CAR_Public/120605.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 110

                             Headlines

AECOM: Maurice Blackburn Launches Investor Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 2nd Cir. Won't Rehear En Banc Arbitration Ruling
APPLE: Denies Claims in eBook Pricing Class Action
ARIBA INC: Being Sold to SAP for Too Little, Calif. Suit Says
ARIZONA PUBLIC: Suit v. SDG&E Stayed Til Release of Outage Report

BANK OF AMERICA: 2nd Cir. Rejects "Dornfest" Attempt to Appeal
BISYS GROUP: Distribution Plan in Financial Reporting Suit Okayed
BP PLC: Judge Outlines New Structure for Oil Spill Claims
BROWN-FORMAN CORP: Faces Class Action Over Whiskey Fungus
CHARLES RIVER: Still Defends Unpaid Wages Class Action Suit

CIGNA CORP: Still Defends "Amara" Pension Plan Lawsuit
CIGNA CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Ingenix-Related Suit Pending
CIGNA CORP: Expects Plaintiff to Appeal "Karp" Suit Dismissal
ELBIT IMAGING: Class Action Obtains Partial Certification
ENGLISH RIDING: Recalls 3,400 Happy Mouth Wire Mouth Bits

ETHICON INC: To Take Vaginal Mesh Products Off The Market
EXXON MOBIL: Judge Approves $7MM Class Action Settlement
FACEBOOK INC: Hach Rose Files Class Action in N.Y. Over IPO
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Investor Class Action in Calif. Over IPO
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Cert. Briefing Ongoing in "Searcy" Suit

GREEN MOUNTAIN: SEC Not Done with Revenue Recognition Probe
MARTHA STEWART: Faces Class Action Over Compensation Plan
MERITOR INC: Reaches $3.1-Mil. Deal on Automotive Filters Suit
NC BAPTIST: More Than 1,100 Class-Action Members Not Found
NETFLIX: Settles Video Privacy Protection Class Action

PHILIP MORRIS: Minn. Supreme Court Dismisses Lights Class Action
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Court Denies "Higgins" Suit Dismissal Bid
PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From 'Begay' Suit Dismissal Still Pending
STARBUCKS: Sued for Using Cochineal Extract in Products
UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf Makkal Sakti Set to Re-file Class Action

UPMC: Class Action Status Conference Scheduled for September 5
WALGETT SPECIAL: Faces Class Action Over 2010-11 Wheat Pools
YRC WORLDWIDE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
YRC WORLDWIDE: Gets Court Nod on $6.5MM ERISA Suit Settlement
ZIPCAR INC: Still Defends Class Suit Over Late Fee Charges


                          *********

AECOM: Maurice Blackburn Launches Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
9News reports that class action has been launched against an
engineering consultancy company involved in the failed Brisbane
toll tunnel, the Clem Jones.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers are seeking damages on behalf of about
700 Clem Jones (aka Clem 7) investors, including lead applicant
Stephen Hopkins, who have collectively lost an estimated AUD150
million.

In a statement, the investors accused AECOM of misleading them
with excessive traffic forecasts.

They say if AECOM had taken reasonable care when making traffic
flow projections, the tunnel project would have been seen as a dud
and they would not have invested in it.

Lawyers say AECOM had forecast about 100,000 vehicles a day would
use the tunnel after 18 months of its opening in April 2010.

But the traffic flow averaged just 24,000 vehicles a day and
remains around that level today.

"If AECOM had done a reasonable job it would have been quite clear
that the tunnel project would fail within months of opening,"
Maurice Blackburn Senior Associate Richard Ryan said.

RiverCity Motorway, the company that operates Clem 7, went into
receivership in 2011.

Its float in 2006 raised AUD690 million and was ranked among
Queensland's largest initial public offerings.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: 2nd Cir. Won't Rehear En Banc Arbitration Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will not rehear en
banc a decision that holds a class action arbitration waiver
provision between American Express and its merchants unenforceable
as against public policy.

Cementing a split in the circuits that makes review by the U.S.
Supreme Court all the more likely, a majority of active judges on
the circuit voted against full rehearing in In re American Express
Merchants Association, 06-1871, where Judges Rosemary Pooler and
Robert Sack found in February that merchants and supermarkets
could not be forced into individual arbitration by Amex (NYLJ,
Feb. 2).

Five judges publicly dissented from the denial of rehearing en
banc, Dennis Jacobs, Jose Cabranes, Debra Ann Livingston, Reena
Raggi and Richard Wesley.

The merchant and supermarket plaintiffs in two consolidated class
actions claim Amex is violating the Sherman Act in the "honor all
cards" provision in its credit card acceptance agreement.  They
allege the provision forces them to accept all American Express
credit and debit cards as the cost of doing business with the
company and is thus an illegal tying arrangement under the act.

The case has been heard three times by the Second Circuit since
2009.

In 2006, Southern District Judge George Daniels enforced the
waiver provision, granting Amex's motion to compel the merchants
and supermarkets to individually arbitrate their claims.

Judges Pooler, Judge Sack and then-Second Circuit Judge Sonia
Sotomayor reversed in 2009 (NYLJ, Feb. 5, 2009), finding it would
be cost-prohibitive for each plaintiff to arbitrate individually.
Judge Pooler wrote the court's opinion, crediting expert testimony
from the plaintiffs in saying a single mid-level merchant
plaintiff would have to pay several hundred thousand dollars just
to recoup $5,000 in damages.

The case returned to the circuit two more times, first in light of
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds
Int'l, 130 S.Ct. 1758 (2010), holding that "a party may not be
compelled under the Federal Arbitration Act to submit to class
arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding the
party agreed to do so," and then AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131
S. Ct. 1740 (2011), holding that the Federal Arbitration Act
preempted a California law barring the enforcement of class action
waivers in consumer contracts.

Both times, the Second Circuit he ld the result to be the same --
that the cost of individual arbitration was so steep that it would
be "effectively depriving plaintiffs of the statutory protections
of the antitrust law."

Concepcion, Judge Pooler wrote in February, "plainly offers a path
for analyzing whether a state contract law is preempted by" the
Federal Arbitration Act.  "Here, however, our holding rests
squarely on 'a vindication of statutory rights analysis, which is
part of the federal substantive law of arbitrability.'"


APPLE: Denies Claims in eBook Pricing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Jim Tanous, writing for The Mac Observer, reports that on the
latest development in Apple's and its publisher partners' eBook
litigation, the Cupertino company in a legal filing on May 29
reiterated its denials that it "coordinated" with the publishers
to raise eBook prices and "force Amazon to abandon its pro-
consumer pricing," but may have painted itself into a corner over
"industry standard" eBook pricing.

Apple and its partner publishers are currently facing two major
lawsuits related to the introduction and pricing of eBooks on the
iBookstore: one filed in April by the US Department of Justice and
a class action commenced late last year.  Apple's filing on May 29
was in response to the class action complaint, although every move
the company makes is watched closely by those involved in both
suits.

In US lawsuits, a plaintiff lays out, paragraph-by-paragraph, the
facts, issues, and conclusions as the party sees them.  The
defendant then responds, paragraph-by-paragraph, by admitting,
denying, or claiming lack of knowledge to each claim.  A defendant
may also declare, although this is frowned upon in many
jurisdictions as it is not officially part of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, that the document at issue "speaks for itself,"
meaning that the document itself is completely self-explanatory
and/or an explanation of the meaning of the document by a third
party is not permitted.

The point of these complaints and answers is to identify facts and
issues that are agreed upon, ensuring that only legal issues and
facts that are genuinely in dispute proceed to trial or judgment.
Almost always, parties will accept basic facts and procedural
issues and deny or claim lack of knowledge on all other issues of
law or more complicated facts.

Apple's filing on May 29 is its answer to the class action
plaintiffs' complaint, a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the
claims against the company.  As is standard practice, Apple admits
only the most basic and undeniable information, such as the fact
that it opened the iBookstore in April 2010, but denies or claims
lack of knowledge in almost every other area.

However, Apple makes liberal use of the "speaks for itself"
response in reference to e-mails, news articles, and excerpts from
Mr. Jobs's biography, most of which discuss comments made by the
late CEO.  It is an interesting response by the company,
especially considering that many of Mr. Jobs's comments, in and of
themselves, appear to be quite relevant to the conspiracy issue.

