CAR_Public/120516.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 96

                             Headlines

ANZ BANK: High Court to Hear Class Action Over "Exception Fees"
APOLLO GLOBAL: Antitrust Law Violations Suit Remains Pending
APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in California
APPLE INC: Disputes iPod Antitrust Class Action
AVIS BUDGET: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over ETD Convenience Fees

BEST BUY: Geek Squad Workers File Wage & Hour Class Action
BOEING CO: Awaits Rulings on Summary Judgment Bids in Ill. Suit
BOEING CO: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violation Suits in Kansas
BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Order Denying Reconsideration Bid
C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Various Product Liability Lawsuits

CANADA: Injured Soldiers to File Benefits Class Action
CARMAX INC: Appeal From Order Compelling Arbitration Pending
CHARLES SCHWAB: Loses Bid to Halt FINRA Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Pomerantz Provides Update on Class Action
COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Faces Acquisition-Related Suit in Delaware

COOPER COMPANIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Calif.
COPART INC: Continues to Defend "Ortiz-Torres" Class Suit
COPART INC: Continues to Defend "Brizuela" Class Suit
COWEN GROUP: N.Y. Court Okayed "LaBranche" Suit Settlement in Feb.
COWEN GROUP: To Pay Portion of CalPERS Suit Settlement

DAVEY TREE: Awaits Approval of Settle "Ely" Suit Settlement
DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs
EASYLINK SERVICES: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Says
FELTEX: Demand for Litigation Fund Expects to Increase
GREAT SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Missouri

HI-TECH PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Weight-Loss Product
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HULU: Sued for Disclosing Users' Viewing Habits to Third Parties
KENNETH COLE: Faces Class Suits Arising from Founder's Proposal
MAKO SURGICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action

MEDICAL SOCIETY OF DELAWARE: Reinstated as Defendant in Abuse Suit
MEDIMMUNE BIOLOGICS: Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
MERCK: Slater & Gordon Seeks Trading Halt Ahead of Court Ruling
NOKIA CORPORATION: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
PATHEON INC: Units Face Suit Over Alleged Defective Product

PRUCO LIFE: Appeal From "Phillips" Suit Dismissal Pending
QIAO XING: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: IPO-Related Suit Settled in January
SCBT FINANCIAL: Faces Merger-related Class Suit
SMITHFIELD FOODS: "Engel" Suit Trial Set for October 9

TORO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Canada
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Defective Water Mgmt. System of Audi
WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Part of Homeowners' Class Action


                          *********

ANZ BANK: High Court to Hear Class Action Over "Exception Fees"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the High Court will
hear a class action by customers of the ANZ Bank alleging it
charged excessive fees for overdrafts, overdrawn accounts,
dishonor fees and over-the-limit credit card accounts.

High Court judges agreed on May 10 to take the case rather than
leave it in the Federal Court.

Lawyer Paul Gillett, a senior associate with law firm Maurice
Blackburn, said this was an important victory for those involved
in the class action, allowing it to bypass the Federal Court to go
straight to where it ultimately needed to be heard, in the High
Court.

"This decision will save time, money and resources for the courts
and the parties involved, allowing everyone's energies to be
better spent," he said in a statement.

"These class actions against unfair bank charges are the largest
in Australia's history -- more than AUD220 million for fees
charged against around 170,000 customers from eight banks and it
continues to grow."

The case relates to what are termed "exception fees" charged by
the ANZ and other major banks for late payments on credit cards
and for having insufficient money in business and personal
transaction accounts.

Maurice Blackburn is arguing that those fees far exceed the cost
to the banks.

The current action relates only to ANZ but the firm has launched
similar actions against other banks and has set up a Web site to
encourage others to join the case.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Antitrust Law Violations Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action brought against Apollo Global Management
LLC for alleged violations of U.S. antitrust laws is still
pending, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 16, 2008, Apollo was joined as a defendant in a pre-
existing purported class action pending in Massachusetts federal
court against, among other defendants, numerous private equity
firms.  The suit alleges that beginning in mid-2003, Apollo and
the other private equity firm defendants violated the U.S.
antitrust laws by forming "bidding clubs" or "consortia" that,
among other things, rigged the bidding for control of various
public corporations, restricted the supply of private equity
financing, fixed the prices for target companies at artificially
low levels, and allocated amongst themselves an alleged market for
private equity services in leveraged buyouts.  The suit seeks
class action certification, declaratory and injunctive relief,
unspecified damages, and attorneys' fees.

On August 27, 2008, Apollo and its co-defendants moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint and on November 20, 2008, the Court granted
Apollo's motion.  The Court also dismissed two other defendants,
Permira and Merrill Lynch.  In an order dated August 18, 2010, the
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to
expand the complaint and to obtain additional discovery.  The
Court ruled that plaintiffs could amend the complaint and obtain
discovery in a second discovery phase limited to eight additional
transactions.  The Court gave the plaintiffs until September 17,
2010 to amend the complaint to include the additional eight
transactions.  On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to amend the complaint by adding the additional eight
transactions and adding Apollo as a defendant.  On October 6,
2010, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to file the fourth
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, filed on
October 7, 2010, adds Apollo Global Management, LLC, as a
defendant. On November 4, 2010, Apollo moved to dismiss, arguing
that the claims against Apollo are time-barred and that the
allegations against Apollo are insufficient to state an antitrust
conspiracy claim.  On February 17, 2011, the Court denied Apollo's
motion to dismiss, ruling that Apollo should raise the statute of
limitations issues on summary judgment after discovery is
completed. Apollo filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint
on March 21, 2011.  On July 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint that adds ten
additional transactions and expands the scope of the class seeking
relief.  On September 7, 2011, the Court denied the motion for
leave to amend without prejudice and gave plaintiffs permission to
take limited discovery on the ten additional transactions.  The
Court set April 17, 2012, as the deadline for completing all fact
discovery.

Currently, Apollo does not believe that a loss from liability in
this case is either probable or reasonably estimable.  The Court
granted Apollo's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' initial complaint
in 2008, ruling that Apollo was released from the only transaction
in which it allegedly was involved.  While plaintiffs have
survived Apollo's motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint,
the Court stated in denying the motion that it will consider the
statute of limitations (one of the bases for Apollo's motion to
dismiss) at the summary judgment stage.  Based on the applicable
statute of limitations, among other reasons, Apollo believes that
plaintiffs' claims lack factual and legal merit.  For these
reasons, no estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time.


APPLE INC: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. said in its April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012, that antitrust class action lawsuits remain
pending in California.

The related cases, Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation
(formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple
Computer, Inc.), and Somers v. Apple Inc., have been filed on
January 3, 2005, July 21, 2006, and December 31, 2007, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect
purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store content, alleging various
claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and video
purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and
unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power and
unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act,
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California monopolization law.  Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class, treble damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys fees.  Plaintiffs are also seeking digital rights
management ("DRM") free versions of any songs downloaded from
iTunes or an order requiring the Company to license its DRM to all
competing music players.  The cases are currently pending.


APPLE INC: Disputes iPod Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Andy Vuong, writing for Denver Post, reports that if you are among
the millions of consumers who purchased an iPod between September
2006 and March 2009, you are likely a party to a class-action
lawsuit filed against Apple.

The lawsuit claims that the Cupertino, Calif.-based company
violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in
2006 for iPods that prevented the music players from playing songs
not purchased on iTunes.  It alleges that the software updates
caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have
been, according to an e-mail that's being sent last week to
consumers who are believed to have purchased an iPod during the
three-year period.

Apple denies any wrongdoing and asserts that the software updates
improved its products and had no effect on iPod prices.

A federal court in the Northern District of California ruled late
last year that the case could proceed as a class action.  A list
of iPod models that are covered by the class definition is
available at ipodlawsuit.com.

To be removed from the class, you must mail an "exclusion request"
by July 30 to Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, c/o Rust
Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 8038, Faribault, MN 55021-943.

If you haven't received an e-mail notifying that you're a member
of the class and you believe you qualify, you can send a letter to
the same address above.  But even if Apple decides to settle the
case, don't expect to receive an award of any significance.

A multimillion dollar Ticketmaster class-action settlement reached
last year led to $1.50 coupon codes for most of the impacted
consumers.  As a reader noted in the Ticketmaster blog post, the
more significant benefit for consumers from these types of class-
action suits is that they may deter companies from engaging in
allegedly anti-consumer activity.


AVIS BUDGET: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over ETD Convenience Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that drivers who
rent E-ZPass-equipped cars from Avis get a surprise "convenience
fee" on their bills, justified by vague legalese that the company
slips into the fine print, a class claims in court.

"While other taxes and fees are disclosed in the rental agreement
and other documents, the fees for using the ETD are not disclosed
in the rental agreement or during the rental process," according
to the lawsuit in New York County Supreme Court, which abbreviates
the more general name for electronic toll-collection devices.

"Defendant has improperly charged Plaintiff an ETD 'convenience
fee,' in New York State, in addition to actual toll charges,
without proper disclosure.

