters to file an amended complaint by
May 30, 2012, JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. disclosed in its
April 18, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 11, 2011, JinkoSolar was named as a defendant in a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned Marco Peters v. JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 11-CV-7133 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "U.S. Securities Action").  In
addition to JinkoSolar, the complaint also names as defendants
Xiande Li, Kangping Chen, Xianhua Li, Wing Koen Siew, Haitao Jin,
Zibin Li, Stephen Markscheid, Longgen Zhang (the "Individual
Defendants"), and the underwriters of JinkoSolar's May 13, 2010
American depository share ("ADS") offering.  The plaintiff in the
U.S. Securities Action seeks to represent a class of all
purchasers and acquirers of ADSs of JinkoSolar between May 13,
2010, and September 21, 2011, inclusive.  The plaintiff alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements or failing
to disclose material information regarding, among other things,
JinkoSolar's compliance with environmental regulations at its
Haining facility.  The complaint also asserts claims against the
Individual Defendants for control person liability under Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of the putative class, unspecified
compensatory damages (including interest), and costs and expenses
incurred in the action.

On March 19, 2012, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs in the U.S. Securities Action.  On April 2, 2012, the
court directed lead plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or
before May 30, 2012.  The deadline for defendants to move, answer
or otherwise respond to the amended complaint is July 30, 2012.

The Company says as of December 31, 2011, a range of loss was not
known for the claims.  JinkoSolar believes that the claims against
it in the U.S. Securities Action are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.


JTH HOLDING: Continues to Defend Suit by Franchisee's Ex-Customer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JTH Holding, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit commenced by former customers of a South Carolina
franchisee, according to the Company's April 18, 2012, Form 10
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In November 2010, several former customers of one of the Company's
South Carolina franchisees initiated a purported class action
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and another of
its employees in the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, in a case styled Martin v. JTH Tax, Inc.  In
this case, the plaintiffs allege that employees of the Company's
franchisees fraudulently increased customer tax refunds, and that
this behavior was pursuant to a plan or scheme in which the
Company and its employees were involved.  In this case, the
plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $5 million, certification of
class action status, treble damages under a claim pursuant to The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970,
punitive damages, and other damages.

The Company says this case is in the very early stages of the
proceeding.


JTH HOLDING: Continues to Face RAL Statute Violation Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
JTH Holding, Inc. continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits over purported violations of refund anticipation loan and
other consumer statutes, according to the Company's April 18,
2012, Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, and in February 2012 in Wisconsin, since the
initial filings.  The allegations underlying each of these
lawsuits, which were filed by the same set of attorneys, are that
an electronic refund check ("ERC") represents a form of refund
anticipation loan ("RAL"), because the taxpayer is "loaned" the
tax preparation fee, and that an ERC is, therefore, subject to
federal truth-in-lending disclosure and state law requirements
regulating RALs.  Each of the cases differs in that it alleges
violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes.  All
of the lawsuits purport to be class actions, and in each lawsuit
the plaintiffs allege potential damages in excess of $5 million.

The Company is aware that virtually identical lawsuits have been
filed against at least two of its competitors in a number of
jurisdictions.  In December 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate all of the then-pending cases before a single judge in
federal court in the Northern District of Illinois.  In April
2012, the consolidation motion was granted, and the Company
expects the cases filed in January and February 2012 to be
consolidated, as well.

If the Company is unsuccessful in any of these lawsuits, it may
not only incur damages in connection with the claims being made in
the lawsuits, but it may be forced to alter the manner in which it
markets its ERCs in order to comply with federal and state
requirements that apply to loans.  Accordingly, an adverse outcome
in this litigation may materially and adversely affect the
Company's operations and financial results, and such additional
compliance could be costly and burdensome and affect customer use
of the ERC product.  The Company may be unsuccessful in litigation
that characterizes ERCs as loans, which could subject it to
damages and additional regulation, and which could adversely
affect its ability to offer financial products and have a material
adverse effect on its operations and financial results.


JUSTICE DELAWARE: Parties in Suit vs. Burger King Finalizes Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a class action lawsuit involving a subsidiary of
Burger King Worldwide Holdings, Inc., are finalizing the terms of
a proposed settlement, according to Justice Delaware Holdco Inc.'s
April 17, 2012, Form 10 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On April 3, 2012, Burger King Worldwide Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Worldwide"), the indirect parent company of Burger
King Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Holdings"), entered
into a Business Combination Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of April 3, 2012 (the "Agreement"), by and among Justice Holdings
Limited, a company limited by shares incorporated with limited
liability under the laws of the British Virgin Islands
("Justice"), Justice Delaware Holdco Inc., a Delaware corporation
and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Justice ("New Holdco"),
Justice Holdco LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of New Holdco ("Merger Sub LLC"),
and Worldwide.  Pursuant to the Agreement, Worldwide will merge
with and into Merger Sub LLC, with Merger Sub LLC continuing as
the surviving company and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of New
Holdco (the "Merger").

On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Worldwide in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger
King restaurants in California leased by Worldwide and operated by
franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal and
state law.  In September 2009, the court issued a decision on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In its decision, the
court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited by
the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for each
of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials.  In March 2010,
Worldwide agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10
restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to
the settlement.  In February 2011, a class action lawsuit was
filed with respect to the other 86 restaurants.  The plaintiffs
sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

In January 2012, Worldwide's subsidiary, Burger King Corporation,
agreed to settle the lawsuit.  The parties are finalizing the
terms of the proposed settlement which will be submitted to the
court for approval.


MAGNA INT'L: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 4 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Magna International Inc.
common stock during the period between January 12, 2011 and
August 5, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 4, 2012.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/magna/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Magna and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Magna is a one of the largest and most diversified suppliers of
automotive components, systems and modules world-wide.  Magna
maintains manufacturing and engineering and sales operations in 26
countries around the globe.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts: (i) that the Company had entered into long-term European
customer contracts at steeply discounted prices; (ii) that the
Company was experiencing ongoing undisclosed quality control
issues at its European facilities that were resulting in higher
production costs; (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, Magna
was experiencing a significant decline in its European margins;
(iv) that defendants' representations about the Company's
disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and (v)
that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis
for their positive statements about the Company's European
operations and business prospects during the Class Period.

On August 5, 2011, Magna issued a press release announcing its
operating results for its 2011 fiscal second quarter, the period
ended June 30, 2011.  For the quarter, the Company announced net
income of $282 million, or $1.15 per diluted common share,
significantly less than Wall Street estimates.

Following the Company's 2011 second quarter earnings announcement,
defendants held a conference call with analysts and investors
wherein it was explained that, while Magna's year-over-year sales
increased by 24%, the Company's weaker than expected results were
primarily caused by long standing, under-priced European customer
contracts and quality control issues in Europe.  In response to
the revelations about the Company's European operations, the price
of Magna common stock dropped from $44.24 per share on August 4,
2011 to $39.42 on August 5, 2011, as the artificial inflation came
out of the price of Magna stock.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Magna common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international investors and consumers in contingency based complex
litigation.  With nearly 200 attorneys in nine offices, the firm
represents more institutional investors and pension funds in
securities and corporate litigation than any other law firm in the
world.

