CAR_Public/120530.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 30, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 106

                             Headlines

CHINA-BIOTICS INC: Gainey & McKenna, Egleston File Class Action
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
CVS CAREMARK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Georgia
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Initial Public Offering
FACEBOOK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California

FACEBOOK INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in New York
FACEBOOK INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York
FACEBOOK INC: Pomerantz Firms Files Securities Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Klafter Olsen & Lesser Files Class Action in N.Y.
FACEBOOK INC: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in California

FACEBOOK INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action in New York
FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Settles Class Action Over Fetus Disposal
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Defective Mesh
NETFLIX INC: Defends 3 Shareholder Class Suits in California
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharges MDL Still Pending in D.C.

NORTHWEST PIPE: Discovery Halts in Consolidated Securities Suit
NVR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Pay
OI SA: Awaits Court's Initial Decision in Class Suit vs. TNL
OI SA: Continues to Defend 66 Customer Service Centers Suits
ORCHARD SUPPLY: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaits Ruling on ERISA Suit Dismissal Bid
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Limits NJLAD Application to N.J. Workers
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Defends Female Sales Representatives' Suit

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Still Awaits Order on NID Suit Dismissal Bid
REPUBLIC SERVICES: $29.5-Mil. Livingston Suit Deal Now Final
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Still Awaits Okay of Consolidated Suit Deal
SWISHER HYGIENE: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Headlight Assemblies

TOYS "R" US: Appeals From Consumer Suit Settlement Order Pending
TWININGS NORTH: Sued Over Mislabeled and Misbranded Tea Products
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Frequent Flyer Program
VERMILLION INC: Board Member Defends Securities Suit in Texas
XCEL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of 2nd "Comer" Suit


                          *********

CHINA-BIOTICS INC: Gainey & McKenna, Egleston File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey & McKenna and the Egleston Law Firm on May 25 disclosed
that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an investor in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of China-Biotics,
Inc. between February 9, 2011 and July 1, 2011, inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 25, 2012.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. of Gainey & McKenna at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
the Egleston Law Firm at (212) 683-3400, or via e-mail at
egleston@gme-law.com

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

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Company fabricated (i) a
false sales contract; (ii) a false bank website; and (iii) a false
bank advice in furtherance of its scheme to fraudulently create
the appearance of having achieved a 50% growth in 2011 revenue.
As a result of the dissemination of the materially false and
misleading information and failure to disclose material facts, the
market price of China-Biotics common stock was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on May 26 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
stock of ChinaCast Education Corporation between February 14, 2011
and April 2, 2012, inclusive.

To join the ChinaCast class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at
866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The action filed by the Rosen
Law Firm is pending in the District Court for Central District of
California.

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

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against ChinaCast and its officers and directors for issuing false
and misleading information to investors about the Company's true
financial and business condition.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges ChinaCast issued materially false and misleading financial
statements during the Class Period because of undisclosed material
weaknesses in the Company's internal controls and the alleged
wrongful transfer of $120 million in cash by CEO Chan from bank
accounts of ChinaCast's subsidiaries.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 25, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com.

You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CVS CAREMARK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark stiffs workers
for overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Mack v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-01808 (N.D. Ga.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/25/CVS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
          THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          7 Piedmont Center
          3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 254-0842
          E-mail: aw@andrewweinerlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Initial Public Offering
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Spatz and Sanjay Israni v. Facebook, Inc., Mark
Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L.
Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham,
Reed Hastings, Peter A. Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Allen
& Company LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., BBC Capital
Markets, LLC, and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Case No. 3:12-cv-
02662 (N.D. Calif., May 23, 2012) relates that the initial public
offering of Facebook was slotted to raise over $16 billion and was
predicted to be the most important market event in recent history
generating tremendous enthusiasm.

What transpired, however, has proven to be an additional blemish
on Wall Street's already damaged reputation and provided more
evidence that investment banks and their issuer clients are apt to
favor hedge funds and other large clients over retail customers,
the Plaintiffs allege.  Indeed, they contend, it now appears that
contrary to early reports, Facebook's poor debut was not the
function of an efficient market settling on an appropriate
valuation for the stock. They add that Facebook's steady decline
from its offering price was a function of large, favored investors
having been tipped off during the "road show" that analysts
employed by the lead underwriters for the deal slashed internal
revenue forecasts for the Company.

The Plaintiffs are shareholders of Facebook.

Facebook, a Delaware corporation, operates a social networking Web
site that allows people to communicate and share information with
friends and family.  Facebook also develops technologies that
facilitate the sharing of information.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.  Morgan Stanley, J.P.
Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital, Allen &
Company, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, RBC Capital and
Wells Fargo are the underwriters of the Company's IPO.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Robert B. Weintraub, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
                  weintraub@whafh.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 984-0001
          E-mail: levitt@whafh.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          431 Montgomery Ave., Suite B
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          E-mail: Mhenzel@Henzellaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, along with the Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Facebook, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's
May 18, 2012 initial public offering.

In its May 18, 2012 IPO, Facebook floated over 421 million shares
of its common stock to the public at a price of $38 per share on
the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol "FB."  Under the
terms of the offering, Facebook sold 180,000,000 shares of Class A
common stock and selling stockholders sold 241,233,615 shares of
Class A common stock.  In total, the IPO raised $16 billion for
the Company and the selling stockholders.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Facebook common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO.
This is a federal securities class action and is brought by
Plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against Defendants.

The IPO was marketed through the public issuance of the
Registration Statement and Prospectus prior to the IPO, as well as
through numerous "road shows" that senior Facebook executives
attended along with the IPO's underwriters.  The Complaint alleges
that the Offering Documents contained material misstatements and
material omissions concerning the investment risks of buying
Facebook shares.  The Prospectus, for example, discussed that the
number of active users of Facebook was increasing at a greater
rate than the number of ads delivered was increasing, but failed
to materially disclose that Facebook's revenue and revenue growth
rate would be lower than the estimates that were originally
disclosed and forecasted.  Prior to the Company's IPO, Underwriter
Defendants in this action were privately lowering their estimates
of the Company's revenues and revenues growth rate, while at the
same time, the Company and Underwriter Defendants were public
upwardly revising the projected IPO price to the effective price
of $38 per share.  Underwriter Defendants only disclosed their
materially lowered estimates privately to select major clients and
hedge funds who were potential investors in the IPO, but did not
disclose their lowered estimates to the investing public at large.