"Defendant has continued to improperly charge customers without
disclosure."

Lead plaintiff Jodd Readick says the rental contract tries to
sneak proper notice through fine print that states: "If you use a
car with automatic toll payment capability, you will pay us or our
toll program administrator for all tolls incurred during your
rental period and all related fees, charges and penalties."

But this language is "deliberately ambiguous," Mr. Readick says.
"Even if deemed to have knowledge of this section (after agreeing
to so many specific fees in other documents), the language is
deliberately ambiguous," according to the complaint (parentheses
in original).  "A reasonable person could easily conclude that the
'related fees, charges and penalties' are based on the actual
costs of the device which could mean the actual tolls and other
charges for the proper (or improper) use of the device (e.g.
backing up in the toll lane or some other fineable behavior).  A
reasonable consumer could easily interpret the term 'related fees,
charges and penalties' to mean charges relating to the tolls, not
charges related to the rental of the ETD (which are nowhere
mentioned).  Had Defendants' wanted to clearly let people know
that there was an additional rental cost to using the ETD, they
could have easily done so."

Mr. Readick estimates that more than 1,000 drivers could have been
misled.

The lawsuit seeks class action damages for violation of New York
General Business Law, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Readick v. Avis Budget Group Inc., et
al., Index No. 651517/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/11/Convenient.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Ginsberg, Esq.
          Ted McCullough, Esq.
          MCCULLOUGH GINSBERG MONTANO & PARTNERS LLP
          320 East 53rd Street, Suite 100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 435-0300
          E-mail: tmccullough@mgpllp.com


BEST BUY: Geek Squad Workers File Wage & Hour Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
According to Huffington Post's Harry Bradford, Law360 reports that
Geek Squad workers have filed a class action lawsuit against
parent company Best Buy, alleging they were forced to work off the
clock and without rest periods.  The case is the second lawsuit
filed by lead plaintiff Chris Bonnel against Best Buy, after the
first failed to show the full extent of Mr. Bonnel's claims
against the electronics store chain.

Lawsuits accusing employers of not paying their workers properly
have exploded in the last few years, as recession layoffs required
employers to lean more heavily on fewer workers.  In 2011,
companies in the S&P 500 made $420,000 in revenue per employee,
the Fiscal Times reports, even as worker output grew and real
wages fell.  During the same year, workers filed 7,006 lawsuits
relating to wage and hour violations in federal courts, according
to the Fiscal Times.  That's a 32 percent increase from 2008 and a
378 percent increase from 2000.

Indeed, between 1979 and 2009 worker wages increased by just 10.1
percent compared to an 80% increase in worker productivity,
according to a 2011 report by the Economic Policy Institute.

Several recent lawsuits have claimed high profile companies aren't
giving employees the wages they deserve.  Walmart was fined $4.8
million by the Labor Department for not paying some workers their
fair share of overtime wages.  Drug company Novartis settled for
$99 million over unpaid overtime, while lawsuits relating similar
claims are pending at Taco Bell and GlaxoSmithkline.

But there's also a whole other class of workers that's claiming
companies haven't provided adequate compensation: unpaid interns.
A league of interns led by Diana Wang, a former intern at Harper's
Bazaar, recently filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the
Hearst Corporation -- Harper's parent company -- broke labor laws
by having her work as many as 55 hours a week without
compensation, TIME reports.


BOEING CO: Awaits Rulings on Summary Judgment Bids in Ill. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company is awaiting court decisions on its motions for
summary judgment in the class action lawsuit pending in Illinois,
according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On October 13, 2006, the Company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois.  Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in The Boeing
Company Voluntary Investment Plan (the VIP), alleged that fees and
expenses incurred by the VIP were and are unreasonable and
excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the VIP and its
participants, and were undisclosed to participants.  The
plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), and sought
injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section 502(a)(3) of
ERISA.  During the first quarter of 2010, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals granted a stay of trial proceedings in the
district court pending resolution of an appeal made by Boeing in
2008 to the case's class certification order.  On January 21,
2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's class
certification order and decertified the class.  The Seventh
Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.  On March 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended motion
for class certification and a supplemental motion on August 7,
2011.  Boeing's opposition to class certification was filed on
September 6, 2011.  Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of class
certification was filed on September 27, 2011.  This issue is
fully briefed and awaits district court determination.

Boeing's motions for summary judgment based on ERISA's statute of
repose and for summary judgment on the merits were both filed on
December 21, 2011.  Plaintiffs' oppositions to the merits and
statute of limitations motions were filed on February 6, 2012.
Boeing reply briefs were filed on March 7, 2012.

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss,
if any, that may result from this matter given the current
procedural status of the litigation.


BOEING CO: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violation Suits in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company continues to defend two class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, according to the Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two pending class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas, each related to the 2005 sale of the Company's former
Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit).  The first
action involves allegations that Spirit's hiring decisions
following the sale were tainted by age discrimination, violated
ERISA, violated the Company's collective bargaining agreements,
and constituted retaliation.  The case was brought in 2006 as a
class action on behalf of individuals not hired by Spirit.  During
the second quarter of 2010, the court granted summary judgment in
favor of Boeing and Spirit on all class action claims.  Following
certain procedural motions, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 10, 2011, and are
seeking to stay all remaining individual claims in the district
court pending resolution of the appeal.  Plaintiffs' appellate
brief was filed on November 14, 2011.  Boeing's appellate brief
was filed on January 20, 2012.

The second action, initiated in 2007, alleges collective
bargaining agreement breaches and ERISA violations in connection
with alleged failures to provide benefits to certain former
employees of the Wichita facility.  Written discovery closed by
joint stipulation of the parties on June 6, 2011.  Depositions
concluded on August 18, 2011.  Plaintiffs' partial motion for
summary judgment was filed on December 9, 2011.  Boeing's
opposition and dispositive motions were filed on February 10,
2012.  Spirit has agreed to indemnify Boeing for any and all
losses in the first action, with the exception of claims arising
from employment actions prior to January 1, 2005.

While Spirit has acknowledged a limited indemnification obligation
in the second action, the Company believes that Spirit is
obligated to indemnify Boeing for any and all losses in the second
action.


BOEING CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Order Denying Reconsideration Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed from an order denying their motion for the
court's reconsideration of the dismissal of their securities class
action lawsuit against The Boeing Company, according to the
Company's April 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

On November 13, 2009, plaintiff shareholders filed a putative
securities fraud class action against The Boeing Company and two
of its senior executives in federal district court in Chicago.
This lawsuit arose from the Company's June 2009 announcement that
the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be postponed due to a
need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the
aircraft.  Plaintiffs contended that the Company was aware before
June 2009 that the first flight could not take place as scheduled
due to issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and
that the Company's determination not to announce this delay
earlier resulted in an artificial inflation of its stock price for
a multi-week period in May and June 2009.  On March 7, 2011, the
Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On March 19, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to
reconsider that order.  On April 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal.

In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar
shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule for
the 787 Dreamliner that closely track the allegations in the
putative class action lawsuit.  Two of the lawsuits were filed in
Illinois state court and have been consolidated.  The remaining
derivative lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Chicago.
No briefing or discovery has yet taken place in any of these
lawsuits.  Status hearings are set for July 17, 2012, in the
federal derivative case and for June 25, 2012, in the consolidated
state derivative case.

The Company believes the allegations in all of these cases are
without merit, and it intends to contest the cases vigorously.
The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter given the current procedural
status of the litigation.


C.R. BARD: Continues to Defend Various Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. continues to defend itself in numerous product
liability lawsuits, according to the Company's April 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

As of April 19, 2012, approximately 1,930 federal and 1,460 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,540
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and four putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, have been filed or asserted against the Company with
respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia
repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product
Claims").  One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates ten
previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits.  The putative class
actions, none of which has been certified, seek (i) medical
monitoring, (ii) compensatory damages, (iii) punitive damages,
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.  Approximately 1,440 of the state lawsuits,
involving individual claims by a substantially equivalent number
of plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.  The Company
voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)
Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005.

In June 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in
federal courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court
subsequently determined to include other hernia repair products of
the Company in the MDL proceeding.  The first MDL trial was
completed in April 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the Company
based on the jury's finding that the Company was not liable for
the plaintiff's damages.  The second MDL trial was completed in
August 2010 and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff of $1.5
million.  On June 30, 2011, the Company announced that it had
reached agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms
to settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims.
Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs.  In addition, the Company is
engaging in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and
intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation.  Additional trials are
scheduled throughout 2012.  Based on these events, the Company
incurred a charge of $184.3 million ($180.6 million after tax) in
the second quarter of 2011, which recognized the estimated costs
of settling all Hernia Product Claims, including asserted and
unasserted claims, and costs to administer the settlements.  The
charge excludes any costs associated with pending putative class
action lawsuits.  The Company cannot give any assurances that the
actual costs incurred with respect to the Hernia Product Claims
will not exceed the amount of the charge together with amounts
previously accrued.  The Company cannot give any assurances that
the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled,
including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class
action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.