Contact: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800-449-4900
         E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com


MAINE: Judge Approves DHSS Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in Maine has
approved a settlement in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
people with long-term disabilities who claimed that the state
should create opportunities for them to live outside nursing
homes.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Torresen approved the settlement on
May 2 in a suit brought against the Maine Department of Health and
Human Services in 2009 on behalf of three young men with cerebral
palsy who had lived in nursing homes for a number of years.  The
court allowed 40 others with cerebral palsy, epilepsy and other
conditions to join the suit last year, making it a class action.

The suit claimed DHHS failed to create opportunities for the
plaintiffs to live outside of nursing homes, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Nursing Home Reform Act.

The settlement requires the state to offer home- and community-
based services to those individuals who now reside in nursing
homes or are at risk of having to move into nursing homes.  DHHS
also agreed to improve the types of services the class members
receive while they live in nursing homes.

"The resolution achieves what our clients wanted from the state --
a chance to live independently in the community and not be
segregated from their peers," said Jack Comart, litigation
director for Maine Equal Justice Partners, which helped bring the
suit.

DHHS Commissioner Mary Mayhew said the class members will have a
greater range of opportunities when the community living program
is approved by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services.

"In addition, the department is committed to reviewing its
assessment process for services that will comprise a continuous
and active treatment program," Ms. Mayhew said in a statement. "We
appreciate the collaborative nature of our discussions throughout
the process and are pleased with the outcome."


MECOX LANE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mecox Lane Limited (the "Group") is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholder lawsuit,
according to the Company's April 18, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Group has two purported class action complaints were filed by
individual shareholders in the United States alleging violations
by the Group and certain of its officers and directors of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in October 2010.  The lead plaintiff counsel filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint on May 31, 2011.
The Group moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and oral
argument on the motion was held on January 18, 2012.

The Group is awaiting a ruling on the motion.

The Group believes the complaint lacks any merit and the Group and
its directors and officers intend to defend themselves vigorously.
As such, the Group believes a loss is remote and therefore, did
not accrue any contingent liability as of
December 31, 2011.


MECOX LANE: To Contest Appeal From Dismissal of New York Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mecox Lane Limited said in its April 18, 2012, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011, that it plans to contest an appeal from
the dismissal of purported class action lawsuits.

The Company and several of its directors and officers were named
defendants in two purported class actions brought before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
-- Arfa v. Mecox Lane Limited, et al., No. 10-CV-9053 and Brady v.
Mecox Lane Limited, et al., No. 11-CIV-0034.  It was alleged in
the class actions that the defendants included or allowed to be
included materially false and misleading statements in the
registration statement and annual report issued in connection with
the initial public offering in violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and against the defendant directors and
officers under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

On March 1, 2012, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
without prejudice the plaintiff's claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act, along with the derivative claims under Section 15
of the Securities Act.  On April 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  The Company says it plans to contest the
appeal.

Unfavorable resolutions of these legal proceedings or any future
legal proceedings could materially and adversely affect its
results of operations and financial condition, according to the
Company.


MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Canadian Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial proceedings are underway in a putative class action
lawsuit filed against Medtronic Inc. in Canada, according to the
Company's March 7, 2012, 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 27,
2012.

On October 15, 2007, the Company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads.
Approximately 4,000 lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads were
filed against the Company, including approximately 47 putative
class action suits, reflecting a total of approximately 9,000
individual personal injury cases.  The Company announced on
October 14, 2010 that it had entered into an agreement to settle
nearly all U.S. lawsuits as well as certain unfiled claims.  The
parties subsequently reached an adjusted settlement agreement
pursuant to which Medtronic waived its right to cancel the
agreement and agreed to pay a total of $221 million to resolve
over 14,000 filed and unfiled claims.  The Company recorded an
expense of $221 million related to probable and reasonably
estimated damages under U.S. GAAP in connection with the
settlement in fiscal year 2011, and paid out the funds under the
settlement in the third quarter of fiscal year 2012.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.  On October 20, 2009,
that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class
certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial
proceedings are underway.  The Company has not recorded an expense
related to damages in connection with that matter because any
potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable
under U.S. GAAP.  Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter.


MEDTRONIC INC: Still Faces Class Action Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed by the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association,
according to the Company's March 7, 2012, 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended January 27, 2012.

On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and certain current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE Bone
Graft product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price
during the period.  On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated putative class action complaint expanding the class.
Medtronic's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
denied on February 3, 2010, and pretrial proceedings are underway.
On December 12, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


NOKIA CORP: To Defend Against Shareholder Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Don Reisinger, writing for CNET, reports that Nokia has been hit
with a class-action lawsuit charging the company with making
promises it couldn't keep.

Law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd on May 3 filed a class-
action lawsuit against Nokia and its executives in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who owned the company's shares between October 26, 2011, and
April 10.

"The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
told investors that Nokia's conversion to a Windows platform would
halt its deteriorating position in the smartphone market.  It did
not," the law firm wrote in a statement.  "This became apparent on
April 11, 2012, when Nokia disclosed that its first quarter
performance would be worse than expected."

Nokia has watched its business deteriorate over the last few
years, and slow considerably during the last couple of quarters,
forcing CEO Stephen Elop last month to warn of more trouble in
2012.

"Our disappointing devices and services first quarter 2012
financial results and outlook for the second quarter 2012
illustrates that our business continues to be in the midst of
transition," Mr. Elop wrote to investors last month.  "Within our
Smart Devices business unit, we have established early momentum
with Lumia, and we are increasing our investments in Lumia to
achieve market success."

But the class-action suit alleges there's no momentum to be had,
due to declining margins in the company's Devices & Sales
division.  Therefore, the suit argues, shareholders should receive
damages from Nokia for its troubles over the last six months.
Not everyone is so bearish on Nokia's future.  In an interview
published by Reuters, Nokia's new chairman, Risto Siilasmaa, said
he believes in the company's leadership and future prospects for
success.

"I am confident that Nokia has the right team, right strategy and
now increasingly also the right products on the market to get us
through this transition period," Mr. Siilasmaa said.

                         Nokia's Response

Sven Grundberg, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Nokia on May 4 said it will defend itself against a class action
suit brought against the company in the U.S., alleging the Finnish
handset maker has misled investors.

Nokia has been struggling over recent years to compete in western
markets against Apple Inc.'s iPhone and smartphones from Asian
manufacturers like Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and HTC Corp.

The shares have declined about 70% since the company announced its
transition from Symbian to Windows Phone in February last year and
are down nearly 40% since it issued a profit warning last month.

Robbins Geller said Nokia and certain officers and directors have
violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Nokia said it is reviewing the suit, adding however that it
believes that the allegations "are without merit" and that it will
defend itself against the complaint.


PACIFIC HIGHWAY: CFMEU Mulls Class Action Over Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the union covering road-workers, the CFMEU,
is threatening a class action over a possibly toxic Pacific
highway worksite.

A doctor treating workers who became ill last month says they
might have been exposed to the banned insecticide dioxin.