This includes an e-mail from January 2010 in which Mr. Jobs
clearly defines a $12.99 to $14.99 price point that specifically
targets Amazon and suggests the necessity for all publishers to
raise prices in order to create a "real mainstream eBooks market."

As for the remaining claims, Apple unsurprisingly denies that
Amazon's Kindle "revolutionized the book publishing industry" or
that, at the heart of the issue, the company "coordinated" with
publishers to attack Amazon and raise eBook prices.

In a less certain area, however, Apple appears to have worked
itself into a bit of a corner by denying that the $9.99 eBook
price point was the "industry standard" prior to the company's
entry into the eBook market.  This assertion is made despite the
fact that, by Apple's own admission several paragraphs later,
Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Sony all sold at the $9.99 price point
and that Amazon was the "dominant eBook retailer" and wielded
significant "market power," which suggests that prices set by
Amazon (i.e., $9.99) would have a significant impact on what would
be considered industry standards.

Further complicating Apple's position is its admission that the
company felt that Amazon's $9.99 price point resulted in a
"negative margin" and that Apple "entered the eBook retail
business . . . and that part of its motivation was to generate
revenue and profits for the corporation and its shareholders and
to avoid negative margins . . ."

The company goes on to deny that it sought to do this by "driving
prices above $9.99" but the claims that a $9.99 price point was
too low for a positive margin and that the company sought to sell
books at a positive margin don't mesh with a serious assertion
that the company and publishers did not want prices to go up and
reinforce the plaintiff's claim that Apple had "strong incentives
to help the publishers restrain trade and increase the price of
eBooks."

Along these lines, Apple also denied that the $12.99 to $14.99
price point that many eBooks under the agency model now sell at
represents a "soaring" increase in price and the company claims
that any potential class members have experienced no "real
economic consequences" as a result.

Due to the nearly identical nature of the issues between the class
action and DOJ lawsuits, Apple also asked the court to recognize
that it is inequitable to allow both suits to proceed
simultaneously and that any victory in favor of Apple in the DOJ
suit should extinguish the claims of the class action plaintiffs.

While Apple's community of supporters have rushed to the defense
of the company, and some have rightly pointed out that, pre-
iBookstore, Amazon may have held a monopoly on the eBook market,
many of Apple's arguments appear to be lacking and what was
initially dismissed as a ridiculous case is growing stronger as
more information becomes available.

It's one thing for book publishers to individually decide to sell
their products via the agency model at a higher price.  It's
another thing entirely for a company such as Apple to "help" them
come to this conclusion in unison.  Regardless of the impact that
the agency model had on Amazon's marketshare, the potential
breakup of a supposed monopoly is not justification for market
conspiracy.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, in denying Apple's motion to
dismiss the class action suit earlier this month, stated: "In
short, Apple did not try to earn money off of eBooks by competing
with other retailers in an open market.  Rather, Apple
accomplished this goal by [helping] the suppliers to collude,
rather than to compete independently."


ARIBA INC: Being Sold to SAP for Too Little, Calif. Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse New Service reports that Ariba is selling itself too
cheaply through an unfair process to SAP America, for $45 a share
or $4.3 billion, shareholders say in a class action in Santa Clara
County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Francl v. Ariba, Inc., et al., Case No.
112CV225222 (Calif. Super. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/31/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray
          MURRAY FRANK LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com


ARIZONA PUBLIC: Suit v. SDG&E Stayed Til Release of Outage Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has stayed a consumer class action complaint
against Arizona Public Service Company's subsidiary until the
release of a regulator electric outage report, 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 September 12, 2011, two purported consumer class action
complaints were filed in Federal District Court in San Diego,
California, naming APS, Pinnacle West and San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (SDG&E) as defendants and seeking damages for loss of
perishable inventory as a result of interruption of electrical
service.  On December 22, 2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed both lawsuits.  In January 2012, one of the cases was
refiled in California Superior Court in San Diego, California.
APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to dismiss that was granted
by the Court on March 20, 2012.  The case was stayed as to SDG&E
until the earlier of six months or the release of a FERC or
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) report on the
outage.   The Court stated that the plaintiffs may refile a
complaint against APS and Pinnacle West on certain grounds
following the release of either report.

Arizona Public Service provides energy in the Grand Canyon state.
Arizona Public Service, a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital,
distributes power to more than 1 million customers in 11 of 15
Arizona counties, making it the largest electric utility in the
state.  It operates 5,760 miles of transmission lines and 28,680
miles of distribution lines; it also generates 6,160 MW of
capacity at mainly fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants.  The
Company's marketing and trading division sells excess energy from
the utility's power plants, as well as power generated by Pinnacle
West Energy, to wholesale customers in the western US.


BANK OF AMERICA: 2nd Cir. Rejects "Dornfest" Attempt to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied without
prejudice on March 21, 2012, Dornfest's attempt to appeal a
district court ruling denying permission to pursue claims on a
class basis against Bank of America Corp. et al., the Company
disclosed in its May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

On January 13, 2010, the Corporation, Merrill Lynch and certain of
the Corporation's current and former officers and directors were
named in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York entitled Dornfest v. Bank of
America Corp., et al.  The action is purportedly brought on behalf
of investors in Corporation option contracts between September 15,
2008 and January 22, 2009 and alleges that during the class period
approximately 9.5 million Corporation call option contracts and
approximately eight million Corporation put option contracts were
traded on seven of the Options Clearing Corporation exchanges.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules
promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, legal costs and attorneys' fees.  On April 9, 2010, the
court consolidated this action with the consolidated securities
action in the In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, and
ruled that plaintiffs may pursue the action as an individual
action.  In August 2011, plaintiff again asked the court for
permission to pursue claims on a class basis, which the court
again denied in an order issued in September 2011.  Plaintiffs
have attempted to appeal the ruling.

Bank of America Corporation is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  The Company and its subsidiaries
provide a diversified range of banking and nonbanking financial
services and products through these segments: Consumer & Business
Banking (CBB), Consumer Real Estate Services (CRES), Global
Banking, Global Markets and Global Wealth & Investment Management
(GWIM), and All Other.  As of March 31, 2012, the Company operated
in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and more than 40
countries.


BISYS GROUP: Distribution Plan in Financial Reporting Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2012, the Hon. Richard J. Sullivan issued an order
approving the Securities and Exchange Commission's proposed plan
of distribution in SEC v. The BISYS Group, Inc. 07 Civ. 4010 (RJS)
(S.D.N.Y.).  Pursuant to the court's order approving the Plan,
A.B. Data, Ltd., the claims administration firm that served as the
court-appointed claims administrator in a parallel class action,
In re BISYS Securities Litigation, 04-Civ-3840 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.),
will implement the Plan and administer the distribution.

The Distribution Plan will govern the distribution of the
approximately $25 million paid by BISYS in settlement of this
financial reporting case, plus additional funds added from the
Fair Fund created in a related case, SEC v. Steven Wevodau, 08
Civ. 8348 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.).  Under the terms of the Distribution
Plan, the available funds will be distributed to shareholders who
acquired and held BISYS stock during the period beginning on
October 23, 2000 and ending on April 22, 2004) (the "Recovery
Period"), and suffered a loss on their investment, as calculated
under the Plan.  Persons eligible to receive a distribution under
the proposed Plan are persons who acquired BISYS shares during the
Recovery Period, and who incurred a Net Recognized Loss, as
defined under the Plan, with respect to their purchase of BISYS
shares and (a) submitted a claim that was not deemed deficient in
the Class Action; or (b) who opted out of the class in the Class
Action.

The Commission's complaint against BISYS, filed May 23, 2007,
alleged that BISYS violated the financial reporting, books-and-
records, and internal control provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in a variety of improper
accounting practices that resulted in material overstatements of
BISYS's reported financial results by roughly $180 million in
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.  As a result, the Commission
alleged that BISYS filed annual and quarterly reports, and other
documents, that materially misstated its results for the fiscal
years ended June 30, 2001, 2002, and 2003, interim quarters during
those fiscal years, and the quarters ended September 30, and
December 31, 2003.  On July 27, 2007, the Court entered a final
judgment against BISYS, to which BISYS consented without admitting
or denying the allegations in the complaint. BISYS is now known as
Citi Investor Services, Inc.


BP PLC: Judge Outlines New Structure for Oil Spill Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has outlined a
new structure for a trial of Gulf oil spill claims that wouldn't
be resolved by a proposed class-action settlement between BP PLC
and a team of plaintiffs' attorneys.

In an order on May 30, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier said the
trial scheduled to start Jan. 14, 2013, will be conducted in at
least two phases.

The first phase will explore possible causes of the April 2010
well blowout that triggered a deadly rig explosion and led to the
massive oil spill.  The second phase will address efforts to stop
the flow of oil from BP's Macondo well.

Judge Barbier said he may issue partial rulings at the end of each
phase.

A trial originally scheduled to start in February was postponed
indefinitely after the settlement was announced.


BROWN-FORMAN CORP: Faces Class Action Over Whiskey Fungus
---------------------------------------------------------
Connie Leonard, writing for WAVE 3 News, reports that three area
whiskey makers have become defendants in a class action lawsuit
filed in U.S. District Court in Louisville on May 30.

It all began when some Louisville neighbors started complaining
about a black substance in the air that was staining their
property.

It's a black, soot-like growth clinging to Joseph Billy's
Louisville home and his car, and it's fallen on property all
around his neighborhood off 7th Street.

Mr. Billy says after spending thousands of dollars on a renovation
to his home, he realized the black fungus wasn't going away.  So,
he called the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control.  WAVE 3 News
found out the agency had 57 complaints about falling black stuff
since last year.

"We haven't really known until the last couple of years what
causes this black condition," said William F. McMurry, an attorney
representing the plaintiff's in the lawsuit.

Mr. McMurry says he knows what it is now, a whiskey fungus.

"This is not something you can clean or sandblast off,"
Mr. McMurry said, "Even if you could, you would be doing it once
or twice a week."

They claim, three area distillers, Brown-Forman Corporation,
Heaven Hill Distilleries and Diageo America's Supply are to blame.
The lawyer cites ethanol emissions that come from making the
whiskey.

"We've confirmed that there was a meeting allegedly between the
Louisville Mayor and the various whiskey makers on Tuesday,"
Mr. McMurry said.

A spokesman says Mayor Greg Fischer did meet with company
representatives to let them know about the neighbors complaints.

The companies contend they've done nothing wrong.

There are no health risks from whiskey fungus, but neighbors say
what it's doing to their property values is making them sick.

Mr. Billy told WAVE 3 News, "The only reason I found out (about
it) is because I was tired of power washing my house."

Greg Murray, the owner of a Garland Avenue rental house is a
second plaintiff.  His neighbor Monica Stroud told WAVE 3 News,
she may become one.

"I think I first started noticing it," Stroud said of the fungus,
"maybe two years after I had the home built."  Mr. Stroud says she
complained about the black fungus but, never got anywhere with the
distillery.  "I just gave up and I said OK, maybe it's my
imagination and it's not coming from there but, I always thought
it was."

The lawsuit seeks damages and changes in the distillers
ventilation systems.

In a joint statement, the distillers said in part, they're
sympathetic to the neighbors but, say it's a "naturally occurring
common mold that's widely found in the environment, including
areas unrelated to the production of whiskey."


CHARLES RIVER: Still Defends Unpaid Wages Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. continues to defend
itself against a class action complaint over unpaid employee
wages, according to the Company's May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

On January 31, 2012, a putative class action, entitled Irma Garcia
v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., was filed against the Company
in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging various causes of action
related to failure to make proper and timely payments to employees
in California, failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, unfair business practices, associated penalties
pursuant to California law, and declaratory relief. While no
prediction may be made as to the outcome of litigation, the
Company intends to defend against this proceeding vigorously and
therefore an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made.

Founded in 1947 and headquartered in Wilmington, Massachusetts,
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. --
http://www.criver.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provides
research models and associated services, and outsourced
preclinical services to accelerate the drug discovery and
development process.  The company operates in two segments,
Research Models and Services (RMS), and Preclinical Services
(PCS).


CIGNA CORP: Still Defends "Amara" Pension Plan Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation continues to defend itself in a pension plan
class action lawsuit filed by Janice Amara, according to the
Company's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
March 31, 2012.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit,
captioned Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cigna Corporation and Cigna Pension Plan, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation
and the Cigna Pension Plan on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated participants in the Cigna Pension Plan affected
by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The plaintiffs
allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act including, among other things, that the Plan's cash
balance formula discriminates against older employees; the
conversion resulted in a wear away period (when the pre-conversion
accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and these
conditions are not adequately disclosed in the Plan.

In 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan on the age discrimination
and wear away claims.  However, the court found in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims and ordered an
enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance formula
for the majority of the class, requiring class members to receive
their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion Cigna Pension Plan
and their post-1997 accrued benefits under the post-conversion
Cigna Pension Plan.  The court also ordered, among other things,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Both parties appealed the court's decisions to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit which issued a decision on October
6, 2009 affirming the District Court's judgment and order on all
issues.  On January 4, 2010, both parties filed separate petitions
for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Cigna's
petition was granted, and on May 16, 2011, the Supreme Court
issued its Opinion in which it reversed the lower courts'
decisions and remanded the case to the trial judge for
reconsideration of the remedy.  The Court unanimously agreed with
the Company's position that the lower courts erred in granting a
remedy for an inaccurate plan description under an ERISA provision
that allows only recovery of plan benefits.  However, the decision
identified possible avenues of "appropriate equitable relief" that
plaintiffs may pursue as an alternative remedy.

The case is now in the trial court following remand.  Briefs have
been filed on the remedial issues and oral argument took place on
December 9, 2011.  The Company will continue to vigorously defend
its position in this case.

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

Founded in 1792 and headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut,
CIGNA Corporation -- http://www.cigna.com/-- a health services
organization, through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and
related products and services in the United States and
internationally.


CIGNA CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Ingenix-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey court has yet to rule on a motion to certify a
nationwide subscriber class in a lawsuit against Cigna Corporation
and other defendants relating to the use of Ingenix Inc. data,
according to the Cigna's May 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On February 13, 2008, State of New York Attorney General Andrew M.
Cuomo announced an industry-wide investigation into the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare,
used to calculate payments for services provided by out-of-network
providers.  The Company received four subpoenas from the New York
Attorney General's office in connection with this investigation
and responded appropriately.  On February 17, 2009, the Company
entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance resolving the
investigation.  In connection with the industry-wide resolution,
the Company contributed $10 million to the establishment of a new
non-profit company that now compiles and provides the data
formerly provided by Ingenix.

The Company was named as a defendant in a number of putative
nationwide class actions asserting that due to the use of data
from Ingenix, Inc., the Company improperly underpaid claims, an
industry-wide issue.  All of the class actions were consolidated
into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al.,
which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The consolidated amended complaint, filed on August
7, 2009, asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, the RICO statute, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New
Jersey state law on behalf of subscribers, health care providers
and various medical associations.  Cigna filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2009. Fact and
expert discovery have been completed.

On September 23, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The
court dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical
association plaintiffs for lack of standing to sue, and as a
result the case will proceed only on behalf of subscribers. In
addition, the court dismissed all of the antitrust claims, the
ERISA claims based on disclosure and the New Jersey state law
claims.  The court did not dismiss the ERISA claims for benefits
and claims under the RICO statute.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs on December
19, 2011, which is fully briefed and pending.

It is reasonably possible that others could initiate additional
litigation or additional regulatory action against the Company
with respect to use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc.  The Company
denies the allegations asserted in the investigations and
litigation and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.

Founded in 1792 and headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut,
CIGNA Corporation -- http://www.cigna.com/-- a health services
organization, through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and
related products and services in the United States and
internationally.


CIGNA CORP: Expects Plaintiff to Appeal "Karp" Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation is expecting an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by Bretta Karp,
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 March 3, 2011, Bretta Karp filed a class action gender
discrimination lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The plaintiff alleges
systemic discrimination against females in compensation,
promotions, training, and performance evaluations in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and
Massachusetts law.  Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and various
other forms of broad programmatic relief, including injunctive
relief, backpay, lost benefits, and preferential rights to jobs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on May 16, 2011,
that was granted by the court on March 30, 2012.  Plaintiff is
expected to appeal the decision.  The Company denies the
allegations asserted in the litigation and will vigorously defend
itself in this case.

Founded in 1792 and headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut,
CIGNA Corporation -- http://www.cigna.com/-- a health services
organization, through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and
related products and services in the United States and
internationally.


ELBIT IMAGING: Class Action Obtains Partial Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. on May 30 disclosed that the Israeli Supreme
Court in the framework of an appeal of Civil Case #1318/99 (Gadish
v. Elscint et. al.) had partially accepted an application to
certify claims against Elscint Ltd., Elron Electronic Industries
Ltd. and others, as a class action. This case was initially filed
in the District Court of Haifa, Israel in November 1999 by a
number of institutional and other shareholders of Elscint (a
subsidiary of the Company which was merged into the Company during
2010) against Elscint, the Company, their controlling shareholders
(Europe Israel (MMS) Ltd. and Control Centers Ltd.) and past and
present officers and directors of such companies and certain
unrelated third parties.

The said application to certify the lawsuit as a class action was
based on few arguments and causes of action, while the leading
cause of action that related to an alleged breach by the Company
of its duties by not conducting a tender offer to purchase the
minority shares of Elscint, was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court had accepted that the secondary
cause of action, namely, that the acquisition by Elscint of the
hotel operations and the Arena commercial center in Israel,-from
EIL and Control Centers, respectively, was done at allegedly
higher purchase prices than their fair values (a claim that had
not been proven and is denied by the Company) as well as certain
causes of action regarding Elron's alleged misconduct (causes of
action which do not relate to the Company), should qualify as
class action.

The Company is still studying the Supreme Court's judgment and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims on those
causes of action that were approved as class actions as aforesaid.
At  this stage, before analyzing the judgment and as the ruling
did not address the specific arguments but only whether the claims
should be qualified as class actions, the Company is unable to
assess the likelihood that the remaining claims against it shall
be upheld.

For additional details in respect of the said claim, see note 23B
to the Company's financial statements for the year ended December
31, 2011, which were filed by the Company on Form 6-K on March 29,
2012.


ENGLISH RIDING: Recalls 3,400 Happy Mouth Wire Mouth Bits
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, English Riding Supply Inc., of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
and manufacturer, Soyo International Corp, of Kobe, Japan,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,400 Happy Mouth wire mouth
bits.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The steel braided wire in the mouthpiece that connects the bit on
either side of the horse's cheeks can become frayed, rusted or
worn, which can cause the bit to break.  If this happens, the
rider can lose control and fall from the horse.

The firm has received four reports of wire bits that have broken
and resulted in reports of injuries including broken and fractured
bones, bruises and back pain from falls.

This recall involves eight models of Happy Mouth wire mouth bits
used with a bridle in horseback riding.  The bits involved in this
recall have steel braided wire running through the plastic
mouthpiece and most with a metal ring on each end.  Model numbers
included in the recall are 462172SS, 462177SS, 462181SS, 462184SS,
464123SS, 466898SS, 466904SS and 467248SS.  Model numbers can be
found on a label attached to the product.  "Happy Mouth" is
engraved on the plastic mouthpiece.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12190.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Korea and sold at
equestrian riding stores, tack shops, saddlery dealers nationwide,
through mail order and by online equestrian retailers from July
2003 through April 2012 for between $30 and $51.

Consumers should immediately stop using these bits and return them
to the retailer where purchased or return the bits directly to
English Riding Supply for a refund.  For additional information,
please contact English Riding Supply toll-free at (866) 569-1600
between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.englishridingsupply.com/. Consumers can also e-mail
the firm at hmbits@englishridingsupply.com


ETHICON INC: To Take Vaginal Mesh Products Off The Market
--------------------------------------------------------
Ethicon, Inc., a unit of Johnson & Johnson and the manufacturer of
several widely used transvaginal mesh products, including the
Gynecare TVT Secur System and Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair
System, announced that it is taking these products off the market.
Ethicon will be notifying hospitals and physicians to select
alternative treatment options for their patients.

"The removal from the market of certain Gynecare mesh products
comes after thousands of women have filed claims over the serious,
often life-altering injuries they suffered due to these products,"
stated Lexi J. Hazam, an injury attorney at the national law firm
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.  "It is heartening that
these unsafe products will no longer be sold, but those women who
have been harmed by them should be fairly compensated by Ethicon
and J&J, who promoted the allegedly defectively-designed mesh to
women and their doctors without adequate warnings and
instructions."

Millions of women have been implanted with transvaginal surgical
mesh implants -- also called vaginal mesh or vaginal tape -- to
repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP), an often painful condition
that affects thousands of women annually, as well as bladder
slings used to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI).  Often the
mesh is made of polypropylene, a form of plastic.

Plastic mesh inserted vaginally has been linked to a high rate of
serious complications.  In the past three years, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration has received over 1,500 reports of
complications with surgical mesh devices used to repair POP.
However, it is often not necessary to treat POP or SUI with
plastic mesh.  Traditionally, exercise or simpler surgical
procedures have been used to treat these conditions.

"This is a serious women's health issue," added Ms. Hazam.  "Women
throughout the country have suffered a wide range of mesh
complications, as well as ongoing pain and emotional distress.  In
some cases, the complications led to severe pelvic discomfort and
pain, additional 'revision' surgeries to try to remove the mesh,
and permanent, life-changing injuries."

Vaginal Mesh Complications

The most common complications for plastic mesh devices used to
repair POP include:

*  vaginal mesh erosion -- tissue between the mesh and the lining
   of the vagina breaks down    and the mesh becomes exposed on
   the surface of the vagina;
*  vaginal scarring;
*  perforation of organs;
*  vaginal bleeding;
*  chronic infection;
*  contraction or shrinking of the mesh;
*  neuro-muscular problems; and
*  onset or resurgence of urinary problems such as incontinence.


Legal Resources for Injured Women Nationwide

Women who have suffered serious complications from plastic vaginal
mesh, vaginal tape, or a bladder sling are welcome to contact
Lieff Cabraser.  Our female attorneys from our San Francisco, New
York and Nashville offices are representing injured women across
America injured by transvaginal mesh.  We also have several nurses
assigned to assist our clients.

Learn more by visiting on vaginal mesh lawsuits page at
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/personal-injury/case/499/vaginal-mesh
or call us toll-free in our San Francisco office at 1-800-541-7358
and ask to speak to attorney Lexi Hazam.

All information will be held strictly confidential. We will review
your case promptly and for free, and without any obligation on
your part.


Contact:

          Lexi Hazam, Esq.
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          e-mail: lhazam@lchb.com
          telephone: 415-956-1000


EXXON MOBIL: Judge Approves $7MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian Cunha & Associates disclosed that
Providence Superior Court Judge Judith Savage approved a $7
million settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by the
citizens of the Town of Pascoag, Rhode Island and the Rhode Island
Water District against Exxon Mobil Corporation as a result of the
contamination of their well water supply by MTBE in 2001.

According to Attorney Brian Cunha, lead Rhode Island counsel,
"this finally brings some satisfaction to the citizens of Pascoag
after almost 10 years of litigation against Exxon Mobil for the
contamination of the Town of Pascoag's water supply."

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive that was
mandated by the Clean Air Act of 1990, requiring that fuel
oxygenates be added to gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide in the
air, was first noticed in the Summer of 2001, when a strong
disagreeable odor had been reported by various Public Utility
District customers.  On August 30, 2001, a resident of Pascoag,
Rhode Island requested that a sample of his tap water be tested,
as it had a bad taste.  MTBE concentrations, above allowable state
limits, were detected.  Thereafter, an investigation by the
Department of Environmental Management (DEM) revealed that
gasoline containing MTBE had leaked from the Main Street Mobil
Gasoline Service Station and contaminated the town's well water.
The DEM ordered that the Pascoag well pumping stations be shut
down, and arrangements were made to pipe in well water from the
neighboring Town of Harrisville.

In 2003 a lawsuit was filed against Exxon Mobil by The Law Offices
of Brian Cunha & Associates, P.C. and the New York law firm of
Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, alleging that the use of MTBE in
gasoline was among other things, a defective product.  The
investigation revealed that Exxon Mobil and other oil companies
knew MTBE posed a threat to drinking water years before the
industry began blending the additive with gasoline.

According to lead Rhode Island counsel, Attorney Brian Cunha, "the
Pascoag, Rhode Island case was the largest MTBE case in the
history of the state."  Mr. Cunha added that "the documents showed
that the oil companies knew about MTBE's problems as early as the
early 1980's.  The oil industry defended the use of MTBE, claiming
that the federal government allowed MTBE to be used with knowledge
of its characteristics."  MTBE readily dissolves in water and does
not cling to soil near a spill site, as most chemicals do.  It
degrades slowly and travels quickly and travels far in water.
"Other dangerous gasoline compounds, like benzene, are rarely
found more than 300 feet from a spill site, while MTBE has been
found, as in this case, thousands of feet away," said Cunha.

Documents and statements from Exxon Mobil and other oil companies
show they knew all this almost as soon as they began producing
MTBE in the late 1990's.  "When 20 percent of the tanks nationwide
were known to leak, they put this stuff in tanks knowing it would
make its way to ground water and drinking water supplies," said
Cunha.

In this case, the utility and citizens that sued over MTBE were
not seeking damages because customers got sick from drinking the
additive. Such claims are nearly impossible to prove, said
Attorney Cunha.  Instead, the damages were to compensate the
homeowners for their inconvenience and to the Pascoag Public
Utility District to allow them to install new wells, plus pipe
lines to bring the water to homes once served by private wells.
This includes the cost of putting filters in, digging up dirty
soil and installing systems to pump the MTBE out of the water.

The Law Offices of Brian Cunha & Associates --
http://www.briancunha.com-- specializes in personal injury cases
and represents clients from all over New England including
Southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island with three offices
conveniently located in East Providence, Rhode Island, Fall River
and New Bedford, Massachusetts.


FACEBOOK INC: Hach Rose Files Class Action in N.Y. Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP and the Law Offices of Jay
Saltzman, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit against Facebook,
Inc., its officers and underwriters in federal court in the
Southern District of New York (No. 12-cv-4252) on behalf all
persons who purchased Facebook common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering.
Investors who suffered a financial loss are encouraged to speak
directly with the attorneys litigating this action by contacting
Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. at (212) 213-8311, toll free (866) LAWS-
USA, or via e-mail at fschirripa@hrsclaw.com

You may move the Court, no later than July 22, 2012, to appoint
you as lead plaintiff, a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by failing to publicly disclose that Facebook was
experiencing a severe reduction in earnings growth and that,
during the IPO roadshow, the Company advised the underwriters'
analysts to materially lower their earnings forecasts for 2012.
Accordingly, each of the lead underwriters internally reduced its
second quarter and full year 2012 earnings estimates for Facebook
and then selectively disclosed this information to certain large
institutional investors -- without revising the Registration
Statement and/or Prospectus.  Facebook's underwriters then advised
certain of their major clients to reduce their requests for
allocations of the Company's shares.  Despite this adverse
material non-public information, the lead underwriters increased
to the highest end of the proposed range the Company's share price
and increased by 25% the number of shares sold in the offering.

The firm is continuing to investigate insider trading claims
against selling shareholders prior to or into the IPO in violation
of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
largest reported selling shareholders include Zuckerberg, Breyer,
Accel Partners, DST Global Limited, Goldman Sachs, Tiger Global
Management and Peter Thiel.  If you believe you purchased Facebook
shares or stock options from or traceable to these or other
insiders you should contact us to discuss your rights.

Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP and the Law Offices of Jay
Saltzman, P.C. both specialize in the fields of securities,
corporate governance and consumer protection litigation.

CONTACT: Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
         Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP
         185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, New York 10016
         Tel: (212) 213-8311
         Fax: (212) 779-0028
         Toll Free: (866) LAWS-USA
         Web site: http://www.hrsclaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Investor Class Action in Calif. Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that another group of investors
claims that Facebook shared crucial information with preferred
investors before the company's already contentious Initial Public
Offering.

A copy of the Complaint in Alfonso v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case
No. CIV514171 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/31/fb.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          GAINEY & MCKENNA
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Cert. Briefing Ongoing in "Searcy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on a renewed class certification motion in a customer
class action complaint against a subsidiary Fidelity National
Information Services, Inc. is ongoing, the Company disclosed in
its May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A nationwide putative class action titled Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds
Corporation was filed against the Company's subsidiary eFunds and
its affiliate Deposit Payment Protection Services, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois during
the first quarter of 2008.  The complaint seeks damages for an
alleged willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
in connection with the operation of the Shared Check Authorization
Network.  Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did
not receive appropriate disclosures pursuant to Sec. 1681g of the
FCRA because the disclosures did not include: (i) all information
in the consumer's file at the time of the request; (ii) the source
of the information in the consumer's file; and/or (iii) the names
of any persons who requested information related to the consumer's
check writing history during the prior year.  Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which was granted with respect to
two subclasses during the first quarter of 2010.  The motion was
denied with respect to all other subclasses.  The Company filed a
motion for reconsideration.  The motion was granted and the two
subclasses were decertified.  The plaintiff also filed motions to
amend her complaint to add two additional plaintiffs to the
lawsuit.  The court granted the motions.  During the second
quarter of 2010, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
as to the original plaintiff and a motion for sanctions against
the plaintiff and her counsel based on plaintiff's alleged false
statements that were filed in support of the motion for class
certification.  In the third quarter of 2010, the court denied the
motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied in part
the motion for sanctions.  The Company filed a motion requesting
the court to allow it to file an interlocutory appeal on the order
denying the motion for summary judgment.  The court granted the
motion; however, in the first quarter of 2011, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals denied the Company's petition for interlocutory
appeal.  Discovery regarding the new plaintiffs and other matters
has been completed.  In the first quarter of 2012, plaintiffs
filed a renewed motion for class certification. Class
certification briefing is ongoing.  An estimate of a possible loss
or range of loss, if any, for this action cannot be made at this
time.

Headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc. is a global provider of banking and payments
technologies.  FIS serves more than 14,000 institutions in over
100 countries.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: SEC Not Done with Revenue Recognition Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Flitter, writing for Reuters, reports that the SEC's 18-
month investigation of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters isn't
finished, with revenue recognition among the items under the feds'
microscope, a review of court documents shows.

The transcript from a hearing in January sheds some more light on
the nature of the SEC inquiry, which is a hot topic of debate for
bulls and bears on the once high-flying stock.

Green Mountain, the maker of Keurig one-cup coffee brewers, has
never disclosed many details of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission's probe.

But earlier this year, a company lawyer said the Vermont-based
coffee vendor had turned over "a ton of information."

The lawyer, Randall Bodner, speaking at a January hearing on a
shareholder class-action lawsuit in federal court in Vermont, said
there was no indication that the SEC was about to take any legal
action against the company or its employees.

"There's no pending action nor am I aware of any threatened action
by the SEC to make -- to make -- you know, to bring any charges
against the company in any way, shape or form," said Mr. Bodner, a
Ropes & Gray partner, during a hearing on a pending shareholder
class-action lawsuit filed against Green Mountain.

In the transcript, Mr. Bodner said some of the documents turned
over by Green Mountain to the SEC concerned one of its
distributors, M. Block & Sons of Chicago.  But he added that
regulators "have had other requests of us."

Mr. Bodner was in court, according to the transcript, to argue for
a motion to dismiss the shareholder lawsuit, which alleged that
Green Mountain engaged in accounting irregularities in its revenue
recognition practices and its dealings with M. Block.

In response to Mr. Bodner's statement during the January 5
proceeding, U.S. District Judge William Sessions III said that if
the SEC had truly concluded its investigation, the regulatory
agency would have notified the company.

"I am not saying that the SEC has completely gone away,"
Mr. Bodner told the judge.

However, Mr. Bodner said if the SEC's investigation had turned up
anything, "we would have seen some action out of them by now."

Sources close to the SEC investigation told Reuters the SEC had
four people working on the case, including two forensic
accountants.

The SEC declined to comment on the case.

M. Block did not return calls seeking comment.

The Waterbury, Vermont-based company first disclosed it was under
investigation by the SEC in September 2010.  Green Mountain's
disclosure stated that the SEC's investigation seemed to focus on
"certain revenue recognition practices and the Company's
relationship with one of its fulfillment vendors."

Shareholders sued two days later.

In the months that followed, short sellers, including Greenlight
Capital's David Einhorn, began attacking Green Mountain, saying
the company was engaging in "channel stuffing" and other tricks to
make sales look more robust.

Channel stuffing involves an inflation of sales and earnings
figures by pushing more products through a distribution channel
than it could sell to the public.

Soon after the court hearing in January, Judge Sessions dismissed
the shareholder lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs' complaint didn't
do enough to establish its allegations against Green Mountain's
founder Robert Stiller and the other defendants in the suit.

But the judge gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an
amended complaint, which they did in March.

Mr. Bodner, who declined to discuss his comments during the
January hearing, said on May 30 that he expects to file another
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in June.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney, David Rosenfeld, a partner at
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in Melville, New York, said, "We
think that we have adequately addressed the court's concerns with
our amended complaint."


MARTHA STEWART: Faces Class Action Over Compensation Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled Hutt v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc., et al. was filed on April 14, 2012, according to
Martha Stewart's May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

The lawsuit was filed against the Company and each of its
directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York.  The suit alleges that the board of directors breached
its fiduciary duties in respect of the proxy statement disclosure
regarding a proposal to reserve additional shares under the
Company's Omnibus Stock and Option Compensation Plan. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages.  The Company
removed the case to the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of New York.  The Company believes the claim is without
merit and plans to vigorously defend against it.

Founded in 1996 and based in New York, Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. -- http://www.marthastewart.com/-- an integrated
media and merchandising company, provides "how-to" information and
lifestyle content products for homemakers in the areas of cooking
and entertaining, holiday and celebrations, crafts, home, whole
living, weddings, organizing, gardening, and pets. It operates in
three business segments: Publishing, Broadcasting, and
Merchandising.  The Company has a strategic alliance with J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc.


MERITOR INC: Reaches $3.1-Mil. Deal on Automotive Filters Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor Inc. reached a $3.1 million settlement to resolve a
multidistrict litigation relating to automotive filters, the
Company disclosed in its May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 1, 2012.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that several filter manufacturers and their affiliated
corporate entities, including a prior subsidiary of the Company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  The suit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants.  Several parallel purported class actions,
including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been
filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the
United States and Canada.  The cases have been consolidated into a
multi-district litigation proceeding in Federal court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  On April 16, 2009, the Attorney
General of the State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on
these same allegations.  On May 25, 2010, the Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Washington informed the company
that it also was investigating the allegations raised in these
suits.  On August 9, 2010, the County of Suffolk, New York, filed
a complaint in the Eastern District of New York based on the same
allegations.  The case was transferred to the multi-district
litigation proceeding in Illinois, but has been dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement that continues until
thirty days after the claims by the indirect purchasers in the
multi-district litigation are terminated, settled, or dismissed.
On April 14, 2011, the judge in that multi-district litigation
granted a stay on discovery and depositions until July 25, 2011.
The stay was subsequently extended until August 23, 2011 and, on
October 12, 2011, was further extended pending the court's ruling
on various motions.  On January 19, 2012, counsel for the
defendants and counsel for all purported class plaintiffs
participated in a settlement conference that was facilitated by
the magistrate for the judge in the multi-district litigation.
None of the parties were able to reach any agreement at that
conference and, on January 20, 2012, the court ruled on the above-
referenced motions and vacated the stay on discovery and
depositions.  In February 2012, the other remaining defendants
reached preliminary settlement with all plaintiffs for $13
million, leaving the company as the sole remaining defendant.
These preliminary settlements were allocated 65% to the direct
purchasers and 35% to the remaining plaintiffs. In April 2012, the
Company reached an agreement in principle to settle with certain
plaintiffs for $3.1 million.

Based on management's assessment, the Company has recognized a
$9 million liability in discontinued operations at March 31, 2012
for this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
against the claims raised in all of these actions and intends to
vigorously defend itself.  However, there is considerable
uncertainty around the potential outcomes in a jury trial, and if
this matter were to proceed to trial and were ultimately decided
by a jury in favor of plaintiffs, it is possible that awarded
damages could materially exceed the recorded liability by an
amount that the company is unable to reasonably estimate at this
time.

Meritor, Inc., headquartered in Troy, MI, is a global supplier of
a broad range of integrated systems, modules and components
serving light vehicles, commercial trucks, trailers, and specialty
original equipment manufacturers, as well as certain aftermarkets.


NC BAPTIST: More Than 1,100 Class-Action Members Not Found
----------------------------------------------------------
Molly Gamble, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
more than 1,100 of the roughly 15,000 class-action members
involved in a settlement with N.C. Baptist Hospital in Winston-
Salem have not been found, and their checks are being returned as
undeliverable mail, according to a Winston-Salem Journal report.

In February, a judge approved a final settlement of $5.38 million,
with about $4.07 million remaining once attorney fees were paid.
The settlement stems from court findings that Baptist and certain
affiliates' group health plans required employees to pay more in
fees than other corporate clients.

Settlement checks were distributed in late April, and about 7
percent were returned in the mail.  Baptist has said that if those
class-action members can't be located, their checks could be
forfeited as soon as October 21.

An attorney representing the class-action members has said no
settlement funds will be returned to Baptist, according to the
report.  If the missing members cannot be found, their share of
the settlement could be sent to the state or redistributed to
those class-action members who have been found.


NETFLIX: Settles Video Privacy Protection Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Paid Content reports that Netflix has settled a class action
lawsuit related to violating the Video Privacy Protection Act
(VPPA).  The VPAA holds that video rental companies cannot share
the rental habits of its customers. U.S. District Court papers
filed on May 25 reveal that Netflix has settled the class-action
lawsuit filed against it in 2011.  Netflix agreed not to hold onto
data showing which movies its former customers rented for as long
as it has in the past.  Earlier this year the company announced
that it had settled the lawsuit for $9 million in restitution and
attorney's fees, but didn't divulge any of the changes it made to
its policies.

The VPPA law was passed in 1988 as a direct response to the
Superpose Court nominee Robert Bork, who had his Blockbuster
rental history revealed during his Congressional approval
hearings.  It is also the same reason that video viewing habits
cannot be shared on Facebook.

All parties involved in the lawsuit have asked Judge Edward Davila
to approve the settlement by June 29.

Stephanie Mlot, writing for PC Magazine, reports that Netflix
agreed to delete former users' video history and queue data within
one year of the customer's cancellation of service.

While the company said it believes that a members' history is a
valuable entity, used in large part to recommend future viewing,
it will delete customers' information after a year of non-use.

The change will take effect once the settlement is approved, which
could take up to two years, the company said.

Netflix will write a check for $6.65 million to various privacy
organizations, as well as the lawyers' cut of $2.25 million.


PHILIP MORRIS: Minn. Supreme Court Dismisses Lights Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Supreme Court on May 30 ended a class action suit
against Philip Morris USA in which smokers sought refunds for
"lights" cigarettes they purchased.

The Supreme Court found that the class' claims under a Minnesota
consumer protection law were barred by the Tobacco Settlement
Agreement signed by the Minnesota Attorney General and Philip
Morris USA in 1998.

"The Minnesota Supreme Court properly dismissed this case as
barred by the Tobacco Settlement Agreement," said Murray Garnick,
Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general
counsel, speaking on behalf of Philip Morris USA.  "The Minnesota
Supreme Court now joins with 14 courts in 15 'lights' cases which
have rejected these claims on a variety of legal and factual
grounds."

Filed more than ten years ago, this class purported to represent
smokers worldwide who had purchased Marlboro Lights in Minnesota
between 1971 and 2004.

The case is Curtis v. Philip Morris, Inc. case number: A10-0215.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Court Denies "Higgins" Suit Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Tennessee court rejected Pinnacle Financial Partners Inc.'s plea
to dismiss a customer class action complaint over overdraft
charges, according to the Company's May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle National
filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et al,
v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National
Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court against Pinnacle
National and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well as on
behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle National's customers
within the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle National's
method of ordering debit card transactions had caused customers of
Pinnacle National to incur higher overdraft charges than had a
different method been used.  In support of his claims, the
plaintiff asserts theories of breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment
of unconscionability.  The plaintiff is seeking, among other
remedies, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.  On January 17,
2012, Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle National filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The motion to dismiss was denied on April
13, 2012, and the Company expects to file its answer during the
second quarter of 2012.

As of March 31, 2012, Pinnacle Financial cannot reasonably
estimate the probability of a potential loss, if any, associated
with this litigation and intends to contest this matter
vigorously.  No material amounts are accrued at March 31, 2012
related to this matter.

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. -- http://www.mypinnacle.com/--
operates as the bank holding company for Pinnacle National Bank
that provides various commercial banking services to individuals,
small-to medium-sized businesses, and professional entities
primarily in Tennessee. The company was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


PNM RESOURCES: Appeal From 'Begay' Suit Dismissal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit against PNM
Resources, Inc., captioned Begay v. PNM et al., remains pending,
according to the Company's May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
on February 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.
Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation,
who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in
land carved out of the Navajo Nation.  Plaintiffs, including an
allottee association, make broad, general assertions that
defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees with rights-
of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or
have paid insufficient fees for the grant of
rights-of-way or both.  The plaintiffs, who have sued the
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive
trust.  They have also included a breach of trust claim against
the United States and its Secretary of the Interior.  PNM and
the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action.  In
March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the
plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must
pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking
redress in federal court.

In May 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA
Regional Director.  In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional
Director's decision to the DOI Board of Appeals.  On February 21,
2012, the DOI Board of Appeals ordered additional briefing on the
merits of the appeal.  PNM is participating in order to preserve
its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated
in the appeal.

PNM says it cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or the
range of potential outcomes at this time.

PNM Resources, Inc. -- http://www.pnmresources.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, operates in energy and energy-related
businesses in the United States.  It primarily engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. The
Company generates electricity using coal, nuclear, natural gas,
solar, and wind energy.  It also provides regulated transmission
and distribution services.  The Company is headquartered in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.


STARBUCKS: Sued for Using Cochineal Extract in Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Starbucks
sold food and drinks dyed red with an extract from crushed beetle
carcasses, without disclosing it as required, consumers say in a
Los Angeles Superior Court class action.

Named plaintiff Shaun Anderson accuses Starbucks of unfair
competition, false advertising, unjust enrichment, fraud and
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.  He claims
Starbucks "hid the fact" that its products contained cochineal
extract, which is used in many food products.

Mr. Anderson claims that Starbucks even "bragged" about not using
beets to color its products, but never mentioned that it was using
bugs.

"Unbeknownst to plaintiff and class members, Starbucks has been
selling various red-colored food and beverage products with the
added ingredient cochineal extract," the complaint states.
"Cochineal extract is an extract derived from the crushed
carcasses of red-colored beetles (cochineal beetles measure
approximately .20 inches . . .).  The extract was used by
Starbucks to provide a red-color dye to the food and beverage
products that were sold to unwary consumers including plaintiff
and class members."

Indians in pre-Columbian Mexico first used the beetles to produce
the dye.  The extract is made by drying the dead insects in the
sun then crushing them into the powdered dye.  Roughly 70,000
beetles make 1 lb. of the bug dye.

Some people are allergic to cochineal, and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration requires that companies declare the ingredient on
labels.

The class claims that Starbucks' strawberries & creme frappuccino,
strawberry banana smoothie, raspberry swirl cake, birthday cake
pop, mini donut with pink icing and velvet pie all included
cochineal.

"The fact that crushed beetle carcasses were used in the
production of these food items was not posted in the stores, not
disclosed on the product containers or receipts, not announced by
the staff, nor identified online," the complaint states.

Use of the extract came to light after a Starbucks employee
disclosed that the strawberries & creme frappuccino included
cochineal.

In the ensuing "media frenzy," Starbucks assured the public that
it would stop using the bug dye, according to the complaint.

Mr. Anderson wants an apology and punitive damages.

He is represented by Jordan Lurie with Initiative Legal Group.


UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf Makkal Sakti Set to Re-file Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Athi Shankar, writing for Free Malaysia Today, Hindraf Makkal
Sakti is all set to re-file its US$4 trillion class action suit
against the British government next month.

Hindraf supremo P Waytha Moorthy will file the suit in London in
mid-June before returning to Malaysia from a self-imposed exile,
with or without his Malaysian passport.

Unlike in 2007, the filing of the suit this time would be a low
key affair.

Hindraf advisor N Ganesan said the movement had engaged a team of
at least 10 Queen's Counsel and solicitors to work on the suit.
He said the suit will seek compensation for Malaysian Indians
whose ancestors were brought in by the colonial government as
indentured labor.

He claimed that, after granting independence to Malaya, the
British had left the Indians without representation and at the
mercy of the Umno-BN government.

Waytha Moorthy originally filed the class action suit on Aug 31,
2007 in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of Malaya's
independence.

However, it was stalled when the government clamped down on
Hindraf following the movement's mammoth rally near KLCC on Nov
25, 2007.

Several lawyers, including P Uthayakumar and DAP's Kota Alam Shah
M Manoharan were detained on Dec 13 that year under the draconian
Internal Security Act (ISA).

Waytha Moorthy however, was not detained as he had already left
the country by then.

The Hindraf suit is expected to provide a "clear and unambiguous"
representation of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.
Article 153 governs the special status of majority ethnic Malays
and provides constitutional features to safeguard the interests,
rights and benefits of minorities.

Mr. Ganesan said the suit would reveal the "correct information
and real happenings" that took place during pre-independence talks
on Article 153 and the Federal Constitution.

He said Malaysians would have a clearer picture on majority
special privileges, minority rights and on the so-called majority-
minority social contract in the country.

"It will reveal whether the constitution has been misused and
abused," he told FMT.

Hindraf's team of British solicitors will be headed by
internationally-renowned UK human rights lawyer Imran Khan.

Imran was deported by Malaysian authorities upon his arrival at
Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) on Aug 12 last year.
He was scheduled to meet his clients among the working class
ethnic Indian community at Klang Hokkien Hall on Aug 14.

Subsequently, Imran demanded an explanation, apology and
compensation from the Malaysia government for his "humiliation."
Hindraf would announce on June 16 on the exact date when Waytha
Moorthy will return to Malaysia.

His international passport was cancelled by the Putrajaya
administration just before he arrived in Britain on April 21,
2008, from Geneva.

His passport was seized and he was detained by British Immigration
at Gatwick Airport for several hours.

But he was allowed to enter London temporarily for three days,
after which he was allowed to apply for political asylum.  He was
granted asylum.


UPMC: Class Action Status Conference Scheduled for September 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
series of lawsuits involving UPMC, West Penn Allegheny Health
System, Highmark and a group representing insurance ratepayers
will not be stayed, but instead will continue into an aggressive
discovery schedule that was set to start on May 31, U.S. District
Judge Joy Flowers Conti decided on May 30.

That's the result of an early evening status conference on the
antitrust lawsuit by West Penn Allegheny against UPMC, and a class
action by real estate firm Royal Mile Co. against UPMC and
Highmark.

UPMC added a third lawsuit against Highmark, alleging that it had
propped up West Penn Allegheny to protect its "insurance
monopolies" in the region.

The first phase of discovery, Judge Conti ruled, will involve the
production of millions of pages of documents and deposition
transcripts that were assembled when the Department of Justice
investigated whether UPMC and Highmark were illegal monopolies.
That investigation did not result in any action.

Judge Conti ruled that UPMC has until the end of July to produce
its materials associated with the investigation.  Highmark's
deadline is the same, but that could be extended to mid-August.

UPMC asked in return for the right to demand documents related to
a Securities and Exchange Commission probe of West Penn Allegheny.
An attorney for West Penn Allegheny said such documents would not
be relevant, but Judge Conti tentatively required that they be
produced, adding that she would entertain any objections.

Neither Barbara Sicalides, representing West Penn Allegheny, nor
Jonathan M. Jacobson, representing UPMC, would provide information
about the SEC probe after the status conference.

UPMC had sought to stay the lawsuits while the state insurance
department decides whether Highmark can take control of West Penn
Allegheny.  Highmark has agreed to drop the antitrust lawsuit if
it takes over the region's second-largest hospital system.

"My view is that the case has to move more quickly than you all
say it should go," Judge Conti said.  She said she didn't want a
trial on the antitrust case, filed in 2009, to be pushed into 2015
or 2016.

She scheduled a status conference on Sept. 5.

Judge Conti partially granted the Post-Gazette's motion to unseal
a May 1 agreement between Highmark and UPMC that defines the two-
and-a-half-year wind down of their business relationship.

She decided to unseal the redacted version of the agreement that
was filed to the court docket.  But she denied the Post-Gazette's
bid for an unredacted version of the pact. She said the Post-
Gazette can file a new motion if it wants to further pursue the
entire agreement.

The legal front in the region's healthcare contest began in 2009,
when West Penn Allegheny sued UPMC and Highmark alleging that they
conspired to stifle competition.  When West Penn Allegheny agreed
to a takeover by Highmark, it dropped the insurer from the
lawsuit. UPMC last week dragged Highmark back into the case
through counterclaims and a separate lawsuit.


WALGETT SPECIAL: Faces Class Action Over 2010-11 Wheat Pools
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hemphill, writing for The Weekly Times, reports that grain
growers may take a class legal action against Walgett Special One
Co-operative over its handling of its 2010-11 wheat pools.

Growers were left stunned in January this year when the co-
operative informed pool participants there was unlikely to be
further payments on one pool.

One NSW grower told The Weekly Times in January they were
expecting about AUD50 a tonne as the final payment in May.

But WSOC confirmed through its Web site two weeks ago there would
be no further payments.

The Weekly Times understands the 2010-11 pool was left with a
shortfall of about AUD10 million but all other pools are not
affected.

Wagga Wagga grower Peter Dowling, who farmed at Condobolin, said
he had been contacted by about 25 pool participants from NSW after
publicly expressing concern about that further funds would not be
forthcoming.

Mr Dowling said he was looking to hear from any Victorian growers
who lost money from the pool.

He said the growers who had already made contact were owed between
AUD10,000 and AUD400,000, with a few owed about AUD200,000 and a
number in the AUD80,000 to AUD100,000 range.

"I feel as though we have to do something," he said.

"I view a class action as possible."

A northern NSW grain grower has already engaged a solicitor to
seek information from the co-operative.

David McMaster, of Goodooga, 130km north-west of Walgett, said the
co-operative's explanation of why the pool did not return as much
as growers were led to believe was "simplistic".

"Something has dreadfully gone wrong," Mr. McMaster said.

"And what has gone wrong hasn't been explained.

"I've got counsel working on approaching WSOC for more
information."

Mr. McMaster would not be drawn on whether it would lead to a
class action.

"It depends on what we find," he said.

"We still need to find out what went wrong and who is responsible.

"I don't intend to let it go, that's for sure."


YRC WORLDWIDE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. is awaiting a Kansas court ruling on its motion
to dismiss a securities class action complaint commenced by Bryant
Holdings LLC, 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 February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April
24, 2008 and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, the Company and certain of its current and former officers
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true
financial condition, business and prospects.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because they misrepresented and overstated
the financial condition of the Company and caused shares of the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels
throughout the Class Period. Bryant Holdings LLC seeks to recover
damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities
during the Class Period. The Company believes the allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims.

On April 8, 2011, an individual (Stan Better) and a group of
investors (including Bryant Holdings LLC) filed competing motions
seeking to be named the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.  The Court
appointed them as co-lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on August 22,
2011.  Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 21,
2011, which contains allegations consistent with the original
complaint.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which is pending before the Court.

The Company says the ultimate outcome of this case is not
determinable and therefore, it has not recorded any liability for
the matter.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, YRC Worldwide Inc. --
http://www.yrcw.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides various
transportation services worldwide.  The Company was formerly known
as Yellow Roadway Corporation and changed its name to YRC
Worldwide Inc. in January 2006.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Gets Court Nod on $6.5MM ERISA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas federal court approved a settlement resolving a class
action lawsuit against YRC Worldwide, Inc., alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Four class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and former directors, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended, based on similar allegations and causes of action.  On
November 17, 2009, Eva L. Hanna and Shelley F. Whitson, former
participants in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement Savings
Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from April 6, 2009 to the present; on December 7, 2009, Daniel J.
Cambra, a participant in the Yellow Roadway Corporation Retirement
Savings Plan, filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain
persons participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the
plan) from October 25, 2007 to the present; on January 15, 2010,
Patrick M. Couch, a participant in one of the merged 401(k) plans,
filed a class action complaint on behalf of certain persons
participating in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan)
from March 23, 2006 to the present; and on April 21, 2010, Tawana
Franklin, a participant in the YRC Worldwide 401(k) Plan, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of certain persons participating
in the plan (or plans that merged with the plan) from October 25,
2007 to the present.
In general, the complaints alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by providing participants
Company common stock as part of their matching contributions and
by not removing the stock fund as an investment option in the
plans in light of the Company's financial condition.  Although
some Company matching contributions were made in Company common
stock, participants were not permitted to invest their own
contributions in the Company stock fund.  The complaints alleged
that the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the
plans and assets of the plans; imprudently invested in Company
common stock; failed to monitor fiduciaries and provide them with
accurate information; breached the duty to properly appoint,
monitor, and inform the Benefits Administrative Committee;
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse financial
information; breached the duty to avoid conflict of interest; and
are subject to co-fiduciary liability.  Each of the complaints
sought, among other things, an order compelling defendants to make
good to the plan all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty, attorneys' fees, and other injunctive and
equitable relief.

On March 3, 2010, the Court entered an order consolidating three
of the four cases and, on April 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint.  The consolidated complaint asserted the
same claims as the previously-filed complaints but named as
defendants certain former officers of the Company in addition to
those current and former officers and former directors that had
already been named.  The fourth case (Franklin) was consolidated
with the first three cases on May 12, 2010.  On April 6, 2011, the
court certified a class consisting of all 401(k) Plan participants
or beneficiaries who held YRCW stock in their accounts between
October 25, 2007 and the present.

On October 31, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement with respect to 401(k) Plan participants and
beneficiaries who held YRCW stock in their accounts between
October 25, 2007 and June 8, 2011.  On March 6, 2012, the Court
approved the settlement, which is binding on all class members and
provides a complete release of claims as to all of the named
defendants.  The named defendants and their immediate family
members are excluded from the class and will not share in the
settlement.  The agreed-to settlement amount of $6.5 million was
paid entirely by the Company's insurer.

Headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, YRC Worldwide Inc. --
http://www.yrcw.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides various
transportation services worldwide.  The Company was formerly known
as Yellow Roadway Corporation and changed its name to YRC
Worldwide Inc. in January 2006.


ZIPCAR INC: Still Defends Class Suit Over Late Fee Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Zipcar, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
complaint relating to its late fee charges, according to the
Company's May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On July 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Zipcar, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Reed v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-11340-
RGS.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company's late fees are
unlawful penalties.  The lawsuit purports to assert claims against
the Company for unjust enrichment, money had and received, for
declaratory judgment, and for unfair and deceptive trade practices
under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93A and requests
certification of a class consisting of all Zipcar members who have
incurred late fees at the presently imposed rates.  The plaintiff
seeks unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement of the
revenues and/or profits that the Company allegedly received from
imposing late fees, as well as a declaration that such late fees
are void, unenforceable, and/or unconscionable, and an award of
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  While the Company says
it intends to contest the plaintiff's claims vigorously, neither
the outcome of this litigation nor the amount and range of
potential damages or exposure associated with the litigation can
be assessed at this time.

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

Zipcar, Inc. -- http://www.zipcar.com/-- and its subsidiaries
comprise a membership organization that provides self-service
vehicle use by the hour or by the day.  The Company places
vehicles in convenient parking spaces throughout major
metropolitan areas and universities in North America and in the
United Kingdom.  Through the use of the Company's proprietary
software, members are able to reserve vehicles online, through a
wireless mobile device or by phone, access the vehicle with an
electronic pass card or mobile device, and receive automatic
billings to their credit card.


                           *********

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  * * *