As of April 19, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 650 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of certain of the Company's surgical continence products for
women, principally its Avaulta(R) line of products (collectively,
the "Women's Health Product Claims").  The Women's Health Product
Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from
use of the products.  With respect to certain of these claims, the
Company believes that one of its suppliers has an obligation to
defend and indemnify the Company.  In February 2012, the JPML
expanded the scope of and renamed the MDL pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
to include lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence
products that are manufactured or distributed by the Company.  In
total, approximately 510 of the Women's Health Product Claims are
pending in federal courts and have been or will be transferred to
the MDL in West Virginia, with the remainder of the Women's Health
Product Claims in other jurisdictions.  The Company expects the
first trial of a Women's Health Product Claim to take place in the
second quarter of 2012.  While the Company intends to vigorously
defend the Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

As of April 19, 2012, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 60 plaintiffs have been filed
or asserted against the Company in various federal and state
jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use
of the Company's vena cava filter products.  In addition, a
putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in California state court on behalf of plaintiffs who are alleged
to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter
Product Claims").  The putative class action, which has not been
certified, seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) punitive damages;
(iii) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (iv)
attorneys' fees.  The Company expects certain trials of Filter
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months, with the
first trial scheduled to take place in the second quarter of 2012.
While the Company intends to vigorously defend the Filter Product
Claims, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these
claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and/or
liquidity.

In most product liability litigations of this nature, including
the Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product Claims and
the Filter Product Claims, plaintiffs allege a wide variety of
claims, ranging from allegations of serious injury caused by the
products to efforts to obtain compensation notwithstanding the
absence of any injury.  In many of these cases, the Company has
not yet received and reviewed complete information regarding the
plaintiffs and their medical conditions, and consequently, is
unable to fully evaluate the claims.  The Company expects that it
will receive and review additional information regarding the
unsettled Hernia Product Claims, the Women's Health Product
Claims, the Filter Product Claims and related matters as these
cases progress.

The Company believes that many settlements and judgments, as well
as legal defense costs, relating to product liability matters are
or may be covered in whole or in part under its product liability
insurance policies with a limited number of insurance carriers.
In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights
with respect to coverage, or contest or deny coverage, as has
occurred with respect to certain claims.  When this occurs, the
Company intends to vigorously contest disputes with respect to its
insurance coverage and to enforce its rights under the terms of
its insurance policies, and accordingly, will record receivables
with respect to amounts due under these policies, when recovery is
probable.  Amounts recovered under the Company's product liability
insurance policies may be less than the stated coverage limits and
may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to
claims.  In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay
claims or that coverage will otherwise be available.

In connection with the Hernia Product Claims, the Company is in
dispute with one of its excess insurance carriers relating to an
aggregate of $25 million of insurance coverage.  Regardless of the
outcome of this dispute, the Company's insurance coverage with
respect to the Hernia Product Claims has been depleted.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
losses or range of losses, if any, arising from existing product
liability matters and other legal matters.  Under U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles, an event is "reasonably possible"
if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is more
than remote but less than likely" and an event is "remote" if "the
chance of the future event or events occurring is slight."  With
respect to the Women's Health Product Claims, the Filter Product
Claims and the putative class action lawsuits that are part of the
Hernia Product Claims, the Company is unable to estimate a range
of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) the
proceedings are in early stages; (ii) the Company has not received
and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and
their medical conditions; and/or (iii) there are significant
factual issues to be resolved.  In addition, with respect to the
putative class action lawsuits that are part of the Hernia Product
Claims and the Filter Product Claims, there is uncertainty as to
the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of
the class.

Founded in 1907 and headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey, C.
R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- and its subsidiaries
design, manufacture, package, distribute, and sell medical,
surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide.  The
Company markets its products to hospitals, individual healthcare
professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site
facilities.


CANADA: Injured Soldiers to File Benefits Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Global Edmonton reports that a group of injured Canadian soldiers
is launching a class-action lawsuit against the federal government
over services and benefits for veterans.

The soldiers say Ottawa's treatment of them is shameful, and the
New Veterans Charter -- touted as an improvement -- is actually
worse than the old one.

Maj. Mark Campbell is one of these veterans.  He lost both of his
legs in June 2008 after an improvised explosive device detonated
beneath him during a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan.

His left leg was all but vaporized in the blast.  His right leg
barely hung on by a few strands of shredded bone and tissue.

Today, he suffers phantom limb pain where his left leg below the
knee used to be -- an excruciating kind of torment so severe, he
needs methadone to manage it.  He's on maximum allowable doses of
other pain medications, and their list of side-effects is long.
"But I have no choice," the Edmonton father of two says.  "It's
that, or I don't want to live."

Mr. Campbell also has "severe abdominal scarring, ruptured right
eardrum, and traumatic brain injury, which has resulted in short-
term memory loss."

He says he learned to live with his disability, but not with the
way he's been treated by the government.

"I can take being legless.  That's not too hard to take," he told
Global News.  "What's really hard to take is seeing my family
falling apart, watch my wife and children -- my children failing
school, because we're looking at no long-term financial security."

Mr. Campbell is one of a growing number of veterans discovering
their disability benefits are actually lower under the New
Veterans Charter, which was introduced in 2006.  "(There is) 40
per cent less financial compensation over the course of my
lifetime, easily."

The Equitas Society, a support group for veterans headed by
Vancouver police officer Jim Scott, says the benefits have proven
to be woefully inadequate.

"The New Veterans Charter has reduced the benefits to disabled
soldiers by one-third for severely disabled soldiers, and to up to
90 per cent for partially disabled soldiers," Mr. Scott says,
whose son was badly injured in Afghanistan.

"They have no remedy other than the courts, because they have
brought this issue to Veterans Affairs Canada and have been
basically with presented with spin, denial and refusal that there
is a problem."

Equitas also says disabled veterans are receiving less than what
civilians get under workers' compensation programs.

The group has been working for months on the class-action lawsuit,
even persuading national law firm Miller Thomson to take the case
for free.  A suit such as this would normally cost millions of
dollars.

"I'm outraged that two young men that I actually know, were so
badly treated after serving our country so bravely," says lawyer
Don Sorochan in Vancouver.  He believes the government is not
upholding its end of the bargain with veterans who risk life and
limb for Canada.

"There's a social contract which, put very simply, is to look
after (soldiers), to make sure they're looked after.  Now, people
say what does that mean? And I'm trying to say that there's a
constitutional aspect to that social contract."

The lawsuit will cite Section 15 of the Charter of Rights, which
provides every Canadian with equal protection and benefit of the
law, without discrimination.

Mr. Campbell says there's no other option than the lawsuit, and is
optimistic about the outcome.  "We're gonna win this one too,
because we're talking about natural justice."

But that success could be years away as the case winds its way
through the courts.  In the meantime, it will take several more
weeks for lawyers to compile the lawsuit.

To avert another legal war, Equitas says it would prefer Ottawa to
replace the New Veterans Charter.


CARMAX INC: Appeal From Order Compelling Arbitration Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from an order compelling their remaining claims
into arbitration on an individual basis remains pending, according
to CarMax, Inc.'s April 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended February 29,
2012.

On April 2, 2008, John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted
of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees
who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to
the present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the
class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.  On
June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the
failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement
provisions.  The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary
adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay
overtime to the sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs
appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant
overtime claim.  On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the ruling in favor of CarMax.  The plaintiffs filed a
Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was
denied.  As a result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no
longer a part of the lawsuit.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.  On June 16, 2009, the court entered
a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme
Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal
issues.  Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel
the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual
basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011.  The
plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling to the California Court of
Appeal.  The appeal is pending.  The Fowler lawsuit seeks
compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and
statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the
recovery of attorneys' fees.

The Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Loses Bid to Halt FINRA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal court
judge threw out a lawsuit by Charles Schwab Corp. that had sought
to stop its regulator from disciplining the brokerage for trying
to take away customers' rights to sue it in class actions.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California late on May 11 granted a
request by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to dismiss
a lawsuit that Schwab filed against the regulator in February.

Schwab sued FINRA, Wall Street's industry-funded watchdog, a day
after the regulator announced an enforcement case against the San
Francisco-based company.

FINRA alleged that Schwab added a new provision to more than 6.8
million customer account agreements in October that would preclude
them from starting or joining class-action lawsuits against the
brokerage.

The case raised significant investor protection issues, according
to lawyers.

Class actions are a common way for small investors to band
together in a court case to recover their losses.  A win by Schwab
would have set the stage for a showdown that could lead other
companies to change their arbitration agreements and potentially
weaken FINRA's hold over its own enforcement process, lawyers
said.

Schwab also required customers to agree that industry arbitrators
would not have the authority to consolidate claims from multiple
parties.  Such consolidated cases are common, but typically
include far fewer claimants than those in class actions.  Both
types of cases often involve investors with smaller claims,
typically under $10,000, according to lawyers.