In 1980, a truck carrying chemicals crashed near Herons Creek
south of Port Macquarie, and the spill was buried nearby.

CFMEU state secretary Brian Parker says the old chemicals may have
been unearthed and he will meet the doctor and the workers today.

"We will be going through issues related to exposure to workers
and possibly class actions that are going to take place, against
the government, against the RMS," he said.

"Because unfortunately there could have been a number of workers
here that have signed their death warrant.

"In terms of the exposure that they've been exposed to."

Meanwhile the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has rejected
suggestions there has been any sort of cover-up over the incident.

Pacific Highway manager Bob Higgins said the men who were working
on the site broke out in rashes and sores.

"The men were originally tested and late last week they were
experiencing rashes and sores," he said.

"They went back to see Dr. Mayne and then from there he asked for
dioxin testing.

"The workers safety is very, very important, and if the tests have
to be done, they have to be done.

"We're not in the business of covering this up. What we're in the
business of is making sure the workers are safe, the site is
secure.

"What we are doing is going through and doing the sampling and the
testing and as that information and those test results come to
hand, they will be released."


PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Continues to Face Parlux Acquisition Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perfumania Holdings, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed acquisition of Parlux Fragrances, Inc.,
according to the Company's April 17, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
January 28, 2012.

The Company has entered into a merger agreement dated as of
December 23, 2011, under which it plans to acquire Parlux
Fragrances, Inc. ("Parlux"), a publicly-traded company that is in
the business of creating, designing, manufacturing, distributing
and selling prestige fragrances and beauty related products.
Parlux, which markets its products primarily through specialty
stores, national department stores and perfumeries on a worldwide
basis, had net sales of $123 million for its most recently audited
fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.  The consideration to be
delivered by Perfumania to Parlux stockholders for the acquisition
(the "Merger") will consist of cash and Company stock with an
aggregate value of approximately $115.5 million, based on the
$9.05 closing sale price of Perfumania common stock on the Nasdaq
Stock Market on April 13, 2012.

Following the announcement of the Company's merger agreement with
Parlux, on January 5, 2012, a putative class action complaint,
captioned as Shirley Anderson v. Parlux Fragrances, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida, on behalf of a purported
stockholder of Parlux.  Thereafter, the case was transferred to
the Complex Business Division No. 7 and assigned case number 12-
000344-CA-07.  The named defendants include Parlux, the individual
members of the Parlux board of directors, and the Company.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the
Parlux board breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and
approving the merger agreement, that the merger consideration
negotiated in the merger agreement is inadequate, that certain of
the defendants have improper conflicts of interest by reason of
the existing relationships between Parlux and the Company, and
that the terms of the merger agreement fail to provide the Parlux
stockholders with certain procedural protections and impose
improper deal protection devices that will preclude competing
offers.  The complaint further alleges that Parlux and the Company
aided and abetted the members of the Parlux board in their alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff seeks a determination
that the lawsuit is a proper class action and that the plaintiff
is a proper class representative, orders enjoining the defendants
and their agents from consummating the proposed transaction unless
and until Parlux adopts and implements a procedure to obtain a
merger agreement providing the best possible terms for the Parlux
stockholders, including conditioning the approval of the merger
agreement on the approving vote of holders of a majority of the
Parlux shares other than those held by Parlux directors and
officers and stockholders related to the Company, rescinding any
terms of the proposed transaction already implemented, and
awarding damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

On January 19, 2012, an individual named Arthur Weill filed a
Motion to Intervene and For Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval as Co-Lead Counsel in the Anderson action, which motion
the Court denied on February 6, 2012.  On February 7, 2012, the
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the Anderson action.  In
the Amended Complaint the claims and defendants remained the same,
but after having reviewed the registration statement jointly filed
by the Company and Parlux on January 23, 2012, plaintiff added
allegations concerning the independent committee of the Parlux
board of directors that she alleges raise questions as to that
committee's impartiality.  The Amended Complaint also adds details
regarding additional information concerning the various analyses
and the underlying methodologies performed or used by the
financial advisors identified in the registration statement, who
rendered fairness opinions to the Parlux board of directors and
its independent committee, that plaintiff alleges should have been
disclosed to Parlux shareholders in order for them to make a fully
informed decision whether to vote in support of the proposed
transaction.  The Amended Complaint also adds allegations
concerning the existence of certain voting agreements by the
members of the Parlux board of directors and other Parlux
shareholders and allegations concerning a decline in the Company's
share price since the announcement of the proposed transaction.

On January 31, 2012 a second putative class complaint, captioned
as Jose Dias v. Fredrick E. Purches, et al., (Case Number 7199
VCG) was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware
on behalf of a purported stockholder of Parlux.  The Dias action
alleges the same claims and operative facts as the Anderson
action, and requests similar relief.  The Dias plaintiff, joined
by the plaintiff in the Anderson action, filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the merger based on
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Parlux board in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement, the alleged
inadequacy of the merger consideration, and Parlux's alleged
failure to make material disclosures relating to the merger.  A
hearing on the motion was held on March 23, 2012.  On April 5,
2012, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in part and denied
it in part.  The Court ordered Parlux and the Company to file with
the SEC certain additional information about the process followed
by the financial advisors to Parlux's board of directors, which
both companies did on April 6, 2012.  The Court did not enjoin the
stockholder meeting scheduled for April 17, 2012, on the condition
the additional information be filed, did not enjoin the
consummation of the merger, and did not grant any other relief.
Discovery in the Dias litigation continues.

On February 9, 2012, a third putative class action complaint,
captioned as Arthur Weill v. Esther Egozi Choukroun, et al., (Case
Number 2012-CV-3508-07) was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida,
on behalf of a purported stockholder of Parlux.  The Weill action
alleges the same claims and operative facts as the Anderson action
and the Dias action and requests similar relief.  Concurrent with
the filing of the Weill action, the plaintiff filed a Motion to
Consolidate Related Cases and for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiff
and Approval of Co-Lead Counsel with respect to the Anderson and
Weill actions.  On February 24, 2012, the Court consolidated the
Anderson and Weill actions.  On
February 29, 2012, the Court also granted the defendants' motion
to stay the consolidated actions in light of the Dias action in
Delaware.

On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff in the Anderson action in Florida,
which has been stayed by order of the Florida Court, filed a new
action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware a
captioned as Shirley Anderson v. Parlux Fragrances, Inc., et al.
(Case Number 7305-VCP), alleging the same facts and claims as were
in her Florida action.  Plaintiff has not served this action on
the Company.  However, the plaintiff in this action joined in the
motion for a preliminary injunction filed in the Dias action.


PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Court Certifies Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Barrett Johnston, LLC on
May 4 issued a notice pursuant to an order of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division:

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
                       NASHVILLE DIVISION

CLASS ACTION
District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

GARDEN CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-00882-WJH

                            Plaintiff, and



        CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND
        SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND,
        Individually and on Behalf of
        All Others Similarly Situated,

                            Lead Plaintiff,
                                         vs.

        PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
                            Defendants.


NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE SECURITIES
OF PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS, INC. ("PSI") BETWEEN FEBRUARY 21, 2008
AND FEBRUARY 25, 2009, INCLUSIVE.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOU MAY BE A MEMBER OF
THE CLASS DESCRIBED HEREIN. AS SUCH, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
BY A LAWSUIT NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT.

This is an important legal notice sent to you by order of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division (referred to as "District Court").  This Notice
is sent to inform you: (1) that this action is pending before
Honorable Judge William J. Haynes, Jr. of the District Court; (2)
that the District Court has determined that this action may
proceed as a class action; (3) how this action may affect your
legal rights; and (4) the steps you may take in relation to the
action.  This Notice is not an expression by the District Court of
any opinion regarding the merits of any of the claims or defenses
asserted by the parties.

1. What Is This Notice And Why Is It Important?

The District Court has certified this lawsuit as a class action.
A class action is a lawsuit in which one or more individual(s) sue
an individual(s), company and/or other entity on behalf of all
other people who are allegedly in a similar position.
Collectively, these people are referred to as a "Class" or "Class
Members."  In a class action, the court resolves certain issues,
legal claims and/or defenses for all Class Members in one lawsuit,
except for those who ask to be excluded from the Class (as
discussed below).  If you purchased or otherwise acquired PSI
securities between February 21, 2008 through February 25, 2009,
inclusive, you may be a Class Member, and if so, this lawsuit will
affect your legal rights. Please read this entire Notice
carefully.

2. What Is This Lawsuit About?

On September 21, 2009, an action entitled Garden City Employees'
Retirement System v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:09-cv-00882 was filed in the District Court.  The Lead Plaintiff
and Class Representative, Central States, Southeast and Southwest
Areas Pension Fund, alleges in its Consolidated Complaint for
Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on June 15, 2010,
that PSI and the individual defendants made materially false and
misleading statements about PSI's risk management and controls
over the operations of its in-patient psychiatric facilities,
including the quality of treatment provided to its patients.  Lead
Plaintiff further alleges that these materially false and
misleading statements caused PSI securities to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

Lead Plaintiff alleges that, on February 25, 2009, PSI announced a
decline in 2008 earnings as a result of rising malpractice claims
and regulatory expenses associated with an investigation into
conditions at two of its hospitals in Illinois, as well as
facilities in California, Texas, Florida, and other states. Lead
Plaintiff further alleges that, on this news, PSI's stock fell
$9.79 per share, losing 35%.  The defendants deny all of the
allegations of wrongdoing asserted in the action and deny any
liability whatsoever to any members of the Class.

Defendants moved to dismiss Lead Plaintiff's complaint, and that
motion was denied on March 31, 2011. Defendants' motion to
reconsider and/or appeal ruling was denied by the District Court.
Fact discovery is now ongoing.

The District Court has not ruled on the merits of Lead Plaintiff's
legal claims or defendants' defenses and the litigation remains
ongoing.  Please note that this Notice does not describe all
claims and defenses asserted by the parties.  The section entitled
"How Do I Find Out More About This Lawsuit?" describes the process
by which you can obtain additional information.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired PSI securities during the
period beginning February 21, 2008 to February 25, 2009,
inclusive, you may be a Class Member, and if so, this lawsuit will
affect your legal rights to sue defendants now and in the future
relating to allegations in this action.  Please read this entire
Notice carefully to decide what to do.

On March 29, 2012, the District Court certified claims in this
lawsuit for class action treatment to be prosecuted by Lead
Plaintiff and Class Representative on behalf of PSI shareholders
who purchased PSI securities between February 21, 2008 and
February 25, 2009, inclusive.  The District Court's order
certifying the Class does not guarantee that Class Members will
receive money or benefits; that will be decided later in the
lawsuit.  In certifying this case as a class action, the District
Court made no decision as to the merits of Lead Plaintiff's legal
claims or defendants' defenses.

Please note that the District Court's order certifying the Class
may later be changed after the parties exchange evidence and the
District Court rules on various legal matters.  In fact, the
District Court may even decertify the Class at any time before the
lawsuit is over.  If the District Court's order certifying the
Class is not revoked later or decertified by the District Court,
all orders of this District Court, whether good or bad for Lead
Plaintiff, will be binding on any Class Member who does not opt
out or exclude themselves.  See page 3 for further discussion.
This includes any judgments entered by the District Court, whether
or not favorable to the Class, which will be binding on all Class
Members who do not exclude themselves.

3. How Do I Know If I Am A Class Member?

According to the District Court's order, you are a Class Member if
you fit this description:

All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired PSI securities
between February 21, 2008 and February 25, 2009, inclusive.
Excluded from the Class are: (i) PSI, its parents, subsidiaries,
and any other entity owned or controlled by PSI; (ii) Joey A.
Jacobs, Jack E. Polson and Brent Turner; (iii) all other executive
officers and directors of PSI or any of its parents, subsidiaries
or other entities owned or controlled by PSI; (iv) all immediate
family members of the foregoing, including grandparents, parents,
spouses, siblings, children, grandchildren and step-relations of
similar degree; and (v) all predecessors and successors-in-
interest or assigns of any of the foregoing.

If you are a Class Member, you must decide to either stay in this
lawsuit or exclude yourself, as described below.  You may enter an
appearance through your own attorney at your own expense if you so
desire.  If you are a legal representative for a deceased's estate
or an individual who is no longer in charge of his or her own
financial matters, and you believe they fall within this
definition, read this Notice carefully to decide what steps to
take on their behalf.

4. If I Am A Class Member, What Are My Options?

If you are a Class Member, you have a right to stay in the case as
a Class Member or be excluded from the lawsuit.  You have to
decide this very soon.

Option 1. Do Nothing. Stay In The Lawsuit.

You have the right to stay in the lawsuit as a Class Member and
await the outcome of the case.  You need to do nothing if you wish
to remain in this lawsuit.  It will cost you nothing.  If you
decide to stay in the lawsuit as a Class Member, you will be bound
by all orders, judgments and decisions of the District Court
whether favorable or unfavorable to you or the Class.  At the end
of the case, you may receive money or other benefits as may be
awarded as a result of a trial or settlement reached between Lead
Plaintiff and defendants, or you may receive nothing.  You do not
need to do anything to keep open the possibility of getting money
or benefits from the lawsuit.

If you stay in the case, Lead Plaintiff will pursue the claims and
remedies on your behalf.  There is no guarantee that Lead
Plaintiff will be successful with its claims and/or win the
lawsuit at trial or before.  If the Class is awarded money or
benefits, you will be notified about how to make a claim for your
share, if any.

The District Court has appointed Lead Plaintiff Central States,
Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund to be Class
Representative and provide evidence on behalf of you and other
Class Members.  The District Court has also appointed the
following lawyers and law firms as Class Counsel for those Class
Members who stay in the lawsuit:

  Dennis J. Herman, Esq.            George E. Barrett, Esq.
  Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.       Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Esq.
  ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP  Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
  Post Montgomery Center            BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC
  One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 217 Second Avenue, North
  San Francisco, CA 94104           Nashville, TN 37201-1601

Web site: http://www.barrettjohnston.com
          http://www.rgrdlaw.com

These lawyers are experienced in handling complex lawsuits on
behalf of large classes of individuals.  More information is
available about Class Counsel on the Web sites listed above.

