CAR_Public/120604.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, June 4, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 109

                             Headlines

3M COMPANY: Reaches Settlement to Resolve Cogent-Related Suit
3M COMPANY: Decatur Environmental Lawsuits Sill Pending
AIG INC: Appeals From Settlement of NWCR Actions Still Pending
AIG INC: "Caremark" Suit Remains Pending in Alabama Court
AIG INC: N.Y. Ct. Gives Final OK to $725MM Deal in 2004 Suit

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Law Firm to Face Sanctions Over Expense Sheet
ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
CANADA: Ottawa To Appeal Class Certification in Steel Plant Suit
CANADA: Manitoba Flood Victims Mull Class Action
CRARY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 120 ECHO Hydraulic Log Splitters

DURHAM REGION, ON: Settlement Set for Final Approval on July 3
EDGAR ONLINE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Harwood Feffer Files Class Action in N.Y. Over IPO
FRITO-LAY: Sued Over "ALL NATURAL" Products Containing GMOs
HASTIE GROUP: May Face Investor Class Action Following Collapse

KIRBY CORP: Securities Class Suit Sill Pending in New Jersey
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Three Ex-Players File Concussion Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuse
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: SDCRAA Sued Over Illegal "Trip Fees"
SUN LIFE: Defendants' Participation Needed in Funding Approval

THORNBURG MORTGAGE: August 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TOYS "R" US: Recalls 24,000 Imaginarium Activity Centers
TURKISH REPUBLIC: Sued in D.C. Over Fraudulent Property Scheme
VECTOR GROUP: Court Dismisses Claims in 'Smith' Class Action
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Defends 'Brown' Class Action

WELLS FARGO: Faces Overtime Class Action in California


                          *********

3M COMPANY: Reaches Settlement to Resolve Cogent-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company negotiated a settlement in March to resolve a class
action lawsuit filed by Cogent, Inc. shareholders, 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 September 2010, various parties, on behalf of a purported class
of shareholders of Cogent, Inc., commenced three lawsuits against
the Company, Cogent, and its directors in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  Plaintiffs allege that 3M, in connection with its
tender offer for Cogent shares, aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties by Cogent directors and seek an unspecified
amount of damages.  The three cases were consolidated, expedited
discovery was conducted, and Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction to enjoin the acquisition was denied on October 1,
2010.  On November 15, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
that added Cogent directors appointed by 3M, as named defendants,
and asserted additional claims of breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with the acquisition and a subsequent offering period.
3M completed its acquisition of Cogent in December 2010.  3M has
moved to dismiss all claims.  In response to 3M's motion, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in August 2011.  3M
has moved to dismiss all claims of the second amended complaint.
In March 2012, all parties to the litigation agreed to settle this
litigation for an amount that is not material to the Company.

Separately, several purported holders of Cogent shares,
representing a total of approximately 5.8 million shares, have
asserted appraisal rights under Delaware law.  The Company has
answered the appraisal petition and is defending this matter
vigorously.

Founded in 1902 and based in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company --
http://www.3m.com/-- operates as a diversified technology company
worldwide. The Company has various business segments -- Industrial
and Transportation segment; Health Care segment; Consumer and
Office segment; Safety, Security and Protection Services segment;
Display and Graphics segment; and Electro and Communications
segment.


3M COMPANY: Decatur Environmental Lawsuits Sill Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend itself in class action
environmental lawsuits relating to its manufacturing facility in
Decatur, Alabama, according to the Company' May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility.  The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-
related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the
exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.
The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.  Also, in 2005, the judge in a second
purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan
County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive
damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions
of perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the first action described above
filed in the same court in 2002.  Despite the stay, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal
injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and
the members of a purported class.  No further action in the case
is expected unless and until the stay is lifted.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M,
its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT,
Inc., Synagro South, LLC and Biological Processors of America. The
named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within
the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent
with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit
Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution
of the class certification issues in the first case filed there.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing.

Founded in 1902 and based in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company --
http://www.3m.com/-- operates as a diversified technology company
worldwide. The Company has various business segments -- Industrial
and Transportation segment; Health Care segment; Consumer and
Office segment; Safety, Security and Protection Services segment;
Display and Graphics segment; and Electro and Communications
segment.


AIG INC: Appeals From Settlement of NWCR Actions Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging the settlement of a lawsuit filed against
American International Group, Inc., on behalf of participating
members of the National Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool,
remains pending, 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 May 24, 2007, the National Council on Compensation Insurance
(NCCI), on behalf of the participating members of the National
Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool (the NWCRP), filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against AIG with respect to the underpayment by AIG of
its residual market assessments for workers' compensation
insurance. The complaint alleged claims for violations of
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), breach of
contract, fraud and related state law claims arising out of AIG's
alleged underpayment of these assessments between 1970 and the
present and sought damages purportedly in excess of $1 billion. On
August 6, 2007, the Court denied AIG's motion seeking to dismiss
or stay the complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer to the
Southern District of New York.  On December 26, 2007, the Court
denied AIG's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 17, 2008, AIG filed an amended answer, counterclaims and
third-party claims against NCCI (in its capacity as attorney-in-
fact for the NWCRP), the NWCRP, its board members, and certain of
the other insurance companies that are members of the NWCRP
alleging violations of RICO, as well as claims for conspiracy,
fraud, and other state law claims.  The counterclaim-defendants
and third-party defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 9,
2008.  On January 26, 2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
On February 23, 2009, the Court issued a decision and order
sustaining AIG's counterclaims and sustaining, in part, AIG's
third-party claims.  The Court also dismissed certain of AIG's
third-party claims without prejudice.

On April 13, 2009, third-party defendant Liberty Mutual Group
filed third-party counterclaims against AIG, certain of its
subsidiaries, and former AIG executives.  On August 23, 2009, the
Court granted AIG's motion to dismiss the NCCI complaint for lack
of standing.  On September 25, 2009, AIG filed its First Amended
Complaint, reasserting its RICO claims against certain insurance
companies that both underreported their workers' compensation
premium and served on the NWCRP Board, and repleading its fraud
and other state law claims.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint on October 30, 2009.  On October 8,
2009, Liberty Mutual filed an amended counterclaim against AIG.
The amended counterclaim is substantially similar to the complaint
initially filed by NCCI, but also seeks damages related to non-
NWCRP states, guaranty funds, and special assessments, in addition
to asserting claims for other violations of state law. The amended
counterclaim also removes as defendants the former AIG executives.
On October 30, 2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss the Liberty
amended counterclaim.