"It's a good decision for all investors and customers of Charles
Schwab," said Ryan K. Bakhtiari, president of the Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association, a Norman, Oklahoma-based group of
securities arbitration lawyers.  "The rules are clear and
unequivocal that Schwab did not have the right to prohibit class
actions, he said.

Judge Laporte, in a 21-page opinion, agreed with FINRA that Schwab
is required to follow its procedures for disciplinary cases.  That
process ultimately includes a review by a federal court judge.

FINRA, in addition to being Wall Street's regulator, runs the
arbitration forum where customers and brokerage firms typically
must resolve legal disputes.  FINRA arbitration rules do not allow
arbitrators to hear class action cases.

FINRA rules also restrict brokerages from limiting investors'
rights to file court cases in certain situations.

Schwab's agreement would effectively leave investors in a bind, in
which many would not have access to a legal process for recovering
their losses, lawyers said.

Schwab had argued, among other things, that it would be
"irreparably harmed" by using FINRA's process, which the company
said could take up to four or more years.  But delay is not an
adequate reason for avoiding FINRA's process, the court wrote.
Schwab did not show it was "entitled to an exception" from FINRA's
process, according to the opinion.

The court's dismissal of Schwab's lawsuit against FINRA, however,
leaves some questions unresolved while FINRA continues its
disciplinary case against the brokerage, said William Jacobson, a
professor at Cornell Law School's Securities Law Clinic in Ithaca,
New York.

Schwab must now decide whether to continue using a provision in
its customer agreement during those proceedings "that amounts to,
in effect, a continued, knowing violation," he said.  It is also
unclear what would happen if Schwab tried to enforce the class
action waiver agreement in a case against a customer, Mr. Jacobson
said.

A spokesperson for Schwab was not immediately available for
comment.  A FINRA spokeswoman declined to comment.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Pomerantz Provides Update on Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Law Firm provided an update on the class action filed
against Chesapeake Energy Corporation.

On April 26, 2012, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a
securities class action (5:12-cv-00465-W) the federal District
Court in Oklahoma City on behalf of all persons who purchased
Chesapeake Energy Corporation common stock between April 30, 2009
and April 17, 2012.  The case was filed against the Company and
its Chief Executive Officer and (then) Chairman, Aubrey K.
McClendon .

The original claims focused on McClendon's undisclosed $1 billion
plus leveraging of his interests in Chesapeake's Founders Well
Program.  While the program was intended to align McClendon's
interests with shareholders, McClendon's leveraging, particularly
through entities financing the Company's enormous debt load,
placed him in conflict with those shareholders.

The degree of Chesapeake's undisclosed risks was further evidenced
today by Russell Gold's Wall Street Journal article exposing the
Company's off balance sheet liabilities for over $1.2 billion in
costs associated with wells whose production rights have been sold
as part of the Volumetric Production Payment program. In essence,
Chesapeake has sold off its rights for future revenues from
certain wells in return for monies to pay off its outsized debt,
leaving the Company still liable to pay for the significant
operating costs of these wells.

News of these additional liabilities drove the price of Chesapeake
stock down to $14.81 at the close of trading today, down 22.5%
from the close on April 17 prior to all these revelations.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Chesapeake common stock
during the Class Period, you have until June 25, 2012 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm represents victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  It has
offices in New York and Chicago.


COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Faces Acquisition-Related Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory M. Dusablon, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Collective Brands, Inc., Daniel Boggan Jr.,
Mylle H. Mangum, Richard L. Markee, John F. McGovern, Robert F.
Moran, D. Scott Olivet, Matthew A. Ouimet, Michael A. Weiss,
Robert C. Wheeler, Michael J. Massey, Blum Strategic Partners IV,
L.P., Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P., Wolverine World
Wide, Inc., WBG -- PSS Holdings LLC and WBG -- PSS Merger Sub
Inc., Case No. 7498- (Del. Chancery Ct., May 4, 2012) is brought
on behalf of the public shareholders of Collective Brands to
enjoin a proposed transaction announced on May 1, 2012, pursuant
to which Collective Brands will be acquired by affiliates of Blum,
Golden Gate and Wolverine in an all-cash transaction for $21.75
per share.

The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process that
resulted from the Board's failure to maximize shareholder value
and deprives Collective Brands' public shareholders of the ability
to participate in the Company's long-term prospects, Mr. Dusablon
alleges.  He adds that in approving the Merger Agreement, the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff
and the Class.

Mr. Dusablon is a shareholder of Collective Brands.

Collective Brands is a Delaware corporation based in Topeka,
Kansas.  The Company is a leader in bringing compelling lifestyle,
fashion and performance brands for footwear and related
accessories to consumers worldwide.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.  Blum is a Delaware limited
partnership and a San Francisco-based public strategic block and
private investment firm.  Golden Gate is a San Francisco-based
private investment firm.  Wolverine is a Delaware corporation and
purports to be one of the world's leading marketers of branded
casual, active lifestyle, work, outdoor sport and uniform footwear
and apparel.  WBG - PSS Holdings is a Delaware limited liability
company owned by Blum, Golden Gate, and Wolverine, which was
created for the sole purpose of effecting the Proposed
Transaction.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of WBG - PSS Holdings, which was created for the
sole purpose of effecting the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gs@rigrodskylong.com


COOPER COMPANIES: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit brought against The Cooper
Companies, Inc., alleging securities law violations is pending in
California, according to the Company's March 9, 2012, 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2012.

On November 28, 2011, Harold Greenberg filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Case No. 4:11-cv-05697-YGR, against the following
defendants: the Company; Robert S. Weiss, its President, Chief
Executive Officer and a director; Eugene J. Midlock, its former
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Albert G.
White, III, its Vice President of Investor Relations, Treasurer
and Chief Strategic Officer.  On December 12, 2011, a second
individual, Ross Wallen, filed a related complaint against the
same defendants in the Northern District of California, Case No.
4:11-cv-06214-YGR.  The Wallen complaint largely repeats the
allegations in the Greenberg complaint. Greenberg and Wallen each
sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 4, 2011 and November 15, 2011.

The Greenberg and Wallen complaints allege that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by, among other things, failing to disclose alleged
problems at the Company's manufacturing plants in Puerto Rico and
the United Kingdom, allegedly making material misstatements with
an intent to deceive investors concerning the recall of the
Company's Avaira(R) Toric and Avaira Sphere contact lenses and the
expected financial impact of the recalls, and allegedly making
false projections of future financial results.  Both complaints
seek unspecified damages on behalf of the purported class.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 sets out a
procedure for the court to consolidate related securities class
actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On February 29, 2012, the
court ordered that the Greenberg and Wallen actions be
consolidated and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH
as lead plaintiff.

The lawsuits have only recently been filed and there has been no
discovery or other proceedings. Accordingly, the Company is not in
a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate
the range of potential loss, if any.


COPART INC: Continues to Defend "Ortiz-Torres" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit filed by Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres, according
to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2012.

On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed suit
against the Company in Superior Court of San Bernardino County,
San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class action on
behalf of persons employed by the Company in the positions of
facilities managers and assistant general managers in California
at any time since the date four years prior to September 21, 2010.
The complaint alleges failure to pay wages and overtime wages,
failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, in violation of
various California Labor and Business and Professional Code
sections, due to alleged misclassification of facilities managers
and assistant general managers as exempt employees.  Relief sought
includes class certification, injunctive relief, damages according
to proof, restitution for unpaid wages, disgorgement of ill-gotten
gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs, interest, and
punitive damages.  The Company believes the claim is without merit
and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


COPART INC: Continues to Defend "Brizuela" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit filed by Jose E. Brizuela, according to the
Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2012.

On February 12, 2011, Jose E. Brizuela filed suit against the
Company in Superior Court, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino
District, which purports to be class action on behalf of persons
employed by the Company paid on a hourly basis in California at
any time since the date four years prior to February 14, 2011.
The complaint alleges failure to pay all earned wages due to an
alleged practice of rounding of hours worked to the detriment of
the employees.  Relief sought includes class certification,
injunctive relief, unpaid wages, waiting time penalty-wages,
interest, and attorney's fees and costs of suit.  The Company
believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


COWEN GROUP: N.Y. Court Okayed "LaBranche" Suit Settlement in Feb.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court approved in February the settlement of
a consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Cowen Group,
Inc. over its acquisition of LaBranche & Co., according to the
Company's March 9, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

The acquisition of LaBranche by the Company was consummated
pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as
of February 16, 2011, after the market close on June 28, 2011.
LaBranche Capital, LLC, which was renamed "Cowen Capital LLC"
following consummation of the acquisition, was a wholly owned
subsidiary of LaBranche and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
outstanding share of LaBranche was converted into 0.9980 shares of
Cowen Class A common stock.