In the event that Lead Plaintiff is successful through trial or
settlement, Class Counsel will seek attorneys' fees and expenses.
You will not be personally responsible for any fees, costs or
expenses of Class Counsel relating to the prosecution of this
lawsuit.

Please keep in mind that if you do nothing now and stay in the
lawsuit, you will give up your rights to sue defendants separately
in another lawsuit regarding legal claims that are, or could have
been, part of this lawsuit (described below), and your rights to
recover in other lawsuits involving defendants may be impacted.
You also may forego your right to pursue claims based on
alternative legal theories in favor of the theories being pursued
in this case.  You waive your right to bring a separate lawsuit if
you do not exclude yourself from this case.  If you stay in the
case, you will be legally bound by all of the orders that the
District Court issues in this case, including final judgment.

Option 2. Exclude Yourself From The Lawsuit.

Alternatively, you have the right to not be part of this lawsuit
by excluding yourself or "opting out" of the Class.  If you wish
to exclude yourself, you must do so on or before June 15, 2012, as
described below.  If you exclude yourself from the Class, you give
up your right to receive any money or other benefits awarded in
this case, and you will not be bound by any judgments or other
orders of the District Court whether favorable or unfavorable to
you and/or the Class.  However, you will keep your rights, if any,
to sue defendants separately in another lawsuit and bring the same
legal claims that are part of this lawsuit.  If you wish to pursue
this right, you will need to exclude yourself and hire and pay
your own lawyer.  You will also need to bring evidence to prove
your own claims.  If you choose this option, you should talk to a
lawyer soon because your claims may be subject to a statute of
limitations which sets a deadline for filing the lawsuit within a
certain period of time.

5. How Do I Exclude Myself From The Class?

To exclude yourself from this lawsuit and/or preserve your right
to bring a separate case, you must make a request to be excluded
in writing and mail it to:

         Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation
                       Notice Administrator
                         c/o Gilardi & Co.
                           P.O. Box 8040
                     San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
                          1-866-290-5286

All requests for exclusion must be postmarked on or before
June 15, 2012.

Your request for exclusion must contain:

1. The name of the lawsuit (Garden City Employees' Retirement
System v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., et al.);

2. Your full name;

3. Your current address;

4. A clear statement that you wish to be excluded such as: "I
request exclusion from the Class";

5. The number and type of PSI securities you purchased or
otherwise acquired between February 21, 2008 and February 25,
2009, inclusive; and

6. Your signature.

Class Counsel will file your request for exclusion with the
District Court.  If you are signing on behalf of a Class Member
(such as an estate or incompetent person), as a legal
representative please include your full name and the basis for
your authority.

IF YOU DO NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF BY THE DEADLINE ABOVE, YOU WILL
REMAIN PART OF THE CLASS AND BE BOUND BY THE ORDERS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THIS LAWSUIT, INCLUDING FINAL JUDGMENT, WHETHER
OR NOT IT IS FAVORABLE TO LEAD PLAINTIFF AND YOU.

6. How Do I Find Out More About This Lawsuit?

If you have any questions about the lawsuit or any matter raised
in this Notice, please contact Gilardi & Co. LLC at
http://www.gilardi.comor toll free at 1-866-290-5286.  You may
also contact Class Counsel at their Web sites, listed above.

Complete copies of the documents filed in these lawsuits may be
examined and copied at any time during regular office hours at the
Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, located at 801
Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE OR CONTACT THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE CLERK
OF THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

        DATED: April 13, 2012
        BY ORDER OF THE COURT
        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
        MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE


RANCH AND FARM: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
William Browning, writing for jacksonville.com, reports that a
Florida potato farm has been accused of targeting destitute
Jacksonville men to serve as seasonal workers, exploiting their
situations and then not paying them what they were owed, according
to a recently filed lawsuit.

The class-action lawsuit says Bulls-hit Ranch and Farm in Hastings
used a labor contractor who found men at local homeless shelters
and hired them as migrant agricultural workers to work in potato
packing.

The men, the lawsuit says, were taken to the farm in St. Johns
County to work with promises of at least minimum-wage pay, housing
and meals provided at a labor camp.  They were then required to
pay the contractor for the housing and were supplied illegal drugs
they bought on credit, according to the lawsuit.

In addition to the ranch itself, the contractor, Ronald Uzzle, has
been named as a defendant in the lawsuit.  They have not yet
responded in court documents.

A person who answered the phone at Bulls-Hit last week said
Mr. Uzzle is no longer a contractor with the ranch.  The person
said the ranch would not comment further on the lawsuit.

Florida Legal Services and Farmworker Justice filed the lawsuit in
U.S. District Court on behalf of the class, which is estimated to
include at least 50 people.

"You wouldn't think that this type of thing would be happening in
modern times," said Weeun Wang, director of litigation with
Farmworker Justice in Washington, D.C.

According to the lawsuit, the ranch violated "labor recruiting and
employing practices," as well as took part in "human trafficking
activities."  The incidents leading to the claims, according to
court documents, occurred during the 2009 and 2010 potato
harvests.  Dennis Nash and Leroy Smith are the only plaintiffs
named in the lawsuit.

They were paid on a weekly basis, according to the lawsuit.  But
instead of walking away with their total earnings, they had to pay
-- regardless of whether they ate camp-supplied meals -- "for
housing, meals and loans, and the camp's drug dealers required the
workers to pay back credits claimed to be owed for drug
purchases."

The lawsuit says Mr. Uzzle knew of the drug activity and made no
effort to stop it.

"The collections took place under the watch of crew bosses
employed by Mr. Uzzle, and workers were not permitted to leave
their presence without having settled up with the claimants," the
lawsuit states.  "Under these circumstances, plaintiffs believed
that refusal or failure to pay . . . would subject them to
physical harm."

According to the Farmworker Justice Web site, Bulls-hit Ranch and
Farm was sued in 2004 when a different labor contractor conducted
similar practices.

Mr. Wang said apart from recouping wages for the workers, this new
lawsuit aims to put pressure on the ranch and similar ones to stop
violating federal laws that prohibit the exploitation of workers.

"The objective is to put this business model off the table," he
said.


ROCK-TENN COMPANY: Court OKs Smurfit-Stone-related Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement of a class
action lawsuit filed against Rock-Tenn Company in connection with
its acquisition of Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., according to the
Company's March 8, 2012, 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Three complaints on behalf of the same putative class of Smurfit-
Stone stockholders were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
challenging the Company's acquisition of Smurfit-Stone: Marks v.
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et al., Case No. 6164 (filed
February 2, 2011); Spencer v. Moore, et al., Case No. 6299 (filed
March 21, 2011); and Gould v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., et
al., Case No. 6291 (filed March 17, 2011).  On March 24, 2011,
these cases were consolidated under Case No. 6164, plaintiffs
Marks and Spencer were appointed lead plaintiffs, and the
complaint in Spencer was designated as the operative complaint.

