CAR_Public/120524.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 24, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 102

                             Headlines

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
AMERICAN SAMOA: Discrimination Settlement Hearing Moved
ARKANSAS: Sued for Defunding Sparkman Learning Center
AUSTRALIA: 3000 People Join Flood Class Action in Queensland
BEST BUY: Sued for Misrepresenting Phone Service Protection Plan

BITTORRENT: Judge Dismisses Porn Film Piracy Suit
BLACKSTONE GROUP: "Dahl" Suit Remains Pending in Mass.
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO-related Class Suit
BLUE CROSS: Faces Second Antitrust Class Action Suit
BP: Cities in Jackson County Object to Class Action Settlement

CELEBRITY PRODUCTIONS: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
ENTERGY LOUISIANA: Awaits OK of La. Property Owners' Suit Deal
EQUIFAX INC: Appeals From Consolidated Suit Deal Approval Pending
GENERAL MILLS: Judge Dismisses Fruit Roll-Ups Class Action
GEORESOURCES: Being Sold to Halcon for Too Little, Suit Claims

GOODRICH CORP: Awaits Approval of UTC Merger Suit Settlement
GYMBOREE CORP: Settlement of Three Suits Approved in January
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Appeal in Batesville Casket Suit Pending
HUMAN GENOME: Securities Suits in Maryland Consolidated in March
INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend TCPA Suit in Illinois

INTERNAP NETWORK: "Anastasio" Securities Suit Still Pending
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Claims in Securities Suit Dismissed in March
LINN ENERGY: Discovery in Suit Over Royalty Payments Ongoing
LM FIRST: Class Action Over Frozen Mortgage Funds Likely
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in N.Y.

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Continues to Defend Suit Over 401(k) Plans
MONSANTO: Class Members to Retain Rights to Sue for Damages
NEBRASKA: Medicaid Div. Sued for Denying Health Treatments
OMNICARE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Kentucky
OMNICARE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of IPO-Related Suit

OMNICARE INC: Stipulated Bid to Withdraw Appeal Granted in March
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal in Suit Over Facebook Beacon Pending
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hines" Suit
PF CHANG: Being Sold to Centerbridge for Too Little, Suit Claims
PHILIPS/MAGNAVOX: TV Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
PITTSBURGH MERCY: Judge Decertifies Unpaid Meal Break Class

QEP RESOURCES: Defends "Chieftain" Class Suit in Oklahoma
REVLON INC: Discovery in Suits Over 2009 Exchange Offer Ongoing
SUMMER INFANT: Awaits Approval of $1.7-Mil. Class Settlement
TIM HORTONS: Canadian Restaurant Owners' Claims Dismissed in Feb.
TUI UK: Couple Mulls Class Action Over Cruise Illness History

VIROPHARMA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Pennsylvania
WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Dismisses Subclass in Legal Brief Suit

* CFPB, SEC May Limit Consumer Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
* Securities Class Action Numbers Steady in First Quarter 2012
* Treasury Looks Into Collective Action Proposals Over Misselling


                          *********

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Accretive Health, Inc. are reminded of the
securities class action against Accretive and certain of its
officers.  The federal securities class action, filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois (12-
cv-3279), is on behalf of all persons who purchased Accretive
securities between March 2, 2011 and April 24, 2012, inclusive.
This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Accretive securities 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.

Accretive provides revenue cycle management services for hospitals
and healthcare providers in the United States.

On March 29, 2012, Accretive revealed that, in response to a
lawsuit filed by Minnesota Attorney General, the Company had
agreed to no longer collect debts on behalf of Fairview Health
Services.  On this news, Accretive shares declined $4.46 per share
or 18.5%, to close at $19.60 per share on March 29, 2012.

On April 24, 2012, the Minnesota AG released a six-volume report
detailing Accretive's aggressive debt collection practices,
including demanding payment from patients who were currently
seeking medical care in hospitals.  The next day, an article
published by The New York Times discussed the Minnesota AG's
report.  On these revelations, Accretive shares declined $7.74 per
share or nearly 42%, to close at $10.75 per share on April 25,
2012.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York and Chicago, is
acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  The firm
represents victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct.


AMERICAN SAMOA: Discrimination Settlement Hearing Moved
-------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand International reports that a settlement
conference hearing between the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the American Samoan government over age
discrimination claims has been moved to February next year.

The Commission last year filed a lawsuit against the government on
behalf of public servants in American Samoa who believe they've
been discriminated against because of their age.

A lawyer with the Commission, Mike Farrell, says the court ordered
a settlement conference for this month but it's been pushed back
as the government's legal representatives plan to raise some legal
issues.

He says in the meantime the Commission has no reason to believe
that the American Samoan government has stopped the practices it's
accused of.


ARKANSAS: Sued for Defunding Sparkman Learning Center
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Arkansas Department of
Human Services is defunding Sparkman Learning Center, which serves
150 developmentally disabled children, parents say in an ADA class
action in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Tyler, et al. v. Arkansas Department of
Human Services, et al., 12-cv-01052 (W.D. Ark.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/21/DisabledKids.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bridgette M. Frazier, Esq.
          1723 S. Broadway
          Little Rock, AR 72206
          Telephone: (501) 374-3758
          E-mail: bmf@thefrazierlawfirm.com


AUSTRALIA: 3000 People Join Flood Class Action in Queensland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Solomons, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that more
than 3000 Queenslanders have joined a legal claim over the deadly
2011 floods as class-action law firms ramp up pressure on the
cash-strapped State Government.

The firms plan more town hall meetings and increased advertising
in a bid to recruit more claimants.

Maurice Blackburn and financial backers IMF have hired two US
experts as part of a million-dollar effort to establish that there
was negligence in the operation of the dams in 2011.

Early briefings have boosted the firms' confidence about taking on
the Government, which is yet to state its position on
compensation.

"They've given us a greater insight into what went wrong and why,"
Damian Scattini of Maurice Blackburn said.

"It was mismanaged throughout the period and there is the
suggestion of prior negligence.  The upshot is that it shouldn't
have happened this way."

Rival law firm Slater & Gordon is also investigating possible
action against the Government but would not give details of its
clients.

Ultimately any payouts would be funded by the taxpayer.

A spokesman for Premier Campbell Newman said the new Government
had yet to receive any legal claims and was still busy working
through the recommendations of the flood inquiry, which it planned
to implement in full.

"The Premier has said if anyone has suffered injustice at the
hands of the State Government he would ensure they were treated
fairly," he said.

"The Queensland Flood Commission has made no finding of negligence
on the part of the state or the dam operator."

Ipswich councillor Paul Tully, a flood victim who has signed up to
the Maurice Blackburn scheme, predicted that the Newman Government
would eventually settle with victims  many of whose health had
been damaged along with their property.

"I'd be 100 per cent certain that Campbell Newman will want all of
this finalized by 2015 before the next state election," he said.

"They won't want this to be a political issue."

IMF's John Walker said his firm would place newspaper ads to
attract more flood victims, including those whose businesses had
failed as a result.

Maurice Blackburn and IMF will also hold further public meetings
later this month in Brisbane.

"The strength of the claim is in the numbers," Mr. Walker said.

IMF is funding research into the floods in return for up to 30 per
cent of any eventual pay-out.

Mr. Walker said the AUD15 million flood inquiry, which closed in
February, had not made any findings relevant to the potential
class action.

"The flood inquiry wasn't there to identify wrongdoing," he said.

"It was whether the manual was followed.  We are trying to
identify the standard of care (and) . . . any difference between
that and what occurred."

Channel 10 reporter Lexy Hamilton-Smith, whose Fig Tree Pocket
home was badly damaged, has signed up with Maurice Blackburn.
Ms. Hamilton-Smith was insured with RACQ but only for "flash"
flood.

She received a AUD12,500 "compassionate" payout from the insurer
as well as Premier's Relief Fund money.

But she is still at least AUD120,000 out of pocket and had to take
out a further loan to cover it.

She said Maurice Blackburn had been "a bit grey" on whether
Premier's Fund cash would have to be returned if the Government
compensated people, but she signed up anyway.

"What else have I got to lose?" she asked.


BEST BUY: Sued for Misrepresenting Phone Service Protection Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that if a
cellphone breaks beyond repair, Best Buy promises a new one to
customers who buy a protection plan for $15 a month, but it gives
them a refurbished phone "at most," an unhappy customers says in a
federal class action.

Debra Wanless claims she signed up for the Geek Squad Black Tie
Protection plan, which promises a new phone if the old phone is
damaged beyond repair, including if the damage happens by
accident.

But Ms. Wanless claims Best Buy conceals that it does not give new
replacement phones to customers but "at most" provides them with a
refurbished phone.

Ms. Wanless claims she bought an iPhone 4 from Best Buy because of
the company's protection plan, which cost her $14.99 a month for 2
years.

She claims a Best Buy employee told her that the plan was "the
best insurance one could buy for mobile phone.  She was told that
all she needed to do was bring in the broken phone and Best Buy
would hand her a new phone," according to the complaint.

Ms. Wanless says Best Buy did not give her a copy of the terms and
conditions of the plan, or a contract, nor did it tell her how to
find them.

She says that she accidentally dropped her phone and shattered its
case, and when she brought it to a store in Folsom, she was told
for the first time that she would get a refurbished phone.

When she complained, she says, she was told that "most of the
refurbished phones are basically new phones that are returned by
customers who, after just a month of use, want to upgrade to a
newer version."

Ms. Wanless claims Best Buy gave her the replacement phone in a
plastic bag in a brown box.  She says she asked if there had been
any previous problems with the phone and a Best Buy employee told
her the company had no information on the phone.

When she asked how consumers were supposed to know whether the
phone was comparable, she claims Best Buy responded that
"refurbished phones were good phones."

Ms. Wanless says she spent $254 for the mobile phone insurance
plan before making her claim.  She says that "had she known at the
time of purchase of the mobile phone plan that would only ever get
a refurbished phone instead of a new one . . . she would never had
paid so much for the Best Buy Mobile Phone Plan or bought it in
the first place."

Ms. Wanless accuses Best Buy of unfair competition, deceptive
advertising, breach of warranty, bad faith and unjust enrichment.

She seeks class damages for California residents who bought
protection plans from Best Buy within the past 4 years.

A copy of the Complaint in Wanless v. Best Buy Company, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-02561 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/21/BestBuy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Lawrence, Esq.
          THE LAWRENCE LAW FIRM
          201 Sansome Street, Suite 1001
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: jeffrey@jlawrence.com

               - and -

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM
          One Market
          Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com


BITTORRENT: Judge Dismisses Porn Film Piracy Suit
------------------------------------------------
Rhett Pardon, writing for XBIZ.com, reports that another mass porn
BitTorrent piracy suit has bitten the dust.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of New York last week
dismissed all but one of 245 John Does suspected of trading
Digital Sin's "My Little Panties 2" because she ruled the suit's
joinder was improper and geolocation techniques used in
identifying the Does named in the suit were faulty.

Judge McMahon's ruling was notable because she additionally laid
forth rules of conduct for further litigation by Digital Sin and
its counsel, Mike Meier, in connection with litigating further
against the Does over "My Little Panties 2."

Judge McMahon in her decision said that she didn't need to write
another lengthy opinion discussing why plaintiff's theory is
wrong.  Rather, she said she incorporated reasoning by a number of
judges in Northern California and New York who have rejected other
mass BitTorrent joinder cases.

"Nothing in the complaint negates the inference that the downloads
by the various defendants were discrete and separate acts that
took place at different times; indeed the complaint alleges that
separate defendants shared access to a file containing a
pornographic film in separate and isolated incidents over  the
course of 59 days," she wrote.

"In other words what we have here is 245 separate and discrete
transactions in which 245 individuals used the same method to
access a file via the Internet -- no concerted action whatsoever,
and no series of related occurrences -- at least not related in
any way except the method that was allegedly used to violate the
law."

Judge McMahon said that it had been no accident that Digital Sin
and Mr. Meier had not sought to bring the suit to class action
status (because the rules for certification could not be met, she
said) and that the only economy that litigating these cases as a
single action would achieve is an economy to plaintiff -- "the
economy of not having pay separate filing fee for each action."

Personal jurisdiction was another problem for Judge McMahon in the
Digital Sin suit because IP locator reports on the alleged
copyright violations were never offered to the court.  She called
the oversight "troubling" because plaintiffs counsel averred that
he only "personally conducted a random batch test of the purported
locations of the IP addresses" of the Does.

As a result of joinder and geolocation issues, Judge McMahon
dismissed the case, with the exception of Doe No. 1, "because
plaintiff has not paid the filing fee that is statutorily required
to bring these 244 separate lawsuits."

The federal judge noted in her order that "litigation abuse has
been a hallmark" over purported downloading of "My Little Panties
2."  She said that there are currently three separate "My Little
Panties 2" swarm cases pending before three different judges.

Judge McMahon cautioned Mr. Meier about judge shopping and imposed
"going forward" rules if he refiled against any of the severed
defendants.

"Lest plaintiffs counsel think he can simply put cases against the
severed and dismissed John Doe defendants into the wheel for
assignment to yet another judge, I remind him of Local Civil Rule
1.6(a) [which requires the plaintiff attorney to bring the
existence of potentially related cases to the attention of the
court]."

One day after the Judge McMahon's order severing 244 Does,
Mr. Meier filed papers to sever Doe No. 1.

Mr. Meier said in his dismissal notice that Doe No. 1 used a
mobile device as he was traveling through New York and is outside
jurisdiction of the court.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: "Dahl" Suit Remains Pending in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by Kirk Dahl against
several companies, including The Blackstone Group L.P. remains
pending in a Massachusetts federal court, according to the
Company's February 28, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against sixteen private equity firms and investment banks,
including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.).  The suit alleges that from mid-2003,
defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to
rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the
prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide
up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged
buyouts.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all
persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged
buyout transactions.  The amended complaint also includes seven
purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking damages and/or
restitution and comprised of shareholders of seven companies.
Following the completion of fact discovery, plaintiffs may be
permitted to amend their complaint further to add a number of
additional leveraged buyout transactions.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO-related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit arising from its initial public
offering, according to the Company's February 28, 2012 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.  These
suits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint (Landmen
Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al.) filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman
(Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G.
Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James
(Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael
A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of
the IPO).  The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO
prospectus was false and misleading for failing to disclose that
(a) one private equity investment would be adversely affected by
trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for sub-prime
mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment was
adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing
agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market
had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
Blackstone's real estate investments; and (2) the financial
statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate
principally because they overstated the value of the investments
referred to in clause (1).  In September 2009 the District Court
judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice, ruling that even if
the allegations in the complaint were assumed to be true, the
alleged omissions were immaterial.  Analyzing both quantitative
and qualitative factors, the District Court reasoned that the
alleged omissions were immaterial as a matter of law given the
size of the investments at issue relative to Blackstone as a
whole, and taking into account Blackstone's structure as an asset
manager and financial advisory firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law.  The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly"
alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted
material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments.
Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision
the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in
plaintiffs' favor.  The Second Circuit did not consider facts
other than those in the plaintiffs' complaint.  On June 28, 2011,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied.  On August 8,
2011, defendants filed their answer to the complaint and discovery
commenced and is continuing in this action.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Second Antitrust Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Evan Belanger, writing for Birmingham Business Journal, reports
that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama and its national trade
association are facing a second class-action antitrust lawsuit.

Filed on May 17 in federal court on behalf of plaintiffs
Birmingham-based One Stop Environmental LLC, Nicholas A. Layman
and all other BCBS of Alabama members, the suit alleges an
"ongoing conspiracy" by the local health insurance provider and 37
other Blue Cross companies not to compete in Alabama.

It alleges the "illegal efforts to establish and maintain monopoly
power in Alabama" -- with control of 93 percent of the total
market share as of 2008 -- "has resulted in skyrocketing premiums
for Alabama BCBS-AL enrollees for over a decade."

The suit is the second filed against the Birmingham-based insurer
in as many months.

Officials with Birmingham-based BCBS of Alabama could not
immediately be reached for comment on May 18.

But when the first suit was filed, a Blue Cross spokesperson said
that suit lacked merit, noting the insurer has the fifth-lowest
family premiums in the nation among all employers.

On behalf of the named plaintiffs and all other BCBS of Alabama
members, both suits seek damages equal to triple the amount
premiums were "artificially inflated" from March 1, 2007 to
present.

The suit comes after the insurer reported a significant income
jump for fiscal 2011 -- $256.92 million, up nearly $94 million
from prior year.  It also comes after the American Medical
Association study found Alabama has the least competitive
insurance market in the nation.

According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners,
BCBS of Alabama's direct premiums climbed 41.8 percent from fiscal
2005 to 2010, topping $4.3 billion.


BP: Cities in Jackson County Object to Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaija Wilkinson, writing for Gulf Live, reports that cities in
Jackson County are objecting to a proposed BP oil spill class
action settlement set to start paying out $8 billion on June 4.
That's because nearly all of the coastal part of the county is in
a category where businesses and individuals have to meet a far
greater burden of proof than their counterparts in areas that
weren't as hard hit, said Pascagoula attorney Robert Wilkinson,
who is representing the cities.

"Remember the reports of oil washing up on the Florida Keys?" he
said.  "They didn't get any oil within hundreds of miles of there,
and all 180 miles or so of the keys are in Zone A."

Working with BP over several months, the plaintiffs' steering
committee reached an agreement that included the three Gulf Coast
zones -- A, B and C.

The significance is to businesses and individuals with economic
damage claims, he said.  Those in Zone A simply have to prove loss
in 2010 compared with previous years.