On February 22, 2011, a putative class action, captioned Moskal v.
LaBranche & Co., et. al., was filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, naming as defendants the
Company, LaBranche & Co. and members of the board of directors of
LaBranche & Co., and Louisiana Merger Sub, Inc.  On February 26,
2011, a separate lawsuit was filed, captioned Borowka v. LaBranche
& Co., et al., in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York naming as defendants the same parties.  The
lawsuits challenged LaBranche's decision to sell all of its
outstanding shares of common stock to the Company for $192.8
million.  The complaints alleged, among other things, that the
Company aided and abetted the LaBranche defendants in breaching
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to maximize the
sale price for LaBranche.

On May 2, 2011, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated lawsuit. On
October 25, 2011, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement, which was filed with the Supreme Court on October 26,
2011.  A hearing was held on February 1, 2012, at which the
Supreme Court approved the settlement, which resolved all of the
claims that were or could have been brought in the actions being
settled, including all claims relating to the acquisition, the
Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith.


COWEN GROUP: To Pay Portion of CalPERS Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc. will pay a portion of the settlement amount in
the deal resolving a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by
the California Public Employees' Retirement System and other
defendants in New York, according to Cowen's March 9, 2012, 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On or about October 16, 2003 through December 16, 2003, four
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Southern
District of New York by persons or entities who purchased and/or
sold shares of stocks of NYSE listed companies, including Pirelli
v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8264, Marcus v.
LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521, Empire v. LaBranche &
Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935, and California Public Employees'
Retirement System (CalPERS) v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et
al., No. 03 CV 9968.  On March 11, 2004, a fifth action asserting
similar claims, Rosenbaum Partners, LP v. New York Stock Exchange,
Inc., et al., No. 04 CV 2038, was also filed in the SDNY by an
individual plaintiff who does not allege to represent a class.
On May 27, 2004, the SDNY consolidated these lawsuits under the
caption In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No. CV 8264.
The court named the following lead plaintiffs: CalPERS and Empire
Programs, Inc.

On December 5, 2011, CalPERS and defendants entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting an agreement in
principle to settle the action.  The portion of the settlement
amount allocated to LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche & Co. LLC and
Mr. LaBranche pursuant to a confidential allocation agreement
entered into by the defendants will be paid by the Company with
amounts to be received from one of the Company's insurers. It does
not believe that this matter will have a material effect on the
Company's operating results for the year ended December 31, 2011.
The MOU contemplates the negotiation and execution of a final
settlement agreement, and the settlement is subject to notice to
the class and approval by the Court.


DAVEY TREE: Awaits Approval of Settle "Ely" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Davey Tree Expert Company is awaiting court approval of a
settlement resolving a class action lawsuit filed against its
subsidiary in California, according to the Company's March 9,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Davey Tree Surgery Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert
Company, was named as a defendant in Peter Ely et al. v. Davey
Tree Surgery Company, et al., a purported class-action lawsuit in
the State of California filed on July 15, 2008 in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda.
The plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a putative
class that Davey Tree Surgery Company failed to comply with
California law concerning off-duty meal periods and the required
content of paycheck stubs.

The plaintiffs alleged that they and the putative "meal periods"
class were not provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-minute
meal periods.  In addition, plaintiffs claimed that because they
were allegedly required to work during their meal breaks, Davey
Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law
because they and the putative class members were not paid minimum
wage for their alleged work during meal breaks.  Plaintiffs also
contended that Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law
by not including the time that they and the putative "wage
statement" class members worked during their meal periods, their
hourly rates of pay and the number of hours worked at each hourly
rate on their paycheck stubs.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements"
class; some individuals were members of both classes, while others
were members of only one class.  A trial was initially scheduled
for January 30, 2012.

The trial was rescheduled to March 26, 2012, pending results of a
mediation process initiated in January 2012 with plaintiffs and
Local Union 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers.

As a result of the mediation, on January 6, 2012, Davey Tree
Surgery Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of
All Claims with the plaintiffs, counsel for the class members, and
the Union representing the class members.

The Settlement Agreement requires court approval of its terms, a
process that could take several months to complete. In the event
that the Court denies final approval of the Settlement Agreement
with prejudice and both Davey Tree Surgery Company and the
plaintiffs have exhausted all means to challenge that denial, the
Settlement Agreement will be void in all respects and the
litigation will continue.

The Settlement Agreement provides for Davey Tree Surgery to pay a
total sum of $2,900 that was recorded in the fourth quarter 2011.


DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs
------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that regulators moved
on May 10 to seize control of pension plans at Dewey & LeBoeuf,
the latest sign of likely collapse at what was once a top U.S. law
firm.  Dewey also faced its first lawsuit over plans to fire
hundreds of employees.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation said it would take
responsibility for three pension plans covering 1,800 current and
future retirees.  The plans were underfunded by $80 million, it
said.

Angelo Kakolyris, a spokesman for Dewey, declined to comment.

Dewey has been struggling for weeks with partner defections and
debt.  It has warned employees that it could close its doors and
it has said that New York prosecutors are probing allegations of
wrongdoing by its former chairman, Steven Davis.  Mr. Davis has
denied wrongdoing.

In its statement, the pensions regulator said it was stepping in
to secure its ability "to collect against the firm's affiliates
that share funding responsibility for the pension plans."

The announcement came the same day an employee sued Dewey for
failing to provide adequate notice of layoffs.  The firm is firing
about 450 people in its New York office effective May 11,
according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed by Vittoria Conn, a worker in Dewey's
document production department, who said the company owes her 60
days of pay because it failed to give adequate notice.

The lawsuit sought class-action status for others laid off by the
company.  Dewey "terminated approximately 450 employees at its
(New York office) on or about May 7, 2012, effective on or about
May 11," the lawsuit said.

The action was brought in federal court in New York under federal
and state laws that require employers to give 60 to 90 days'
notice before mass layoffs.  Ms. Conn said she was notified Monday
that her last day would be Friday.

While it was not known how many people Dewey employs in New York,
the 450 layoffs would likely be a big chunk of its workforce in
the city, and provided an indication of how fast the firm was
unraveling.  Spokespeople for the firm have declined to say how
many employees will lose their jobs.

In 2011, Dewey employed 1,040 lawyers worldwide, according to an
annual survey by the National Law Journal, a legal publication.
More than 180 of its roughly 300 partners have announced they have
left or will leave since the firm's troubles began.  On May 9, two
of the firm's top leaders, Jeffrey Kessler and Richard Shutran,
said they would leave Dewey & LeBoeuf for other firms.

But it is employees and junior lawyers who face the toughest times
in a job market still recovering from the recent U.S. recession,
experts said.


EASYLINK SERVICES: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Yechiel E. Gross, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Easylink Services International Corp., Epic
Acquisition Sub Inc., Kim D. Cooke, Richard J. Berman, Paul D.
Lapides, John S. Simon and Thomas J. Stallings, Case No. 7505-
(Del. Chancery Ct., May 8, 2012) arises from the proposed
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of EasyLink common stock
by Open Text Corp., pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated May 1, 2012.

Under the terms of the Proposed Transaction and Merger Agreement,
Open Text will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of EasyLink for $7.25 per share, which price represents a
mere 14% premium over EasyLink's shares on its closing price of
$6.36 prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, Mr.
Gross contends.  He also alleges that the Individual Defendants
did not take all steps necessary to obtain a full, fair and
adequate price for EasyLink's shares and have failed to maximize
shareholder value.

Mr. Gross is an EasyLink shareholder.

EasyLink, a Delaware corporation is based in Norcross, Georgia.
EasyLink is a global provider of on-demand and electronic
messaging and transaction services that help companies optimize
relationships with their partners, suppliers, customers, and other
stakeholders.  Epic is a wholly owned subsidiary of Open Text, and
is incorporated in Delaware.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of EasyLink.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST BIELLI & WALLEN, LLC
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-4905
          Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
          E-mail: rernst@oebwlegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          James E. Tullman, Esq.
          Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com
                  jtullman@weisslurie.com
                  msmilow@weisslurie.com


FELTEX: Demand for Litigation Fund Expects to Increase
------------------------------------------------------
Tamlyn Stewart, writing for Fairfax NZ News, reports that the
British litigation funding group backing a class action by former
Feltex shareholders against directors, sellers and promoters of
the failed carpetmaker says it expects an increase in demand for
such funding as lawyers become more comfortable with the idea.

Former shareholders are claiming the prospectus accompanying the
Feltex share offer of just more than NZ$250 million in shares in
2004 was misleading and contained untrue statements.

Feltex collapsed in late 2006 and shareholders lost their entire
investment.  Counsel for the former Feltex shareholders secured
funding for their legal action last year through the British-based
Harbour Litigation Funding.  That had helped address plaintiffs'
concerns about the risk of being held personally liable for any
costs arising from the action, and as a result more former
shareholders had joined the class action.

In February, the number of claimants in the Feltex class action
had swelled to 2,800 former shareholders.