In the Spencer complaint, plaintiffs name as defendants RockTenn,
the former members of the Smurfit-Stone board of directors and Sam
Acquisition, LLC (now known as RockTenn CP, LLC, the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiary that is the successor to Smurfit-Stone).
The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the consideration
the Company paid to acquire Smurfit-Stone was inadequate and
unfair to Smurfit-Stone stockholders, that the February 24, 2011
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus contained misleading
or inadequate disclosures regarding the Company's acquisition of
Smurfit-Stone, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in approving its acquisition of Smurfit-Stone and
that those breaches were aided and abetted by us.  On May 2, 2011,
the court granted class certification, appointing the lead
plaintiffs and their counsel to represent a class of all record
and beneficial holders of Smurfit-Stone common stock as of January
23, 2011 or their successors in interest, but excluding the named
defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other
entity related to or affiliated with any of the defendants.
During argument in connection with the preliminary injunction
sought by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs acknowledged that their
claims concerning the adequacy of the disclosures in the February
24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus were moot in
light of subsequent disclosures made by Smurfit-Stone and Rock-
Tenn.  On May 20, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' request
for a preliminary injunction preventing the completion of the
acquisition, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate
a likelihood of success with respect to the merits of their
claims, that the requisite showing of irreparable harm had not
been made and that the balance of the equities counseled against
granting the injunction.  On July 7, 2011, the Company filed a
counterclaim in this case seeking a declaration that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to damages or the imposition of any
other remedy with respect to an error in Smurfit-Stone's proxy
statement relating to appraisal rights.

On October 5, 2011, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
class action with the plaintiffs.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the class will release all claims against the Company
and the former directors of Smurfit-Stone that arise out of the
class members' ownership of Smurfit-Stone shares between the dates
on which the merger was agreed and consummated and that are based
on the merger agreement or the acquisition, disclosures or
statements concerning the merger agreement or the acquisition, or
any of the matters alleged in the lawsuit.  In exchange for these
releases, the Company will grant the former Smurfit-Stone
shareholders (other than those who have already asserted their
appraisal rights) the right to bring and participate in a future
"quasi-appraisal" proceeding in which the court will assess the
value of a share of Smurfit-Stone common stock on a stand-alone
basis as of the closing of the transaction.  The ability of former
Smurfit-Stone shareholders to bring and participate in the future
quasi-appraisal proceeding will be subject to a number of
conditions, including returning to the Company an amount of cash
equal to $41.26 per Smurfit-Stone share if the former shareholder
voted in favor of the merger (representing approximately 73% of
Smurfit-Stone shares outstanding as of the record date) or $6.26
per Smurfit-Stone share if the former shareholder either voted
against the merger (representing approximately 7% of the Smurfit-
Stone shares outstanding as of the record date) or abstained or
did not vote with respect to the merger.  A settlement approval
hearing was held on December 9, 2011, at the conclusion of which
the court took the matter under advisement.

On February 2, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a
Final Order and Judgment approving the proposed settlement of the
class action lawsuit.  Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement and
in accordance with the Judgment, the "Effective Date" occurred on
March 7, 2012 and the "Participation Deadline" is April 9, 2012.


SAINT CATHERINE: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter E. Bortner, writing for republicanherald.com, reports that
two former employees of Saint Catherine Medical Center Fountain
Springs sued the bankrupt hospital's former presidents, and the
sponsor of two benefit programs, on May 2 in federal court for
allegedly allowing money to be diverted from three such plans.

Maryann Shadler, of Pottsville, alleged that Daniel A. Colon and
Merlyn Knapp allowed the hospital to use money intended for her
401(k) plan for other purposes in violation of their duties as
trustees of that plan.

"Knapp and Colon took no steps to prevent, discourage or report
(the hospital's) misappropriation of funds," the lawsuit alleges.

Also, Ms. Shadler and Janet Stavinski, Frackville, sued Specialty
Health LLC, Ashland, for allegedly allowing the hospital to divert
money from their short-term disability and medical/dental/vision
insurance benefit plans toward other unspecified uses.

They asked the court to order a complete accounting of the plans
and their assets, restitution of all losses, an injunction to
require the defendants to correct their improper actions and
payment of costs, expenses and attorney fees.

They also asked the court to allow the lawsuit to be certified as
a class-action on behalf of all former hospital employees who
participated in the plans, a total they say numbers more than 100
people.

"We think we have a good chance to get it certified as a class
action," Peter Winebrake, Dresher, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers,
said on May 3.

Ms. Shadler and Ms. Stavinski are two of about 150 Saint Catherine
employees who lost their jobs when the Butler Township hospital
filed for bankruptcy April 9.

That proceeding is pending before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John J.
Thomas, Wilkes-Barre.  On April 18, Judge Thomas ordered the case
changed from a reorganization by Chapter 11, under which the
hospital had filed it, to a Chapter 7 liquidation.

While lawsuits against parties that file for bankruptcy are
automatically halted under federal law, Ms. Shadler and
Ms. Stavinski said theirs can proceed because they did not name
the hospital as a defendant or make any claim against it.

A spokeswoman for William G. Schwab, Lehighton, the trustee in the
Saint Catherine bankruptcy case, said on May 3 that he had not
received notice of Ms. Shadler and Ms. Stavinski's lawsuit.

Mr. Winebrake said that he probably will file a claim with the
bankruptcy court on behalf of the plaintiffs against the hospital.

Ms. Shadler and Ms. Stavinski alleged in that lawsuit that Colon
and Knapp were fiduciaries with respect to the 401(k) plan and
Specialty Health was a fiduciary with respect to the disability
and insurance benefit plans.

As fiduciaries, Mr. Colon, Ms. Knapp and Specialty Health owed
special obligations under the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to the plaintiffs and all beneficiaries of
the plans to act exclusively in their interest and for their
benefit, according to the lawsuit.

"Defendants breached their fiduciary duties" by improperly
monitoring the plans, failing to prevent misappropriation of
contributions to the plans and not telling participants in the
plans of the misconduct, according to the lawsuit.  "Plaintiffs
and other plan participants have suffered monetary loss and other
damages."

Furthermore, as fiduciaries, the defendants are personally liable
for all losses suffered by participants in the plans, the lawsuit
reads in part.

Concerning the status as a possible class-action lawsuit, the
plaintiffs alleged that they will fairly represent the class, have
claims typical of other class members and have no interests
against those members.

"Questions of law and fact are common to all class members, since
this action concerns the legality of defendants' common conduct,
as applied to all class members," the lawsuit reads in part.

Furthermore, a class-action lawsuit is the best way to resolve the
litigation, according to the lawsuit.

"The complaint speaks for itself," Michael J. O'Connor,
Frackville, another of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said on May 3,
"It's a basic American principle that people should be paid for an
honest day's work."


SCBT FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCBT Financial Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's April 18, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 17, 2012, SCBT Financial Corporation, a South Carolina
corporation ("SCBT"), entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other named defendants regarding
the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of South Carolina, Thirteenth Judicial
District, County of Pickens (the "Court"), as well as the
settlement of all related claims that were or could have been
asserted in other actions, in response to the announcement of the
execution of an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December
19, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and between SCBT and Peoples
Bancorporation, Inc., a South Carolina corporation ("Peoples").
Pursuant to, and subject to the terms and conditions of, the
Merger Agreement, Peoples will merge with and into SCBT, with SCBT
as the surviving entity following the merger (the "Merger").