The Facebook IPO went public on May 18, 2012 at $38 per share, and
only a few minutes later reached a high of $45 per share.  On
May 22, 2012, as reports of the materially lowered revenue
estimates filtered out to the public through Reuters and other
media outlets, the price of Facebook shares declined to close at
only $31 per share.  Had Plaintiffs and the members of the Class
known the facts not disclosed in the Offering Documents, they
would not have purchased their Facebook shares or would have
purchased them only at substantially reduced prices.  As the IPO
proceeded, the Company raised billions of dollars which it would
not have been able to raise if the Offering Documents had not
contained material misstatements and material omissions.  For
their part, the Underwriter Defendants named in the Complaint made
over $150 million in underwriting fees from sales of Facebook
shares-fees that they would not have made if the Offering
Documents had not contained material misstatements and material
omissions.

The litigation is styled Spatz v. Facebook, Inc., No. CV-12-2662.
A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com

If you purchased Facebook common stock pursuant or traceable to
the IPO, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff by July 23, 2012.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or
other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.

Wolf Haldenstein prosecutes securities class actions and
derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate
courts across the country.  The firm has approximately 70
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in Chicago, New
York City, and San Diego.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Robert B. Weintraub, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 800-575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


FACEBOOK INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 23, 2012, Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Facebook, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
May 18, 2012 initial public offering.

Investors who bought Facebook may move the court to appoint them
as lead plaintiff no later than July 23, 2012.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  Investors in Facebook who wish to
discuss this action or the lead plaintiff selection process may
contact Todd S. Collins, Esquire, Douglas Risen, Esquire or Robin
Switzenbaum, Esquire of Berger & Montague, P.C. toll free at 1-
888-891-2289 or by e-mail at tcollins@bm.net, drisen@bm.net  or
rswitzenbaum@bm.net

A copy of the Class Action Complaint can be viewed on Berger &
Montague's Web site at http://www.bergermontague.comor may be
viewed online via the U.S. Pacer System.  The case is Goldrich
Cousins P.C. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Facebook, Inc., Mark
Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L.
Andreesen, Erskine B. Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham,
Reed Hastings, Peter Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. Facebook operates a social
networking company worldwide.  On or about May 16, 2012, Facebook
filed with the SEC an amended Registration Statement for the IPO.
On May 18, 2012, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO became
effective and 421 million shares of Facebook common stock were
sold to the public at $38/share, thereby valuing the total size of
the IPO at more than $16 billion.  The Complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus contained untrue statements
of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make
the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations governing their
preparation.  Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that
Facebook was experiencing a severe reduction in earnings growth
and that, while the IPO roadshow was in progress, the Company
guided the underwriters to materially lower their earnings
forecasts for 2012. During the roadshow conducted in connection
with the IPO, each of the lead underwriters reduced its second
quarter and full year 2012 earnings estimates for Facebook, which
constituted material information that was not shared with all
Facebook investors, but rather, was selectively disclosed by
defendants to certain large institutional investors and omitted
from the Registration Statement and/or Prospectus.

As of May 23, Facebook common stock was trading at approximately
$32/share, or $6/share below the price of the IPO.  Plaintiff and
the Class have suffered losses of more than $2 billion since the
IPO.


FACEBOOK INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on May 25 disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Facebook,
Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
May 18, 2012 initial public offering.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-
free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/fb

The complaint charges Facebook and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

On or about May 16, 2012, Facebook filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A
Registration Statement for the IPO. On or about May 18, 2012, the
Prospectus , which forms part of the Registration Statement,
became effective and defendants sold 421 million shares of
Facebook common stock to the public at $38 per share, for total
proceeds of more than $16 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were false and
misleading in violation of the Securities Act.  The complaint
asserts that defendants failed to disclose that because Facebook
was experiencing a pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to
an increase of users of its Facebook app or Web site through
mobile devices rather than traditional PCs, at the time of the IPO
the Company had told the lead underwriters to reduce their 2012
performance estimates for Facebook.  These revisions were material
information which was not shared with all investors, but rather,
was selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred
investors and omitted from the Registration Statement and/or
Prospectus.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 23,
2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

For more information about the case or to participate online,
please visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/fbor contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by
e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to
protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors
in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.


FACEBOOK INC: Pomerantz Firms Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (12 Civ. 4184) in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of Facebook Inc. pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's May 18, 2012 initial
public offering.  This class action is brought under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 15 U.S.C. Sections
77k, 77l and 77o.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Facebook securities
pursuant and or/traceable to the Company's IPO, you have until
July 23, 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.

On May 17, 2012, the Company announced the pricing of its IPO of
421,233,615 shares of its common stock at $38.00 per share.  The
total offering price was priced at over $16 billion, with
underwriters' discounts and commissions totaling over $176
million, shares sold by the selling shareholders totaling over $9
billion, and shares sold by the Company totaling $6.8 billion.

In connection with the Company's IPO, Defendants failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was then experiencing a severe and
pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to an increase of users
of its Facebook app or website through mobile devices rather than
a personal computer such that the Company told the Underwriter
Defendants to materially lower their revenue forecasts for 2012;
(2) during the IPO roadshow conducted in connection with the IPO,
certain underwriters, including Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, and
Goldman Sachs, reduced their second quarter and full year 2012
earnings forecasts for Facebook; and (3) the revised financial
forecasts were selectively disclosed by defendants to certain
preferred investors.

On May 19, 2012, Reuters revealed in an article that Facebook
"altered its guidance for research earnings last week, during the
road show, a rare and disruptive move."  On this news, Facebook
shares declined $4.20 per share or nearly 11%, to close at $34.03
per share on May 21, 2012.

On May 22, 2012, Reuters revealed that, in the middle of
Facebook's IPO roadshow, several of the lead underwriters,
including Morgan Stanley, reduced their revenue estimates for the
Company's second quarter 2012 and full year 2012 and 2013.
Significantly, these reduced estimates were only "relayed to big
investors through phone calls and conference calls."  On this
news, Facebook shares declined an additional $3.03 per share or
nearly 9%, to close at $31.00 per share on May 22, 2012.

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


FACEBOOK INC: Klafter Olsen & Lesser Files Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP has filed a securities class action
complaint against Facebook, Inc., certain of its officers, and the
lead underwriters of its May 18, 2012 Initial Public Offering in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Civil Action No. 12-cv-4194) on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the Class A common stock of Facebook pursuant to the
IPO, except for defendants and certain entities that were informed
by Defendants of the material information concealed from Plaintiff
and the class.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Facebook informed analysts at
the lead underwriters, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, and Goldman Sachs & Co. to materially lower their
financial estimates for Facebook's second quarter of 2012 which
information was only conveyed by the underwriter defendants to a
select few of their customers and that the disclosures in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO were woefully
inadequate to disclose this material information.  Plaintiff
further alleges that as this news began to come out on May 21 and
22, 2012, Facebook stock lost 18 percent of its value, causing
investors approximately $2.5 billion in losses.

If you purchased Facebook Class A shares on the IPO and have
sustained losses, and wish to discuss this action or your rights,
please contact Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP at
http://www.klafterolsen.comor call us at the number indicated
below for a more thorough explanation of the claims that have been
asserted in this action.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than July 22, 2012.  Any member
of the class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP prosecutes investor class actions
involving financial fraud and has offices in Washington D.C. and
New York.

Contact: Jeffrey Klafter, Esq.
         Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
         Telephone: 914-934-9200 x 306
         E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com


FACEBOOK INC: Hagens Berman Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro on May 25 disclosed that it has filed
a securities class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc.,
officers, directors and underwriters of the company's Initial
Public Offering (IPO) on behalf of investors relating to
allegations of whisper estimates withheld from all but a few
select investors.

The complaint, filed May 24, 2012, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, as Chang et al. v.
Facebook, Inc. et al., case number 12-cv-2680, alleges that
Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman, David
M.Spillane, Marc L. Andreesen, Erskine Bowles, James W. Breyer,
Donald E Graham, Reed Hastings, Peter Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill
Lynch, Peirce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Barclays Capital
Inc. violated Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint can be accessed here.

Hagens Berman's investigation continues.  "We anticipate the facts
may warrant further claims also against several of these
defendants, and additional selling shareholders for insider
selling in violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.  "While such
claims are unusual, this is an extremely unusual situation to
catch issuers and their bankers in what we have long suspected to
be a hidden practice."  The largest reported selling shareholders
include Zuckerberg, Breyer, Accel Partners, DST Global Limited,
Goldman Sachs, Tiger Global Management, Mail.ru Group Limited and
Peter Thiel.

The deadline to move the court for lead plaintiff is July 22,
2012.  Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Facebook common stock between May 18, 2012, and May 22, 2012, and
who have suffered substantial financial losses are encouraged to
contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein by calling (510) 725-
3000.  Investors may also contact the firm via e-mail at
FB@hbsslaw.com or by visiting
http://www.hb-securities.com/Facebook

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

Hagens Berman's lawsuit alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by omitting material information in their
registration statement and prospectus, and by selectively
disclosing this material information to their premier clients and
preferred investors prior to the IPO.  Facebook allegedly
privately pre-announced that its second quarter would fall short
of analysts' estimates.  Facebook allegedly only told their
underwriters analysts and directed them to change their estimates
which were then verbally conveyed to preferred clients.  As a
result, many of the underwriters' large clients said they would
only buy at $32 per share.  Knowing from research that many retail
investors were willing to pay $43 per share, the lawsuit alleges
that Facebook increased its allocation to retail investors to
reach its $100 million goal at an offering price of $38 per share.
The predictable happened.  The stock shot up above $43, according
to the suit, but without the demand from the large institutional
investors who knew the estimate revisions, within three days
Facebook's stock plummeted to around $32.00 per share.

The Senate Banking Committee and the House Committee on Financial
Services are investigating the issues surrounding Facebook's IPO.
On May 22, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and
the Securities and Exchange Commission also announced they will
review allegations of impropriety around Facebook's IPO.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is an
investor-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm represents whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.


FACEBOOK INC: Kessler Topaz Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on May 24 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Facebook, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering.  If you are a
member of this class, you can view a copy of the Complaint or join
this class action online at http://www.ktmc.com/cases/facebook

Members of the class may, not later than July 23, 2012, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff
is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that
the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
(Darren J. Check, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-
7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to join the
class action online, please visit:

    http://www.ktmc.com/cases/facebook

The Complaint charges Facebook and certain of its officers,
directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.   Facebook operates as a social networking company
worldwide.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company and its underwriters failed to disclose and misrepresented
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them.  The Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts and were
in violation of the Securities Act.

On or about May 16, 2012, Facebook filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A
Registration Statement, for the IPO.  On or about May 18, 2012,
the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the
Registration Statement, became effective and 421 million shares of
Facebook common stock were sold to the public at $38 per share,
thereby valuing the total size of the IPO at more than $16
billion.

The Complaint asserts that defendants failed to disclose at the
time of the IPO that Facebook was then experiencing a severe and
pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to an increase in users
of its Facebook mobile applications or Web site through mobile
devices rather than through personal computers.  Additionally,
defendants failed to disclose during the roadshow conducted in
connection with the IPO, certain Underwriter Defendants reduced
their second quarter and full year 2012 performance estimates for
Facebook, which revisions were material information which was not
shared with all Facebook investors, but rather, was selectively
disclosed by defendants to certain preferred investors and omitted
from the Offering Materials.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts
throughout the country.


FIRELANDS REGIONAL: Settles Class Action Over Fetus Disposal
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Rodriguez, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
an Ohio hospital reached a proposed lawsuit settlement of about $1
million with women who said they were emotionally distressed to
learn a former employee had stuffed their miscarried or stillborn
fetuses into jars for years -- citing her religious beliefs -- and
kept them in hospital storage, instead of medically disposing of
them.

Firelands Community Hospital, now known as Firelands Regional
Medical Center, reached the agreement after years of litigation
with 180 women who filed a class-action lawsuit complaining about
how the Sandusky hospital disposed of the fetuses.

"We're very happy that we were able to bring this relief to the
families," said John Murray, an attorney representing the women.
"It's been a long haul."

Court records show that Patricia Lukas, a histologist technician
working in the hospital's morgue, placed 88 fetuses into the same
three containers for different time periods between 1988 and 1996.
Hospital policy at the time called for the tissue of miscarried or
stillborn fetuses to be incinerated or placed in a tissue grinder.

A 2006 judge's ruling dismissing claims against the hospital said
Ms. Lukas' religious beliefs held "that fetal tissue should not be
placed in the grinder."

Ms. Lukas was fired in 1996 when the hospital discovered the
practice. The hospital then disposed of the fetuses according to
its policy.

Ms. Lukas was dismissed from the lawsuit several months ago and
had no comment, her attorney, Jeanne Mullin, said by e-mail on
May 24.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in 1997, shortly after the
women and their families learned about the technician's practices
from media reports.  The lawsuit originally contended the hospital
and the technician violated Ohio statutes and common law regarding
the handling of bodies and fetuses.  Ultimately, it focused on the
hospital's alleged infliction of emotional stress on the women.

"After a long mediation process, both sides reached this amicable
settlement," said Firelands spokeswoman Leslie Mesenburg.  "We are
pleased that both sides can put this this case behind them and
move forward."

No criminal charges were filed, Ms. Mesenburg said.

The hospital updated its policies for disposing of fetal tissue
after Ms. Lukas' actions were uncovered, and again in 2008 after
the state enacted a law providing for death certificates and
burial permits for fetuses that die before 20 weeks.

Mr. Murray said the terms of the settlement, which was reached May
14 and still needs a judge's approval to become final, includes
the hospital issuing a public apology.  They also will provide
free counseling to any woman now treated at the hospital who has a
miscarriage or stillborn.

"They really need this," he said of his clients.  "They really
needed this closure."


JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over Defective Mesh
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed in Vancouver seeking more than C$300
million in damages from the manufacturers of allegedly defective
devices used to treat Canadian women suffering from incontinence.

Named as the representative plaintiff in the case against Johnson
and Johnson is Karen Dyler, 52, a Nanaimo mother of two.  In 2004,
Ms. Dyler had a Prolift mesh device surgically implanted in her to
deal with incontinence.

In a notice of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, she claims the
mesh device deteriorated to the point where her bladder was
blocked. She had two surgeries to remove pieces of the mesh in
2010 and is scheduled to have a third.

"Since the surgeries in 2010, Karen has experienced what she
describes as extreme incontinence," says the court document.  "She
has the urge to void quite often and has to make frequent trips to
the bathroom because of her susceptibility to sudden and immediate
incontinence."

Included in the suit is a family class for family members who have
incurred expenses.

Diego Solimano, Ms. Dyler's lawyer, says two groups of women --
elderly women and woman who have given birth to children -- are
most affected.

He said it's estimated hundreds of thousands had the devices
implanted.

The defendants submitted false, misleading and incomplete
information about the safety of the devices to Health Canada and
the FDA, which resulted in reliance on such representations so
that adequate testing wasn't performed prior to regulatory
approval, says the notice of claim.

In February 2010, Health Canada issued a warning to medical staff
at Canadian hospitals regarding complications with the devices.

No response has been filed to the suit. In an e-mail to The
Province, Johnson and Johnson said the product is safe:

"We are confident the evidence will show that [the company] acted
appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and
marketing of these products."


NETFLIX INC: Defends 3 Shareholder Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. is defending three purported shareholder class
action lawsuits in California, according to the Company's
April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.  Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012, and February 29, 2012, respectively,
alleging substantially similar claims.  Two of the three purported
shareholder class action lawsuits have since been consolidated,
and the Company anticipates consolidation of the third as well as
the selection of a lead plaintiff.  The purported class action
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business practices and its contracts with content providers, which
led to artificially inflated stock prices.  The purported class
action lawsuits also allege violations of the federal securities
laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible
however, based on its current knowledge, management does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fuel Surcharges MDL Still Pending in D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against
Norfolk Southern Corporation and other Class 1 railroads in
various Federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges were
consolidated in the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  NS believes the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
cases.  NS does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings
will have a material effect on its financial position, results of
operations, or liquidity.  A lawsuit containing similar
allegations against NS and four other major railroads that was
filed on March 25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
subject to a tolling agreement entered into in August 2008.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nwpipe.com/-- is a
transportation company.  Its Norfolk Southern Railway subsidiary
operates approximately 20,000 route miles in 22 states and the
District of Columbia, serves every major container port in the
eastern United States, and provides efficient connections to other
rail carriers.  Norfolk Southern operates the most extensive
intermodal network in the East and is a major transporter of coal
and industrial products.


NORTHWEST PIPE: Discovery Halts in Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit have
agreed that no further discovery will take place until after they
exhausted the mediation process, which started on January 2012,
according to Northwest Pipe Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On November 20, 2009, a complaint against the Company, captioned
Richard v. Northwest Pipe Co. et al., No. C09-5724 RBL
("Richard"), was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.  The plaintiff is allegedly a
purchaser of the Company's stock.  In addition to the Company,
Brian W. Dunham, the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Stephanie J. Welty, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, are named as defendants.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false or misleading statements
between April 23, 2008, and November 11, 2009.  Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
during the same period, and seeks damages for losses caused by the
alleged wrongdoing.

A similar complaint, captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Northwest Pipe Co. et
al., No. C09-5791 RBL ("Plumbers"), was filed against the Company
in the same court on December 22, 2009.  In addition to the
Company, Brian W. Dunham, Stephanie J. Welty and William R.
Tagmyer, the Company's current Chairman of the Board, are named as
defendants in the Plumbers complaint.  In the Plumbers complaint,
as in the Richard complaint, the plaintiff is allegedly a
purchaser of the Company's stock and asserts that defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false or misleading statements between
April 23, 2008, and November 11, 2009.  Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
during that period, and seeks damages for losses caused by the
alleged wrongdoing.