Collectively the group is claiming losses and interest since 2004
in respect of 60 million shares purchased at an issue price of
NZ$1.70 when Feltex listed.  An earlier estimate of the amount
claimed was in the region of NZ$145 million, including interests
and costs.

While Harbour's main focus is British-based legal actions, it is
already funding actions in the United States, Channel Islands, the
Caribbean and New Zealand.

Harbour reviews 25 new cases every month and last year invested
NZ$82 million in litigation claims worth more than NZ$2 billion.

It recently secured NZ$247 million of additional capital in a new
fund which will invest in commercial legal actions and
arbitrations.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
Great Southern Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit pending in a Missouri court,
according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On November 22, 2010, a suit was filed against the Bank in
Missouri state court in Springfield by a customer alleging that
the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws.  The suit seeks
class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft
fees on their checking accounts.  The Court denied a motion to
dismiss filed by the Bank and litigation is ongoing.  At this
early stage of the litigation, it is not possible for management
of the Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.


HI-TECH PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Weight-Loss Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals
markets a weight-loss product called Fastin that contains a
dangerous and illegal synthetic form of dimethylamylamine (DMAA),
a federal class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Kaczor v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-04089 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/11/fastin.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather M. Peterson, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue
          Third Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmp@kirtlandpackard.com


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Houston
American Energy Corp. between March 29, 2010 and April 18, 2012.

To join the Houston American class action, visit the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Laurence Rosen, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also
e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com or lrosen@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Houston American for failing to adequately disclose
problems with its Tamandua #1 well, and the well's C7 and C9
formations.  Namely, that the Company failed to disclose that: (i)
the continued investment in testing and completing the C7 and C9
formations in Tamandua #1 well was unproductive and not
commercially viable; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 26, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-
3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


HULU: Sued for Disclosing Users' Viewing Habits to Third Parties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
Hulu subscribers who claim the Web site discloses what they watch
to third parties without their consent argued that their action
should continue in San Jose's federal court.

In their amended class action complaint, six Hulu subscribers said
the video site "repurposed" its browser cache so a marketing
analyst service called KISSmetrics could store their private data.

The class also claims Hulu shared their private viewing choices
with Facebook, Google Analytics, and other online market research
and ad companies.

"Hulu's online privacy policy is misleading in that it does not
disclose its use of aggressive, rogue exploits of Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' computer software to engage in widespread tracking
and information sharing," the amended complaint says.

Hulu's actions "are so outside the boundaries of reasonable
expectations that even industry experts had not previously
observed these exploits 'in the wild,' that is, in actual use on
Web sites available to the public," the complaint says.

The class claims they suffered losses from the illegal data
exploitation because their personal information has economic value
as an asset exchanged for Hulu's video services.

Hulu moved to dismiss the action, which the class fought in a
filing on May 11.

Attorney Scott Kamber argued the plaintiffs have properly alleged
an injury by claiming their rights under the Video Privacy
Protection Act (VPPA) were violated.

The plaintiffs were also "consumers" under the meaning of the
statute even though they do not pay for Hulu services, because the
dictionary definition of "subscriber" includes someone who signs
up using personal information, Mr. Kamber argued.

"The issue in the VPPA is not the form or method of video
delivery.  Rather, the statute concerns the protection of records
about the subscriber and what the subscriber viewed," the attorney
wrote.

"Given its purpose, there is no basis to argue that the online
transfer of video content falls outside the purview of the Act,"
he continued.

In asking the court to deny Hulu's motion to dismiss, Mr. Kamber
requested an opportunity to replead if the court grants the
motion.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in In Re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, Case No. 11-
cv-03764 (N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/4peMBw

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com
                  dstampley@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          141 North St.
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: (707) 820-4247
          E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          Azita Moradmand, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                  shavens@parisihavens.com
                  amoradmand@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          E-mail: LACounsel@earthlink.net


KENNETH COLE: Faces Class Suits Arising from Founder's Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., is facing four putative class
action lawsuits arising from Kenneth D. Cole's proposal to acquire
all of the Company's outstanding Class A Common Stock that he does
not currently own, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 23, 2012, the Board of Directors received a non-
binding proposal from Mr. Cole to acquire all of the Company's
outstanding Class A Common Stock that he does not currently
directly or indirectly own for $15.00 per share in cash.  In his
letter outlining his proposal, Mr. Cole indicated that he was
unwilling to consider any transaction other than one in which he
would be the acquirer.  The Board of Directors has established a
Special Committee of independent Directors (the "Special
Committee"), comprised of all of the Directors of the Company
other than Mr. Cole and Mr. Blum, to consider the proposal, to
negotiate on behalf of the Company and, if it deems appropriate,
to solicit and consider any alternative transactions.  Since the
announcement of Mr. Cole's non-binding proposal, Company
shareholders have filed four separate putative class actions in
New York State court against the Company, Mr. Cole, and the board
of directors alleging that Mr. Cole and the board members breached
their fiduciary duties to Company shareholders, and that the
Company aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.


MAKO SURGICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against Mako
Surgical Corp. with accusations that the company and its top
executives committed securities fraud by not disclosing that its
first quarter sales would fall below the company's expectations.

The Davie-based manufacturer of a hip and knee replacement
surgical robot reported on May 7 that its revenue increased 51
percent, year-over-year, in the first quarter.  Yet, it sold only
six of its RIO surgical systems in the first quarter -- with the
revenue from one deferred until it receives regulatory approval in
Japan -- down from 18 RIO sales in the fourth quarter.  The
company lowered its expectations for RIO sales this year.

The day trading opened following the earnings announcement Mako
Surgical shares took a 37 percent dive.  Several investment
analysts downgraded its stock.

On May 10, James H. Harrison Jr., proposing to represent a class
of the company's shareholders, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against Mako Surgical,
along with President and CEO Dr. Maurice Ferre and CFO Fritz
Laporte.  The plaintiff is represented by Boca Raton-based law
firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which issued a news release
seeking more clients to join this action.  The proposed class
period is from Jan. 9 until May 7 -- the date of its first quarter
earnings release.

It is not unusual for a company to get hit with a shareholder
class action lawsuit following a major drop in its shares. The
issue is whether the company and its executives misled investors
about material facts, and did so intentionally.

The lawsuit charges Mako Surgical and its executives with failing
to disclose that its first quarter loss would be wider because of
higher expenses and lower sales, the utilization rates of its RIO
systems by surgeons were dropping and its 2012 outlook lacked a
reasonable basis.

"We firmly believe the purported law suit is entirely without
merit," Mako Surgical stated in an e-mail from its investor
relations department.  "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves
in this action, when and if we are served."


MEDICAL SOCIETY OF DELAWARE: Reinstated as Defendant in Abuse Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Sullivan, writing for The News Journal, reports that the
Medical Society of Delaware and two prominent doctors have been
reinstated as defendants in a class-action civil suit seeking to
hold a range of people and institutions responsible for failing to
protect children in the care of former Lewes pediatrician Earl B.
Bradley.

Mr. Bradley, who took videos of himself molesting young patients
at his Lewes office over a number of years, was convicted last
year of 24 criminal counts, including first-degree rape.  He was
sentenced to life in prison.

The 75-page opinion by Superior Court Judge Joseph R. Slights III,
made public on May 10, at least partially reverses a ruling that
Judge Slights made in January 2011 that dismissed the Medical
Society of Delaware along with Drs. James P. Marvel Jr. and Carol
A. Tavani as defendants.

In 2011, Judge Slights ruled that attorneys representing the
plaintiffs -- which could number in the hundreds -- had not
sufficiently shown that the society or the doctors had any duty of
care to Mr. Bradley's patients.  But Judge Slights at that time
gave attorneys for the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an
amended complaint to make a stronger case, and plaintiffs did just
that.

In last week's opinion, according to defense attorney Collins J.
Seitz Jr., Judge Slights again dismissed nearly all of the
plaintiffs' claims against the Medical Society and the two
doctors.  But Judge Slights also found that the plaintiffs had
made one new claim that, if true, could establish that the society
and the doctors had a duty to protect Mr. Bradley's patients.

This stems from allegations by the plaintiffs that Mr. Bradley's
sister reported her brother to the Medical Society in 2004 and
that Drs. Tavani and Marvel allegedly responded that the society
"took her concerns seriously" and would report the situation to
state regulators, but then failed to do so.

Mr. Seitz and the Medical Society, however, note that Judge
Slights had to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true at this
point.  But the judge will review the allegations again later
during the pre-trial process, when more concrete evidence is in
the record, and Judge Slights wrote that the Medical Society's
arguments "may well prove fatal" to the plaintiffs' remaining
claim.


MEDIMMUNE BIOLOGICS: Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On May 9, 2012, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against drug
company Medimmune Biologics, Inc. on behalf of drug sales
representatives for alleged overtime wage and hour violations.
The overtime complaint against the drug company was filed in San
Diego County Superior Court and is entitled Rainey v. Medimmune
Biologics, Inc., Case No. 37-2012-00096972-CU-OE-CTL.