A purported shareholder of Peoples filed a class action lawsuit in
the Court, captioned F. Davis Arnette and Mary F. Arnette, et al.
v. Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2012-CP-
39-0064 (SC Ct. Com. Pl.) (the "Lawsuit").  The Complaint names as
defendants Peoples, the current members of Peoples' board of
directors (the "Director Defendants") and SCBT.

Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT, Peoples, the Director Defendants
and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Lawsuit and release
the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to
approval by the Court.  If the Court approves the settlement
contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SCBT and Peoples
have agreed to make available additional information to Peoples
shareholders.  In return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the
dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice and to withdraw all
motions filed in connection with the Lawsuit.  The parties to the
MOU have not had any discussions regarding potential fees and
expenses of the plaintiffs' attorneys; however, the parties have
agreed to engage in good faith negotiations regarding an award of
such fees and expenses.  The defendants have reserved all rights
to oppose the amount of any petition by the plaintiffs and their
attorneys for an award of fees and expenses in the event that the
parties are unable to reach agreement on such an award.  The
parties to the MOU have agreed that final resolution by the Court
of any fee petition will not be a precondition to the dismissal of
the Lawsuit.  If the MOU is finally approved by the Court, it is
anticipated that the MOU will resolve and release all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosures
made in connection therewith.  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 consideration to be paid to
Peoples shareholders in connection with the Merger or the timing
of the special meeting of Peoples shareholders, which was
scheduled for April 24, 2012, in Easley, South Carolina, to
consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement,
among other things.

SCBT, Peoples and the Director Defendants deny each of the
allegations in the Lawsuit and believe the prior disclosures in
the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate under applicable law.
Peoples and the Director Defendants have informed SCBT that they
maintain that they have complied with their fiduciary duty and
other applicable legal duties in all respects in connection with
the Merger and any disclosure obligations in connection therewith.
SCBT, Peoples and the Director Defendants have agreed to settle
the Lawsuit in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce the
risk of any delay to the completion of the Merger.  Nothing in
this Current Report or any stipulation of settlement shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein or
therein.


SEFER AJDINI: Faces Suit For Chicago RLTO Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Lilian Obilor, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Sefer Ajdini, Case No. 2012-CH-16368
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 20, 2012) alleges violations of
the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance by the
Defendant.

The Defendant, who is Ms. Obilor's landlord, violated the RLTO by
failing to provide her with a summary of the RLTO, notes the
complaint.  Ms. Obilor also alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay interest on her $800 security deposit, in violation of the
RLTO.

Ms. Obilor entered into a rental agreement for a dwelling unit in
a multiple-unit residential apartment building located in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Defendant is the owner and landlord of the apartment building.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Spinak, Esq.
          SPINAK & BABCOCK, P.C.
          134 N. LaSalle, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-1337


SUNOPTA INC: Awaits Final Approval of Vargas Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
SunOpta Inc. is awaiting final court approval of an agreement to
settle a class action lawsuit filed against the Company over
alleged violations of California's labor laws, according to the
Company's March 7, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In September 2008, a single plaintiff and a former employee filed
a wage and hour dispute, against the Company and SunOpta Fruit
Group, Inc., as a class action alleging various violations of
California's labor laws (the "Vargas Class Action").  A tentative
settlement of all claims was reached at mediation on January 15,
2010 and the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving all
claims of the class.  On February 15, 2011, the terms of the
proposed settlement were preliminarily approved by the court.  As
a result of the tentative settlement, $1,200 was accrued for a
common fund to pay claims. Claim Forms totaling $315 were
submitted against the common fund. Disbursements of $688 were made
from the common fund to claimants to pay timely claims and to
plaintiff's counsel and others to pay statutory attorneys fees,
costs and administrative expenses. Thereafter, $512 of the
original common fund was returned to the Company, resulting in a
recapture gain.


TACO BELL: Faces Overtime Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
Alexander Eichler, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that a
former shift manager at Taco Bell is bringing a class-action suit
against the restaurant chain, claiming that employees are
regularly forced to work overtime hours without pay, according to
a report at Law360.

Plaintiff Alicia Sloan, who was a shift manager at Taco Bell for
eight years, says that Taco Bell managers in Florida often shave
hours from employees' time cards, meaning workers don't get paid
for all of the hours they work.  Ms. Sloan also says the managers
themselves are sometimes forced to take on unpaid hours, according
to Law360.

Taco Bell's not unique in allegedly not paying workers for
overtime.  In recent years, more companies have faced lawsuits
from workers claiming they haven't gotten their fair share of
overtime pay.  These kinds of suits have continued to climb even
in the wake of the Great Recession -- an economic crisis that
allowed many employers to demand higher performance from their
desperate workers, while not paying them much more than before.

Nor is this the first time Taco Bell has faced these kinds of
accusations.  In fact, the scenario sounds like an old controversy
that's been reheated.

In a similar case in 1997, a court found Taco Bell guilty of
failing to pay overtime to thousands of employees in Washington
state.  Four years later, workers in Oregon brought a successful
class-action suit against Taco Bell, making claims very similar to
Alicia Sloan's -- that Taco Bell managers would tweak employees'
time cards and not pay them the overtime wages they were owed.

And in 2010, workers sued Tacala, an Alabama franchisee that runs
more than 100 Taco Bell locations in six states, for the same
thing -- altering work records and not paying over time.

In addition Taco Bell, other major companies have been accused of
withholding rightful overtime pay from their employees including
Starbucks (at least twice), IBM, Wal-Mart, Groupon and Bank of
America.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces 2nd Suit Over Oil Change Recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gnanh Nora Krouch, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-02217 (N.D. Calif., May 2, 2012) is
brought on behalf of a class of California consumers, who own
automobiles where the manufacturers' recommended interval between
oil changes is 5,000 miles or greater but have been told by Wal-
Mart that their car required an oil change within 3,000 miles.

The Defendant's conduct violates the California Unfair Competition
Law and constitutes unjust enrichment under California law, Ms.
Krouch alleges.  She adds that Wal-Mart's conduct is flatly
prohibited by the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which
prohibits representing that a part, replacement, or repair service
is needed when it is not.

Ms. Krouch is a resident of Oakland, California.

Wal-Mart, a Delaware corporation, operates a national chain of
retail stores throughout California and the United States of
America, many of which offer oil changes to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: cand.uscourt@classcounsel.com
                  gn@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Esq.
          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN LAW
          518 East Tyler Street
          Athens, TX 75751
          Telephone: (903) 677-5333, ext. 210
          Facsimile: (903) 677-3657
          Email: bonner@longhornlawyer.com


WATTS WATER: Sued Over Faulty Toilet Water Line Connectors
----------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners across the nation who have experienced unexpected
property damage from flooding due to faulty toilet water line
connectors may find drier days ahead as a result of a complaint
against the manufacturer filed by Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett &
Bendesky.