Those in Zone C have to go much further.

"If you're in Zone A and you had a loss in 2010, you don't have to
prove it was caused by the oil spill," he said.  "Basically, if
you're a business and you can prove you had a loss in 2010
compared to 2009 or compared to 2007 or 2008, you're going to
collect, period."

The same goes for individuals, he said.

Jump to Zone C, and a business not only has to prove that a loss
was related to the spill, but that they experienced a rebound in
2011.

Tourism related businesses in Zone C also are adversely affected
if they opt to accept a premium in exchange for waiving their
right to sue, Mr. Wilkinson said.

"If your loss was $100 in Zone A under this 'risk transfer
premium' you would get a premium of 2 1/2 times on top of the
original loss.  So your $100 would turn into $350," Mr. Wilkinson
said.

For such businesses in Zone C, the premium is only two times the
original loss.  The gap is even wider for non-tourism business, he
said: 1 1/2 times the loss in Zone A compared with only a quarter
of the loss in Zone C.

Mr. Wilkinson said he doesn't "have a clue" about what information
was used to come up with the zones.

BP spokesman Ray Melick referred questions to Deveney
Communications, a New Orleans firm representing the claims office.
Deveney declined comment, but said it was working on providing
details about how the zones were established.  Those details were
not available by press time.

Meanwhile, all four Jackson County cities -- Gautier, Moss Point,
Ocean Springs and Pascagoula -- recently passed resolutions
formally objecting from being excluded from Zone A.

The resolutions read basically the same and include the statement
that it is "unconscionable and unfair that areas such as Key West
and Tampa are designated as Zone A and the eastern portion of
Mississippi is excluded."

Mr. Wilkinson said he is going to file a written objection on
behalf of the cities in federal court in New Orleans.  "And we're
going to ask that it be expedited because these payments are right
around the corner."

In early March, federal court in New Orleans named Lafayette
attorney Patrick Juneau claims administrator for the settlement
process, which will be overseen by the court. He replaces former
BP claims administrator Ken Feinberg.

The $8 billion settlement reached between attorneys representing
more than 100,000 individuals and business with BP claims resulted
in the federal court relieving Mr. Feinberg of his duties with the
$20 million Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

The facility, which paid out $6 billion and processed about
221,300 claims, is being phased out to give way to the court-
supervised claims process.

Mr. Wilkinson said he hopes on behalf of local businesses and
individuals, that process, or at least the maps, will be adjusted.
"I don't have anything against the Keys or anyone else in Zone A
-- good for them that had someone on the plaintiff steering
committee that was standing up for them.

"But come on, all of these cities (in Jackson County) had oil on
the beach, we had absolute fishery closure, people couldn't use
the water.  It's simply not fair."


CELEBRITY PRODUCTIONS: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Celebrity Productions and
Mexico V.I.P. Productions took a woman for $1,510 for a so-called
Mexico vacation, and they and others did it to others too, she
claims in a class action in Dallas County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Harris, et al. v. Celebrity
Productions, LLC, et al., Case No. CC-12-03059-A (Dallas Cty.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/21/Vacations.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason J. Richerson, Esq.
          RICHERSON LAW FIRM
          306 East Randol Mill, Suite 160
          Arlington, TX 76011


ENTERGY LOUISIANA: Awaits OK of La. Property Owners' Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of property
owners in Louisiana, according to the Company's February 28, 2012
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Several property owners have filed a class action suit against
Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Services, Inc., ETHC, and Entergy
Technology Company in state court in St. James Parish, Louisiana
purportedly on behalf of all property owners in Louisiana who have
conveyed easements to the defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that
Entergy installed fiber optic cable across the plaintiffs'
property without obtaining appropriate easements.  The plaintiffs
seek damages equal to the fair market value of the surplus fiber
optic cable capacity, including a share of the profits made
through use of the fiber optic cables, and punitive damages.
Entergy removed the case to federal court in New Orleans; however,
the district court remanded the case back to state court.  In
February 2004, the state court entered an order certifying this
matter as a class action.  Entergy's appeals of this ruling were
denied.  The parties have entered into a term sheet establishing
basic terms for a settlement that must be approved by the court.


EQUIFAX INC: Appeals From Consolidated Suit Deal Approval Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al.
v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax
Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC,
et al., plaintiffs asserted that Equifax Inc. violated federal and
state law (the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Credit
Reporting Act and the California Unfair Competition Law) by
failing to follow reasonable procedures to determine whether
credit accounts are discharged in bankruptcy, including the method
for updating the status of an account following a bankruptcy
discharge.  On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a
Settlement Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in
the procedures used by defendants to record discharges in
bankruptcy on consumer credit files.  That settlement resolved
claims for injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs' claims for
damages.  On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order
preliminarily approving an agreement to settle remaining class
claims.  The District Court subsequently deferred final approval
of the settlement and required the settling parties to send a
supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and
objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-
notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs' counsel fee award.
Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15,
2011.  The deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to
provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or
to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011.  On July 15,
2011, following another approval hearing, the District Court
approved the settlement.  Several objecting plaintiffs
subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which are currently pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


GENERAL MILLS: Judge Dismisses Fruit Roll-Ups Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Press TV reports that Fruit Roll-Ups and other manufactured fruit
snacks by General Mills do not contain real fruit, but that's
okay, said a federal judge ruling in a lawsuit seeking an end to
the misleading advertising.

Bay Area mother Annie Lam filed a class action case last fall
against General Mills, arguing that the company was deceiving
consumers by claiming its fruity snacks included actual fruit
ingredients.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti seemed to agree with the
plaintiffs when he made his ruling last week.  Judge Conti wrote
"a reasonable consumer might be surprised to learn that a
substantial portion of each serving of the Fruit Snacks consists
of partially hydrogenated oil and sugars."

Judge Conti also said General Mills had used deceptive language in
claiming its products were "made with real fruit."

But, he added, the company did not violate the law because the
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act allows companies to say
something contains specific fruit flavoring when in fact it does
not contain fruit.  "A product may be labeled as 'fruit flavored'
or 'naturally flavored,' even if it does not contain fruit or
natural ingredients.  So long as that product 'contains natural
flavor' which is 'derived from' the 'characterizing food
ingredient,' it will not run afoul of the regulation," Judge Conti
said in the decision.

"While the regulation's logic is troubling, the court is bound to
apply it," Judge Conti wrote.


GEORESOURCES: Being Sold to Halcon for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that GeoResources is selling
itself too cheaply to Halcon Resources Corp., for $1 billion or
$37.97 a share, shareholders say in a federal class action filed
in Denver.


GOODRICH CORP: Awaits Approval of UTC Merger Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation continues to await court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated merger-related lawsuit, according to
the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On September 21, 2011, Goodrich Corporation and its majority-owned
subsidiaries entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger
Agreement) with United Technologies Corporation (UTC). The Merger
Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, the Company will be
acquired by UTC in a cash-for-stock transaction (Merger)

In connection with the Merger Agreement with UTC, eleven putative
class-action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York relating to the Merger.  Nine of these
complaints were filed in the County of New York: Rice v. Goodrich
Corp., et al., Index No. 652619/2011, New Jersey Carpenters
Annuity Fund v. Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 652637/2011,
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement Sys. v. Goodrich
Corp., et al., Index No. 652649/2011, Pill v. Goodrich Corp., et
al., Index No. 652655/2011, IUE-CWA Local 475 Pension Plan v.
Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 652661/2011, Mass. Laborers'
Pension Fund v. Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 652664/2011,
Pifko v. Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 11111146, Ruschel v.
Goodrich Corp., et al., Index No. 652695/2011, and Astor BK Realty
Trust v. Larsen, et al., Index No. 652706/2011.  Two additional
putative class-action complaints were filed in Nassau County:
Casey v. Larsen, et al., Index No. 13699/2011, and Minneapolis
Retail Meat Cutters and Food Handlers Pension Fund v. Goodrich
Corp., et al., Index No. 14366/2011.  On November 7, 2011, upon
plaintiffs' motions, all eleven actions were consolidated into In
re Goodrich Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 13699/2011 in the
Supreme Court for Nassau County and, on November 9, plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Consolidated
Complaint) in that court.

The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
putative class of Goodrich shareholders and names Goodrich, its
directors, UTC and a merger subsidiary as defendants.  The
Consolidated Complaint generally alleges that, in approving the
proposed transaction, the Goodrich directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and fair dealing
owed to the putative class.  The Consolidated Complaint further
alleges that UTC, the merger subsidiary and Goodrich aided and
abetted the Goodrich directors in the breach of their fiduciary
duties.  In addition to damages, the Consolidated Complaint seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief barring the named defendants
from consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  Goodrich and its directors believe that these consolidated
lawsuits and the underlying claims are without merit.

The parties to the consolidated action reached an agreement in
principle, which is intended to resolve all issues in this
litigation.  On February 6, 2012, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) memorializing the key terms of
that agreement.  Pursuant to the MOU, Goodrich made various
additional disclosures in its Definitive Proxy Statement filed on
February 7, 2012, related to the Merger, and UTC agreed to
forebear from exercising certain rights under the Merger
Agreement.

The effect of UTC's forbearance is to shorten the period of
written notice Goodrich must give to UTC prior to making a Company
Adverse Recommendation Change or terminating the Merger Agreement
pursuant to Section 8.1(c) in light of a Company Superior Proposal
(as those terms are defined in the Merger Agreement) from five
calendar days to three business days, and the period of prior
written notice Goodrich must give to UTC of its intention to make
a Company Adverse Recommendation Change or terminate the Merger
Agreement in light of any change to the financial or other
material terms of a subsequent Company Superior Proposal from the
longer of (i) three business days or (ii) the period remaining
under the initial five calendar-day notice, to the longer of (i)
two business days or (ii) the period remaining under the initial
three business-day notice.

The Company says the MOU will not affect the merger consideration
to be paid to its shareholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement or
the adoption of the Merger Agreement by Goodrich's shareholders
which occurred on March 13, 2012.  The settlement is subject to
approval by the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


GYMBOREE CORP: Settlement of Three Suits Approved in January
------------------------------------------------------------
The Gymboree Corporation's settlement of three class action
lawsuits commenced in California was approved in January 2012,
according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
January 28, 2012.

Between October 12 and October 18, 2010, three purported class
action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco, captioned Halliday v. The
Gymboree Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-10-504544, Himmel v.
Gymboree Corp., et al., Case No. CGC-10-504550, and Harris v. The
Gymboree Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-10-504693.  The
complaints challenged the transaction pursuant to which investment
funds sponsored by Bain Capital commenced a tender offer for the
outstanding shares of the Company, which was followed by a merger
of a subsidiary of investment funds sponsored by Bain Capital with
and into the Company.  The various complaints named as defendants
the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"), Bain Capital and the two subsidiaries of the
investment funds sponsored by Bain Capital that were created to
consummate the Merger (collectively, the "Bain Defendants").  The
lawsuits alleged generally that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Transaction and that
the Company and the Bain Defendants aided and abetted those
alleged breaches.  The complaints sought, among other things, to
(i) enjoin the Transaction unless and until the Company adopted
and implemented a procedure to obtain the highest possible value
for stockholders, and (ii) rescinded the Merger Agreement between
entities controlled by investment funds sponsored by Bain Capital
and the Company.

While the Individual Defendants and the Bain Defendants
(collectively, "Defendants") believed that the complaints were
without merit and that the Defendants had valid defenses to all
claims, in an effort to minimize the burden and expense of further
litigation relating to such complaints, on November 12, 2010, the
Defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs
in these actions (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") to settle the
litigation in its entirety and resolve all allegations by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendants in connection with the
Transaction.  The settlement provided for a settlement and release
by the purported class of the Company's stockholders of all claims
against the Defendants in connection with the Transaction.  In
exchange for such settlement and release, and after arm's length
discussions between and among the Defendants and the Plaintiffs,
the Company provided certain additional supplemental disclosures
to its Schedule 14D-9, although the Company did not make any
admission that such additional supplemental disclosures were
material or otherwise required.  After reaching agreement on the
substantive terms of the settlement, the Plaintiffs applied to the
court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses up to $0.8 million, which Defendants agreed not to
oppose.

The settlement, including the award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, was approved by the court and an Order for Final
Judgment was entered on January 10, 2012.  As of January 29, 2011,
the Company had accrued $0.8 million that was paid out in January
2012.


HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Appeal in Batesville Casket Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. and its
former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary (now wholly-
owned by Hillenbrand, Inc.), and three national funeral home
businesses.

The district court has dismissed the claims and denied class
certification, but in October 2010, the plaintiffs appealed these
decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  If the plaintiffs were to succeed in reversing the
district court's dismissal of the claims, but not the denial of
class certification, then the plaintiffs would be able to pursue
individual damages claims: the alleged overcharges on the
plaintiffs' individual casket purchases, which would be trebled as
a matter of law, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

If the plaintiffs were to (1) succeed in reversing the district
court's dismissal of the claims, (2) succeed in reversing the
district court order denying class certification and certify a
class, and (3) prevail at trial, then the damages awarded to the
plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have
a significant material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.  The plaintiffs
filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging
from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1,460.0
million before trebling on behalf of the purported class of
consumers they seek to represent.

The Company and Hillenbrand, Inc. have entered into a judgment
sharing agreement that apportions the costs and any potential
liabilities associated with this litigation between them.  The
Company believes that it has committed no wrongdoing as alleged by
the plaintiffs and that it has meritorious defenses to class
certification and to plaintiffs' underlying allegations and damage
theories.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


HUMAN GENOME: Securities Suits in Maryland Consolidated in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two securities class action lawsuits that were filed in Maryland
were consolidated in March, Human Genome Sciences, Inc. disclosed
in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In November 2011, two securities class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
Company and a number of its current and former executive officers
and directors, alleging violations of securities laws during 2010
and 2009.  These actions were consolidated in March 2012.  In
addition, three shareholder derivative actions were filed during
December 2011 and January 2012 in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland that are related to essentially the
same allegations made in the securities class actions.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and plans to
vigorously defend these claims.  These lawsuits are at the very
early stages of the legal process, which can extend for several
years.  As a result, these matters have not yet progressed
sufficiently though discovery and development of important factual
information and legal issues to enable the Company to estimate a
range of a reasonably possible loss, if any.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend TCPA Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, pending in Illinois, according to
the Company's February 28, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 30,
2011.

The Company has been named as a defendant in an action filed
before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Lake County,
Illinois, which was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent thousands of unsolicited
fax advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("TCPA"). At the time of filing the
complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to
certify a class of plaintiffs comprised of businesses who
allegedly received unsolicited fax advertisements from the
Company. Other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad range
of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own unique set
of facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from this
matter.  The Company is vigorously contesting class action
certification and liability, and will continue to evaluate its
defenses based upon its internal review and investigation of prior
events, new information, and future circumstances.


INTERNAP NETWORK: "Anastasio" Securities Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against Internap Network Services Corporation
and its former chief executive officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned
Catherine Anastasio and Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network
Services Corp. and James P. DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-
3462-JOF.  The complaint alleges that the Company and the
individual defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and that the individual
defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a
"control person" of Internap.  Plaintiffs purport to bring these
claims on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who
purchased its common stock between March 28, 2007, and March 18,
2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream,
which the Company acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and
related credits due to services outages and (c) the Company's
previously reported 2007 revenue that the Company subsequently
reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs assert
that the Company and the individual defendant made these
misstatements and omissions to maintain its share price.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint").  The Amended
Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in the Company's
proxy statement in connection with its acquisition of VitalStream.
The Amended Complaint also added the Company's former chief
financial officer as a defendant and lengthened the putative class
period.

On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an
alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the
VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported
confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.  With respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended
Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs'
one final opportunity to amend the complaint.  On October 26,
2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint.  On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part
the motion to dismiss.  The two remaining claims involve certain
alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the integration
of VitalStream and the stability of the Company's content delivery
network ("CDN") platform.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Internap Network Services
Corporation -- http://www.internap.com-- provides information
technology (IT) infrastructure services. The Company operates
through two segments, Data Center Services and Internet Protocol
(IP) Services.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Claims in Securities Suit Dismissed in March
-------------------------------------------------------------
All of the securities class action claims alleged in the
securities litigation against ITT Educational Services, Inc. were
dismissed in March 2012, according to the Company's April 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On November 3, 2010, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous
Pension Fund, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the
"Securities Litigation").  On January 21, 2011, the court named
the Wyoming Retirement System as the lead plaintiff in the
Securities Litigation.  On April 1, 2011, an amended complaint was
filed in the Securities Litigation under the following caption: In
re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities and Shareholder
Derivative Litigation.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that:

   * the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
     Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
     creating and implementing a systemically predatory business
     model that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of
     the Company's common stock during the class period by
     misrepresenting its financials and future business
     prospects;

   * the defendants' misrepresentations and material omissions
     caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially
     inflated prices throughout the class period; and

   * the market's expectations were ultimately corrected on
     August 13, 2010, when the U.S. Department of Education
     published the loan repayment rate of the Company's students
     under a formula contained in proposed regulations published
     by the ED on July 26, 2010.

The putative class period in this action is from October 23, 2008,
through August 13, 2010.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
the designation of this action as a class action, and an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs, expenses,
attorneys' fees and expert fees.  On March 30, 2012, all of the
securities class action claims alleged in the Securities
Litigation were dismissed.  All of the defendants intend to defend
themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
complaint.