The Richard action and the Plumbers action were consolidated on
February 25, 2010.  Plumbers and Pipefitters Local No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund was appointed lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.  Defendants and lead plaintiff subsequently
agreed that defendants did not need to respond immediately to
either of the two outstanding complaints, and that a consolidated
amended complaint would be filed within 45 days of the Company
having completed the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, and the 2009 Form 10-K
with the SEC.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiff on December 21, 2010, and the Company's motion to
dismiss was filed on February 25, 2011, as were similar motions
filed by the individual defendants.  Briefing on those motions
concluded on May 24, 2011.  On August 26, 2011, the Court denied
all defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Company filed its
answer to the consolidated amended complaint on October 24, 2011.
The parties have conducted limited discovery and participated in
an initial settlement mediation on January 30, 2012, with
additional sessions anticipated in the future.  By agreement of
the parties, no further discovery will take place until after the
mediation process is exhausted.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims. This securities litigation is at an early stage and,
at this time, it is not possible to predict its outcome.
Therefore, the Company has not accrued any charges related to this
litigation.

Northwest Pipe Company -- http://www.nwpipe.com/-- is a North
American manufacturer of large-diameter, high-pressure steel
pipeline systems for use in water infrastructure applications,
primarily related to drinking water systems.  The Company also
manufactures other welded steel pipe products for use in a wide
range of applications, including energy, construction,
agriculture, and industrial systems.  The Company's pipeline
systems are also used for hydroelectric power systems, wastewater
systems and other applications, and the Company makes products for
industrial plant piping systems and certain structural
applications.


NVR INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Salesmen's Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
NVR, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits relating to
overtime wages of sales and marketing representatives, according
to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007, in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages.  These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004, by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.  The complaints seek injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated
damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid,
attorney and other fees and interest, and where available,
multiple damages.  The lawsuits were filed as purported class
actions.  However, while a number of individuals have filed
consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action,
none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to
represent have been certified as a class, and the Company has
filed a motion to decertify the federal collective action claim
and dismiss the individuals who filed consents from the case.  The
lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and
North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in
the New York action.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to
sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in
compliance with two letter rulings from the United States
Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007.  The three
courts to most recently consider similar claims against other
homebuilders have acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and
marketing representatives were properly classified as exempt from
overtime wages and the only court to have directly addressed the
exempt status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position
was valid.  Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and
intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  Because
the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome of this case, or the amount of damages, if
any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on
the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of
single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings.


OI SA: Awaits Court's Initial Decision in Class Suit vs. TNL
------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A., formerly known as Brasil Telecom S.A., is awaiting an
initial court decision in the class action lawsuit involving its
predecessor, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Tele Norte Leste Participacoes S.A., or TNL, and Brasil Telecom
engaged in a merger under Brazilian law in which TNL merged with
and into Brasil Telecom, and the corporate name of Brasil Telecom
was changed to Oi S.A., or Oi.

The Company is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed
by the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal)
seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by
TNL's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service (Servico de
Atendimento ao Consumidor - SAC) regulations established by the
Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica).  TNL presented its
defense and asked for a change of venue to federal court in Rio de
Janeiro, where the Company is headquartered.  Other defendants
have been named and await service of process.

The Company says the amount involved in this action is R$300
million.  As of December 31, 2011, TNL deemed the risk of loss as
possible with respect to these lawsuits and had not made any
provisions with respect to this action since it was awaiting the
court's initial decision.


OI SA: Continues to Defend 66 Customer Service Centers Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Oi S.A., formerly known as Brasil Telecom S.A., continues to
defend 66 class action lawsuits asking reopening of customer
service centers, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in 66 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain
consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service
centers.  The lower courts rendered decisions unfavorable to the
Company in 24 of these civil class actions, and the Company has
appealed these decisions.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company
had recorded provisions in the amount of R$49 million for those
claims in respect of which the Company deemed the risk of loss as
probable.


ORCHARD SUPPLY: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orchard Supply Hardware Stores Corporation continues to defend
three class action lawsuits alleging wage and hour law violations,
according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
January 28, 2012.

Three putative class action lawsuits, brought on behalf of current
and former employees, are pending against the Company.  One of
these lawsuits was brought in 2010 and two were brought in 2011.
These lawsuits allege the Company failed to comply with various
California labor laws, including misclassification of non-exempt
employees as exempt employees, failure to pay regular, overtime,
and final wages, failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Company denies
the allegations in the claims of these lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend itself against them.  However, the Company
cannot predict with assurance the outcome of these lawsuits and
accordingly adverse developments, settlements, or resolutions may
occur and negatively impact income in the quarter of such
development, settlement, or resolution.  Based on the information
currently available, the Company does not believe that any of
these lawsuits would have a material adverse effect on the
consolidated financial position or results of operations of the
Company.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 25, 2012.

On October 29, 2008, Ronald Acaldo filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie
"Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler.  The Complaint alleged that the
Company and the individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On November 13, 2008, Chad Howes filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie
"Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A.
Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler.  The allegations in the Howes
Complaint are identical to those in the Acaldo Complaint, as are
the class allegations and relief sought.  The defendants were
never served with the Howes Complaint.

On May 14, 2009, the Court consolidated the Acaldo and Howes cases
and renamed the style of the case, "In re: Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation Securities Litigation."  On May 21, 2009, the Court
granted the Pennsylvania Public Fund Group's Motion for
Appointment of Lead Plaintiff.  Thereafter, on June 26, 2009, the
lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated (and amended) Complaint.  The
Consolidated Complaint dismissed the Company and Clifford E.
Butler as Defendants.  In addition, the Consolidated Complaint
added the following directors as Defendants: Charles L. Black, Key
Coker, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller, James G. Vetter, Jr.,
Donald L. Wass, Linda Chavez, and Keith W. Hughes.  The
Consolidated Complaint alleges four causes of action: violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder solely
against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Clint Rivers, and Richard A. Cogdill
(the "Officer Defendants").  Those claims assert that, during the
Class Period of May 5, 2008, through October 28, 2008, the
defendants, through various financial statements, press releases
and conference calls, made material misstatements of fact and/or
omitted to disclose material facts by purportedly failing to
completely impair the goodwill associated with the Gold Kist
acquisition.  The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all defendants,
asserting that, statements made in a registration statement in
connection with the May 14, 2008 secondary offering of the
Company's common stock were materially false and misleading for
their failure to completely impair the goodwill associated with
the Gold Kist acquisition.  Finally, the Consolidated Complaint
asserts a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the Officer Defendants only, claiming that the Officer
Defendants were controlling persons of the Company and the other
defendants in connection with the Section 11 violation.  By the
Consolidated Complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks certification of
the Class, undisclosed damages, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On July 27, 2009, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint for its failure to adequately plead, as to
the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims, scienter and loss causation
and, as to the Sections 11 and 15 claims, for its failure to
adequately plead misrepresentations and omissions.  Defendants
requested that the Consolidated Complaint be dismissed with
prejudice.

On August 17, 2010, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and
Order on the motion to dismiss, granting in part and denying in
part, the defendants' motion.  The Court dismissed without
prejudice the plaintiffs' claims alleging securities fraud under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and for
controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect
to the plaintiffs' claim for negligent misrepresentation under
Section 11 of the Securities Act and for controlling person
liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The plaintiffs
were granted leave to amend their complaint but elected not to do
so.  The defendants filed their Original Answer to the Complaint
on November 15, 2010.

On May 9, 2011, the Court issued an Order setting a class
certification hearing for February 7, 2012, and ordering the
parties to confer and file a Docket Control Order by May 26, 2011.
Thereafter, as per the Court's Order, the parties negotiated a
proposed Docket Control Order, which was signed by the Court on
May 31, 2011.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle this matter for
$1.5 million, subject to Court approval.  A Stipulation of
Settlement was filed on November 14, 2011.  On January 23, 2012,
the Court issued an order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, in
which the Court set a hearing date for the final approval of
settlement for May 1, 2012.

The Company says if the case does not settle as expected, the
defendants intend to defend vigorously against the merits of the
action and any attempts by the Lead Plaintiff to certify a class
action.

                      About Pilgrim's Pride

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is
one of the largest chicken companies in the United States, Mexico
and Puerto Rico.  The Company's fresh chicken retail line is sold
throughout the U.S., throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern
and central regions of Mexico.  The Company exports commodity
chicken products to 90 countries.  The Company operates feed
mills, hatcheries, processing plants and distribution centers in
15 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Awaits Ruling on ERISA Suit Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim,
Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee
N. DeBar, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's Compensation Committee and
other unnamed defendants (the "Patterson action").  On January 2,
2009, a nearly identical lawsuit was filed by Denise M. Smalls in
the same court against the same defendants (the "Smalls action").
The complaints in both actions, brought pursuant to section 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
US C. Section 1132, alleged that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the
Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan (the "Stock Plan"), as
administered through the Pilgrim's Pride Retirement Savings Plan
(the "RSP"), and the To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings and
Retirement Plan (the "To-Ricos Plan") (collectively, the "Plans")
by failing to sell the common stock held by the Plans before it
declined in value in late 2008, based on factual allegations
similar to the allegation made in the Acaldo securities case.
Patterson and Smalls further alleged that they purported to
represent a class of all persons or entities who were participants
in or beneficiaries of the Plans at any time between May 5, 2008,
through the present and whose accounts held the Company's common
stock or units in the Company's common stock.  Both complaints
sought actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plans
suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual
accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution
in value, attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and
the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each
of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plans' participants.

On July 20, 2009, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Smalls and Patterson actions.  On August 12, 2009, the Court
ordered that the consolidated case will proceed under the caption
"In re Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan ERISA Litigation, No.
2:08-cv-472-TJW."

Patterson and Smalls filed a consolidated amended complaint
("Amended Complaint") on March 2, 2010.  The Amended Complaint
names as defendants the Pilgrim's Pride Board of Directors, Lonnie
"Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Charles L. Black, Linda Chavez,
S. Key Coker, Keith W. Hughes, Blake D. Lovette, Vance C. Miller,
James G. Vetter, Jr., Donald L. Wass, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard
A. Cogdill, the Pilgrim's Pride Pension Committee, Robert A.
Wright, Jane Brookshire, Renee N. DeBar, the Pilgrim's Pride
Administrative Committee, Gerry Evenwel, Stacey Evans, Evelyn
Boyden, and "John Does 1-10."  The Amended Complaint purports to
assert claims on behalf of persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the RSP or the To-Ricos Plan at any time between
January 29, 2008, through December 1, 2008 ("the alleged class
period"), and whose accounts included investments in the Company's
common stock.

Like the original Patterson and Smalls complaints, the Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary
duties to participants and beneficiaries of the RSP and To-Ricos
Plan by permitting both Plans to continue investing in the
Company's common stock during the alleged class period.  The
Amended Complaint also alleges that certain defendants were
"appointing" fiduciaries who failed to monitor the performance of
the defendant-fiduciaries they appointed.  Further, the Amended
Complaint alleges that all defendants are liable as co-fiduciaries
for one another's alleged breaches.  Plaintiffs seek actual
damages in the amount of any losses the RSP and To-Ricos Plan
attributable to the decline in the value of the common stock held
by the Plans, to be allocated among the participants' individual
accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' alleged
diminution in value, costs and attorneys' fees, an order for
equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust,
and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their
ERISA fiduciary duties to the RSP and To-Ricos Plan's
participants.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
May 3, 2010. The plaintiffs responded to that motion on July 2,
2010, dropping plaintiff Smalls from the case and adding an
additional plaintiff, Stanley Sylvestros.  The defendants filed
their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on August 2,
2010.  The defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority in
support of their motion to dismiss on April 13, 2011, to which the
plaintiffs responded on April 27, 2011.  The plaintiffs in turn
filed their own notice of supplement authority in opposition to
the motion to dismiss on April 27, 2011, to which the defendants
responded on May 10, 2011.  The court has not yet ruled on the
motion to dismiss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 25, 2012.

                      About Pilgrim's Pride

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is
one of the largest chicken companies in the United States, Mexico
and Puerto Rico.  The Company's fresh chicken retail line is sold
throughout the U.S., throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern
and central regions of Mexico.  The Company exports commodity
chicken products to 90 countries.  The Company operates feed
mills, hatcheries, processing plants and distribution centers in
15 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and Mexico.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's motion to dismiss a securities
class action lawsuit against its subsidiary remains pending,
according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former
officers.  An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that
from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors.  The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding
a financial restatement.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's stock
during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations were
made.  The Company's motion to dismiss is pending.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Limits NJLAD Application to N.J. Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated's motion seeking to limit the
application of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination to only
those members of the purported class who worked in New Jersey was
granted, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In November 2010, a putative class action entitled Seibert v.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, et al. was filed against the
Company and certain former officers of the Company in New Jersey
state court, on behalf of the Company's sales people nationwide
who were over forty years old and who either resigned or were
terminated after being placed on a performance improvement plan.
The complaint alleges that the defendants' conduct violates the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), and seeks, among
other things, unspecified damages.  The defendants removed the
complaint to the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  The Company filed a motion seeking to limit the
application of the NJLAD to only those members of the purported
class who worked in New Jersey and to dismiss the individual
defendants.  The motion was granted.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Defends Female Sales Representatives' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated continues to defend a class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of female sales representatives, according
to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

In January 2012, a putative class action entitled Beery v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and a
subsidiary, on behalf of all female sales representatives employed
by the defendants from February 17, 2010, to the present.  The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants discriminate against
these female sales representatives on account of their gender, in
violation of the federal civil rights and equal pay acts, and
seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and monetary damages.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Still Awaits Order on NID Suit Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2010, a putative class action was filed against Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated and NID, a test kit manufacturing
subsidiary which was closed in 2006, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of entities that
allegedly purchased or paid for certain of NID's test kits.  The
complaint alleges that certain of NID's test kits were defective
and that defendants, among other things, violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and state
consumer protection laws.  The complaint alleges an unspecified
amount of damages.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: $29.5-Mil. Livingston Suit Deal Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Services, Inc.'s $29.5 million settlement of a class
action lawsuit filed in Louisiana became final upon the expiration
of the appeal period on February 23, 2012, according to the
Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On October 13, 2009, the Twenty-First Judicial District Court,
Parish of Livingston, State of Louisiana, issued its Post Class
Certification Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a lawsuit
alleging nuisance from the activities of the former hazardous
waste facility owned by the Company's subsidiary CECOS
International, Inc. (CECOS) located in Livingston Parish,
Louisiana.  The court granted class certification for all those
living within a six mile radius of the CECOS site between the
years 1977 and 1990.  The Company appealed the class certification
order.  On August 17, 2011, the court of appeals granted a joint
motion to remand the case to the trial court for the parties to
finalize a proposed settlement.  The parties executed a settlement
agreement on September 15, 2011, which was approved by the trial
court at a fairness hearing on December 8, 2011.  The settlement
agreement, which provides for payment of $29.5 million to settle
the claims of the class, became final upon the expiration of the
appeal period on February 23, 2012, at which time the Company made
the $29.5 million payment.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Still Awaits Okay of Consolidated Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of its dealership subsidiaries that
purport to represent classes of customers as potential plaintiffs
and make allegations that certain products sold in the finance and
insurance departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner.  One of these private civil actions was filed on
November 15, 2004, in South Carolina state court, York County
Court of Common Pleas, against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and some of
Sonic's South Carolina subsidiaries.  The plaintiffs in that
lawsuit were Misty J. Owens, James B. Wright, Vincent J. Astey and
Joseph Lee Williams, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class.  The group of
plaintiffs' attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the South
Carolina lawsuit also filed another private civil class action
lawsuit against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and certain of its
subsidiaries on February 14, 2005, in state court in North
Carolina, Lincoln County Superior Court, which similarly sought
certification of a multi-state class of plaintiffs and alleged
that certain products sold in the finance and insurance
departments were done so in a deceptive or otherwise illegal
manner.  The plaintiffs in this North Carolina lawsuit were Robert
Price, Carolyn Price, Marcus Cappelletti and Kelly Cappelletti, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
with plaintiffs seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of the purported class.  The South Carolina state court
action and the North Carolina state court action were subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration
before the American Arbitration Association (the "Arbitrator").
On November 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action
including all of the states in which Sonic operates dealerships
except Florida.  Claimants are seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of this class of customers.  The
parties have briefed and argued the issue of class certification.

On July 19, 2010, the Arbitrator issued a Partial Final Award on
Class Certification, certifying a class which includes all
customers who, on or after November 15, 2000, purchased or leased
from a Sonic dealership a vehicle with the Etch product as part of
the transaction, but not including customers who purchased or
leased such vehicles from a Sonic dealership in Florida.  The
Partial Final Award on Class Certification is not a final decision
on the merits of the action.  The merits of Claimants' assertions
and potential damages would still have to be proven through the
remainder of the arbitration.  The Arbitrator stayed the
Arbitration for thirty days to allow either party to petition a
court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the award.
On July 22, 2010, the plaintiffs in this consolidated arbitration
filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitrator's Partial Final Award on
Class Certification in state court in North Carolina, Lincoln
County Superior Court.  On August 17, 2010, Sonic removed this
North Carolina state court action to federal court, and
simultaneously filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitrator's Partial
Final Award on Class Certification, with both filings made in the
United Stated District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.

On August 12, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina issued an Order granting
Sonic's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award on Class
Certification and denied Claimant's Motion to Dismiss the same.
Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals on September 12, 2011.  The federal
court's stay of the arbitration proceeding remains in force.

At a mediation held January 16, 2012, Sonic reached an agreement
with the Claimants to settle this ongoing dispute in its entirety.
This agreement is subject to formal documentation and court
approval.  In the event that such formal documentation is
completed and court approval is received, such a settlement would
not have a material adverse effect on Sonic's future results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Sonic is involved, and expects to continue to be involved, in
numerous legal and administrative proceedings arising out of the
conduct of its business, including regulatory investigations and
private civil actions brought by plaintiffs purporting to
represent a potential class or for which a class has been
certified.  Although Sonic vigorously defends itself in all legal
and administrative proceedings, the outcomes of pending and future
proceedings arising out of the conduct of Sonic's business,
including litigation with customers, employment related lawsuits,
contractual disputes, class actions, purported class actions and
actions brought by governmental authorities, cannot be predicted
with certainty.  An unfavorable resolution of one or more of these
matters could have a material adverse effect on Sonic's business,
financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or
prospects.  Included in other accrued liabilities at both March
31, 2012, and December 31, 2011, was approximately $7.3 million in
reserves that Sonic has provided for pending proceedings.  Except
as reflected in such reserves, Sonic is currently unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, or a range of
reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, for
pending proceedings.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a securities class action on
behalf of investors who purchased Swisher Hygiene Inc. stock
commencing on March 31, 2011 and continuing through
March 28, 2012.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, and
alleges securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Class Period has been
expanded to commence on March 31, 2011, rather than the previous
date, May 5, 2011.

For further information, please contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. toll-
free at 1-888-884-4490 or by e-mail to rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

As alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants repeatedly touted the Company's financial strength and
future prospects.  These statements, however, were materially
false and misleading when made because the Company: (1) was
improperly accounting for business acquisitions; (2) was
improperly calculating its allowance for doubtful accounts
receivable; (3) was overstating its income; (4) was preparing and
filing financial reports in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and (5) failed to have adequate
internal and financial controls.

On March 28, 2012, Swisher disclosed that its previously-announced
financial results for the first, second and third quarter of 2011
should no longer be relied upon and that its Audit Committee was
conducting an ongoing internal review, which was initiated
following a concern raised by a former employee.  On this news,
Swisher shares declined $0.29 per share, or more than 9.5%, to
close on March 28, 2012, at $2.76 per share.  The Company's stock
declined another $0.33 per share, or nearly 12%, on March 29, 2012
and has not recovered.

If you bought Swisher shares during the Class Period (March 31,
2011 through March 28, 2012), and you are interested in discussing
your rights free of charge, please contact Roy L. Jacobs.

All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed by
May 29, 2012.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in Calif. Over Defective Headlight Assemblies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota's 2004-2009 Lexus has
defective headlight assemblies that allow moisture to penetrate,
subjecting motorists to dangerous short circuits, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ho v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. 12-cv-02672 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/25/Toyota.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOYS "R" US: Appeals From Consumer Suit Settlement Order Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of Toys "R" Us, Inc.'s settlement of a
consolidated consumer class action lawsuit remain pending,
according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 15, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court") granted the class
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a consumer class
action commenced in January 2006, which was consolidated with an
action brought by two Internet retailers that was commenced in
December 2005.  Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with
certain baby product manufacturers (collectively, with the Company
and its Parent, the "Defendants") to impose, maintain and/or
enforce minimum price agreements in violation of antitrust laws.
In addition, in December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a
similar action and another consumer class action was commenced
making similar allegations involving most of the same Defendants.
In January 2011, the parties in the consumer class actions entered
into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the District
Court in a final order in December 2011.  In January 2012, certain
parties who objected to the District Court's final approval of the
settlement filed Notices of Appeal with the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.

As part of the settlement, in March 2011, the Company made a
payment of approximately $17 million towards the overall
settlement.  In addition, in January 2011, the plaintiffs, the
Company and its Parent and certain other Defendants in the
Internet retailer actions entered into a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the Company made a payment of approximately $5
million towards the overall settlement.  In addition, on or about
November 23, 2010, the Company's Parent entered into a Stipulation
with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") ending the FTC's
investigation related to the Parent and its subsidiaries'
compliance with a 1998 FTC Final Order and settling all claims in
full.  Pursuant to the settlement, in May 2011, the Company paid
approximately $1 million as a civil penalty.


TWININGS NORTH: Sued Over Mislabeled and Misbranded Tea Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Lanovaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Twinings North America, Inc., Case No. CV-12-02646
(N.D. Calif., May 23, 2012) is brought on behalf of a class of
California consumers who, within the last four years, purchased
the Defendant's tea products ("Misbranded Food Products").

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of illegal conduct, which has
resulted in unjust profits.  She contends that the Misbranded Food
Products each contain an unlawful antioxidant, nutrient content
and health claim on their label.

Ms. Lanovaz is a resident of Los Gatos, California, who purchased
Twinings Tea products in California during the four years prior to
the filing of this Complaint.

Twinings, a Delaware corporation, is a producer of retail tea
products, including black, green and specialty tea products.
Twinings sells its Misbranded Food Products to consumers through
grocery stores, other retail stores and on its Web site throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1901 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 350
          Campbell, CA 95008
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Frequent Flyer Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that United Airlines "fleeced its
most loyal customers," who earned lifetime benefits by flying 1
million miles on United, by gutting their benefits in the Million
Mile Club upon merging with Continental Airlines, a Million Miler
claims in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Lagen v. United Continental Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/25/UnitedAir.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Latham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID H. LATHAM
          150 N. Wacker Drive, #1400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-1910
          E-mail: dhlatham@lathamlaw.net

               - and -

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Michael D. Pospisil, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033
          E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                  mdp@edgarlawfirm.com


VERMILLION INC: Board Member Defends Securities Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
One of Vermillion, Inc.'s directors is defending a securities
class action lawsuit filed in Texas, according to the Company's
April 27, 2012, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Peter S. Roddy was appointed to the Company's Board of Directors
and Audit Committee on February 18, 2010.  Mr. Roddy has served as
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Pain Therapeutics,
Inc. since July 2004, and as its Chief Financial Officer since
November 2002.

On December 2, 2011, a class action complaint claiming violations
of certain securities laws was filed against Pain Therapeutics
Inc. and its executive officers, including Mr. Roddy, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas by a holder of
its securities and its executive officers.  This complaint
alleged, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of
allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made
by Pain Therapeutics regarding REMOXY during the purported class
period from February 3, 2011, to June 23, 2011.


XCEL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of 2nd "Comer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their class action lawsuit
against Xcel Energy Inc. and its subsidiaries, according to the
Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al., filed a second
lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal
companies in U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint
alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the strength of
Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly
sustained to their property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on
public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the
defendants named in the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., and its
subsidiaries, Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), Public
Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), Northern States Power Company,
a Wisconsin corporation (NSP-Wisconsin) and Northern States Power
Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSP-Minnesota).  The amount of
damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  The defendants,
including Xcel Energy Inc., believe this lawsuit is without merit
and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On March 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted this motion for
dismissal.  In April 2012, plaintiffs appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

While Xcel Energy believes the likelihood of loss is remote, given
the nature of this case and any surrounding uncertainty, it could
potentially have a material impact on Xcel Energy's consolidated
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.  No
accrual has been recorded for this matter.


                           *********

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  * * *