The Complaint (Case Number 4:12-cv-01172), which seeks class
action status, requests relief for all consumers who have suffered
damage or who have the defective toilet water line connectors in
their homes.  A toilet water connector line connects a property's
water shut off valve to the toilet.  When the defective connector
cracks and fails, water flows freely throughout a home.  The
complaint seeks to redress the tens of millions in property damage
allegedly caused by the defective toilet connector as well as
replacement of the faulty connectors that will inevitably fail.

The allegedly defective toilet water line connector, installed in
hundreds of thousands of homes, is produced by a subsidiary of
Watts Water Technologies Inc. and sold through plumbing suppliers
and home centers nationwide.  It's allegedly flawed design poses a
silent threat of premature failure resulting in catastrophic,
costly water damage, according to the Complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  In
addition, it is alleged that Watts knew of the connector's high
failure risk and secretly modified its design, yet failed to warn
buyers or recall the Chinese-made product from the U.S. market.

"The significant and documented water damage caused last year to
the homes of lead plaintiffs Jason Trabakoolas and Sheila Stetson
is an indication of how this concealed defect can cause
devastation to a home," said Patrick Howard, a member of SMBB's
class action practice group.  He said anyone in the U.S.,
including the greater Philadelphia area that has a Watts connector
is invited to learn more about the litigation, and discuss options
available to them by contacting him at 215-496-8282
phoward@smbb.com

Mr. Howard noted that the complaint asserts that the manufacturer,
based in North Andover, Massachusetts, resorted to what amounts to
a cover-up when it introduced a new, improved and more expensive
model while concealing the high failure rate of the inferior
product that forms the basis of the class action.  "It is time
that Watts and the other defendants acknowledged this problem,"
commented Mr. Howard.  "Unsuspecting homeowners who have put, and
continue to put, their trust in this defective plumbing product
deserve to know that this problem exists and that it is
preventable."


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Ohio Consumers' Class Certification Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Selbin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and
the court-appointed lead attorney for the class, announced that a
unanimous panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 3
upheld the order of U.S. District Court Judge James S. Gwin of the
Northern District of Ohio granting class certification to Ohio
consumers who allege that Whirlpool Corporation sold them front-
loading washing machines that are prone to grow mold and produce
foul odors in ordinary use.

Mr. Selbin commented, "The Court of Appeals [Thurs] day reaffirmed
that when a company knowingly sells a defective product to
thousands of consumers, those consumers are entitled to band
together as a class to hold the company accountable."  Mr. Selbin
added, "We are gratified that our clients and the thousands of
consumers like them will have their day in court."

In reaching its decision, the appellate court stated, "[W]e have
no difficulty affirming the district court's finding that common
questions predominate over individual ones and that the class
action mechanism is the superior method to resolve these claims
fairly and efficiently.  This is especially true since class
members are not likely to file individual actions because the cost
of litigation would dwarf any potential recovery." (Opinion, page
15.)

                  Background on the Litigation

Plaintiffs charge that Whirlpool's Duet(R), Duet HT(R),
DuetSport(R), and DuetSportHT(R) front-load washing machines ("the
Duets") contain a design defect that results in the growth of mold
or mildew in the machines, ruined laundry, and foul odors.
Plaintiffs further allege that although they and other consumers
have spent time and money trying to remedy these problems, none of
those supposed remedies -- many recommended by Whirlpool itself --
have done so.

On July 12, 2010, Judge Gwin certified a class comprised of
current Ohio residents who purchased one of the specified Duets in
Ohio primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and not
for resale, and who bring legal claims for tortious breach of
warranty, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn.
Whirlpool Corporation then appealed that decision, and argument
was held in January 2012.  The Sixth Circuit's opinion affirming
the district court was released today, and can be found at
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/cases.php?CaseID=126

In addition to the claims for Ohio consumers, consumers from many
other states have also brought claims that are now pending before
Judge Gwin, and for which class certification will be sought.
Similar cases are also pending against other defendants for the
same defect, including two in which Lieff Cabraser is counsel,
Butler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., , Nos. 1:06-CV-7023, 1:07-CV-
0412 & 1:08-CV-1832 (N.D. Ill.), and In Re: LG Front Loading
Washing Machine Class Action Litigation, No. 08-51 (D. N.J.).

Consumers who have experienced mold or odor problems with their
Whirlpool, Sears/Kenmore or LG front load washers can report
problems at: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/forms.php?id=397

Duet(R), Duet HT(R), DuetSport(R), and DuetSportHT(R) are
registered trademarks of Whirlpool Corporation and used for
product identification and informational purposes only.

Contact: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         Telephone: (212) 355-9500
         E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com


WRIGLEY JR: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------
Chris Micheletti, writing for Supemarket News, reports that the
onslaught of health claim-related false advertising lawsuit
filings against food and beverage producers continues --
particularly in California federal courts.  Cases recently filed
against Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. and The Hershey Co. illustrate class
action plaintiffs' lawyers' increasingly sophisticated attacks on
food companies' nutrient content claims.

In the Wrigley case, the plaintiffs allege that Wrigley's "sugar
free" and "sugarless" claims made on certain gum and hard candy
products are misleading because the products contain calorie
levels that are too high according to federal labeling
regulations.  They also claim that the products do not contain a
disclaimer that, for example, the product is "not for weight
control," a requirement plaintiffs assert is triggered by federal
regulations as well.  Plaintiffs also assert that Wrigley
misstates the true serving size of the products and falsely
conveys that the product has fewer calories per serving than it
actually has.

Plaintiffs in the Hershey case -- who are represented by the same
set of lawyers as in the Wrigley case and whose claims were filed
in the same court on the same day -- also challenge nutrient
content claims made on Hershey's dark chocolate and cocoa products
labeling and its Web sites.  The labeling of these products notes
that, for example, "cocoa is a natural source of flavanol
antioxidants."  Relying again on federal regulations, the
plaintiffs claim that Hershey cannot make reference to
antioxidants at all because there is no recommended daily intake
amounts for flavonoids and because there is insufficient proof
that flavonoids convey the health benefits asserted.

Also, plaintiffs claim that because the products contain certain
levels of sodium and saturated fat, Hershey cannot make the
antioxidant claims without also making a saturated fat disclosure
statement required by federal regulations.

What do these recent filings mean for food and beverage makers
touting the health benefits of their products? Are these
complaints "more of the same" or are they opening a new wave in
the false advertising cases onslaught?

Unlike many of the more simple cases filed over the past few
years, these complaints rely heavily on federal regulations
governing nutrient claims.  These cases make it clear that
plaintiff lawyers are now meticulously scouring food labels for
nutrient-based claims that might run afoul of highly detailed and
technical federal labeling requirements.  Once alleged violations
of federal regulations are located, they provide a basis for
alleging false advertising claims under plaintiff-friendly
California laws.

With these and other recent filings, food and beverage company
marketing departments must be ever-vigilant in ensuring that they
have followed all applicable regulations and included all
necessary disclaimers that might be triggered by health-related
nutrient claims and other label statements.  So long as food and
beverage makers continue to tout their products' health benefits,
there will be no shortage of plaintiff lawyers willing to fly-
speck labels for potential claims and these cases will continue to
be filed.


                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *