CAR_Public/120531.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 31, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 107

                             Headlines

ARIBA INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Proposed Merger With SAP
AVON PRODUCTS: May File Response to Shareholder Suit Til June 14
AVON PRODUCTS: Defends Against Coty-Related Class Action Suits
BEST BUY: All Amounts in Settlement of Discrimination Suit Paid
BEST BUY: Amendment on Securities Suit Dismissal Order Sought

BIOFORM MEDICAL: Court Certifies Shareholder Class Action
BOIRON INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
CALIFORNIA: DOMA Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
CANADA: Roadside Breathlyzer Class Action Suit in. B.C. Expanded
CANADA: Saskatchewan Faces Class Action Over Foster Care Abuse

CANADA: Ontario's Conservation Authorities May Face Class Action
CBS CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
CBS CORP: Defends E-books-related Antitrust Suits in U.S., Canada
FACEBOOK INC: Abbey Spanier Files Class Action Over IPO
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Awaits Final OK of Budeprion Settlement

JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Labor Class Settlement No Impact on Earnings
MICROSOFT: Changes User Agreements to Bar Consumer Class Actions
NRG ENERGY: N.Y. Ct. Rejects Unjust Enrichment Claim in Unit Suit
OFFICE DEPOT: Plea to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Still Pending
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Class Action

POWERCOR: Customers Mull Class Action Over Smart Meters
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Olay False Advertising
QIAO XING: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Reaches Settlement to Resolve Securities Suit
STURM RUGER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

SWISHER HYGIENE: Block & Leviton Announces Expanded Class Period
SYNGENTA: Settles Atrazine Class Action for $105 Million
WOODBURY COUNTY, IA: Judge Dismisses Strip-Search Class Action
ZINC ELECTROLYTIQUE: 180,000 People Joins Toxic Gas Class Action


                          *********

ARIBA INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Proposed Merger With SAP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Silverberg, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Ariba, Inc., Robert M. Calderoni,
Harriet Edelman, Robert D. Johnson, Richard A Kashnow, Robert E.
Knowling, Jr., Thomas F. Monahan, Karl E. Newkirk, Richard F.
Wallman, SAP America, Inc., and Angel Expansion Corporation, Case
No. 7565-, (Del. Chancery Ct., May 24, 2012) arises out of a
proposed transaction in which Ariba entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of May 22, 2012, to be acquired by SAP
America, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG for a total
transaction value of approximately $4.3 billion.

The proposed $45 per share purchase price undervalues Ariba as
demonstrated by, among other things, the premiums of between 23%-
52% in the recent acquisitions of three similar cloud computing
companies, Mr. Silverberg contends.  Indeed, he asserts, analyst
Richard Williams of Cross Research believed that SAP was
underpaying for Ariba and raised the price target for the Company
from $40 to $50 per share subsequent to the announcement of the
Proposed Transaction.

Mr. Silverberg is a shareholder of Ariba.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  SAP, a
Delaware corporation, is a leader in enterprise software
application and software related services.

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 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          Facsimile: (302) 658-7567
          E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          E-mail: ptaylor@aftlaw.com
                  jabraham@aftlaw.com


AVON PRODUCTS: May File Response to Shareholder Suit Til June 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. has been given until June 14, 2012, to file a
response in, or seek dismissal of, a shareholder lawsuit in New
York, according to the Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain present or former
officers and/or directors of the Company.  On September 29, 2011,
the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft
mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead
plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs
have filed an amended complaint on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through
and including October 26, 2011.  The amended complaint names the
Company and two individual defendants and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly
false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to,
among other things, the Company's compliance with the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), including the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls.  Pursuant to a scheduling
stipulation, defendants' answer, motion to dismiss or other
response is due June 14, 2012.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company says it is unable to predict the outcome
of the matter and is unable to make an estimate of the amount or
range of loss that it is reasonably possible that it could incur
from an unfavorable outcome.

Avon is a manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related
products.


AVON PRODUCTS: Defends Against Coty-Related Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. is defending itself against class action
lawsuits over the way it handled Coty, Inc.'s bid for the beauty
products business, according to the Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.  The actions are to be consolidated.

In April 2012, several purported shareholders' class actions were
filed against the Company and certain present or former directors
of the Company in New York Supreme Court, New York County (Pritika
v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651072/2012; Feinman v. Avon Products,
Inc., et al., Index No. 651087/2012; Gaines v. Jung, et al., Index
No. 651097/2012; Schwartz v.  Avon Products, Inc., et al.,
651152/2012).  In addition, one purported shareholder's class
action filed against current directors of the Company in New York
Supreme Court, New York County also asserted a derivative claim
(Robaczynki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of Avon Products, Inc. v.
Jung, et al. and Avon Products, Inc. as nominal defendant, Index
No. 651176/2012).  All of these actions allege breach of fiduciary
duty by defendants in connection with responses to expressions of
interest by Coty, Inc. in acquiring the Company and seek certain
declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 13, 2012, plaintiff
Gaines discontinued his action.  The parties in the remaining
cases have agreed by stipulation to consolidate all remaining
actions and to certain other procedural matters.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the
class action claims and is unable to make an estimate of the
amount or range of loss that it is reasonably possible that we
could incur from an unfavorable outcome. The Company is a nominal
defendant on the purported derivative claim asserted by plaintiff
Robaczynki, and no relief is sought against the Company on that
claim.

The Company says that with respect to the class action matters,
under some circumstances, adverse outcomes could be material to
its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.

Avon is a manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related
products.


BEST BUY: All Amounts in Settlement of Discrimination Suit Paid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc., paid all the settlement amounts in January
this year of a court-approved class settlement resolving an
employment discrimination complaint, according to the Company's
May 1, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 3, 2012.

In December 2005, a purported class action lawsuit captioned,
Jasmen Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed against
the Company us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The federal court action alleged that the
Company discriminates against women and minority individuals on
the basis of gender, race, color and/or national origin in the
Company's stores with respect to the Company's employment policies
and practices.  The action sought an end to alleged discriminatory
policies and practices, an award of back and front pay, punitive
damages and injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for
all class members.  In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for preliminary approval of the parties' negotiated settlement
including conditional certification of settlement classes and
seeking a schedule for final approval.  The proposed class action
settlement terms included, in exchange for a release and dismissal
of the action, certain changes to the Company's personnel policies
and procedures; payment to the nine named plaintiffs of $0.3
million in the aggregate; and payment in an amount to be
determined by the Court, not to exceed $10 million, of a portion
of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.  In November 2011,
the Court fully approved the proposed class action settlement and
consent decree; certified the settlement class; and approved and
directed distribution of the settlement.  Final judgment
dismissing the matter with prejudice was also entered in November
2011.  All payments in respect of the class action were made in
full by their due date, January 8, 2012.

It is not reasonably possible that we will incur losses materially
in excess of the amounts paid, the Company said in its latest Form
10-K filing.

Best Buy Co., Inc., is a multinational retailer of consumer
electronics, computing and mobile phone products, entertainment
products, appliances and related services.  It operates retail
stores and call centers and conduct online retail operations under
a variety of brand names such as Best Buy (BestBuy.com,
BestBuy.ca), Best Buy Mobile (BestBuyMobile.com), The Carphone
Warehouse (CarphoneWarehouse.com), Five Star, Future Shop
(FutureShop.ca), Geek Squad, Magnolia Audio Video, Pacific Sales
and The Phone House (PhoneHouse.com).


BEST BUY: Amendment on Securities Suit Dismissal Order Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a securities class action against Best Buy Co.,
Inc., that has been dismissed by a Minnesota federal court are
asking the court to alter or amend its recent order, according to
the Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
3, 2012.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The federal
court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made
available to the public.  Additionally, in March 2011, a similar
purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene
LeBlanc, against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the same court.  In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated
complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co.,
Inc., et al., was filed and served.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March
2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a
decision dismissing the action with prejudice.  In April 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision
on the Company's motion to dismiss.  As a result, the court's
decision on the motion to dismiss is not final, and the time
period for an appeal thereof is delayed until 30 days after a
court order disposing of the plaintiff's new motion.

In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned,
Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co.,
Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy
Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and
former members of the Company's Board of Directors serving during
the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and the Company as a nominal
defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota.
The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to
correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements
and/or omissions regarding the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings
projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in
possession of material adverse non-public information.
Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the same court.  In
November 2011, the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto and
Daniel Himmel were consolidated into a new action captioned, In
Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and a
stay ordered until after a final resolution of the motion to
dismiss in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy
Co., Inc., et al. case.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions seek damages, including
interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and
expenses they incurred in the lawsuits.  The Company believes the
allegations in the securities actions are without merit, and it
intends to defend these actions vigorously.  Based on the
Company's assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
securities actions, its respective procedural litigation history,
and the degree to which it intend to defend itself in these
matters, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if
any, cannot be estimated.

Best Buy Co., Inc., is a multinational retailer of consumer
electronics, computing and mobile phone products, entertainment
products, appliances and related services.  It operates retail
stores and call centers and conduct online retail operations under
a variety of brand names such as Best Buy (BestBuy.com,
BestBuy.ca), Best Buy Mobile (BestBuyMobile.com), The Carphone
Warehouse (CarphoneWarehouse.com), Five Star, Future Shop
(FutureShop.ca), Geek Squad, Magnolia Audio Video, Pacific Sales
and The Phone House (PhoneHouse.com).


BIOFORM MEDICAL: Court Certifies Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
A notice of certification of shareholder class regarding
acquisition of BioForm Medical, Inc. (BFRM) by Merz GmbH & Co.
KGaA pursuant to January 15, 2010 Cash Tender Offer was issued.

IF YOU OWNED SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF BIOFORM MEDICAL, INC.
("BIOFORM") AND EITHER (1) TENDERED YOUR SHARES TO MERZ GmbH & CO.
KGaA ("MERZ") PURSUANT TO THE JANUARY 15, 2010 CASH TENDER OFFER,
OR (2) DID NOT TENDER BUT YOUR SHARES WERE NONETHELESS CONVERTED
INTO A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SAME CASH TENDER OFFER PRICE OF $5.45,
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS

Former shareholders of BioForm have sued BioForm and its Board of
Directors alleging, among other things, that the $5.45 price of
the Merz tender offer for BioForm in January-February 2010 was
unfair to BioForm's shareholders, and that BioForm's Board of
Directors violated its fiduciary duties to BioForm shareholders
under Delaware law by failing to seek and obtain the best price
for BioForm shareholders and making materially false and
misleading statements and omitting material facts in the
Recommendation Statement.

Defendants deny the allegations made by Plaintiffs in this
lawsuit.  Defendants maintain that they carried out their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith, and disclosure by
properly exercising their business judgment in good faith to
obtain a price that provided a fair premium for BioForm's
shareholders, and by disclosing all material information to
BioForm's shareholders regarding the merger with Merz.  Defendants
are seeking dismissal of this lawsuit and deny that the Class is
entitled to any monetary recovery or other relief.

The Court has allowed the lawsuit to be a class action on behalf
of a class defined by the Court as follows: "All former
shareholders of BioForm Medical Inc. who either (a) tendered their
shares of BioForm Medical Inc. common stock to Merz GmbH & Co.
KGaA pursuant to the January 15, 2010 cash tender offer, or (b)
did not tender their shares of BioForm Medical Inc. common stock
to Merz GmbH & Co. KGaA but whose BioForm shares were nonetheless
converted into a right to receive the same cash tender offer
price, by operation of Delaware's short-form merger statute.
Excluded from the Class are any of the named Defendants, and any
person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or
affiliated with any named Defendant."

The Court has not decided whether Defendants did anything wrong.
There are no benefits available now, and no guarantee there will
be.

If you are a member of the Class, as defined above, you need to
decide to whether to remain in or to exclude yourself from the
class action.  Your legal rights may be affected.  Read this
notice carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS CLASS ACTION

Do Nothing and Stay in the Class: If you do nothing you will be
bound by the results in the class action, whether favorable or
not.

Exclude Yourself from the Class: If you exclude yourself, then you
will not participate in the benefits obtained in the class action,
if any, and you will not be bound by the result, whether favorable
or not.  You may hire a lawyer and bring your own lawsuit.

These rights and options -- and the deadlines by which to exercise
them -- are explained in this notice.

The Court has not yet decided whether the claims of Class members
have merit.  The merit of Class member claims and the Defendants'
defenses will be decided by the Court at a later stage in the
proceedings.

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why did I get this notice?

If you owned shares of BioForm common stock that were tendered to
Merz pursuant to the January 15, 2010 cash tender offer, or your
shares were converted into a right to receive the same cash tender
offer price of $5.45 per share following the Merz tender offer,
then your rights may be affected.  This notice explains that the
Court has allowed, or "certified," a class action lawsuit that may
affect you.  The trial of this lawsuit will decide whether the
claims being made against Defendants, on your behalf, are valid.
Judge Marie S. Weiner of the San Mateo County Superior Court is
presiding over this class action.  The lawsuit is known as
McElroy, et al. v. Basta, et al., Civ. No. 491204.

2. What is this lawsuit about?

This lawsuit is about the merger of BioForm into Merz through a
cash tender offer in January-February 2010 in which Merz acquired
all of BioForm's common stock at a price of $5.45 per share.  The
Class Representative claims, among other things, that the $5.45
price was unfairly low and that BioForm's Board of Directors
should have sought and obtained a higher price.  Based upon these
claims, the Class Representative seeks damages from the Defendants
for the benefit of the Class.

Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. Defendants maintain,
among other things, that they properly exercised their business
judgment in good faith to obtain a price of $5.45 that provided a
fair premium for BioForm's shareholders.  Based on their defenses,
Defendants are seeking dismissal of this lawsuit and deny that the
Class is entitled to any damages or other relief.

The Court has not decided whether the Class Representative or
Defendants are correct.  Lawyers for the Class must prove the
claims against Defendants at trial.

3. Who is included in the Class?

You are a member of the Class if you are a former shareholder of
BioForm who either (a) tendered your shares of BioForm common
stock to Merz pursuant to the January 15, 2010 cash tender offer,
or (b) did not tender your shares of BioForm common stock to Merz
but your BioForm shares were nonetheless automatically converted
into a right to receive the same cash tender offer price of $5.45
per share.

4. Why is this a class action?

In a class action, one or more people, called "class
representatives" (in this case, Emmy McElroy), sue on behalf of
people who have similar claims.  All of these people are a "class"
or "class members."  One court resolves the issues for all class
members, except for those who exclude themselves from the class.
Judge Marie S. Weiner in the San Mateo County Superior Court in
California is presiding over this class action.

5. What am I giving up if I do nothing and stay in the class?

Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and
that means that you can't sue, continue to sue, or be part of any
other lawsuit against the Defendants about the legal issues in
this case.  It also means that all of the Court's orders, whether
favorable or not, will apply to you and legally bind you.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF OR "OPTING OUT" OF THE CLASS ACTION

If you do not wish to be bound by any judgment, decision, or final
disposition rendered in this lawsuit, whether it is favorable or
not, then you must take steps to get out.  This is called
excluding yourself -- or is sometimes referred to as "opting out"
of the class action.

6. How do I exclude myself or get out of the class action?

To exclude yourself from the class action, you must send a letter
by mail saying that you want to be excluded from this lawsuit.  Be
sure to include your name, address, and your signature.  You must
mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than July 25,
2012, to: BioForm Notice Administrator, c/o RG/2 Claims
Administration LLC, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479.

You can't exclude yourself on the phone or by e-mail.  If you ask
to be excluded, you will not get the benefits, if any, that may be
obtained in the class action, and will also not be bound by any
judgment if Defendants win their case.  You will not be legally
bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit.  You may be able
to sue (or continue to sue) the Defendants in the future about the
legal issues in this case.

7. If I don't exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants for the
same thing later?

No.  Unless you exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue the
Defendants for the claims in this class action.  If you have a
pending lawsuit about the legal issues in this case, speak to your
lawyer in that lawsuit immediately.  You must exclude yourself
from this Class to continue your own lawsuit.  Remember, the
exclusion deadline is July 25, 2012.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

8. Do I have a lawyer in this case?

The Court decided that the law firms of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP and Levi & KORSINSKY LLP are qualified to
represent all Class members and appointed them as Co-Class
Counsel.  More information about Co-Class Counsel is available at
http://www.bramsonplutzik.comand http://www.zlk.com

9. Should I get my own lawyer?

If you do not wish to be represented by Co-Class Counsel, you may
enter an appearance through your own lawyer that you hire.  To do
so, you must file an Entry of Appearance with the Clerk of the
Court.  You will remain a Class member with representation by your
own lawyer.  You will be responsible for the fees and costs of
your lawyer.

10. How will the lawyers be paid?

If Co-Class Counsel get benefits for the Class, they may ask the
Court for fees and expenses. You will not have to pay these fees
and expenses.  If the Court grants Co-Class Counsel's request, the
fees and expenses would be either deducted from any money obtained
for the Class or paid separately by Defendants.

THE TRIAL

11. How and when will the Court decide who is right?

As long as the case isn't resolved by a settlement or otherwise,
Co-Class Counsel will have to prove the claims at a trial.  If you
want to attend, please call the Court Clerk to confirm the trial
date, department and time.

12. Do I have to come to the trial?

You do not need to attend the trial.  Co-Class Counsel will
present the case for the Class members, and Defendants will
present the defense.  You are welcome to come at your own expense.
If you wish to participate in the trial, you should contact
Co-Class Counsel.

13. Will I get money after the trial?

If the Class Representative wins at trial and the Court holds one
or more Defendants liable for damages, then you will get money
after trial.  If the Class Representative does not prove the
claims in the case at trial, then you will not get money after
trial.  How much money you would get if the Class Representative
wins depends on the amount of any damages awarded by the Court and
how many shares of BioForm you owned that were tendered to Merz or
automatically converted into the right to receive $5.45 per share.
If the Class obtains monetary relief as a result of the trial or a
settlement, you will be notified how to participate.  We do not
know when this will be.

14. Additional Information

Complete copies of the pleadings, orders and other documents filed
in this litigation, to the extent not under seal, may be examined
and copied at any time during regular office hours at the offices
of the Civil Clerk of the Court, San Mateo Superior Court, Hall of
Justice, First Floor, Room A, 400 County Center, Redwood City,
California 94063. The case is entitled McElroy, et al. v. Basta,
et al., Civ. No. 491204.

If you have any questions concerning anything discussed in this
notice, or wish to provide us with your current name or address,
please write to Co-Class Counsel at:

          Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
          Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          Michael S. Strimling, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & Birkhaeuser, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          Web site: http://www.bramsonplutzik.com

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT FOR INFORMATION OR
ADVICE.

DATED: MAY 22, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF SAN MATEO

Record Holders: If you were a record holder of BioForm common
stock that was tendered in the tender offer or converted into a
right to receive the same cash tender offer price by operation of
Delaware's short-form merger statute, but were not the beneficial
owner of those shares, you are requested to forward this notice to
the person or persons who were the beneficial owners of those
shares immediately prior to their tender to Merz or conversion
into cash pursuant to the tender offer.  Extra copies of this
notice for distribution to such beneficial holders will be
provided to you for free upon request to BioForm Notice
Administrator, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 59479,
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479.


BOIRON INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Ronald A. Marron, APLC and Patton Boggs LLP
issued a notice regarding the preliminary approval of Boiron,
Inc.'s class action settlement.

The notice is being issued pursuant to an order of the United
States District Court, Southern District of California.

If you purchased a product manufactured by Boiron such as
Oscillococcinum, Children's Oscillococcinum, Arnicare, Quietude,
Camilia or Coldcalm between January 1, 2000 and the present, your
rights may be affected by a proposed class action settlement.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? A proposed settlement has been reached in
a class action lawsuit regarding Oscillococcinum, Children's
Oscillococcinum, Arnicare, Quietude, Camilia, Coldcalm and other
products manufactured by Boiron.  The lawsuit (which is titled
Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc. et al., No. 11-cv-2039-JAH (NLSx)) claims
advertising concerning the Products was not true.  The
manufacturer of the Products stands by its advertising and denies
it did anything wrong.  The manufacturer has settled to avoid the
cost and distraction of the lawsuit.

ARE YOU A CLASS MEMBER? You are a Class Member and may be eligible
to receive a settlement benefit if you purchased the Products
between Jan. 1, 2000 and the present.  You are not a Class Member
if you were a California resident whose only purchase of a Boiron
product was of Children's Coldcalm in California after August 31,
2006.

WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? A settlement fund of $5 million
is being set up to pay claims to eligible Class Members,
attorneys' fees and costs, and the notice and claims
administration costs.  The manufacturer of the Products is also
agreeing to make certain changes to the manner in which it
advertises the Products.  The Settlement Agreement is found at
http://www.gilardi.com/boironsettlement

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? File a Claim: To get a settlement benefit,
Class Members must send in a completed claim form and, if
available, proof of purchase of the Products to the Claims
Administrator at the address below postmarked no later than 45
days after the date the Court enters the Judgment.  Class Members
who file timely and valid claims are eligible to receive up to
$100.00 per household.

Object to the settlement: If you want to object to the settlement
you must file a written statement with the Court and serve a copy
on Class Counsel, Counsel for Defendants and the Claims
Administrator, postmarked by July 14, 2012.  Any objection
regarding or related to the Agreement shall contain certain
information about the objector's standing as a Class member, the
facts supporting the objection, the legal grounds on which the
objection is based, and verification under oath of the contents of
that written statement.  If an objecting party chooses to appear
at the hearing, a notice of intent to appear must also be filed
with the Court.  The instructions for how to object are explained
in the detailed notice at http://www.gilardi.com/boironsettlement

Exclude Yourself: If you do not want to be bound by the
settlement, you must send a letter to the Claims Administrator at
the address below requesting to be excluded.  The letter must be
postmarked by July 14, 2012.  If you exclude yourself, you cannot
receive a benefit from this settlement, but you can sue the
manufacturer of the Products for the claims alleged in this
lawsuit.  If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement or do
nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case on August 13, 2012 at
2:30 p.m. at the federal courthouse located at 940 Front Street,
Courtroom 11, San Diego, CA 92101, to consider final approval of
the settlement, including payment of reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs to Class Counsel related to obtaining the settlement
relief, an incentive award to each of the named Plaintiffs, and
related issues.  The motion(s) by Class Counsel for attorneys'
fees and costs and incentive awards for the Class Representatives
will be available for viewing on the settlement Web site after
they are filed.  You may appear at the hearing in person or
through your attorney at your own cost, but you are not required
to do so.

The detailed notice describes in detail how to file a claim,
object, or exclude yourself and provides other important
information.  For more information and to obtain a detailed
notice, claim form, list of Products, or other documents, visit
http://www.gilardi.com/boironsettlementor call, toll-free, 877-
256-3879, or write to Boiron Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8060,
San Rafael, CA 94912-8060.

For more information, call 1-877-256-3879 or visit
http://www.gilardi.com/boironsettlement


CALIFORNIA: DOMA Unconstitutional, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------
Chris Geidner, writing for MetroWeekly, reports that on May 24, a
federal judge in California held that the Defense of Marriage Act
and a provision of tax law unconstitutionally limit same-sex
couples and domestic partners from participating in the long-term
care plan offered by the California Public Employees Retirement
System, or CalPERS.

The May 24 decision in the class-action lawsuit came from U.S.
District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, a Clinton appointee to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California whose
chambers are located in Oakland, and is the first federal court
decision relating to the 1996 marriage-defining law since
President Obama announced on May 9 that he believes that same-sex
couples should be able to marry.

Judge Wilken joins a growing group of federal judges to find DOMA
unconstitutional.  Judge Joseph Tauro reached a similar conclusion
in 2010 in a case out of Massachusetts that is on appeal, and
Judge Jeffrey S. White in California reached the same conclusion
earlier this year in a case slated for appeals arguments in
September.

In the order issued on May 24, Judge Wilken found that Section 3
of DOMA -- the federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse" --
"violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff same-sex
spouses" and that subparagraph (C) of Section 7702B(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code "violates the equal protection rights of
Plaintiff registered domestic partners."  Specifically, the court
found that "both provisions are constitutionally invalid to the
extent that they exclude Plaintiff same-sex spouses and registered
domestic partners from enrollment in the CalPERS long-term care
plan."

In conclusion, Judge Wilken ordered CalPERS not to use DOMA or the
relevant tax provision to deny enrollment to same-sex spouse and
registered domestic partners in the state.  She also ordered that
the federal government not disqualify CalPERS's plan from the
beneficial tax treatment for following the court order.  Finally,
Judge Wilken established in the May 24 ruling that the decision
would be stayed, or put on hold, during an appeal of her decision
if one is sought.

The plaintiffs and class in the case were represented by the Legal
Aid Society -- Employment Law Center attorneys William McNeill
III, Elizabeth Kristen and Claudia Center.

Because of the indirect nature of the constitutional challenges
involved in this case, Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the
Treasury, the case was unlike many of the other direct challenges
to Section 3 of DOMA that are ongoing in several other federal
courts.  Both federal and state government entities and
individuals were named as defendants, for starters.

The case comes about because, even if CalPERS wanted to allow the
participation of same-sex married couples or domestic partners in
its long-term care program, Section 7702B(f)(2) of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) disqualifies
a state-maintained plan from favorable tax treatment if it
provides coverage to individuals other than those specified under
the tax-code provision, which was signed into law a month before
DOMA was in 1996.  As Judge Wilken noted, "The list of eligible
individuals in Section 7702B(f)(2)(C) includes state employees and
former employees, their spouses, and individuals bearing a
relationship to the employees or spouses which is described in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 152(d)(2)."  Judge
Wilken found the decision to include subparagraphs (A) through (G)
-- and not (H) -- of the underlying tax provision relevant because
subparagraph (H) would have allowed for coverage for domestic
partners, among others.

More broadly, in this case, as with the others, the federal
agencies being sued, who are represented by the Department of
Justice, did not defend the challenge to the constitutionality of
Section 3 of DOMA.  Because of that, the House Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group (BLAG) -- controlled by the House Republican
leadership -- was permitted to intervene to defend it.

The federal government, however, continued to defend the tax code
provision against a "substantive due process" challenge -- which
protects people from the infringement of fundamental rights.  DOJ
argued in a court filing on February 21 that "the denial of
eligibility for tax benefits associated with CalPERS's long-term
care insurance does not infringe on a fundamental right or a
significant liberty interest."  The Department of Justice, which
represents the federal defendants, went on to argue that "the
ability and autonomy to engage in financial and long term care
planning" was not a fundamental right.

Additionally, specifically as to domestic partners, the DOJ
argued, "Section 7702B(f)'s non-inclusion of domestic partners as
eligible relatives is not a classification based on sexual
orientation or any other protected class.  The term 'domestic
partner' is not synonymous with a partner of the same sex because
in the nine states that recognize domestic partnerships, only two
limit it to same-sex couples."

Judge Wilken disagreed with BLAG as to the DOMA challenge and with
DOJ as to the domestic partner challenge, finding that denying
married same-sex couples or same-sex domestic partners the ability
to enroll in the CalPERS long-term care plan -- because the tax
law and DOMA require such denial in order to remain a qualified
long-term care plan -- violates the equal protection clause.


CANADA: Roadside Breathlyzer Class Action Suit in. B.C. Expanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global BC reports that a class action lawsuit, challenging
roadside breathlyzer results, is being expanded.

The lawsuit, which still needs court approval to proceed, argues
that the breathlyzers were not calibrated properly, so they showed
a warning level when the driver should have passed.

The devices were pulled and re-calibrated last November, but the
expanded lawsuit now claims the changes made still don't comply
with the law.

Since the fall of 2010, B.C. has had some of the toughest drinking
and driving laws in the country.

Since they were introduced anyone who blows .05, a warning, can
suffer automatic penalties -- three-day driving prohibitions,
about 600 dollars in fines, vehicle impoundment, and a record, but
a lawyer says thousands of British Columbians may have been
wrongly penalized.

"Everyone that has actually blown a 'warn' on the breathlyzer,
there is a possibility that their blood alcohol level was actually
less than .05," said Michael Thomas, a lawyer with Harper Grey
LLP.

A potential class action lawsuit was filed months after police
announced in 2010 that more than 2,000 roadside breathalyzers in
B.C. had to be recalled so they could be properly calibrated.

Though one error in the device was fixed, lawyers now say a second
error, one that allows for mistakes made when converting blood/air
ratios to blood/alcohol levels was not corrected.

And more than 8,000 British Columbians who blew 'warns' could now
be entitled to compensation.

"We have no problem with legislation and we support it," said
Ms. Thomas.  "People who drink responsibility could be caught with
a 'warn' and we just don't think that's fair."

Ms. Thomas said the penalties incurred for blowing .05 can be
damaging far beyond any financial costs incurred.

"You have a prohibition on your record saying that you drove a
vehicle, essentially when you shouldn't have been," said
Ms. Thomas.  "And that sticks on your record and can affect both
your reputation and potentially your ability to get insurance, and
it just strikes me as being wrong."

Minister of Justice Shirley Bond would not comment on the issue
because it is before the courts.

The BC Association of Chiefs of Police could not be reached before
deadline.  The law firm Harper Grey is asking anyone who may be
affected to contact them through their Web site.

A hearing to certify a class action lawsuit is scheduled for
October.


CANADA: Saskatchewan Faces Class Action Over Foster Care Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barb Pacholik, writing for The Regina Leader-Post, reports that
suggesting the Saskatchewan government failed in its legal
responsibilities toward children abused in foster care, a Regina
law firm has filed a unique proposed class-action lawsuit.

"Please hear the cries of the foster child.  They were being
hurt," Bernice McInnes, one of the named plaintiffs, said in an
interview after the suit was filed on May 25 in Regina by Merchant
Law Group.

At the age of 11, Ms. McInnes, then in Saskatoon, was removed from
her own physically abusive home and placed into foster care in
1969.

The suit alleges that she endured six years of physical, sexual
and mental abuse at the hands of her foster parents.

"It was quite life and death in there," said Ms. McInnes, now
residing in Calgary.

The class proposed in the suit is all persons who suffered
personal injury as a minor by a third-party on or after 1959 while
in the care of Saskatchewan's Social Services, which did not
pursue legal action or seek compensation on their behalf.

The action is being taken against the Saskatchewan government as
represented by the Minister of Social Services, and the province's
Public Guardian and Trustee.

"The defendant turned a blind eye to abuse that was occurring in
foster homes throughout Saskatchewan in order to advance its own
economic and administrative interests," says a statement of claim.

Social Services spokesman Andrew Dinsmore said the ministry would
not comment on a matter before the courts.  A statement of defense
has not yet been filed.

A class-action lawsuit must be certified by a judge to proceed, so
the filing of the claim is only the first step.  A statement of
claim contains allegations not yet proven in court.

Lawyer Tony Merchant has taken on a number of actions alleging
abuse within institutions, including residential schools,
correctional facilities, and a school for the deaf.  As the self-
described "go-to guy on did bad things happen to you when you were
a child," Mr. Merchant said he's heard from hundreds of people
over the years who raised complaints like Ms. McInnes.

In many cases, the foster parents have passed away or don't have
the financial means to make suing them worthwhile.

"This class action is a winner for the victims," Mr. Merchant
said.

Unlike the government-run residential schools, the law prevents
holding the government vicariously liable for abuse suffered in
foster homes, which are an "independent contractor of the
government."  However, Mr. Merchant contends the government is
responsible for failing to press the legal interests of those
children who were abused in care.  "They should have sued the
abuser," he said.  He plans to take similar action in other
provinces.

Mr. Merchant is unclear of the size of the proposed class in
Saskatchewan, but believes the numbers will be in the thousands.
"I think it (abuse) was more prevalent than one likes to think,"
he said.

The claim contends the government not only failed to sue on the
foster child's behalf, but also failed to report the criminal acts
to authorities, so the offenders could be brought to justice, and
should have applied for crime compensation.

One of the cases outlined in the suit alleges a young girl and her
sister were sexually abused by a father and son in the same home.
Although initially reported to Social Services, the children were
temporarily removed from the home then returned, the suit alleges.

In the case of Ms. McInnes, who consented to being identified, the
claim alleges a litany of abuses suffered, including a forcibly
dislocated jaw, scalded hands, electrocution, starvation, and
rape.

"You could obviously see I was abused," said Ms. McInnes, who
questions why those around her, including her social worker and
doctors, never took action.  "In those days, abuse was very hush,
hush," she said.

Aside from being heard and believed, she hopes the lawsuit brings
significant compensation to restore a troubled life -- "all the
years I missed out on in my career."


CANADA: Ontario's Conservation Authorities May Face Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Fritz, writing for YourOttawaRegion.com, reports that
conservation authorities are overstepping their authority and the
time has come to do something about it, says an Ottawa-based
lawyer.

Terrance J. Green and his associates announced at the May 24
Carleton Landowners' Association (CLA) annual general meeting in
Carp they are prepared to pursue a class action suit against
Ontario's conservation authorities.

"I am a lawyer, don't hold that against me," he told the standing
room only crowd at the Carp Agricultural Society hall.  "I am also
a landowner and I have learned a lot about conservation
authorities, private property owner rights and particularly Crown
grants."

Mr. Green said the main purpose for his attendance at the meeting
was to talk about conservation authorities, where they get their
mandate, what are their objectives, how they "abuse their
mandates" and how to try and stop them.

Harsh criticism of Ontario's conservation authorities is nothing
new for Mr. Green.  In 2011, he assisted the Ontario Landowners
Association (OLA) in penning a 35-page report on the subject.

In it, Mr. Green argued "recent conduct of the various
conservation authorities suggest they have become onerous on the
municipalities and the provincial taxpayers."

Over the past few weeks, his associate Mariah Soper has undertaken
extensive research on conservation authorities, their bylaws and
constitutions and the legality of the authority under which they
operate.

In Ontario there are currently 36 conservation authorities, formed
under the Conservation Authority Act of 1946.  West Carleton-March
falls under the jurisdiction of Mississippi Valley Conservation.

The mandate of conservation authorities is to ensure water
quality, prevent flooding, reduce erosion, preserve wildlife,
ensure there is proper access to the 300 conservation areas in
Ontario and enhance conservation efforts.  They also comment on
development if there is a potential impact on wetlands.

But Ms. Soper told her audience there is a lot more going on with
conservation authorities than meets the eye, and her research led
her to discover all kinds of phrases/regulations that were self
created and can harm landowners.

"They also have other powers that you don't hear about," she said,
noting bylaws indicate conservation authorities can also do what
is necessary for other purposes not necessarily listed in their
objectives.

"They can enter you land, take your land, intimidate you and
confuse you," she cautioned.  "We need to stop them from doing
this.  We need to bring them back to their original mandate."

Ms. Soper said she learned conservation authorities even have the
power to alter waterways, something that surprised her. She also
hinted the conservation authorities are motivated by money and
their actions reflect that.

"The major thing here is intimidation," Ms. Soper noted.

To combat what some feel is the blatant abuse of power by the
conservation authorities, Ms. Soper called on landowners to step
up and be part of something bigger.

"We want to set a precedent," she stated. "We want to start a
class action suit.  We want to get enough people to take down
conservation authorities."

The message she said needs to be sent to conservation authorities
is that if they go on somebody's land, they will be found out and
it won't be tolerated.

She cited several cases in which landowners came up short against
conservation authorities when the landowners were only doing
things on their own land -- like using foreign fill.

"Know your rights, get your land patents.  They want to take away
your rights," Ms. Soper concluded, to tremendous applause.

The topic of land patents was discussed briefly, earlier in the
event, when Liz Marshall spoke.  Ms. Marshall is the woman behind
the search on Crown Land Patent Grants for the OLA.

She has done extensive research on the subject and has travelled
across Ontario speaking to landowner groups and individuals.

She advised those in attendance at the meeting a commercial title
search only goes back 40 years and may not protect a property
owner from issues that pre-date that search.

"Unless they go back 60 years, you are not separate from the Crown
. . . A patent can never be amended, repealed or quashed," she
emphasized.  "They are real."

Ms. Marshall explained that most of the property rights
legislation in Ontario goes back to the early 1990s when former
New Democratic Premier Bob Rae "replaced and reinstituted"
property legislation. This was later "tweaked" by Liberal Premier
Dalton McGuinty.

She emphasized that having the original Crown Land Patent Grants
helps landowners override certain bylaws and government
regulations.

Cautioning it could take up to a year to get a certified copy of
Letter Patent, she urged everyone to do so and get a full title
search done on their land.

"If nothing else please get your complete title searches done and
please demand your deeds," Ms. Marshall stated.  "Deeds transfer
ones rights from patentee to you."

"A Crown Patent gives you all the rights the monarch has in terms
of doing anything you want on your land," added Mr. Green.

"Any conditions that are there, they are noted in title.  If there
are no conditions, you are allowed to do what you want on your
land.  The only condition that is not written is you have the
right do what you want on your land as long as you don't interfere
with the rights of your neighbors to enjoy their land."

Ms. Marshall urged all those present in Carp to "help Green and
associates win this battle" against conservation authorities.

"It will take one conservation authority to go down and it will be
dominoes," she said.

To learn more about Green's proposal regarding a class action suit
against conservation authorities, contact the law office of Green
& Vespry at 200 - 190 O'Connor St., Ottawa, ON, K2P 2R3 or by
phone at 613-560-6565.


CBS CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of an amended class securities
action filed by the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
System against CBS Corp. is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, according to CBS's May 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On December 12, 2008, the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System filed a self-styled class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Treasurer,
alleging violations of federal securities law. The complaint,
which was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 26, 2008 and October 10,
2008 (the "Class Period"), alleges that, among other things, the
Company's failure to timely write down the value of certain assets
caused the Company's reported operating results during the Class
Period to be materially inflated.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages.  On February 11, 2009, a motion was filed in
the case on behalf of The City of Omaha, Nebraska Civilian
Employees' Retirement System, and The City of Omaha Police and
Fire Retirement System (collectively, the "Omaha Funds") seeking
to appoint the Omaha Funds as the lead plaintiffs in this case; on
March 5, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On May 4, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which removes the Treasurer
as a defendant and adds the Executive Chairman. On July 13, 2009,
all defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action.  On March
16, 2010, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed
this action as to the Company and all defendants.  On April 30,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to serve an amended
complaint.  On September 23, 2010, the court issued an order
granting leave to amend.  On October 8, 2010, the Company was
served with an Amended Complaint, which redefines the Class Period
to be April 29, 2008 to October 10, 2008 and alleges that the
impairment charge should have been taken during the first quarter
of 2008.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this Amended
Complaint on November 19, 2010.  On May 24, 2011, the court
granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of
defendants on May 25, 2011.  On June 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and, on March 14, 2012, the Second Circuit heard oral
argument on plaintiffs' appeal.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


CBS CORP: Defends E-books-related Antitrust Suits in U.S., Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation's subsidiary continues to defend itself against
antitrust class action complaints in the U.S. and Canada over e-
books sales, according to the Company's May 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A number of lawsuits relating to the sale of e-books are pending
against several entities, which include CBS Corp.'s subsidiary,
Simon & Schuster, Inc., Apple Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc.,
HarperCollins Publishers, LLC, Holtzbrinck Publishers LLC d/b/a
Macmillan, and Penguin Group (USA) Inc. -- collectively referred
to as the Publishing Parties.

On December 9, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (the MDL) issued an order consolidating
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
various purported class action suits that private litigants had
filed in federal courts in California and New York.  On January
20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint with the court against the Publishing parties. These
private litigant plaintiffs, who are e-book purchasers, allege
that, among other things, the defendants are in violation of
federal and/or state antitrust laws in connection with the sale of
e-books pursuant to agency distribution arrangements between each
of the publishers and e-book retailers. The consolidated amended
class action complaint generally seeks multiple forms of damages
for the purchase of e-books and injunctive and other relief. On
March 2, 2012, the Publishing parties filed a motion to dismiss
this action.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, similar antitrust suits have been
filed against the Publishing parties by private litigants in
Canada, purportedly as class actions.  On April 11, 2012, a number
of states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed an antitrust
action against several of the Publishing parties in Texas federal
court, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on April 30, 2012. Simon & Schuster
intends to vigorously defend itself in the MDL, Canadian and
States litigations.

Founded in 1986 and headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation --
http://cbscorporation.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a mass media company in the United States and
internationally.  The company is composed of an Entertainment
segment, a Cable Networks segment, a Publishing segment, a Local
Broadcasting segment, and an Outdoor segment.


FACEBOOK INC: Abbey Spanier Files Class Action Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP specializing in class action
suits, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Facebook, Inc.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman
Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
and Barclays Capital Inc. all failed to provide accurate
information about Facebook's decline in earnings growth to all
Facebook investors prior to the Company's Initial Public Offering.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (12-cv-4157) alleges while Facebook
executives were out and about on the road show leading up to the
IPO, the Company guided the underwriters to materially lower their
earnings forecast for 2012, leading the underwriters to reduce
Facebook's earnings estimates for the second quarter and full
fiscal year 2012.  These revisions were material information which
was not shared with all Facebook investors.

The action was commenced on behalf of all persons and/or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Facebook common stock pursuant
to and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering.
Plaintiffs bring this action under the Securities Act of 1933.
The lawsuit seeks class actions status and monetary damages.

Investors who bought Facebook may move the court to appoint them
as lead plaintiff no later than July 22, 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 plaintiffs." Your ability to share in any recovery
is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve
as a lead plaintiff.

If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights as a potential
class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street New York, NY
          Telephone: 10016(212) 889-3700
          Toll Free: (800) 889-3701
          E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Still Awaits Final OK of Budeprion Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. continues to await a Pennsylvania court's
final approval of its settlement of the Budeprion XL Litigation,
according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In June 2009, the Company was named a co-defendant in class action
lawsuits filed in California state court in an action titled Kelly
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. BC414812 (Calif.
Superior Crt. L.A. County). Subsequently, additional class action
lawsuits were filed in Louisiana (Morgan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Indus. Ltd, et al., No. 673880 (24th Dist Crt., Jefferson Parish,
LA.)), North Carolina (Weber v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd.,
et al., No. 07 CV5002556, (N.C. Superior Crt., Hanover County)),
Pennsylvania (Rosenfeld v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:09-CV-2811 (E.D. Pa.)), Florida (Henchenski and Vogel v.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-CV-470-FLM-
29SPC (M.D. Fla.)), Texas (Anderson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 3-09CV1200-M (N.D. Tex.)), Oklahoma
(Brown et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 09-
cv-649-TCK-PJC (N.D. OK)), Ohio (Latvala et al. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-cv-795 (S.D. OH)),
Alabama (Jordan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No.
CV09-709 (Ala. Cir. Crt. Baldwin County)), and Washington (Leighty
v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No. CV09-01640 (W. D.
Wa.)). All of the complaints involve Budeprion XL, a generic
version of Wellbutrin XL(R) that is manufactured by the Company
and marketed by Teva, and allege that, contrary to representations
of Teva, Budeprion XL is less effective in treating depression,
and more likely to cause dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin
XL. The actions are brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion
XL and assert claims such as unfair competition, unfair trade
practices and negligent misrepresentation under state law. Each
lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount consisting of the
cost of Budeprion XL paid by class members, as well as any
applicable penalties imposed by state law, and disclaims damages
for personal injury. The state court cases were removed to federal
court, and a petition for multidistrict litigation to consolidate
the cases in federal court was granted. These cases and any
subsequently filed cases will be heard under the consolidated
action entitled In re: Budeprion XL Marketing Sales Practices, and
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2107, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to certify that
order for interlocutory appeal, both of which were denied.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the Company
filed an opposition to that motion. The class certification
hearing was held on May 17, 2011. In September 2011, the Company
filed a summary judgment motion on the grounds of plaintiffs'
claims are preempted under federal law based on the United States
Supreme Court decision in PLIVA v. Mensing.  On January 6, 2012,
the Company and co-defendant Teva entered into a classwide
settlement agreement for all the actions included in the
multidistrict litigation.  Pursuant to that settlement, the
Company has agreed to take certain actions related to the subject
product, to pay for class notice and settlement administration,
and to reimburse any attorney's fees or costs awarded by the Court
to plaintiffs' up to a capped amount.  The Company has accrued
estimated costs related to the settlement of this matter as of
March 31, 2012.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by the
Court on February 1, 2012 and remains subject to final approval
following notice to the class.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com/-- a
specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in the development,
manufacture, and marketing of bioequivalent pharmaceutical
products.  It markets and sells its generic pharmaceutical
prescription drug products in the continental United States and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  The company has a strategic
alliance agreement with Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V.  The
Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Hayward,
California.


JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Labor Class Settlement No Impact on Earnings
----------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. disclosed in its May 1, 2012 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 29, 2012, that the final court approval of
a class settlement resolving a labor class action complaint didn't
make a material impact on its earning for the first 39 weeks of
fiscal 2012.

During the first quarter of fiscal 2012, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois issued a final approval of
the settlement agreement related to the class action wage and hour
lawsuit that was filed against the Company in fiscal 2010.  The
Company expects the case to be closed and formally dismissed by
the Court during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $2,600,000
to the claims administrator during the first quarter of fiscal
2012 and it expects to receive a reverter payment for unclaimed
settlement funds of approximately $665 during the fourth quarter
of fiscal 2012.  The Company has recorded a current asset of
$665,000 as of March 29, 2012 to reflect this anticipated reverter
payment.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a class
action wage and hour lawsuit, captioned Cardenas et. al. v John B.
Sanfilippo & Son, Inc., was filed against the Company in fiscal
2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") and the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The plaintiffs claimed damages
under the IMWL in an amount equal to all unpaid back pay alleged
to be owed to the plaintiffs, prejudgment interest on the back
pay, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and an
injunction precluding the Company from violating the IMWL.  The
plaintiffs additionally claimed damages under the FLSA in an
amount equal to all back pay alleged to be owed to the plaintiffs,
prejudgment interest on the back pay, liquidated damages equal to
the amount of unpaid back wages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
In the second quarter of fiscal 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint in which they alleged that the Company
maintained and maintains a practice regarding the rounding of
employees' time entries which violates the IMWL and the FLSA.
Following mediation during the third quarter of fiscal 2011 in
order to cover an expanded scope of wage and hour claims,
plaintiffs and facilities, the Company agreed in principle to a
$2,600,000 settlement.  In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, the
settlement agreement was finalized and preliminarily approved by
the District Court which includes a provision allowing for a
reverter payment if all or some class members do not submit claim
forms.

John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. -- http://www.jbssinc.com/--
engages in the processing and marketing of tree nuts and peanuts
in the United States. It offers raw and processed nuts, including
peanuts, almonds, Brazil nuts, pecans, pistachios, filberts,
cashews, English walnuts, black walnuts, pine nuts, and macadamia
nuts. The company provides nut products in various styles and
seasonings.  The Company provides its products under various
private labels, as well as under the Fisher, Orchard Valley
Harvest, and Sunshine Country brand names.  The Company was
founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Elgin, Illinois.


MICROSOFT: Changes User Agreements to Bar Consumer Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hachman, writing for PC Magazine, reports that Microsoft said
on May 25 that the company has begun changing its user agreements
to prevent consumers from filing class-action lawsuits against the
company.

In a blog post authored by Jim Fielden, the assistant general
counsel at Microsoft, the company said that it would take
advantage of a 2011 Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility vs.
Concepcion, that allows companies to settle a complaint either
privately or via small claims court, but can prevent the plaintiff
from forming a class for a class action lawsuit.

Microsoft said that it had already updated the user agreement of
its Xbox Live service to put its new legal strategy in place, and
would extend that practice to other products and services over the
next few months.  That agreement, updated last December, drew the
ire of PCMag.com columnist John Dvorak, who dubbed the provision
part of the "boilerplate crap" that dominates user agreement.
Mr. Dvorak said that those included "shrink wrap licensing deal"
that bound the consumer if he or she opened a software package.
Sony also changed its terms of service in reaction to the law,
giving it the sort of legal protection that it did not originally
enjoy after hackers forced it to take down its PlayStation Network
service last year.

"We think this is the right approach for both Microsoft and our
U.S. customers," Mr. Fielden wrote.  "Our policy gives Microsoft
powerful incentives to resolve any dispute to the customer's
satisfaction before it gets to arbitration, and our arbitration
provisions will be among the most generous in the country.  For
instance, we permit arbitration wherever the customer lives,
promptly reimburse filing fees, and, if we offer less to resolve a
dispute informally than an arbitrator ultimately awards, we will
pay the greater of the award or $1,000 for most products and
services -- plus double the customer's reasonable attorney's fees.
Most important, this approach means customer complaints will be
resolved promptly, and in those cases where the arbitrator agrees
with the customer's position, the customer will receive generous
compensation, and receive it quickly."

Microsoft said that it will leave its 45-day refund policy in
place, which includes the full retail cost plus $7 in shipping.


NRG ENERGY: N.Y. Ct. Rejects Unjust Enrichment Claim in Unit Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal court has dismissed claims of unjust enrichment
asserted by Wise in a class action complaint against NRG Energy,
Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's May 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On October 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a purported class action
lawsuit, captioned Wise v. Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, on behalf of
New York consumers against Energy Plus in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  Claiming statutory damages
in excess of $5 million, the plaintiff alleges violations of New
York business laws as well as unjust enrichment. Specifically, the
plaintiff claims that Energy Plus misrepresents that its rates are
competitive in the market; fails to disclose that its rates are
substantially higher than those in the market and that Energy Plus
has engaged in deceptive practices in its marketing of energy
services. Plaintiff seeks that this matter be certified as a class
action, with treble damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
any other relief that the court deems just and proper. On January
11, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which they added
another co-plaintiff, made additional claims as to how they became
customers of Energy Plus and made some additional allegations as
to alleged representations on the Energy Plus website. On February
1, 2012, Energy Plus filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 23, 2012, an order was entered dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and that Energy Plus's
disclosure of its variable rate is inadequate. The purported class
action is now limited to plaintiffs' claims of potential
misrepresentation in Energy Plus's advertising of its products.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an integrated wholesale power generation and
retail electricity company.  It is a retail electricity company
engaged in the supply of electricity, energy services, and cleaner
energy products to retail electricity customers in deregulated
markets through its Retail businesses, which include Reliant
Energy, Green Mountain Energy Company and Energy Plus Holdings
LLC.


OFFICE DEPOT: Plea to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended securities class
action complaint remains pending in a Florida federal court,
according to the Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On April 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain current and former executive
officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seeking damages, fees, costs and equitable relief.  The
allegations made in the lawsuit primarily relate to the Company's
previous financial disclosures and reports regarding certain tax
losses.  The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida captioned as Climo v. Office Depot,
Inc, Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian. The
Court granted a request by the Central Laborers' Pension Fund
(CLPF) to appoint it as lead plaintiff in the case and the CLPF
filed its amended complaint on September 6, 2011.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in November 2011, and that
motion is currently pending before the Court.

Office Depot, Inc. -- http://wwww.officedepot.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, supplies office products and services.  Its
North American Retail division sells an assortment of merchandise,
such as general office supplies, computer supplies, business
machines and related supplies, and office furniture under various
labels, including Office Depot, Viking Office Products, Foray, and
Ativa through its chain of office supply stores. It also provides
printing, reproduction, mailing, shipping, and other services, as
well as personal computer support and network installation
service.  The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Boca Raton, Florida.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP on May 25 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of two classes of purchasers of Orrstown Financial Services, Inc.:
those who (1) purchased Orrstown securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with its offering of common stock on
March 24, 2010; and/or (2) purchased Orrstown securities on the
open market anytime between March 24, 2010 and October 27, 2011.
Defendants in this class action are Orrstown, Orrstown Bank for
which Orrstown is the holding company, and certain officers and
directors of Orrstown and the Bank, namely, Anthony F. Ceddia,
Jeffrey W. Coy, Mark K. Keller, Andrea Pugh, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr.,
Gregory A. Rosenberry, Kenneth R. Shoemaker, Glenn W. Snoke, John
S. Ward, and Joel R. Zullinger.

The action was brought against Defendants for violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents for the
March 2010 Offering were negligently prepared and failed to
disclose material information about Orrstown's loan portfolio,
underwriting practices, and internal controls.  The complaint
further alleges that Orrstown knowingly and/or recklessly
continued to make false and misleading statements after the March
2010 Offering concerning the quality of Orrstown's loan portfolio,
internal controls and lending practices while simultaneously
assuring the investing public about the quality of Orrstown's
management, underwriting procedures, and internal controls.

On October 27, 2011, Orrstown announced that the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia, one of the Bank's primary regulators,
refused to authorize Orrstown's requested declaration of quarterly
dividends.  The Federal Reserve took this step to prevent the
Company from engaging in an unsafe and unsound banking practice
which would further deplete the Company's capital base. In
addition, the Company reported it had $9.4 million of charge-offs
in that quarter alone and that there were "decreases in asset
quality ratios, including elevated levels of nonaccrual loans,
restructured loans and delinquencies."  The October 27, 2011
disclosures, along with those made in July 2011, revealed that the
Bank's prior representations were false and misleading as the loan
portfolio was severely impaired and its underwriting and
management lead loan approval process was inadequate resulting in
the outsourcing of its loan review process to an independent
party.  After these disclosures, the market corrected its
valuation of Orrstown such that the stock price plummeted
indicating that Defendants' false assurances had caused Orrstown
to trade at artificially high prices throughout the Class Period.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired Orrstown securities during the
Class Period.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Orrstown
securities during the Class Period, and either lost money on the
transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this
action to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must
meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file
appropriate papers no later than July 24, 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 Chimicles & Tikellis
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as an Orrstown
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact plaintiff's counsel Nicholas E. Chimicles, Kimberly
Donaldson Smith or Christina Donato Saler toll free at 1-888-805-
7848 or via e-mail at kimdonaldson@chimicles.com or
cdsaler@chimicles.com

You can also obtain a copy of the complaint or learn more about
this action at http://www.chimicles.com

CONTACT: Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
         Kimberly Donaldson Smith, Esq.
         Christina Donato Saler, Esq.
         Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
         CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
         One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041
         Telephone: (610) 642-8500
         Toll Free: (888) 805-7848
         Fax: (610) 649-3633
         Web site: http://www.chimicles.com


POWERCOR: Customers Mull Class Action Over Smart Meters
-------------------------------------------------------
The Standard reports that smart meter opponent Chris Hynes was
outsmarted by installers after a long campaign to avoid having one
installed at his house went as high as the Premier's office, only
to fail.

But Mr. Hynes aims to hit back with a possible class action with
other disgruntled customers.

The Warrnambool man arrived home from work to find his old
analogue electricity meter had been replaced with one of the
controversial compact smart meters while his wife had been
sleeping after night shift.

"I wasn't very happy at all, but it looks like I'm stuck with it,"
he told The Standard on May 24.

"Now I'm thinking of contacting other opponents and solicitors to
see if they are interested in launching a class action against
compulsory fitting of the new meters.

"It seems people's rights are gone and the government can now
authorize people to walk into your property and do these jobs.  I
had notices of objection stuck to my meter box and they were
ignored."

Mr. Hynes had written to Premier Ted Baillieu with a list of 10
questions relating to health, insurance and fire risks.

It prompted a reply advising his concerns had been forwarded to
Energy and Resources Minister David O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien's office also did not answer his questions, Mr. Hynes
said.  "I'm going to follow up with a letter to Powercor and to
Mr. O'Brien demanding answers," he said.

"I will demand the installers come back again and refit the meter
to a heat-resistant board that won't have a risk of catching
fire."

Another Warrnambool opponent, pensioner Pam Densley, has locked
her meter box and installed a piece of see-through perspex on the
door.

"I don't want a bloody smart meter fitted until they can answer
all my questions about safety and health risks," she said.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Olay False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Hsu, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a
California woman has brought a class-action suit against Procter &
Gamble Co., accusing its Olay Regenerist line of anti-aging
products of false advertising and "ill-gotten gains."

In Superior Court in Los Angeles, a complaint from Lorette Perez-
Pirio last week said that magazine and Internet ads and product
labels for the Anti-Aging Eye Roller and the Regenerating Eye
Cream "misrepresent the effects and purported benefits of the
products."

It is claimed that the products reduce puffiness, dark circles,
fine lines and wrinkles, promising "younger-looking skin without
the drastic measures," according to the complaint.

But the suit alleges that P&G is aware that its products, of which
at least hundreds of thousands of units were said to have been
sold, "do not possess the requisite competent and reliable
scientific evidence to substantiate their bold claims."

Ms. Perez-Pirio wrote to P&G last year seeking a remedy but said
in the suit that the company rejected her demand.  Now she's
hoping to loop in customers who bought the products starting in
May 2008 and is asking for injunctive relief and restitution.

P&G could not immediately be reached for comment.

The beauty and anti-aging market is booming, according to the
complaint.  Olay was named this month as the most valuable beauty
brand by London brand valuation consultancy Brand Finance Plc.

Olay is worth $11.8 billion, up 6 percent from last year's $11.1
billion, according to the report, beating out Avon, L'Oreal,
Neutrogena and Nivea.  Makeup sales are on the rise, according to
research firm NPD Group.

"In an effort to capitalize on this growing and robust market,
manufacturers routinely make far-fetched claims about the benefits
of a product," the suit claims, accusing many companies of being
"snake-oil salesmen."


QIAO XING: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-----------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Qiao Xing Universal Resources, Inc are reminded of
the securities class action filed against Qiao Xing and certain of
its officers.  The federal securities class action (12 Civ 3745),
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, is on behalf of all persons who purchased Qiao Xing
securities between August 23, 2010 and April 13, 2012, inclusive.
This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its top officials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Reaches Settlement to Resolve Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Company has negotiated a settlement to resolve a
securities class action complaint in South Carolina, according to
the Company's May 1, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 1,
2012.

On July 7, 2008, the Company was served with a complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for South Carolina by the City of Ann
Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated (no. 4:08-cv-02348-TLW-KDW).  The suit
is a class action on behalf of those who purchased the Company's
common stock between February 7, 2007 and September 18, 2007,
except officers and directors of the Company.  The complaint, as
amended, alleges that the Company issued press releases and made
public statements during the class period that were materially
false and misleading.  The complaint also names certain Company
officers as defendants and seeks an unspecified amount of damages
plus interest and attorneys' fees.  On April 26, 2012, the parties
filed with the court a stipulation of settlement, which, if
approved by the court and subject to the conditions contained
therein, will end the litigation and provide a settlement fund, to
be funded entirely by insurance, to make payments to the
authorized claimants as therein provided.

Headquartered in Hartsville, South Carolina, Sonoco Products
Company produces packaging for various industries and global
brands.


STURM RUGER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
Connecticut, according to the Company's May 1, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 18, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint
captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et
al. pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007.  On
October 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a complaint
captioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al.
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  This matter is based upon the same facts and basic
allegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund
litigation.  On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the two
actions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters.  On January 11,
2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2010.  The
defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss on
April 26, 2010 and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18, 2010.
Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion on July 19,
2010.  Oral argument was held on November 22, 2010. On February 4,
2011, the Court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss in
part and denying it in part.  The matter is ongoing.

No new updates were reported in the Company's latest quarter
financial filing with the SEC.

Sturm, Ruger & Company Incorporated is a Southport, Connecticut-
based firearm manufacturing company.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Block & Leviton Announces Expanded Class Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP reminds investors that the lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action against Swisher Hygiene
Inc. is Tuesday, May 29, 2012.  Also, the Class Period in the
ongoing litigation has been expanded and now commences on
March 31, 2011, rather than the previous date, May 5, 2011.  Thus,
the Class Period runs from March 31, 2011 through March 28, 2012.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the
Company's financial strength and future prospects.  These
statements were materially false and misleading 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; 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.  This review, still
ongoing, has led to the termination of Swisher's CFO and at least
2 other senior accounting personnel. Since the announcement that
their financial results could no longer be relied upon, the price
of Swisher shares has fallen nearly 25%.

If you purchased shares of Swisher during the Class Period, you
may, no later than May 29, 2012, request that the Court appoint
you Lead Plaintiff for the Class.  You may contact the attorneys
at Block & Leviton to discuss your rights in the case.  You may
also retain counsel of your choice and you need not take any
action at this time to be a class member.

Block & Leviton -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-based
law firm representing investors for violations of securities laws.
The firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities
cases on behalf of investors for over 50 years.


SYNGENTA: Settles Atrazine Class Action for $105 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Brueggemann, writing for BND.com, reports that the Swiss
maker of the popular agricultural weed-killer atrazine says it has
settled a local class-action lawsuit for $105 million.

The settlement ends nearly eight years of litigation in Madison
County and federal court about whether atrazine polluted municipal
water systems.  In the settlement, the manufacturer, Syngenta,
acknowledges no liability and continues to stand by the safety of
atrazine.

Atrazine is an economical herbicide used on most corn and grain
sorghum grown in the United States.  About 80 million pounds of it
is used annually in the United States to control broadleaf and
other weeds.

The company and the plaintiff attorneys, who represent a number of
community water systems, including the city of Greenville, said in
a joint statement that they're settling "in order to end the
business uncertainty and expense of protracted legal proceedings."

Syngenta also issued its own statement: "The value of atrazine is
clear.  It benefits American farmers by up to $3.3 billion and
supports up to 85,000 American jobs related to farming annually.
Atrazine helps protect the environment and critical wildlife
habitat by reducing soil erosion by up to 85 million tons each
year.  There is no substitute for atrazine, which is used in more
than 60 countries and meets the most stringent safety requirements
in the world."

The plaintiff attorneys get one-third of the settlement in legal
fees, about $35 million.  Swansea attorney Stephen Tillery and his
St. Louis firm Korein Tillery filed the suit in 2004. Co-counsel
is the Baron & Budd law firm of Dallas.

Any U.S. water system that detected atrazine in its raw or
finished water in the past -- or up to 90 days after the
settlement is given preliminary approval is eligible to receive
settlement money.

Information about the settlement is available at
http://www.atrazinesettlement.com

Information at the site includes how to opt out of the settlement,
how to oppose the settlement and how to seek a share of the
settlement.

Plaintiff attorneys claimed that atrazine runoff from farming
operations pollutes water supplies.  They also claimed atrazine
breaks down into cancer-causing substances.

Defense attorneys claimed they followed federal regulations
governing atrazine for decades.  The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's stance was that atrazine was safe in drinking water at 3
parts per billion or less -- about a spoonful in an Olympic-size
swimming pool.

Mr. Tillery said previously that studies are suggesting atrazine,
even in doses lower than the EPA-approved level, causes cancers,
low birth weights and deformities of sex organs.  Syngenta
countered that those studies are unreliable and pale in comparison
to the studies the EPA has relied on to regulate atrazine.

The joint statement from the company and the plaintiff says:
"After almost eight years of litigation, the plaintiffs were
unable to come up with any new scientific studies relating to the
safety of atrazine.  No one ever has or ever could be exposed to
enough atrazine in water to affect their health." It also states
the plaintiffs are "not aware of any new scientific studies
relating to the safety of atrazine."

The lawsuit did not seek compensation for anyone getting sick from
atrazine.  Rather, it sought compensation for water districts for
installing and operating water-filtering equipment.

Mr. Tillery said the settlement will provide money for more than
1,880 community water systems across at least 45 states.

"The scope of this historic settlement is enormous and its
protection of the health of millions of Americans across the
country is a huge benefit to the public, the environment, and the
taxpayers," Mr. Tillery said.

Defense attorneys also argued it would be improper for a local
judge or jury to be deciding what products farmers can use.

Syngenta argued that losing atrazine would be a big blow to
farmers, because the product is inexpensive and effective on a
wide variety of weeds in crops, including corn.  The value of
Illinois' corn harvest is about $4 billion, according to the state
Department of Agriculture.

"This settlement is good for Syngenta and the farmers who depend
on atrazine, as well as Syngenta's retailers, distributors,
partners, and others who have been inconvenienced by this ongoing
and burdensome litigation for almost eight years," Syngenta said
in its statement.

As part of the settlement, Syngenta's atrazine distributors are
released from liability.

The company said the settlement will be charged to its income
statement in 2012.  The effect on earnings will be about 50 cents
per share, according to the company.

In a news release, Mr. Tillery said such lawsuits require a vast
amount of work by the plaintiff firms. He said plaintiff firms
have to "consult with experts on the scientific facts and issues
involved, highly specialized medical and research issues, federal
and state regulations involving the use of chemicals, and, in this
case, technical data about treatment and filtering of public
drinking water."


WOODBURY COUNTY, IA: Judge Dismisses Strip-Search Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has dismissed a
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of up to 3,000 individuals
who were strip-searched following their arrest on misdemeanor
charges in Woodbury County in 2006 and 2007.

U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett ruled on May 23 the claims, filed
in 2010, were barred by the state's two-year statute of
limitations for personal injury lawsuits.

Sioux City residents who were arrested on serious misdemeanor
charges such as drunken driving filed the lawsuit alleging the
strip searches violated their privacy rights and were humiliating.

They allege the jail's unwritten policy from 1980 until it was
discarded in 2007 was to conduct strip searches, including visual
body cavity inspection, of all pretrial detainees.


ZINC ELECTROLYTIQUE: 180,000 People Joins Toxic Gas Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Lalonde, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
at least 180,000 people who say they suffered symptoms when a
cloud of sulphur trioxide gas swept over the western part of
Montreal island on a summer night back in 2004 have joined a
class-action suit against the zinc production facility that
released the toxic gas.

Zinc electrolytique du Canada Ltee, a zinc processing plant in
Salaberry de Valleyfield located just southwest of Montreal
Island, produces zinc ingots for use in car manufacturing and
construction.  It is one of the largest zinc processing facilities
in the world.

At about 9:30 p.m. on August 9, 2004, a piece of equipment at the
plant broke, and a 5.95-tonne cloud of sulphur trioxide gas was
released from a 180-foot high chimney.  Experts have since
determined that the cloud would have moved northeast that night
sweeping over Ile Perrot around 11:14, and all the way to Ville
Saint Laurent by about ten minutes after midnight.

Sulphur trioxide gas is one of the ingredients in acid rain.  When
inhaled at very high concentrations, it can cause death.  At lower
concentrations it can cause respiratory difficulty, asthma
attacks, irritation of eyes, throat and airway, skin rash and
cough.

According to a spokesperson for Zinc electrolytique du Canada
Ltee, in the hours after the release, company officials contacted
firefighters, as well as officials at Quebec environment
department and Environment Canada.

But the company admits it did not contact Urgence Environnement,
the Quebec environment department's environmental emergency
service, which it was obliged to do by law.  Urgence environnement
takes steps to ensure the public is informed immediately of
environmental hazards.

"We had misinterpreted the law which was only nine months old at
the time," said Jean-Francois Gagnon, the company's human
resources manager.

In the days and weeks following the release, some residents of the
communities affected tried to figure out what had happened.

"I received dozens of calls at the time from people wondering what
had happened because they could smell sulphur, which has a
distinct odour, like rotting eggs," said Andre Belisle, of the
anti-air pollution group Association quebecoise de lutte contre la
pollution atmospherique.

He said that at the time of inhalation, many people he spoke to
were terrified because they had trouble breathing, and some
thought they were going to die.

Some of those affected decided to consult lawyers and organize a
class-action suit.  Their first attempt was rejected by the
courts, partly because the geographical areas from which victims
could claim were not well defined.

But after Environment Canada completed a three-year investigation
of the accident, which provided more information, the victims
tried again.  In March, Quebec Superior Court Judge Chantal Masse
authorized the class-action suit.

"This is the first time a class-action suit has been authorized
for a toxic release in Canada," said Chantal Desjardins, the
lawyer representing the class action claimants.

"It is important the company take responsibility for this," she
said.  "We can't have companies with no social or environmental
conscience getting away with (toxic) releases like this.  It is
people's safety we are talking about here."

Anyone who was in the areas defined in the suit, which are
precisely defined on the class-action suit Web site
(chantaldesjardins.com) and who experienced symptoms of exposure
to sulphur trioxide is automatically a member of the suit.

The claimants are demanding $5,000 per victim for "bodily
insecurity, trouble, nuisance and inconvenience", plus another
$5,000 for exemplary and punitive damages.  Those who suffered
asthma attacks are claiming an additional $5,000.

Mr. Gagnon said those claims are exaggerated and the company "will
vigorously contest them".

"There are 180,000 people so far demanding at least $5,000 each,
which is an astronomical sum.  We think the claims are exaggerated
and that very few people were actually affected, and not very
seriously."

He noted the company was not fined by Environment Canada after its
investigation, and has taken measures to improve its equipment to
prevent another leak.  It has also cooperated with other
industries in Salaberry de Valleyfield to improve emergency
response procedures in case of another industrial accident in the
community.

"Accidents will happen but what matters is how you react to them.
We understand that this could have been much worse if the winds
had been moving more toward the residential areas nearer to the
plant, but we learned from it."

Zinc electrolytique du Canada Ltee, (also called CEZinc.) is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Xstrata Canada Corporation.  The
Noranda Income Fund acquired the assets of the company in 2002 and
operates it as an income trust.  Xstrata holds 25 per cent of the
units of the fund, manages the company and provides the zinc
concentrate for the operations.


                           *********

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  * * *