According to the wage and hour class action complaint filed
against the drug company, Medimmune Biologics violated California
overtime laws by failing to pay drug sales representatives for
overtime hours worked.  Under California law, companies are
required to pay all non-exempt employees overtime compensation
whenever the employees work more than eight hours in a day or
forty hours in a week.  The primary requirement to satisfy the
outside salesperson exemption and thus not pay overtime under
California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act is that the sales
representatives are actually making sales.  In the Medimmune
Biologics overtime class action lawsuit, the drug sales
representatives allege that they were not actually involved in
making sales but rather promoting prescription drugs to
physicians, doctors and other specialists.  At most, the
physicians the sales representatives promote the drugs to can
agree to prescribe the medicine to patients as needed, but cannot
actually buy the prescription medicine from the sales
representatives directly.

When asked about the filing of the Complaint, managing partner of
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal, stated,
"Medimmune Biologics and other drug companies involved in this
illegal practice of failing to pay their 'sales' representatives
overtime wages needs to be stopped now."

The drug sales representative overtime class action suit is one of
many that has been recently filed against pharmaceutical and other
drug companies.  The California employment law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are also representing drug sales
representatives in overtime class action suits against Novo
Nordisk (Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc., Case No. 34-2011-00103639 in
the Eastern District of California); Merck (Frudakis v. Merck,
Case No. SACV11-00146 in the Central District of California); and
Schering-Plough (Valadez v. Schering-Plough, Case No. 10-CV-2595
in the Southern District of California).

The class action lawsuits all allege that the pharmaceutical sales
representatives should be paid overtime compensation for working
more than eight hour days under the California Labor Code and/or
forty hour weeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act based on the
contention that the drug sales representatives do not qualify for
the outside salesperson exemption because they are not actually
making sales.

For more information about the Medimmune Biologics class action
lawsuit, call (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back
against unlawful employer practices.


MERCK: Slater & Gordon Seeks Trading Halt Ahead of Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that listed law firm
Slater & Gordon has requested a trading halt, pending a High Court
decision relating to a class action against a major pharmaceutical
company that it has been running.

The court's decision was expected on May 11, and Slater & Gordon
has requested that the Australian Securities Exchange halt trading
in its shares from May 11.

The High Court was expected to hand down its decision on the
application for special leave to appeal the court's decision in
the Vioxx painkiller class action.

Vioxx has been linked to an increased risk of heart attacks and
strokes, and Slater & Gordon's class action involves the
Australian subsidiary of global pharmaceutical company Merck.

The action is on a no-win, no-fee basis, meaning if the
proceedings are unsuccessful, Slater & Gordon is not entitled to
recover costs for the work performed or the out-of-pocket expenses
incurred on behalf of its clients.


NOKIA CORPORATION: Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm has filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Nokia Corporation publicly traded securities during
the period between October 26, 2011 and April 10, 2012.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights and interests with respect
to this matter, please contact Kip B. Shuman or Rusty E. Glenn
toll-free at (866) 974-8626 or email Mr. Shuman at
kip@shumanlawfirm.com or Mr. Glenn at rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The Complaint alleges that Nokia, a provider of telecommunications
infrastructure hardware, software, and services, and certain of
its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws.
Specifically, it is alleged 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.  This became apparent on April 11, 2012, when
Nokia disclosed that its first quarter performance would be worse
than expected.  Nokia expected its first quarter 2012 non-IFRS
Devices & Services operating margin to fall by 3%, and projected
first quarter 2012 Devices & Services net sales of EUR4.2 billion.
It also disclosed a glitch in its newest Windows offering -- the
Lumia 900.  Nokia had to immediately offer customers an automatic
$100, making the phone essentially free.  As a result of this
disclosure, the price of Nokia's American Depositary Shares
("ADRs") dropped over 16% in a single day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Nokia publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the court no later
than July 2, 2012, and request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  Although your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision
whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead
plaintiffs make important decisions which could affect the overall
recovery for class members.

The Shuman Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative actions.


PATHEON INC: Units Face Suit Over Alleged Defective Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit filed against Patheon Inc.'s
subsidiaries in connection with the recall of an allegedly
defective product is still pending, according to the Company's
March 9, 2012, 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2012.

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, a customer gave notice of
its intent to seek indemnification against the Company pursuant to
a manufacturing service agreement for all costs associated with a
recall of an allegedly defective product. The Company accrued $1.7
million, net of expected insurance proceeds, to cover recall costs
and replace the returned products.  During the first quarter of
fiscal 2012, the customer gave further notice of its intent to
seek indemnification pursuant to the MSA for all actual and
potential third-party claims that have been or may be filed
against it in connection with the recall and the alleged product
defects, as well as all costs and expenses of the defense and
settlement of such claims.  To date, three putative class actions
and one single plaintiff action have been commenced in the United
States against the customer in connection with the allegedly
defective products, and two of the Company's subsidiaries have
also been named in one of the putative class actions.  As these
cases are at an early stage, the Company is unable to estimate the
number of potential claimants or the amount of potential damages
for which the Company may be directly or indirectly liable in the
actions.  However, the Company does not believe that its
subsidiaries are relevant parties to the putative class action in
which those subsidiaries are currently named and intends to
vigorously contest their inclusion in this action.


PRUCO LIFE: Appeal From "Phillips" Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class action lawsuit
captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life
Insurance Company is pending, according to Pruco Life Insurance
Company's March 9, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois.
The complaint makes claims of breach of contract, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and violation of Illinois law on behalf of a class
of Illinois residents whose death benefits were settled by
retained assets accounts and seeks damages and disgorgement of
profits.  In January 2011, the case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  In
March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop Prudential Financial
as a defendant and add the Company as a defendant.  The matter is
now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life
Insurance Company.  In April 2011, a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was filed.  In November 2011, the complaint was
dismissed and the dismissal appealed in December 2011.


QIAO XING: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (12 Civ 3745) in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased Qiao Xing Universal Resources, Inc.
securities between August 23, 2010 and April 13, 2012, inclusive.
This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Qiao Xing securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 26, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Qiao Xing, through its subsidiary, mines and processes rare metal
and various base-metal ores, including molybdenum, copper, lead
and zinc.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's Chairman was improperly
transferring funds from at least one subsidiary's bank account to
an account controlled by him; (2) the Company conducted
transactions that improperly pledged or transferred assets from
its bank accounts; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On April 16, 2012, NASDAQ halted trading of Qiao Xing securities
for failing to sufficiently satisfy "NASDAQ's request for
additional information."

On April 20, 2012, the Company disclosed that its Audit Committee
commenced "an internal investigation into a transfer of funds from
a Company subsidiary's bank account to an account controlled by
the Company's former Chairman," Defendant Rui Lin Wu.  In
addition, the Audit Committee is also reviewing "certain
transactions involving the pledge or transfer of Company assets
and to confirm cash balances of the Company's bank accounts."

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm represents victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The firm
has offices in New York and Chicago.


QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: IPO-Related Suit Settled in January
-----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of a putative securities class action lawsuit arising
from QuickLogic Corporation's initial public offering was finally
settled in January, according to the Company's March 9, 2012 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended January 1, 2012.

On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's
initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's
officers and directors.  The complaint alleged excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of
shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary
public offerings and artificially high prices through "tie-in"
arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of
the federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs sought an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's
stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14,
1999 and December 6, 2000.  Various plaintiffs filed similar
actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over 300
other public companies, their underwriters, and their officers and
directors arising out of each company's public offering.  These
actions, including the action against QuickLogic, were coordinated
for pretrial purposes and captioned In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

The parties reached a global settlement of the litigation.  Under
the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Company, the Company will not
bear any financial liability and the Company and the other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.  The
settlement was approved by the Court on October 5, 2009 and
certain objectors filed appeals.  The last remaining appeal of the
settlement was withdrawn on January 13, 2012 and the settlement
may now be enforced.  The Company did not accrue any amounts
related to the proposed settlement because it was not reasonably
estimable.


SCBT FINANCIAL: Faces Merger-related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
SCBT Financial Corporation is facing a purported class action
lawsuit arising from its agreement and plan of merger with Peoples
Bancorporation, Inc., according to the Company's March 9, 2012
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 18, 2012, two purported shareholders of Peoples filed a
class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas for the
Thirteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of
Pickens, captioned F. Davis Arnette and Mary F. Arnette v. Peoples
Bancorporation, Inc., Case No. 2012-CP-39-0064.  The Complaint
names as defendants Peoples, the current members of Peoples' board
of directors, and SCBT.  The Complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders of Peoples common stock and seeks a
declaration that it is properly maintainable as a class action.
The Complaint alleges that Peoples' directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in
connection with the pending merger between SCBT and Peoples, and
also alleges that SCBT aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent the completion of the merger, an accounting to
determine damages sustained by the putative class, and costs
including plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees.  SCBT believes
that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit and
that the proceeding will not have any material adverse effect on
the financial condition or operations of SCBT.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: "Engel" Suit Trial Set for October 9
------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the case captioned Engel, et al. v. PSF, et al., which
involves the claims of four plaintiffs, and is pending in Harrison
County, has been scheduled to commence on October 9, 2012,
according to Smithfield Foods, Inc.'s March 9, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 29, 2012.

In May 2004, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Daniel
Herrold, et al. and Others Similarly Situated v. ContiGroup
Companies, Inc., Premium Standard Farms, and PSF Group Holdings,
Inc. was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
As a result of various venue transfer rulings and notices of
dismissal, Herrold cases are pending in Chariton, Clark, DeKalb,
Harrison, Jackson, and Linn counties.  Trial for one of the
Herrold cases pending in Harrison County, Engel, et al. v. PSF, et
al., which involves the claims of four plaintiffs, has been
scheduled to commence on October 9, 2012, and discovery is
ongoing.


TORO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
The Toro Company continues to defend itself from a purported class
action lawsuit pending in Canada, according to the Company's March
9, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended February 3, 2012.

In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against the company and
other defendants that (i) contains allegations under applicable
Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made by the
plaintiffs in a settled class action in the United States, (ii)
seeks certification of a class of all persons in Canada who,
beginning January 1, 1994 purchased a lawnmower containing a gas
combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was manufactured or
sold by the company and other defendants, and (iii) seeks under
applicable Canadian law unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys' costs and fees, and equitable relief.

Management continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation.  In the
event the company is unable to favorably resolve this litigation,
management is unable to assess at this time whether this
litigation would have a material adverse effect on the company's
annual consolidated operating results or financial condition,
although an unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to
the company's consolidated operating results for a particular
period.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Defective Water Mgmt. System of Audi
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Shabani, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-12-518774 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
March 2, 2012) is brought on behalf of a class of persons, who
purchased or leased model year 2007 Audi Q7 Quattro vehicles or
model year 2004-2006 Volkswagen Phaeton vehicles.

Beginning in 2004, if not before, the Defendants knew or should
have known that the Class Vehicles contain one or more distinct
and serious latent design and manufacturing defects that causes
them to be highly prone to water leaks and flooding, including
defects in the water management system, Ms. Shabani alleges.  She
contends that the Class Vehicles' water management system is
defective because it becomes clogged with leaves, twigs, debris,
and other objects that enter the water management system,
resulting to electrical failure due to water damaging the
computer, electrical system, and other interior components.

Ms. Shabani is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.  She
purchased a New 2007 Audi Q7 Quattro from an Audi dealer in
California.

Volkswagen Group is a New Jersey corporation, while Volkswagen AG
is a foreign corporation headquartered in Wolfsburg, Germany.
Audi AG is a foreign corporation based in Ingolstadt, Germany.
The Defendants design, manufacture, construct, assemble, market,
distribute, and sell automobiles and other motor vehicles and
motor vehicle components in California and throughout the United
States of America.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or
capacities of Doe Defendants.

Volkswagen Group removed the lawsuit on May 10, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because "matter in controversy" in this case as to the
claims of all individual class members exceeds the sum or value of
$5 million, exclusive of interest or costs.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-02365 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          Neda Roshanian, Esq.
          Michael Coats, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          Telephone: (310) 286-0246
          Facsimile: (310) 407-5391
          E-Mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com
                  neda@yablonovichlaw.com
                  michael@yablonovichlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Craig L. Winterman, Esq.
          Gary S. Yates, Esq.
          L. Dean Smith, Jr., Esq.
          HERZFELD & RUBIN LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-0451
          Facsimile: (310) 553-0648
          E-mail: cwinterman@hrllp-law.com
                  gyates@hrllp-law.com
                  dsmith@hrllp-law.com


WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses Part of Homeowners' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed part of a class action accusing Wells Fargo of
offering temporary loan modifications without the intention of
ever making the modifications permanent.

U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero found the class failed to state a
claim for breach of contract or debt collection violations while
allowing unfair competition claims to remain.  Judge Spero also
gave the class leave to amend the complaint to allege damages from
the bank's alleged contract breach.

Lead plaintiffs Vicki and Richard Sutcliffe claim Wells Fargo
offered them a temporary home loan modification after they fell
behind on their mortgage payments.  The Sutcliffes made the
required reduced payments but did not receive paperwork for a loan
modification at the end of the trial period.  Instead Wells Fargo
sent paperwork indicating the loan was in default and another
letter stating it was not going to permanently modify their loan.
Over a month later, Wells Fargo sent another letter offering them
a "Special Forbearance Plan," under which they would make more
reduced payments.  Plaintiffs made the payments, only to be sent
another letter again stating the loan was in default.  The bank
returned one payment and told the Sutcliffes not to make any more.
Soon after they received a letter from a law firm indicating they
had been retained by Wells Fargo to initiate foreclosure
proceedings.  Plaintiffs asked Wells Fargo again to reconsider the
loan modification.  The bank responded by putting them on another
forbearance plan.  Plaintiffs accepted the offer and began making
payments.  They soon received another letter saying the property
would be sold at a trustee's sale.

Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of "all homeowners nationwide who
received a trial loan modification proposal substantially similar
to the TPP (Home Affordable Modification Program Trial Period)
from any of the Defendants; made the payments set forth in the
proposal; provided true information with respect to all
representations required by the proposal; and were either (a)
denied a permanent loan modification; (b) offered an illusory
'modification' on terms substantially similar to their unmodified
loan; and/or (c) who received, entered into, and complied with the
above described Forbearance Plans from Wells Fargo, consisting of
the Offer Letter and Agreement, in substantially the same form(s)
presented to Plaintiffs."

Plaintiffs accuse Wells Fargo of unfair competition, breach of
contract and bad faith.  Claims for rescission and restitution
were rendered moot when the Sutcliffes recently accepted a
permanent loan modification from Wells Fargo, according to the
ruling.

The court rejected Wells Fargo's argument that the other claims
were not ripe, finding their claims "turn on conduct that had
already occurred at the time the action was filed, namely, Wells
Fargo's failure to offer them a permanent modification after
Plaintiffs allegedly complied with all requirements of the TPP."

The court also noted that "the allegations were sufficient to show
that denying judicial consideration would have imposed significant
hardship on Plaintiffs because they had received notices that they
were in default on their loan and that their file had been passed
on to Wells Fargo's counsel to initiate foreclosure proceedings."

Judge Spero similarly refuted Wells Fargo's argument that by
offering a permanent modification, all plaintiffs' claims are
moot.  According to the ruling, "claims that are related to a
foreclosure but which are based on alleged wrongful conduct that
goes beyond the wrongful foreclosure are not necessarily rendered
moot where the foreclosure is vacated . . . The Court finds that
is the case here because Plaintiffs' claims are based on Wells
Fargo's alleged unfair and deceptive conduct in connection with
the two forbearance offers and the TPP and not on wrongful conduct
committed in foreclosure proceedings."

The court found Wells Fargo's assertion that the relevant conduct
in the case did not occur in California to be a factual question
that may be suitable at summary judgment but does not support
dismissal.  Wells Fargo had tried to have plaintiffs' allegations
under California's unfair competition law tossed on the grounds
that the conduct did not occur in California.

Concluding that the public would likely be deceived by
communications from Wells Fargo that claim the borrower would be
offered a modification if the borrower complied with the terms of
the TPP and forbearance the court found the allegations sufficient
to hold up at this stage of the litigation.

While noting disagreements among courts about whether an
enforceable contract was created when the TPP was sent to
plaintiffs, Judge Spero ultimately found it was, at least for the
purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss, rejecting multiple
arguments by Wells Fargo, including that the TPP could not create
an enforceable contract because it did not set forth the terms of
repayment that would apply to the modified loan.

According to the ruling, "As the court explained in (Wigod v.
Wells Fargo Bank), while the TPP did not set forth the specific
terms of repayment, Wells Fargo was required to offer a
modification that was consistent with HAMP (Home Affordable
Modification Program) guidelines and therefore, the agreement did
not give Wells Fargo unlimited discretion as to the repayment
terms . . . Because Wells Fargo was required to comply with HAMP
guidelines in determining the terms of repayment under a
modification agreement, the Court concludes, at least at the
pleading stage, that the terms of the TPP are sufficiently
definite to support the existence of a contract."

And since plaintiffs were required to submit financial documents
not required under the original loan and agreed to go to credit
counseling, they adequately alleged consideration to survive a
motion to dismiss.

Judge Spero did end up dismissing the claim for breach of
contract, however, agreeing with the bank that the only alleged
damages are the reduced payments made under the TPP and these
payments do not constitute damages because plaintiffs had a pre-
existing duty to make payments on their loan.

The court gave leave to amend that part of the complaint, however,
noting that plaintiffs represented at oral argument that they
could allege other types of damages, including adverse credit
consequences in an increase in the principal amount owed on the
loan.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class
Action Complaint in Sutcliffe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-06595 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/11/311-cv-06595.pdf


                           *********

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  * * *