On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance Company of America and Ohio
Casualty Insurance Company filed a complaint in the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of a purported class of all NWCRP
participant members, against AIG and certain of its subsidiaries
with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its residual market
assessments for workers' compensation insurance.  The complaint
was styled as an "alternative complaint," should the Court grant
AIG's motion to dismiss the NCCI lawsuit for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.  The allegations in the class action
complaint are substantially similar to those filed by the NWCRP,
but the complaint names former AIG executives as defendants and
asserts a RICO claim against those executives.  On August 28,
2009, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
removing the AIG executives as defendants.  On October 30, 2009,
AIG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 16,
2010, Safeco and Ohio Casualty filed their motion for class
certification, which AIG opposed on October 8, 2010.

On July 1, 2010, the Court ruled on the pending motions to dismiss
that were directed at all parties' claims.  With respect to the
underreporting NWCRP companies' and board members' motion to
dismiss AIG's first amended complaint, the Court denied the motion
to dismiss all counts except AIG's claim for unjust enrichment,
which it found to be precluded by the surviving claims for breach
of contract.  With respect to NCCI and the NWCRP's motion to
dismiss AIG's first amended complaint, the Court denied the NCCI
and the NWCRP's motions to dismiss AIG's claims for an equitable
accounting and an action on an open, mutual, and current account.
With respect to AIG's motions to dismiss Liberty's counterclaims
and the class action complaint, the Court denied both motions,
except that it dismissed the class claim for promissory estoppel.
On July 30, 2010, the NWCRP filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's ruling denying its motion to dismiss AIG's claims for
an equitable accounting and an action on an open, mutual, and
current account.  The Court denied the NWCRP's motion for
reconsideration on September 16, 2010.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification on July 16, 2010.  AIG opposed the
motion.

On January 5, 2011, AIG executed a term sheet with a group of
intervening plaintiffs, made up of seven participating members of
the NWCRP that filed a motion to intervene in the class action for
the purpose of settling the claims at issue on behalf of a
settlement class.  The proposed class-action settlement would
require AIG to pay $450 million to satisfy all liabilities to the
class members arising out of the workers' compensation premium
reporting issues, a portion of which would be funded out of the
remaining amount held in the Workers' Compensation Fund less any
amounts previously withdrawn to satisfy AIG's regulatory
settlement obligations, as addressed above.  On January 13, 2011,
their motion to intervene was granted.  On January 19, 2011, the
intervening class plaintiffs filed their Complaint in
Intervention.  On January 28, 2011, AIG and the intervening class
plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement embodying the terms
set forth in the January 5, 2011 term sheet and filed a joint
motion for certification of the settlement class and preliminary
approval of the settlement.  If approved by the Court (and such
approval becomes final), the settlement agreement will resolve and
dismiss with prejudice all claims that have been made or that
could have been made in the consolidated litigations pending in
the Northern District of Illinois arising out of workers'
compensation premium reporting, including the class action, other
than claims that are brought by any class member that opts out of
the settlement.  On April 29, 2011, Liberty Mutual filed papers in
opposition to preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and
in opposition to certification of a settlement class, in which it
alleged AIG's actual exposure, should the class action continue
through judgment, to be in excess of $3 billion.  AIG disputes and
will defend against this allegation.  The Court held a hearing on
the motions for class certification and preliminary approval of
the proposed class-action settlement on June 21 and July 25, 2011.

On August 1, 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order granting
the motion for class certification and preliminarily approving the
proposed class-action settlement, subject to certain minor
modifications that the Court noted the parties already had agreed
to make. The opinion and order became effective upon the entry of
a separate Findings and Order Preliminarily Certifying a
Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement
on August 5, 2011.  Liberty Mutual sought leave from the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to appeal the August 5,
2011 class certification decision, which was denied on August 19,
2011.  Notice of the settlement was issued to the class members on
August 19, 2011 advising that any class member wishing to opt out
of or object to the class-action settlement was required to do so
by October 3, 2011.  RLI Insurance Company and its affiliates,
which were to receive less than one thousand dollars under the
proposed settlement, sent the only purported opt-out notice.
Liberty Mutual, including its subsidiaries Safeco and Ohio
Casualty, and the Kemper group of insurance companies, through
their affiliate Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, were the only two
objectors.  AIG and the settling class plaintiffs filed responses
to the objectors' submissions on October 28, 2011.  The Court
conducted a final fairness hearing on November 29, 2011.
Immediately prior to the hearing, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty
withdrew its objection to the settlement.  On December 21, 2011,
the Court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement, but staying that ruling pending a forthcoming opinion.
On February 28, 2012, the Court entered a final order and judgment
approving the class action settlement.  Liberty Mutual, Safeco and
Ohio Casualty filed notices of their intent to appeal the Court's
final order and judgment.  The Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit has consolidated the appeals.

The $450 million settlement amount, which is currently held in
escrow pending final resolution of the class action settlement,
was funded in part from the approximately $191.5 million remaining
in the Workers' Compensation Fund, after the transfer of the
$146.5 million in fines, penalties, and premium taxes discussed in
the NAIC Examination of Workers' Compensation Premium Reporting
matter above into a separate escrow account pursuant to the
regulatory settlement agreement.  In the event that the proposed
class action settlement is not approved, the litigation will
resume.  As of March 31, 2012, AIG has an accrued liability equal
to the amounts payable under the settlement.

No new updates on the case were reported in the Company's latest
Form 10-Q filing with the SEC.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: "Caremark" Suit Remains Pending in Alabama Court
---------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit involving Caremark Rx, Inc., is
still pending in Alabama, according to American International
Group, Inc.'s May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc.  The plaintiffs in the second-filed
action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed
action was dismissed.  An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of
AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be
without limit of liability.  In the current actions, plaintiffs
allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as
to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have
approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or
unlimited nature of the excess policy.  They further allege that
AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and
suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and
extent of coverage.  In addition, the intervenors originally
alleged that various lawyers and law firms who represented parties
in the underlying class and derivative litigation (the Lawyer
Defendants) were also liable for fraud and suppression,
misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages.  AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage.  The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

In November 2007, the trial court dismissed the intervenors'
complaint against the Lawyer Defendants, and the Alabama Supreme
Court affirmed that dismissal in September 2008.  After the case
was sent back down to the trial court, the intervenors retained
additional counsel and filed an Amended Complaint in Intervention
that named only Caremark and AIG and various subsidiaries as
defendants, purported to bring claims against all defendants for
deceit and conspiracy to deceive, and purported to bring a claim
against AIG and its subsidiaries for aiding and abetting
Caremark's alleged deception.  The defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in Intervention, and the plaintiffs moved to
disqualify all of the lawyers for the intervenors because, among
other things, the newly retained firm had previously represented
Caremark.  The intervenors, in turn, moved to disqualify the
lawyers for the plaintiffs in the first-filed action.  The cross-
motions to disqualify were withdrawn after the two sets of
plaintiffs agreed that counsel for the original plaintiffs would
act as lead counsel, and intervenors also withdrew their Amended
Complaint in Intervention.  The trial court approved all of the
foregoing steps and, in April 2009, established a schedule for
class action discovery that was to lead to a hearing on class
certification in March 2010.  The Court has since appointed a
special master to oversee class action discovery and has directed
the parties to submit a new discovery schedule after certain
discovery disputes are resolved. Class discovery is ongoing.  A
class certification hearing has been set for May 30, 2012.

As of May 3, 2012, the parties have not completed class action
discovery, general discovery has not commenced, and the court has
not determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or
scope of any class.  As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AIG INC: N.Y. Ct. Gives Final OK to $725MM Deal in 2004 Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal court in February entered a final order
approving a $725 million settlement resolving a 2004 consolidated
securities fraud class action complaint against American
International Group, Inc., 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.

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class action suits were filed in the Southern District of New York
against AIG and consolidated as In re American International
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2004
Securities Litigation).  Subsequently, a separate, though similar,
securities fraud action was also brought against AIG by certain
Florida pension funds.  The lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
2004 Securities Litigation is a group of public retirement systems
and pension funds benefiting Ohio state employees, suing on behalf
of themselves and all purchasers of AIG's publicly traded
securities between October 28, 1999 and April 1, 2005.  The named
defendants are AIG and a number of present and former AIG officers
and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc., SICO, General
Reinsurance Corporation (General Re), and PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC), among others.  The lead plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that AIG: (i) concealed that it engaged in anti-
competitive conduct through alleged payment of contingent
commissions to brokers and participation in illegal bid-rigging;
(ii) concealed that it used "income smoothing" products and other
techniques to inflate its earnings; (iii) concealed that it
marketed and sold "income smoothing" insurance products to other
companies; and (iv) misled investors about the scope of government
investigations. In addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that
Maurice R. Greenberg, AIG's former Chief Executive Officer,
manipulated AIG's stock price. The lead plaintiff asserts claims
for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 20(a) and Section 20A of the Exchange
Act.

On July 14, 2010, AIG approved the terms of a settlement with lead
plaintiffs.  The Settlement is conditioned on, among other things,
court approval and a minimum level of shareholder participation.
Under the terms of the Settlement, if consummated, AIG would pay
an aggregate of $725 million.

On July 20, 2010, at the joint request of AIG and lead plaintiffs,
the District Court entered an order staying all deadlines in the
case.  On November 30, 2010, AIG and lead plaintiffs executed
their agreement of settlement and compromise. On November 30,
2010, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement with AIG.

On October 5, 2011, the District Court granted lead plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement between AIG and
lead plaintiffs.  Notices to class members of the settlement were
mailed on October 14, 2011.  On December 2, 2011, Lead Plaintiff
filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and for
attorneys' fees. Objections to the settlement and requests to be
excluded from the settlement were due to the District Court by
December 30, 2011.  Only two shareholders objected to the
settlement, and 25 shareholders claiming to hold less than 1.5% of
AIG's outstanding shares at the end of the class period submitted
timely and valid requests to opt out of the class.  Of those 25
shareholders, seven are investment funds controlled by the same
investment group, and that investment group is the only opt-out
who held more than 1,000 shares at the end of the class period.
By order dated February 2, 2012, the District Court granted lead
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement between
AIG and lead plaintiffs.  AIG has fully funded the amount of the
Settlement into an escrow account.

On January 23, 2012, AIG and the Florida pension funds, who had
brought a separate securities fraud action, executed a settlement
agreement.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement, AIG paid
$4 million.

On February 17, 2012 and March 6, 2012, two objectors appealed the
final approval of the settlement.  The settlement with the Florida
pension funds can be terminated by AIG if either of the objectors'
appeals is successful.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aigcorporate.com/
-- engages in the provision of insurance products and services for
the commercial, institutional and individual customers in the U.S.
and internationally.  The Company operates in three segments:
Chartis, SunAmerica Financial Group and Aircraft Leasing.


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Law Firm to Face Sanctions Over Expense Sheet
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge plans to sanction a class action law firm that he says
purposely padded its hours and expense sheets.

U.S. District Judge Justin Quackenbush, of Washington's eastern
district, warned Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd on May 25 that he
will be sanctioning it, along with attorneys Joy Bull and John
Grant.  The two led a class action against the student-travel
company Ambassadors Group.

Judge Quackenbush said he will impose a maximum sanction of a
formal written reproval.

"(T)he court (had) advised counsel that it was considering the
imposition of sanctions by reason of the intentionally misleading
and inaccurate claims for monies for expenses and disbursements
filed by Mr. Grant and Ms. Bull and their law firm," Judge
Quackenbush wrote.

"In response to that notice, Ms. Bull and Mr. Grant and the
Robbins law firm have acknowledged that 'mistakes were made' in
the submittals for reimbursement.  The court is unable to find
that these 'mistakes' were inadvertent or mere oversights."

The attorneys are seeking 25 percent of a $7.5 million settlement,
plus expenses.

In February, Judge Quackenbush asked Ms. Bull and Mr. Grant to
show why class members should pay for expenses that included a
$402 dinner for four, expensive hotel rooms and two round-trip
plane ticket that cost almost $4,000.

The dinner included two $72 bottles of wine and a $60 tip for the
waiter.  Mr. Grant wrote that he should've reduced the charge when
he submitted it.  Judge Quackenbush ruled on May 25, after two
partners in the firm acknowledged the inappropriateness of the
charge, that it should be struck entirely from the expenses sheet.

He reduced a claim for a $1,676.40 round-trip plane ticket from
New York to Spokane and a claim for a $2,169 round-trip ticket
from New York to Los Angeles to the current market prices for
coach tickets -- $356 and $401.

Already reduced was a claim for $125,935 for a private
investigator, an amount that provided an hourly rate of $445.  It
was reduced to $31,710.15.

Judge Quackenbush also slashed the amount of hours the two claimed
they worked.  Ms. Bull said she worked 135 hours, but Quackenbush
says that at a maximum she should claim 95.  Mr. Grant should
claim a maximum of 40 for preparing the amended complaint, he
added.

Ms. Bull had said any mistakes made by her were the result of a
lack of focus stemming from her husband's sickness and death.

"The court recognizes the emotional difficulty a spouse goes
through during an illness and death of a family member, but such
circumstances cannot excuse the conduct of counsel herein," Judge
Quackenbush wrote.

"The claims of disbursements were not accurate and those claims
were not the result of inadvertent mistakes. They were, at a
minimum, made with a reckless disregard for their accuracy or even
intentionally false."

Judge Quackenbush ordered a new timesheet with his revisions and
will consider "reasonable percentage suggestions" for the firm's
award.

A judge in Oregon rejected Ms. Bull's claimed travel expenses in a
different case in 2007.


ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Atheros Communications,
Qualcomm and T Merger Sub persuaded a federal judge to dismiss a
securities class action over their 2011 merger.

A copy of the Order Granting Defendant's Motions to Dismiss in
Krieger v. Atheros Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00640 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/qualcomm.pdf


CANADA: Ottawa To Appeal Class Certification in Steel Plant Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy King, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that the
provincial and federal governments will go to court this fall
seeking leave to appeal the certification of a class-action
lawsuit stemming from contamination associated with the Sydney
steel plant and coke ovens sites.

A hearing before a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal judge in Halifax
has been scheduled for Nov. 5, when the judge could rule or
reserve decision.  Should the application prove successful part or
all of their grounds of appeal, the sides will be back in court
March 19 to 21, 2013 when the appeal itself will be argued.

"They have a right to appeal, it's unfortunate that we're not
sitting down and discussing and resolving the case at this stage
here, now that it's been certified by a strong decision by Justice
(John Murphy)," said Ray Wagner, lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Justice Murphy certified the suit in January.  The representative
plaintiffs -- Neila MacQueen, Joe Petitpas, Ann Ross and Iris
Crawford -- are seeking financial compensation and a medical
monitoring fund for contamination associated with the operation of
the sites between 1967 to 2000. They are not seeking compensation
for personal injury.

The fact that dates have already been set aside if the Crowns are
granted leave to appeal should help expedite the matter,
Mr. Wagner said.

The attorneys general for Ottawa and the province have also
applied to stay the proceedings while the appeals process plays
out.  That motion will be heard July 12.


CANADA: Manitoba Flood Victims Mull Class Action
------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Lake Manitoba residents and others whose
properties were damaged in last year's floods will discuss whether
to launch a class-action lawsuit against the provincial
government.

Upwards of 400 Lake Manitoba homeowners, cottage owners and others
-- many of whom are upset with the province over its handling of
flood claims -- are invited to a meeting June 6 at Sisler High
School in Winnipeg to discuss their next move.

"It's just an information-gathering meeting to educate our
membership as to whether or not they feel they, you know, want to
go with a class-action suit or not," Dennis Turek, a spokesman for
the Twin Lakes Beach Association, told CBC News.

Numerous properties along Lake Manitoba were heavily damaged in
the spring flood of 2011, including those on Twin Lakes Beach,
Laurentian Beach, Sandpiper Beach, Pioneer Resort, Delta Beach and
Johnson Beach.

Powerful winds whipped across the rain-swollen lake in May and
June of that year, creating large waves that pounded the shore and
washed inland.

Mr. Turek said not everyone who lived along Lake Manitoba is upset
with the province, but many are frustrated with the slow pace of
the province's claims and compensation processes.

"There are many that I know of that are just worn down, because
the terms and conditions are quite difficult to understand," he
said.

"We have deadlines that are fast approaching, and yet some people
like myself haven't even had a settlement offer.  So yeah, there's
a high level of frustration."

The one-year anniversary of the Lake Manitoba flood was on May 31
and Mr. Turek said any lawsuit must be filed within two years of
that date.

"The clock is ticking on us, so as an association, we felt it was
time to organize such a meeting to help our membership make an
informed decision as to how they want to move on," he said.

No media will be allowed inside this week's meeting, Mr. Turek
said.


CRARY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 120 ECHO Hydraulic Log Splitters
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Crary Industries Inc. of West Fargo, North Dakota, announced a
voluntary recall of about 120 ECHO Bear Cat log splitters.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The end cap of the log splitter's hydraulic cylinder can break
away from the body of the log splitter, posing an impact hazard to
the user or bystander.

Crary Industries has received three reports of the hydraulic
cylinder end caps detaching resulting in one injury from a
cylinder reportedly striking a consumer in the head.

This recall involves ECHO Bear Cat brand hydraulic log splitter
with model numbers LS27270 and LS27270T, with a date code of
012908 stamped on the hydraulic cylinder.  The model number is
printed on the main beam of the log splitters.  The date code is
stamped on the hydraulic cylinder near the capped end.  The log
splitters are black and orange with ECHO Bear Cat printed on the
hydraulic cylinder.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12189.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at ECHO Bear Cat dealers nationwide from October
2007 through March 2012 for about $2,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
the nearest dealer for instruction on receiving a free replacement
cylinder installed by an authorized dealer.  For additional
information, contact Crary Industries toll-free at (888) 625-4520
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.bearcatproducts.com/


DURHAM REGION, ON: Settlement Set for Final Approval on July 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Jackson, writing for DurhamRegion.com, reports that a
proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit against Durham
Region Health puts a C$5.99 price tag on the patient data doctors
are privy to.

The lawsuit was filed against Durham Region after a nurse lost a
USB key laden with the unencrypted personal information of 83,524
people in December 2009.

According to the proposed settlement, which still must be approved
by a judge but was signed by lawyers for both parties on May 3,
the Region will pay C$500,000 in costs, disbursements and taxes.

If the judge agrees to that amount, the loss of each person's data
will cost Durham Region at least C$5.99.

The Region could also be on the hook for individual payments to
those who took a financial hit because their information was on
the lost USB key -- if those people can prove that happened.

"It is a reasonable outcome that balances the rights of the class
members with the financial resources available to the Region of
Durham," said Sean Brown, lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a
statement attached to the proposed settlement.

The USB key contained names, phone numbers, dates of birth, health
card numbers and primary physician names of people vaccinated
against H1N1 in eight clinics from Oct. 23 to Dec. 15, 2009.

It was dropped somewhere between the regional headquarters parking
garage and the building on Dec. 16, 2009.  The key was never
found, sparking major concerns of identity theft.

Every extra piece of information about a person makes it easier to
commit fraud.  More than C$13.2 million was reported stolen from
Canadian victims of identity theft in 2011, according to the
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

The class action suit against Durham Region, which originally
demanded C$40 million in damages, was filed in April 2011. It
alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of
privacy, public misfeasance and a breach of Charter rights.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

In the proposed settlement agreement, Durham Region expressly
denied all liability.

Yet the proposed settlement outlines a process for people to file
compensation claims.  Before any cash is paid, Durham Region will
take steps to "mitigate the harm."

If a person is still not satisfied, they can try for monetary
compensation.  The process could take as long as eight months.

How much money a person receives will be "based on common law
principles."

It is not known how many of those vaccinated at the flu clinics
will be entitled to claims.  At the time the key was lost,
however, Durham officials said anyone who opened the file would
have seen meaningless symbols and would have had to decipher them
for pertinent information.

Durham officials and lawyers for both parties could not be reached
for comment.

The settlement will go before a judge for final approval July 3.
If approved, people whose information was on the lost USB key have
until Aug. 2, 2016 to make a claim.


EDGAR ONLINE: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Edgar Online is selling
itself too cheaply to R.R. Donnelly & Sons, for $70.5 million,
shareholders claim in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Trettel v. Farrell, et al., Case No.
7573 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


FACEBOOK INC: Harwood Feffer Files Class Action in N.Y. Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Harwood Feffer LLP on May 29 disclosed that it
filed a class action lawsuit on May 25, 2012 (Case No. 12-cv-4215)
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Facebook Inc.
through its initial public offering.

The action is pending in United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and is brought against the Company's
three lead underwriters -- Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, and Goldman Sachs & Co.

The lawsuit alleges that the three underwriters knew that the
market for the Company's shares was weaker than the public
believed by virtue of their having advised certain of their major
clients to reduce their requests for allocations of the Company's
shares due to certain weaknesses of the Company's prospects of
which they were aware.   Notwithstanding this material non-public
information about market interest, the lead underwriters (a)
increased to the highest end of the proposed range the Company's
share price and (b) increased by 25% the number of shares sold in
the offering.  By selling short into the market their 15% over-
allotment while in possession of such material, non-public
information, the lead underwriters violated Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you bought the Company's stock in its initial public offering,
you may move the Court, no later than July 24, 2012, to appoint
you as lead plaintiff, a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members.  The Court must determine whether the
class member's claim is typical of other members' claims, and
whether the class member will adequately represent the class.
Your ability to recover is not, however, affected by your decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you wish to discuss this action with us or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights and interests with regard to
the case, please contact the following:

          Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
          Craig Lowther, Esq.
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Toll Free: 877-935-7400
          E-mail: srosen@hfesq.com
                  clowther@hfesq.com


FRITO-LAY: Sued Over "ALL NATURAL" Products Containing GMOs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Schwartz, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. a Texas
corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-02740 (N.D. Calif., May 29, 2012)
alleges that the Defendant represented without qualification that
certain of its products are "ALL NATURAL," but has not disclosed
and concealed the fact that the products contain Genetically
Modified Organisms ("GMOs").

The Defendant markets its Bean Dip Product as "ALL NATURAL," but
contrary to its representations, the Product uses plants or plant
derivatives grown from GMOs, Ms. Schwartz contends.  She argues
that products containing GMOs should not be labeled "all natural"
without also disclosing the fact that the products contain GMOs.
Hence, she asserts, the Defendant's advertising and labeling of
its products as "ALL NATURAL" is deceptive and likely to mislead
the public as a result.

Ms. Schwartz is a resident of San Francisco, California.  She
purchased FRITO-LAY's Bean Dip, SunChips, and Tostitos chips
during the Class Period and specifically during March 2012, from
Safeway Supermarkets located in San Francisco.

Frito-Lay, a Delaware corporation, is headquartered in Piano,
Texas.  Frito-Lay is the owner, manufacturer and distributor of
the Product, and is the company that created and authorized the
false, misleading and deceptive labeling and advertising for the
Product.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com

               - and -

          L. De-Wayne Layfield, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF L. DEWAYNE LAYFIELD
          PO Box 3829
          Beaumont, TX 77704-3829
          Telephone: (409) 832-1891
          Facsimile: (866) 280-3004
          E-mail: dewayne@layfieldlaw.com


HASTIE GROUP: May Face Investor Class Action Following Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Urban, writing for The Australian, reports that lawyers
have been circling the collapsed Hastie Group for more than a
year, with a potential investor class action likely.

An action was originally flagged as long ago as April 2011, after
the company's second profit downgrade in six months.

As shareholders explore the viability of launching a legal claim
over their losses, it has emerged that law firm Slater & Gordon
and litigation funder IMF Australia first looked at the ailing
engineering services firm for potential breaches of disclosure
requirements following its unveiling of a AUD94 million loss for
the first half of the 2010-11 financial year.  That news wiped
more than 70 per cent from Hastie's share price.

But a subsequent recapitalization plan -- in which investors
including Lazard Private Equity, Thorney Holdings, Perennial and
Schroder Investment Management pitched in AUD160 million -- is
believed to have put a halt to any potential litigation at the
time.

Hastie Group, together with 44 subsidiary companies, was placed
into voluntary administration on May 28 after accounting
irregularities worth more than AUD20 million were uncovered.

It owes more than AUD500 million to a syndicate of seven banks.

Having floated on the Australian Securities Exchange in 2005,
Hastie has been struggling for some time, thanks to its large debt
and weak cashflows.

The most recent breach of its borrowing covenants occurred during
the first half of this financial year, when it reported a AUD149
million interim loss stemming from writedowns associated with its
struggling Middle Eastern business.

Hastie's long-time auditor, Deloitte, had made various mentions of
the company's tenuous financial positions in its twice-yearly
audits in recent years.

Its audit for the December 2010 half year, which was released in
April 2011, along with Hastie's interim results, pointed to the
significant uncertainty regarding the group's ability to continue
as a going concern.

The substantial drop in Hastie's share price at the time -- it
fell from 92c to 24.5c -- prompted Slater & Gordon to look into
the company.

"Hastie's been on the radar since then," said a source familiar
with the matter.

"The reason it didn't proceed at the time was that the . . .
market was very much focused on the recapitalization plan."

IMF Australia's executive director, John Walker, confirmed that
his firm had also conducted preliminary due diligence on funding a
potential action around the same time.

"We can identify bad behavior, but it is up to shareholders to
identify which cases proceed," Mr. Walker said.

With major investors said to be reeling over Hastie's collapse, a
flurry of litigation is expected.

Slater & Gordon and rival law firm Maurice Blackburn are
understood to be closely monitoring the situation.

Their ability to fund a viable action would depend upon whether
there were any funds remaining within the collapsed group or
whether the company has paid-up directors' and officers' liability
insurance.

According to its latest annual report, it does.

However, recent changes to the Corporations Act mean that
shareholders who successfully claim to have bought shares at a
time the market was not fully informed rank below all creditors in
a corporate insolvency.


KIRBY CORP: Securities Class Suit Sill Pending in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Corporation continues to defend itself against a securities
class action complaint in New Jersey, 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  January 30, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey in a case styled Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc.,
et al. v. John J. Nicola, et al., the Company, its subsidiary, K-
Sea, and current and former officers and directors of K-Sea were
named defendants in a putative class action complaint asserting
that during the period of January 30, 2009 to January 27, 2010, K-
Sea allegedly failed to disclose certain facts regarding K-Sea's
operations and financial condition, and asserting violations of
Sections 10(b)(5) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Plaintiff seeks class
certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that this suit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter based on the
information available to the Company at this time. The Company
does not expect the outcome of this matter to have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements; however,
there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this
matter.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing.

Founded in 1921 and headquartered in Houston, Texas, Kirby
Corporation -- http://www.kirbycorp.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides marine transportation and diesel engine
services primarily in the United States.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Three Ex-Players File Concussion Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for CourierPostOnline.com, reports that three
former Philadelphia Eagles from South Jersey have sued the
National Football League, saying they were not warned of the
health risks from repeated concussions and other brain injuries.

The complaint, intended to be a class-action suit on behalf of
former NFL players living in New Jersey, was brought by Michael
Haddix, 50, of Sewell; Greg Brown, 55, of Sicklerville and
Lawrence Watkins, 65, of Mount Laurel.

Mr. Haddix was a fullback for the Eagles and Green Bay Packers
from 1983 to 1990.  Mr. Brown, a defensive end, also played for
the Atlanta Falcons between 1981 and 1988.  Mr. Watkins was a
fullback with the Eagles and three other teams from 1969 to 1977.

All three men have "various neuorological conditions and symptoms
related to . . . multiple head traumas," according to the lawsuit.

Among other goals, the lawsuit seeks medical monitoring for
current and former NFL players, as well as "financial
compensation" for chronic injuries and related losses.

The suit, initially filed in Superior Court in Camden, was moved
to federal court in Camden at the request of the NFL's attorneys.

The lawsuit asserts the NFL "was aware of the evidence" that
repeated concussions and other brain injuries could cause long-
term health problems but kept that information from its players.

"Rather than warn players that they risked permanent brain injury
if they returned to play too soon after sustaining a concussion,
the NFL ignored the issue, actively deceived players and
misrepresented to players that concussions did not present
serious, life-altering risks," the suit contends.

Locks Law Firm of Cherry Hill, which is representing the players
along with Haddonfield attorney Craig Mitnick, asserted
"repetitive traumatic brain injuries sustained by former NFL
players during their careers is pervasive and possibly an
epidemic."

Beth Wilkinson, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing the NFL,
declined to comment on May 29.

But in a court filing, the NFL said the relationship between teams
and players is governed by collective bargaining agreements, or
CBAs, that are "the product of exhaustive arm's-length
negotiations" between the players' union and the NFL's management
council.


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Inmate Abuse
--------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Weiser, writing for The New York Times, reports that
eleven current and former inmates in New York City's jails have
filed a lawsuit charging that correction officials have tolerated
and even condoned the unprovoked beatings of inmates by guards,
resulting in serious injuries to prisoners and millions of dollars
in legal settlements paid by the city.

The 89-page complaint, recently filed in Federal District Court in
Manhattan by the Legal Aid Society and two private law firms,
seeks class-action status to cover almost all of the city's
thousands of current inmates, and future inmates, as well.

"The pattern of brutality in the city's jails is deeply
entrenched," the lawsuit says, noting that five previous class-
actions, dating to the early 1990s, exposed "a culture of routine
and institutionalized staff violence against inmates."  But
despite court orders and settlements, the suit says, "the abuse
has continued."

The suit names the city's correction commissioner, Dora B.
Schriro, as a defendant, along with other officials and officers
who it says have "created and now perpetuate a policy of
permitting uniformed staff to use unlawful, excessive force with
impunity."

Correction officials responded sharply to the lawsuit's
assertions.  "To suggest, much less allege, that the department
condones improper uses of force in any way ignores the reality of
the department's many actions to the contrary," a spokeswoman,
Sharman Stein, said.

Ms. Stein noted that the Correction Department admitted more than
85,000 inmates annually.  The suit "argues that 11 incidents over
the past several years are indicative of an infirm pattern and
practice," she said.  "It categorically is not."

Ms. Stein added that the department's policies limited the use of
force to situations like ending inmate-on-inmate violence,
defending staff members from a physical attack or "when there is
no practical alternative available to prevent serious physical
injury to staff, visitors, inmates or any other person."

The lawsuit describes what it depicts as the unprovoked beatings
of the 11 plaintiffs.  It says that most of those beaten had to be
hospitalized, with some needing surgery.  The traumas inflicted
included spinal injury, broken bones in the face and wrist,
perforated eardrums and concussions, the suit says.

In one 2011 case, according to the suit, a Rikers Island inmate,
Shameik Smallwood, was taken by correction officers to a
windowless room after being suspected of transferring contraband
in a visitation area.  The suit says he was handcuffed behind his
back and thrown to the floor face down.  Officers then punched,
kicked and stomped on him, the suit says, adding that he lost
consciousness and later had to have facial surgery.

Although there are surveillance cameras in the jails, the suit
says that "correction officers routinely escort inmates to
unmonitored areas before beating them."

The plaintiffs are also represented by the firms Ropes & Gray and
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady.  Beyond damages, the suit seeks
reforms in how the Correction Department selects, trains and
disciplines personnel, and in how it investigates brutality
complaints.


SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: SDCRAA Sued Over Illegal "Trip Fees"
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that cabbies say in a Superior
Court class action that the San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority charges illegal "trip fees" for picking up fares at the
airport.

A copy of the Complaint in Mojadam v. San Diego County Regional
Airport Authority, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00098040 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/sdaIRPORT.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raul Cadena, Esq.
          Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq.
          Gordon S. Churchill, Esq.
          CADENA CHURCHILL, LLP
          701 "B" Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 546-0888


SUN LIFE: Defendants' Participation Needed in Funding Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that third-
party funding arrangements for class actions may be legal in
Ontario, but a recent Ontario Superior Court ruling threatens to
make their contents open season for defendants.

That's the impact of Justice Paul Perell's refusal to allow
plaintiffs in a proposed class action to seek funding approval by
way of an in camera motion without the participation of the
defendants.  In his ruling in the case of Fehr v. Sun Life
Assurance Company of Canada, Justice Perell also denied the
plaintiff's application to have the motion materials, including
the funding agreement, sealed.

"The defendants don't tell us what their war chest is," says Won
Kim of Toronto's Kim Orr LLP, who with colleagues Victoria Paris
and Megan McPhee, represented the plaintiffs.  "Why should the
defendants know how much we have available to pursue our case?"

Mr. Kim notes that, although two decades have passed since
Ontario's Class Proceedings Act came into force, only three or
four firms have been able to sustain significant plaintiffs'
class-action practices.

In this case, the third-party funder would be Bridgepoint Global
Litigation Services Inc., a Toronto company that bills itself as
the country's largest litigation lender.

Mr. Kim argued in court that disclosure of the funding agreement
would breach solicitor-client privilege, adversely affect a fair
trial, harm the administration of justice, and impair access to
justice.

But Justice Perell ruled defendants should be allowed to
participate in approval hearings both because they would be
affected by its outcome and because they might raise questions
that would provide useful information to the court, including
questions relating to the agreement's legality.

Those questions, Justice Perell concluded, could not be answered
without determining the precise role of the funder.

As Justice Perell saw it, the funding agreement was not
privileged.  It was not about communications between solicitor and
client but about who was paying for the lawsuit, the funder's
motivation and the independence of the representative plaintiff.

To the extent that a third-party agreement contained privileged
information, its inclusion was both unnecessary and improper.

While Mr. Kim and his colleagues do not agree with Judge Perell's
decision in Fehr, they will not appeal the ruling -- especially in
light of a May 17 decision by Judge Perell that gives a green
light to third-party funding in Labourers' Pension Fund of Central
and Eastern Canada v. Sino-Forest Corp.

Justice Perell did put limits on defendants' rights regarding such
motions, including a prohibition on cross-examination without
first obtaining leave of the court.

Paul Morrison -- pmorriso@mccarthy.ca -- who with colleagues
Glynnis Burt -- gburt@mccarthy.ca -- and Heather Meredith --
hmeredith@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP's Toronto
office, acted for Sun Life, says his client is satisfied with the
decision.

"In terms of what may develop in this area, however, this case is
more of a first step than a definitive code," he said.  "For
example, it remains to be seen how courts will apply the
limitation on cross-examination."


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: August 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP on May 30 announced the pendency and proposed
settlement of class action litigation involving Thornburg
Mortgage, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICOIN RE
THORNBURG MORTGAGE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. CIV 07-
815JB/WDS

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THORNBURG MORTGAGE, INC. COMMON STOCK AND/OR PREFERRED STOCK IN
THE OPEN MARKET AND/OR IN OR TRACEABLE TO THE OFFERINGS DURING THE
PERIOD BETWEEN APRIL 19, 2007 AND MARCH 19, 2008, INCLUSIVE AND
WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
mentioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes
of settlement only and that a settlement for Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000) has been proposed.  A hearing will be held before the
Honorable James O. Browning in the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico, United States Courthouse, 333
Lomas Blvd. N.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, 460 Vermejo
Courtroom, at 9:00 a.m. (Mountain Time), on August 27, 2012 to
determine: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling
Defendants;[1] (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should
be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.  The Settlement only resolves claims
against the Settling Defendants and the claims against the Non-
Settling Defendants will continue.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness
Hearing and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents
by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re Thornburg Mortgage,
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O.
Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063, (866)
274-4004. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim can also be
downloaded from the Claims Administrator's Web site,
http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Proof of Claim postmarked no later than November 19, 2012.  If you
are a member of the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of
Claim, you will not share in the distribution of the net proceeds
of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by the Order
and Final Judgment of the Court.

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 6, 2012,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you are a member of the Class and do not exclude yourself from the
Class, you will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of the
Court.  Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and served
on counsel for the parties on or before August 6, 2012, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of the
Notice and Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          E-mail: azivitz@ktmc.com
                  bsweet@ktmc.com

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com


BY ORDER OF THE COURT[1] The Settling Defendants are: Garrett
Thornburg, Larry A. Goldstone, Clarence G. Simmons, Anne-Drue M.
Anderson, David A. Ater, Joseph H. Badal, Eliot R. Cutler, Paul G.
Decoff, Michael B. Jeffers, Ike Kalangis, Owen M. Lopez, Francis
I. Mullin III, and Stuart C. Sherman.


TOYS "R" US: Recalls 24,000 Imaginarium Activity Centers
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Toys "R" Us Inc. of Wayne, New Jersey, announced a voluntary
recall of about 24,000 units of Imaginarium 5-Sided Activity
Center.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The small wooden knobs attaching the xylophone keys to the end can
detach, causing a choking hazard to young children.

Toys "R" Us has received eight reports of the knobs detaching.  No
injuries have been reported to the firm.

This recall involves the Imaginarium 5-Sided Activity Center.  The
multi-sided center has two triangle-shaped ends with a wooden
multi-colored xylophone on one and a mirror on the other.  The
three sides are square-shaped and include moveable block letters,
rotating gears and sliding shapes.  The name "Imaginarium" appears
in a blue, oval-shaped logo underneath the mirror on one end.  The
second 'i' in the logo is dotted with a shooting star.  The
recalled product has model number 46284; Toys "R" Us item number
295909; and has the barcode number 000799985462841.  The model
number is printed on the back of the box, directly above the bar
code.  These numerical markings do not appear on the actual
product.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12188.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys "R" Us stores nationwide and online via
http://www.toysrus.com/from August 2009 through September 2010
for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product, move it out
of the reach of young children and return it to a Toys "R" Us
store for a refund or store credit.  For additional information,
contact Toys "R" Us toll-free at (800) 869-7787 between 9:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Saturday and between
11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.toysrus.com/safety/


TURKISH REPUBLIC: Sued in D.C. Over Fraudulent Property Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
British homeowners claims in court that the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus and HSBC Holdings created "a fraudulent property
scheme of biblical proportions" that cost people their life's
savings by selling them stolen vacation and retirement properties
in Northern Cyprus.

Four dozen plaintiffs filed a federal RICO class action against
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), HSBC Holdings and
HSBC Bank USA.

The plaintiffs say that though the TRNC purports itself to be a
government, it operates illegally in the Republic of Cyprus
through the "brute force" of 40,000 Turkish troops.

"The pattern of racketeering activity engaged in by defendants
involves a scheme to fraudulently create a pretense of a
legitimate recognized government with sovereign powers such as the
ability to own and issue title, create corporations, exercise
eminent domain, to commit fraud upon the public and foreign
investors while, at every turn, seeking to further the illegal
enterprise to avoid justice," the class claims.

They say the TRNC "brutally displaced civilians" from their homes
in 1974, a fact that the organization conceals, and sold the
displaced people's properties to the plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, HSBC helped the rogue Turkish force in
its racket, which included Web site operators, Realtors, real
estate agents and attorneys.

"HSBC chose to operate in the TRNC illegal enterprise with the
TRNC knowing that it was or likely violating the rights of others
and/or that the underlying property transaction involving the
plaintiffs and members of the class were based on fraudulent or
defective title," the plaintiffs claim.

They say that the TRNC "could not exist without the infusion of
capital from an international banking and money laundering system
like HSBC."

The class claims the defective title scheme has defrauded foreign
investors of billions of dollars.

Recently, a federal judge threw out claims against the TRNC filed
by pop singer Julio Iglesias, who'd claimed he was duped into
agreeing to perform an illegal concert in Cyprus by a military
organization.

The plaintiffs want the TRNC and HSBC to pay them compensatory and
punitive damages for multiple counts of fraud and racketeering.
They also want an injunction preventing the TRNC from doing
business as North Cyprus or the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus,
and from falsely marketing and advertising properties.

A copy of the Complaint in Latchford, et al. v. Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00846 (D.D.C.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/Cyprus.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Athan T. Tsimpedes, Esq.
          TSIMPEDES LAW FIRM
          1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 464-9910
          E-mail: athan@tsimpedeslaw.com


VECTOR GROUP: Court Dismisses Claims in 'Smith' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court dismissed in March plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit
captioned Smith v. Philip Morris USA, to which Vector Group Ltd.'s
subsidiary is a defendant, 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.

Since 1954, the Company's subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC and other
United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as
defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class
actions predicated on the theory that cigarette manufacturers
should be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by
cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.

In Smith v. Philip Morris, a Kansas state court case filed in
February 2000, plaintiffs allege that cigarette manufacturers
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount in actual and
punitive damages.  Class certification was granted in November
2001.  On January 18, 2012, the trial court heard oral argument on
defendants' motions for summary judgment and on March 23, 2012,
the court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries.  The Company is also engaged in the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Defends 'Brown' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself in the
lawsuit captioned Brown v. Philip Morris USA, 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.
Trial is scheduled for October 5, 2012.

Since 1954, the Company's subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC and other
United States cigarette manufacturers have been named as
defendants in numerous direct, third-party and purported class
actions predicated on the theory that cigarette manufacturers
should be liable for damages alleged to have been caused by
cigarette smoking or by exposure to secondary smoke from
cigarettes.

In April 2001, in Brown v. Philip Morris USA, a California state
court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and certified a class comprised of adult residents of California
who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes "during the
applicable time period" and who were exposed to defendants'
marketing and advertising activities in California.  In March
2005, the court granted defendants' motion to decertify the class
based on a recent change in California law.  In June 2009, the
California Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings regarding whether the class
representatives have, or can, demonstrate standing.  In August
2009, the California Supreme Court denied defendants' rehearing
petition and issued its mandate.  In September 2009, plaintiffs
sought reconsideration of the court's September 2004 order finding
that plaintiffs' allegations regarding "lights" cigarettes are
preempted by federal law, in light of the United States Supreme
Court decision in Good.  In March 2010, the trial court granted
reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting partial
summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs'
"lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since
its order was issued, including Good, thereby reinstating
plaintiffs' "lights" claims.  Since the trial court's prior ruling
decertifying the class was reversed on appeal by the California
Supreme Court, the parties and the court are treating all claims
currently being asserted by the plaintiffs as certified, subject,
however, to defendants' challenge to the class representatives'
standing to assert their claims.  In December 2010, defendants
filed a motion for a determination that the class representatives
set forth in plaintiffs' tenth amended complaint lacked standing
to pursue the claims.  The motion was granted by the court.
Plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint adding new class
representatives, which motion was granted by the court and in July
2011, plaintiffs filed their eleventh amended complaint adding new
putative class representatives.  Defendants filed their response
in November 2011.  Oral argument occurred on January 24, 2012 to
consider the defendants' challenge to the new class
representatives.  Trial is scheduled for October 5, 2012.

Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is principally engaged
in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States
through its Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc.
subsidiaries.  The Company is also engaged in the real estate
business through its New Valley LLC subsidiary, which is seeking
to acquire additional operating companies and real estate
properties. New Valley owns 50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC,
which operates the largest residential brokerage company in the
New York metropolitan area.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo failed to pay
loan underwriters overtime, or give them breaks, a class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Williams v. Wells Fargo & Company, et
al., Case No.  37-2012-00097895 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/30/wells.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
                  jcampbell@scalaw.com

                           *********

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  * * *