LINN ENERGY: Discovery in Suit Over Royalty Payments Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC has been named as a defendant in a number of
lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed
royalty payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has
established reserves that management currently believes are
adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its
evaluation of these matters.  For a certain statewide class action
royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been
established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on
the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted
by the court, will result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery in
this dispute is ongoing and is not complete.  As a result, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any.  In addition, the Company is involved in
various other disputes arising in the ordinary course of business.
The Company is not currently a party to any litigation or pending
claims that it believes would have a material adverse effect on
its overall business, financial position, results of operations or
liquidity; however, cash flow could be significantly impacted in
the reporting periods in which such matters are resolved.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


LM FIRST: Class Action Over Frozen Mortgage Funds Likely
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Wilmot, writing for Financial Review, reports that thousands
of investors are stuck in mortgage funds that were frozen during
the global financial crisis and some of them fear they won't get
their capital back.

These include investors locked up in the LM First Mortgage Fund.

The manager of the AUD400 million vehicle -- Surfers Paradise-
based LM Investment Management -- convened a meeting in Sydney
last week for investors to vote on a plan to split the fund and
introduce a unique liquidity facility.

Under the plan, the properties that the fund controls would be
split into "hold" and "sale" assets.

Investors who wanted to exit would be paid out as LM sold down its
"sale" pool, while those who wanted to stay in the fund would be
committing for another three years in the hope that the market
would turn around.

Zenith Investment Partners senior investment analyst Dugald
Higgins has been cautious about the LM fund's prospects for some
time but advised clients before the meeting that "there is no real
merit in voting 'no' [to the split] as far as I can see as you get
locked into a non-performing fund getting eaten up by prioritized
external debt payments and severely impaired assets".

The fund has been repaying debt owed to Deutsche Bank and aims to
pay off the facility this year.

LM has admitted that the value of its assets, which it argues are
high-quality commercial and residential holdings, were hit by the
global financial crisis.

Mr. Higgins says there is some merit in the liquidity scheme.  "If
you vote 'yes', you then get the chance to exit at a future point
when assets are realized.  The large caveat is that you may have
to take a big haircut on values.  If you elect to stay in, you are
automatically locked in for another three years with no guarantee
of getting any income during that period and also the distinct
possibility of not much in the way of reasonable capital return,"
he said.

LM came into the Sydney meeting with the support of about 98 per
cent of proxy holders.  But the manager, represented by executive
director Francene Mulder and chief financial officer Grant
Fischer, faced tough questioning from about 30 attendees.  The
fund has some 4,000 unit holders.

Investors at the meeting questioned the manager about the lack of
detailed information about its liquidity plan.  Mr. Fischer said
that more information would be provided -- although he admitted it
was difficult to determine exactly how much investors would
receive due to the structure of the proposal.

In a concession to investor concerns, LM said it would hold
another vote to effectively put its liquidity plan into action.

Law firm Piper Alderman, which represented at least one unit
holder at the meeting, is now looking into the fund.

Partner Amanda Banton urges investors in frozen mortgage funds to
keep abreast of developments and even consider looking to change
the fund manager when they are unhappy.  She says an investigation
by any new responsible entity may discover various discrepancies
in the management of funds and any subsequent litigation could
lead to recoveries by unit holders.

"We've been having a look at LM for some time and we do think
there may be issues there," Ms. Banton said.

"Any new responsible entity should not be conflicted and biased
and should thoroughly investigate the complex related party
issues."

Piper Alderman is involved in numerous class actions, including
one against another Gold Coast-based mortgage fund, Equititrust,
and is preparing to launch a class action on behalf of LM
investors.

"We do think there's going to be a class action there and have a
litigation funder that's interested in funding investigations,"
Ms. Banton said.

LM's Ms. Mulder said that switching to a new manager may produce
"dangerous outcomes".  A new entity could simply wind down the
existing fund, whereas LM was trying to give investors a choice
about whether to stay in or exit the fund, she said.  "We are here
to act in the best interests of all the investors," Ms. Mulder
added.

The lesson for all investors seems to be: keep up with what's
going on in your fund, especially if your money is frozen.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2011, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a class action lawsuit against Lockheed
Martin Corporation and three of its executive officers (Robert J.
Stevens, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bruce L. Tanner,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Linda R.
Gooden, Executive Vice President, IS&GS) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint was
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
April 21, 2009, through July 21, 2009, and alleges that the
Company violated certain sections of the federal securities laws
by allegedly making statements, primarily about the then-expected
performance of its IS&GS business segment, that contained either
false statements of material facts or omitted material facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading, or engaged
in other acts that operated as an alleged fraud upon class members
who purchased the Company's common stock during that period.  The
complaint further alleges that the statutory safe harbor provided
for forward-looking statements does not apply to any of the
allegedly false statements.  The complaint does not allege a
specific amount of monetary damages.  The Company believes that
the allegations are without merit and is defending against them.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 25, 2012.

Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global security company and
engages in the research, design, development, manufacture,
integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems and
products.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Continues to Defend Suit Over 401(k) Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corporation continues to defend a class action
lawsuit brought by participants of its 401(k) plans, according to
the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 25, 2012.

On September 11, 2006, the Company and Lockheed Martin Investment
Management Company (LMIMCo), a subsidiary, were named as
defendants in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, seeking to represent a class of
purportedly similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in
two of the Company's 401(k) plans.  Plaintiffs allege that the
Company or LMIMCo caused the Company's plans to pay expenses that
were higher than reasonable by, among other actions, permitting
service providers of the plans to engage in revenue sharing,
paying investment management fees for the company stock funds, and
causing the company stock funds to hold cash for liquidity, thus
reducing the return on those funds.  Plaintiffs also allege that
the Company failed to disclose information appropriately relating
to the fees associated with managing the plans.  In August 2008,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding allegations that the
Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing
inadequate disclosures with respect to the Stable Value Fund
offered under the Company's 401(k) plans.  On March 31, 2009, the
Judge dismissed a number of plaintiffs' claims, leaving three
claims for trial, specifically plaintiffs' claims involving the
company stock funds, the Stable Value Fund, and overall fees.  The
Court also granted class certification on two of plaintiffs'
claims.  The Company appealed the class certification.  On March
15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
vacated the District Court's class certification order and
remanded the case to the District Court.

The complaint does not allege a specific calculation of damages,
and the Company reasonably cannot estimate the possible loss, or
range of loss, which could be incurred if plaintiffs were to
prevail in the allegations, but believes that it has substantial
defenses.  The Company disputes the allegations and is defending
against them.

Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global security company and
engages in the research, design, development, manufacture,
integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems and
products.


MONSANTO: Class Members to Retain Rights to Sue for Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kate White, writing for Saturday Gazette-Mail, reports that
plaintiffs diagnosed with a disease as a result of medical
monitoring will retain their rights to sue chemical giant Monsanto
if a court next month approves a proposed multimillion-dollar
settlement in the class-action lawsuit against the company.

As the June 18 fairness hearing approaches, the right to sue for
damages is central to the dispute raised by some class members who
object to the agreement.

While lead plaintiffs attorney Stuart Calwell believes retaining
that right is an important benefit to plaintiffs, a lawyer for a
group of class members who object to the settlement disagrees.

"I think that's one major concern -- if someone tests positive for
one of the cancers or illnesses associated with hazardous
substances released by Monsanto, they get the right to start the
lawsuit all over again," said Thomas Urban, an Arlington, Va.,
attorney who represents a group of plaintiffs.

"That's not what we need after seven years of litigation.  We need
finality.  If they do develop an illness, they should have some
way of being compensated for the illness now, rather than having
to start a brand new suit."

Mr. Calwell strongly disagrees and says that retaining the right
to sue was a hard-earned concession from Monsanto in the
negotiations.

"I think the settlement delivers a very valuable and important
benefit to that community, and it's a benefit that was not going
to be delivered by the government or anybody else," Mr. Calwell
said. "We didn't have the government coattails to ride on.

"We've negotiated to get very specific language so no personal-
injury case is waived.  If someone finds they got something, they
have whatever rights they'd ordinarily have to pursue a claim for
compensation.

"What the defendant always looks for is finality -- they don't
want more, period.  To be able to get that in there from a
corporation's viewpoint is a big giveback."

Monsanto lawyer Charles Love agrees, but says he believes the
settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, "or we wouldn't have
agreed with it.  We want to get the matter concluded," Mr. Love
said.

The attorneys are now free to speak to the media since Circuit
Judge Derek Swope has lifted a gag order.

The right-to-sue element of the settlement is but one of a number
of complex questions facing Judge Swope, who will determine if the
agreement should be approved.

Chemical giant Monsanto has agreed to pay up to $84 million for
medical monitoring and $9 million to clean up 4,500 homes.  Word
of the settlement emerged on the eve of an expected six-month
trial in a case in which Nitro-area residents sought medical
monitoring for dioxin-related illnesses and a cleanup of what they
argue is a contaminated community.

For more than 50 years, the Monsanto plant in Nitro churned out
herbicides, rubber products and other chemicals.  The plant's
production of the defoliant Agent Orange created dioxin as a toxic
chemical byproduct.

Judge Swope entered a court order in March directing attorneys for
the class of plaintiffs and Monsanto to provide an expansive list
of information and documents explaining how the settlement was
reached.


NEBRASKA: Medicaid Div. Sued for Denying Health Treatments
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Medicaid Division of
Long-Term Care refuses to provide behavioral health services for
children who need it, parents say in a class action in Lancaster
County Court.

A copy of the Petition and Praecipe in K.D., et al. v. Winterer,
et al., Case No. CI12-2009 (Neb. Dist. Ct., Lancaster Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/21/MedicaidCa.pdf

The Petitioners are represented by:

          James A. Goddard, Esq.
          NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          941 O Street, Suite 920
          Lincoln, NE 68502
          Telephone: (402) 438-8853
                     (402) 438-0263
          E-mail: jgoddard@neappleseed.org


OMNICARE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit in Kentucky, according to the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v.
Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10,
2007, through August 5, 2010, against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of
federal securities law in connection with alleged false and
misleading statements with respect to the Company's compliance
with federal and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations.
On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled
Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al.
was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is
referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Plaintiffs allege
substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are
alleged in the Ansfield complaint.  Both complaints seek
unspecified money damages.  The Court has appointed lead counsel
and a consolidated amended complaint was expected to be filed by
May 11, 2012.

The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit
and intends to defend against them vigorously.


OMNICARE INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of IPO-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs took an appeal from the dismissal of their consolidated
securities class action lawsuit against Omnicare, Inc. to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, according to
the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled
Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension &
Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its
officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on
behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from
August 3, 2005, through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers
who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in
December 2005.  The complaint contained claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought,
among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its
earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements)
by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper
revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and
inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual
dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely
record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other
allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company?s
business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and
regulations.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the court
dismissed the case.  On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.  On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
generally affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing
plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  However, the
appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.

On December 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion in the district
court requesting permission to file a third amended complaint.  On
February 4, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
sole remaining claim in plaintiff's second amended complaint.  On
July 14, 2011, the court granted both motions and deemed the third
amended complaint filed.  This complaint asserts a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all
purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public
offering.  The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration
statement contained false and misleading statements regarding
Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation
of the federal anti-kickback law in connection with three of
Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its
suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services.  On
August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012, the
court dismissed the case and struck the case from the docket.  On
March 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


OMNICARE INC: Stipulated Bid to Withdraw Appeal Granted in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. disclosed in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012, that the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted in March 2012 a
stipulated motion to withdraw an appeal from the dismissal of a
consolidated class action lawsuit.

On April 2, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Corp., Omnicare, Inc. and
Does 1-10, Case No. CV-10-1414, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, against Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"), the Company
and certain unnamed defendants asserting violations of federal
antitrust law and California unfair competition law arising out of
certain arrangements between J&J and the Company.  Plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the Company violated these laws
by entering into agreements with J&J to promote J&J products.  On
January 21, 2011, the court dismissed the amended complaint and
granted permission to file a new amended complaint, which was
filed in February 2011.  On August 1, 2011, the court dismissed
the second amended complaint and, on October 25, 2011, after
plaintiffs had declined the court's invitation to further amend
the complaint, the district court dismissed the matter with
prejudice.  On November 17, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On March, 1 2012,
the court granted the parties' stipulated motion to withdraw the
appeal.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal in Suit Over Facebook Beacon Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement resolving a class
action lawsuit relating to Overstock.com, Inc.'s use of Facebook
Beacon remains pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 12, 2008, the Company along with seven other defendants,
were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other
individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a
class action lawsuit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law.  The complaint relates to the
Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and
provided to the Company by Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon
provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data
among their Facebook friends.  The parties extended by agreement
the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer,
and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated
settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case
without requirement of financial contribution from the Company.
On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
court accepted the proposed settlement.  Various parties objecting
to the settlement have appealed and their appeal is now pending.

The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have
been asserted against the Company is described in the lawsuit.
However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hines" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on its motions to
dismiss and to decertify the class in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Cynthia Hines, according to the Company's April 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On March 10, 2009, the Company was sued in a class action filed in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.
Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach
of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws.
The Plaintiff alleges the Company failed to properly disclose its
returns policy to her and that it improperly imposed a
"restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that its
agreement with its customers requires all such actions to be
arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively, the Company
asked that the case be transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be
compelled in that district.  On September 8, 2009 the motion to
dismiss or transfer was denied, the court stating that the
Company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient under New York law
to establish an agreement with the customer to arbitrate disputes
in Utah.  On October 8, 2009, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal
of the court's ruling.  The appeal was denied.  On December 31,
2010, Ms. Hines filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint
eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of contract claims
and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer protection statute
and various other state consumer protection statutes.  The amended
complaint also asks for an injunction.  The lawsuit is in final
discovery stages.  The Company filed motions to dismiss and to
decertify the class.  The court has not ruled on these motions.

The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have
been asserted against the Company is described in the lawsuit.
However, no estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made.
The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this action.


PF CHANG: Being Sold to Centerbridge for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that P.F. Chang's China Bistro is
selling itself too cheaply to Centerbridge Partners, for $1.1
billion or $51.50 a share, shareholders say in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., et
al., Case No. 7551 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/21/SCA2.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Meagan A. Farmer, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com


PHILIPS/MAGNAVOX: TV Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that a federal court has given
final approval to a $4 million settlement that resolves consumer
fraud claims against Philips/Magnavox over overheating plasma and
liquid crystal display flat-screen TVs.  The deal also gives class
members an uncapped number of vouchers and provides $1.575 million
for the plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses.


PITTSBURGH MERCY: Judge Decertifies Unpaid Meal Break Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has
decertified the class fighting unpaid meal breaks at Pittsburgh
Mercy Health System, noting that the court resolved similar claims
the same way.

A copy of the Order in Taylor, et al. v. Pittsburgh Mercy Health
System, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-00377 (W.D. Pa.) (Bissoon,
J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/21/decertopinion.pdf


QEP RESOURCES: Defends "Chieftain" Class Suit in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. is defending itself from a class action
lawsuit commenced by Chieftain Royalty Company in Oklahoma,
according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

The class action captioned Chieftain Royalty Company v. QEP Energy
Company, Case No CJ2011-1, U. S. District Court for Oklahoma filed
on January 20, 2011, was filed by a royalty owner on behalf of
every QEP Energy royalty owner in the state of Oklahoma since 1988
asserting various claims for damages related to royalty valuation,
including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and
conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of
post-production costs.  QEP Resources says because this case is in
an early stage prior to full discovery, it is difficult to
reasonably estimate potential liability.  QEP Energy believes it
has properly valued and paid royalty under Oklahoma law and will
vigorously defend this claim.  Because of the complexities and
uncertainties of this legal dispute and the number of plaintiffs,
it is difficult to predict all reasonably possible outcomes;
however, management believes, at this early litigation stage, the
potential loss contingency is an immaterial amount.


REVLON INC: Discovery in Suits Over 2009 Exchange Offer Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merits discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuits
arising from Revlon, Inc.'s 2009 voluntary exchange offer,
according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

Revlon, Inc. (and together with its subsidiaries, the "Company")
conducts its business exclusively through its direct wholly-owned
operating subsidiary, Revlon Consumer Products Corporation
("Products Corporation"), and its subsidiaries. Revlon, Inc. is a
direct and indirect majority-owned subsidiary of MacAndrews &
Forbes Holdings Inc. ("MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings" and, together
with certain of its affiliates other than the Company, "MacAndrews
& Forbes"), a corporation wholly-owned by Ronald O. Perelman.

On October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange
offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to
stockholders who elected to exchange shares (other than MacAndrews
& Forbes) 9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for
the same number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock
tendered in the Exchange Offer (the "Exchange Offer").  On April
24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009, and
May 12, 2009, respectively, four purported class actions were
filed by each of Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz
and T. Walter Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Chancery Court").  On May 4, 2009, a purported
class action was filed by Stanley E. Sullivan in the Supreme Court
of New York, New York County.  Each such lawsuit was brought
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s then directors and MacAndrews
& Forbes, and challenged a merger proposal made by MacAndrews &
Forbes on April 13, 2009, which would have resulted in MacAndrews
& Forbes and certain of its affiliates owning 100% of Revlon,
Inc.'s outstanding Common Stock (in lieu of consummating such
merger proposal, the Company consummated the aforementioned
Exchange Offer).  Each action sought, among other things, to
enjoin the proposed merger transaction.  On June 24, 2009, the
Chancery Court consolidated the four Delaware actions (the
"Initial Consolidated Action"), and appointed lead counsel for
plaintiffs.  As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in
principle was reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action,
as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (as amended in
September 2009, the "Settlement Agreement").

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants
should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange for the
Exchange Offer information regarding the Company's financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.  On
January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in
the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint.  Revlon initially
believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the
Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement
Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon,
Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews &
Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed
in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman.  Also on December 21,
2009, a second purported class action was filed in the Chancery
Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current directors and a former
director by Lawrence Corneck.  The Gutman and Corneck actions make
allegations similar to those in the amended complaints in the
Sullivan action and the Initial Consolidated Action.  On January
15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman and Corneck
actions with the Initial Consolidated Action (the Initial
Consolidated Action, as consolidated with the Gutman and Corneck
actions, is hereafter referred to as the "Consolidated Action").
A briefing schedule was then set to determine the leadership
structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.  Thereafter, newly
appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits
discovery would proceed.  Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of
the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part
of the Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have
disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009.

On January 10, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for class
certification.  That motion is not yet fully briefed.  Merits
discovery is proceeding in the Consolidated Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former
director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law
claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer
to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's
financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.
On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff in this action filed an amended
complaint.  On January 31, 2012, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint in the Garofalo action.  On March 2,
2012, the plaintiff in the Garofalo action filed a response
opposing defendants' motions to dismiss, and a motion
alternatively seeking leave to amend and file a second amended
complaint.  On April 6, 2012, defendants filed their reply briefs
in support of their motions to dismiss, and in opposition to the
motion to amend.  With the filing of these briefs, briefing is
complete on defendants' motions to dismiss.  The briefing schedule
provided that on April 27, 2012, the plaintiff in the Garofalo
action will have filed his reply brief in support of his motion to
amend.

Defendants previously reached an agreement with the plaintiff in
the Garofalo action to permit the plaintiff to participate in
merits discovery in the Consolidated Action, and have agreed to
permit the plaintiff to continue to participate in the merits
discovery while the motions to dismiss are pending.  An agreement
has also been reached with the plaintiff in the Sullivan action to
stay proceedings in that action, including any response to the
amended complaint, until June 29, 2012, so that the plaintiff can
participate in the merits discovery in the Consolidated Action.



SUMMER INFANT: Awaits Approval of $1.7-Mil. Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Summer Infant, Inc., is awaiting a court approval of a $1.7
million class settlement, according to the Company's February 28,
2012 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company agreed to a proposed settlement in January 2012 for a
purported class action lawsuit that was initially filed in October
2009.  The plaintiffs alleged that the retail packaging of certain
video monitor products did not disclose that the signals could be
viewed outside the consumer's home, even though it was disclosed
in the instructions accompanying the product.  The Company
believes that the claims are without merit, but due to the
uncertainty associated with the ultimate resolution to the suit,
in addition to the legal costs that would be incurred in a
protracted legal case, it decided to enter into a proposed
settlement.  The settlement calls for a total payment of $1.7
million, of which $1.2 million is the responsibility of the
Company, with the balance to be covered under existing insurance
policies.  The Company recorded total expenses of $1.5 million
related to the case, which includes the $1.2 million settlement,
plus legal and other internal costs.


TIM HORTONS: Canadian Restaurant Owners' Claims Dismissed in Feb.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Ontario, Canada dismissed all claims against Tim
Hortons Inc. in a purported class action lawsuit filed by Canadian
restaurant owners, according to the Company's February 28, 2012
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended January 1, 2012.

On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(the "Court") by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and
Brule Foods Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always
Fresh baking system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to
lower franchisee profitability.  The claim, which sought class
action certification on behalf of Canadian restaurant owners,
asserted damages of approximately $1.95 billion.  Those damages
were claimed based on breach of contract, breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentations, unjust
enrichment and price maintenance.  The plaintiffs filed a motion
for certification of the putative class in May of 2009, and the
Company filed its responding materials as well as a motion for
summary judgment in November of 2009.  The 2 motions were heard in
August and October 2011.  The Company is pleased that on February
24, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.
The Court also found that certain aspects of the test for
certification of the action as a class proceeding had been met,
but all of the underlying claims were nonetheless dismissed as
part of the aforementioned summary judgment decision.  The
Company's view of this litigation from the outset was that the
plaintiffs' claims were without merit and would not be successful.
The Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims by way of summary
judgment confirms the Company's position.  While the Court found
in favour of the Company on all claims, if the matter is appealed
and if the appeal is determined adversely to the Company, the
effect would be that the matters would ultimately proceed to
trial.  The Company remains of the view that it would have good
and tenable defences at any such trial however, if the matters
were determined adversely to the Company at trial and that
determination was upheld by final order after appeals, it is
possible that the claims could have a material adverse impact on
the Company's financial position or liquidity.


TUI UK: Couple Mulls Class Action Over Cruise Illness History
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wigan Today reports that Wigan newly-weds are seeking legal action
after suffering the honeymoon from hell.

Marie O'Mara, 51, needed hospital treatment after being struck
down with food poisoning while on the luxury liner Island Escape.

Now she and husband John, 54, are calling on other families who
were on the cruise from April 17 to 24 to contact specialist
lawyers Irwin Mitchell and join a possible class action.

The firm says it has already represented more than 200 passengers
who have fallen ill after taking holidays on the ship in the past
three years.

But TUI UK, operators of the Mediterranean holiday, said May 21:
"There was a very low level of sickness among passengers on the
cruise."

Mrs. O'Mara said they endured a horrendous experience on the
cruise and she became ill with severe diarrhea, stomach cramps and
sickness.  She sought treatment from medics aboard the vessel who
prescribed antibiotics, then she had to endure hospital treatment
in Palma to obtain a fitness-to-fly certificate in order to get
home.

They later met other passengers in the hospital and on the flight
home who had suffered similar symptoms.

Mrs. O'Mara said: "The quality of the food served on the ship was
shameful; it was served undercooked while new food was placed over
the old food and it was rarely served warm.

"We'd had a perfect wedding day, it was everything we'd hoped for,
but now our lasting memory of such a special time in our lives has
been clouded by the honeymoon, which was just a disaster."

Mrs. O'Mara said she has instructed the lawyers because she wants
answers from Thomson about why they saw fit to send the couple on
board a cruise ship that has a history of illness."

Her lawyer Elizabeth Tetzner said the pattern of illness onboard
the Island Escape combined with the accounts from passengers about
standards on board were a matter of great concern.

She said: "It is now the fourth consecutive year where we are
aware of similar problems."

Expressing regret, a Thomson spokesman added: "All possible steps
were immediately taken to contain the virus, treat those affected
and minimize the disruption to the majority of customers who
remained unaffected."


VIROPHARMA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Murphy, writing for Citybizlist, reports that ViroPharma Inc.
said a class action complaint has been filed against it in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging violations of securities laws, according to
an SEC filing.

The Exton-based drug developer said the suit related to the
company's public statements on its antibiotic Vancocin and names
President and CEO Vincent Milano.  The company said the class
action complaint is without merit and it would vigorously defend
itself.

The suit defines the class as investors who bought shares of
ViroPharma between Dec. 14, 2011, and April 9.  The complaint
alleges that through that period, ViroPharma made materially false
and misleading statements regarding its business operations,
financial condition and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the company misrepresented and omitted material facts
concerning the market exclusivity for Vancocin, an antibiotic
approved by the FDA in intravenous form more than half a century
ago under the name Vancomycin.

ViroPharma shares rose $4.21, closing at $27.80 per share on
December 14, 2011, following the issue of the allegedly misleading
press release, according to the complaint.  Contrary to the
perception that ViroPharma would enjoy three years of exclusivity
for Vancocin, the FDA concurrently announced the approval of three
applications for generic Vancomycin capsules and four companies
have begun selling authorized generic versions of Vancocin, the
suit said.

Subsequently, the shares dropped $6.17, closing at $22.44 per
share on April 10, 2012, according to the plaintiffs.


WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Dismisses Subclass in Legal Brief Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Law Journal reports that a federal judge has dismissed a
potential subclass of plaintiffs from a suit that charges that
West Publishing and LexisNexis' digital collection and sale of
publicly filed legal briefs and memoranda violate U.S. copyright
law.  The judge dismissed a class of attorneys who have not
obtained copyright registration for their briefs.


* CFPB, SEC May Limit Consumer Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Dougherty at Bloomberg News reports that American companies
have spent a decade convincing judges that consumers should keep
complaints out of the courts and use arbitration instead.  Now
business has to persuade a potentially more skeptical group:
regulators.

Two U.S. agencies -- the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and
the Securities and Exchange Commission -- are studying whether to
take steps to limit or ban so-called mandatory arbitration clauses
from financial contracts with consumers.

"The action on mandatory arbitration has shifted to the agencies,"
Deepak Gupta, a former lawyer for the bureau who also argued a
2011 Supreme Court case on arbitration, said in an interview.

Alan Kaplinsky, head of the consumer finance practice at Ballard
Spahr LLC, said a regulatory rollback of mandatory arbitration has
the potential to impose new litigation risks and costs on
providers of checking accounts, credit cards and payday loans.
They can also be found in contracts for employment, mobile phones
and rental equipment.

"These clauses are utterly ubiquitous in financial services,"
Mr. Kaplinsky said in an interview.

The regulator push-back has been evident in at least two recent
actions.  In February, the SEC forced The Carlyle Group LP (CG) to
remove from its proposed public offering documents a clause that
would have required its new shareholders to use arbitration.  The
consumer bureau, established by the same Dodd-Frank Act that gave
it the power to regulate the clauses, has started a study to
determine if arbitration does consumers more harm than good.

Companies have portrayed arbitration as a tool to avoid frivolous
but expensive-to-defend class-action lawsuits that only benefit
trial lawyers.  Consumer groups charge it limits redress,
especially in cases where the individual damage is small but the
collective cost is large.

Recent class-action cases over overdraft fees on checking accounts
hint at the potential impact on banks.  A federal judge in 2010
ordered Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) to pay more than $200 million to
customers who paid higher fees due to how the bank posted
transactions to checking accounts.

The Supreme Court found in favor of mandatory arbitration in a
2011 case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the case that Mr. Gupta
argued.  After the decision, Wells sought to terminate the class-
action case.

The judge has not yet ruled on the bank's argument that the
individual consumers should be compelled to seek arbitration, as
required under their checking account contracts, Wells spokeswoman
Richele Messick said in an e-mail.

In a report published in April 2011, the Pew Charitable Trusts
found that 94 percent of checking accounts at the 10 largest U.S.
banks include a clause waiving the right to bring a class-action
suit.  Also, 71 percent explicitly require arbitration in case of
disputes, according to Pew.

Class-action suits make financial sense for plaintiffs when they
can aggregate small amounts -- in the case of Concepcion, a $30
payment per person -- into a large group complaint, often worth
millions.  By obligating customers to arbitrate, companies can
stop class-action cases before they start.

Elizabeth Warren, the Obama administration adviser who set up the
consumer bureau and is now running for the U.S. Senate from
Massachusetts, was a strong opponent of mandatory arbitration.  In
a September 2007 blog post, she said the idea has a "folksy, cheap
and fair" image.

"The data suggest, however, that it is Darth Vader's Death Star --
the Empire always wins," Ms. Warren wrote.

In the investment arena, regulators have sanctioned arbitration in
disputes between consumers and brokers, while forbidding its
mandatory use by shareholders.

In February, Carlyle abandoned a clause in its prospectus for an
initial public offering that would have required shareholders to
submit disputes to arbitration.  The SEC told the company it would
not sign off on a waiver that allows underwriters to price the IPO
shortly before the stock's introduction unless the clause was
dropped.

Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School,
said the SEC could be vulnerable to a court challenge on forcing
shareholders to arbitrate.  The SEC relies on longstanding
practice, not a specific regulation or law, to stamp out
arbitration clauses for shareholders.

"It's only a matter of time," Mr. Fitzpatrick said in an
interview. "Someone is going to test the practice, and that will
open up a whole new door for arbitration."

The Financial Industry Regulator Authority, a private-sector self-
regulatory agency overseen by the SEC, uses arbitration to settle
disputes between investors and their brokers.

The Dodd-Frank law of 2010 directs the SEC to study the issue of
mandatory arbitration as part of a broader look at what
information investors should have about their brokers.  The study
was completed in January 2011.

Dodd-Frank also gives the commission explicit authority to
regulate mandatory arbitration.  The provision was included amid
"concerns over the past several years that mandatory pre- dispute
arbitration is unfair to the investors," according to a Senate
Banking Committee report from April 2010.  No action is currently
planned for rules on arbitration, according to the SEC's Dodd-
Frank rulemaking calendar.

The consumer bureau began its study on April 24 with a call for
public comment on how it should conduct the research.  Battle
lines are now forming around the issue, with the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and the trial lawyers group, the American Association for
Justice, gearing up for a regulatory fight.

Matt Webb, senior vice president at the Chamber's Institute for
Legal Reform, asserted that if the agency "does an even-handed and
robust study of how arbitration is used in the real world," it
will support the industry's side.

"It will be difficult for the CFPB to go down the road to
rulemaking on this front," Mr. Webb said in an interview.

Christine Hines, a lawyer with Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy
group, predicted the bureau would probably oppose arbitration
because class-action suits buttress the rest of its work.
"If I were the CFPB, I'd want consumers to be able to enforce
their own rights so the agency does not have to do everything
itself," Ms. Hines said in an interview.

Will Wade-Gery, an official in the bureau's division of research,
markets and regulations, is handling the study directly, according
to a Federal Register notice published April 27.  Mr. Wade-Gery is
a former lawyer with Morrison Foerster LLC and advocated in favor
of arbitration in Ross v. Bank of America, a case involving the
use of antitrust laws to trump arbitration clauses, according to
court documents.

Richard Cordray, the bureau's director, spoke out against
mandatory arbitration while he was attorney general of Ohio from
2008 to 2011.  In an undated circular, he advised Ohioans not to
sign home improvement contracts if they contained such clauses.

Attorneys general are generally critics of mandatory arbitration
because they have regarded the practice as contrary to consumer
interests, said Paul Bland, an attorney with Public Justice, an
advocacy group.

"Republican and Democratic attorneys general have joined hands on
this issue for 15 years," Mr. Bland said in an interview.

"We're in the business of reading tea leaves here in Washington,"
said L. Richard Fischer, a lawyer with Morrison Foerster in
Washington.  "The tea leaves do not bode well for mandatory
arbitration clauses."

Jen Howard, a spokeswoman for the bureau, said that the bureau is
committed to doing the study without prejudice to its outcome.
"We have not pre-judged this issue -- our analysis will be based
on facts and data," Ms. Howard said in an e-mail.  "We look
forward to receiving robust public input on the inquiry to help
identify the best available evidence to evaluate.


* Securities Class Action Numbers Steady in First Quarter 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that the total number of securities
class action lawsuits held steady during the first quarter of
2012, although the number of suits filed against Chinese reverse
merger companies fell, according to a report by insurance broker
Woodruff-Sawyer &Co.

The San Francisco-based firm said in its "D&O Databox Flash
Report" issued on May 15 that Chinese reverse merger firms
accounted for just 3% of the lawsuits filed during the first
quarter, compared with 18% for the comparable period a year ago.

Breaking down the filings by industry, high tech accounted for 24%
of the total; services firms, 22%; energy firms, 15%; biotech,
12%; basic materials/mining, 12%; finance, 6%; manufacturing, 6%
and trade, 3%.

Settlements during the first quarter totaled $486.1 million with
high tech companies accounting for 61% of the total at $296
million, according to the report.  The biggest settlement in this
industry was for $200 million by Motorola Inc. for a class action
lawsuit brought against the firm in 2007.

A total of 54 cases were filed against 35 companies in this year's
first quarter for proposed mergers, compared with 92 for the same
period a year ago, a 41% decrease.

"We believe that this drop is likely attributed to a slowdown in
(merger and acquisition) activity, not a decrease in vulnerability
to suits on the part of companies that get acquired," says the
report.


* Treasury Looks Into Collective Action Proposals Over Misselling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Wilson, writing for The Telegraph, reports that the Treasury
is looking at legal changes to allow small businesses that claim
to have been mis-sold interest rate hedges to bring collective
actions against the banks they accuse of pushing them to buy
inappropriate products.

Responding to a call from opposition ministers for the Government
to do more to help the affected businesses, Mark Hoban, the
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said consultations were under
way on a "range of proposals" that could make it easier for
mis-selling victims to bring legal challenges against banks.  Many
alleged victims say they have been hit with hundreds of thousands
and even millions of pounds in costs they were never warned about.
Mr. Hoban's letter came in response to a call from shadow treasury
minister, Chris Leslie, for the Government to make an amendment to
the Financial Services Bill to allow smaller businesses to bring
collective actions against big banks.

Labour politicians, including shadow business secretary, Chuka
Umunna, and shadow small business minister, Toby Perkins, have put
pressure on the Coalition to do more to deal with the increasing
number of allegations of interest rate hedge mis-selling by
Britain's largest banks.  Mr. Hoban said he did not think an
amendment to the Financial Services Bill would "allow for the
appropriate degree of consultation" and the Government would wait
to see the responses to a separate Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills review that is under way.

"While the Government will consider amendments to the Bill as they
are tabled, I do not believe amendments to the Financial Services
Bill represent an appropriate vehicle for reforms in this area,"
Mr. Hoban said.

A Treasury source said: "The shadow financial secretary to the
Treasury should remember that not only did this mis-selling
scandal take place under the failed regulatory regime of his boss,
Ed Balls, but that the Financial Services Authority has been
looking at this issue since March, so action is already under
way."

The FSA has completed the first stage of a review of interest rate
hedging mis-selling by the investment banking arms of the largest
lenders, including Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, and Royal
Bank of Scotland.

The review followed an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph and
The Daily Telegraph.  All the banks deny any wrongdoing.


                           *********

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  * * *