CAR_Public/120606.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 6, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 111

                             Headlines

AECOM: Says Class Action Over Clem7 Toll Tunnel No Merit
ALON HOLDINGS: Bill Payments-Related Suit vs. Unit Withdrawn
ALON HOLDINGS: Court Approves Settlement of SMS-Related Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Court Approves YOU-Related Suit Settlement
ALON HOLDINGS: Deal in Huggies and Materna-Related Suit Accepted

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Mesh Device
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL: Judge Dismisses Assessment Fee Claims
ARIZONA: Ruling on Immigration Suit Class Action Status This Month
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Settles Securities Class Action in Tenn.
BANNER SUPPLY: Settles Chinese Drywall Class Action

BIG LOTS: Faces Class Action Over Insider Trading
CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Pelican Bay Prison System
CAMCO MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Property Damage
DECKERS OUTDOOR: Robins Geller Files Class Action in California
DIAGEO AMERICAS: Faces Class Action Over "Whiskey Fungus"

EBAY INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Monopoly Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Stamell & Schager Files Securities Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Initiative Legal Group Files Class Action
GATEWAY BANK: Faces Suit Over Property in San Mateo, Calif.

GOOGLE INC: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Book Scanning
HEALTH PURE: Sued Over False Advertising on Glucosulin Pills
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Shareholders Won't Get Money From Settlement
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in SGLI/VGLI MDL Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Penn. Court Stays "Huffman" Class Suit

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in N.J. Suit Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Schultz Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Suit Dismissal Appeals Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Suit on Premium Increases Dismissed
RIVERVIEW LAND: Faces Class Action Over Landfill Stench

SCHELL & KAMPETER: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Pet Food
TROPICANA: Faces Class Actions Over Orange Juice Labeling


                          *********

AECOM: Says Class Action Over Clem7 Toll Tunnel No Merit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sky News reports that a class action lawsuit by investors in
Brisbane's failed Clem7 toll tunnel has no merit, an engineering
consultancy company says.

About 700 investors, who say they've lost an estimated $150
million, have accused AECOM of misleading them with excessive
traffic forecasts for the cross-river tunnel.

Investors claim that if AECOM had taken reasonable care when
making traffic flow projections the tunnel project would have been
seen as a dud investment.

AECOM spokesman Trevor Robertson on June 1 said it was regrettable
that investors had suffered financial losses.

But he said: "We are not responsible and this claim is totally
without merit."

He said the company would vigorously defend the claim, and
documents given to potential investors fully explained the
project's risk and data assumptions.

RiverCity Motorway, the company that operates Clem7, went into
receivership in 2011.

Its float in 2006 raised $690 million and it ranked among
Queensland's largest initial public offerings.


ALON HOLDINGS: Bill Payments-Related Suit vs. Unit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff of a purported class action lawsuit over bank
commission in bill payments withdrew her claim, Alon Holdings Blue
Square - Israel Ltd. disclosed in its April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 21, 2010, a statement of claim against a subsidiary of Dor
Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd., and a request to approve the
claim as a class action were received in Dor Alon's offices; the
amount claimed is NIS100 million.  According to the statement of
claim, under Section 8(8) of the Prices Stabilization in
Commodities and Services Order (Temporary Provision) Maximal
Prices of Oil Products), 1996, the amount specified in the gas
bill paid through the bank also includes the bank's commission in
respect of the payment of the bill.  The plaintiff claims that she
paid her gas bills through the bank and thereby was charged for
the bank commission for such payments.  The plaintiff notified
that she intends to submit a request to strike off the claim as
the issue was discussed in court and decided upon. In July 2011,
the plaintiff informed the court that she is withdrawing the
claim.


ALON HOLDINGS: Court Approves Settlement of SMS-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court approved Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel
Ltd.'s settlement of a purported class action lawsuit alleging
failure to remove a plaintiff from an SMS distribution list,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In August 2010, the Company was served with a claim and a request
for approval as a class action, in which it is being sued,
together with the Company's "YOU" loyalty plan club -- YOU
Customer Club -- regarding the alleged omission of a way to notify
the request not to receive commercial cellular messages (SMS) as
required by law, and the failure to remove the plaintiff from a
distribution list of SMS numbers of "YOU" card holders.  The
plaintiff's personal claim is estimated by him at NIS1,250, and if
the claim is certified as a class action, the approximate claim is
estimated by the plaintiff at NIS390 million.  The Company and the
claimant settled the claim as a result of which the Company paid
an immaterial amount to the claimant.  The settlement has been
approved by court.


ALON HOLDINGS: Court Approves YOU-Related Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit arising from discounts given to its
"YOU" loyalty plan members has been approved by court, according
to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In February 2010, the Company was served with a claim and a
request for approval as a class action in which the Company is
being sued regarding the grant of discounts to "YOU" card holders.
The plaintiffs have requested to certify the claim as a class
action.  The claim alleges that during a period of time unknown to
the plaintiff, the Company held a special sale in which customers
of Mega Retail Ltd. that are members of the YOU club loyalty plan
will receive an additional discount of 10% on the sale price of
certain products, and such discount was not granted fully as
advertised.  The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated at
NIS3.10, and if the claim is certified as a class action, the
approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff to be at least
NIS2 million.  The Company and the claimant settled the claim as a
result of which the Company paid an immaterial amount to the
claimant.  The settlement has been approved by court.


ALON HOLDINGS: Deal in Huggies and Materna-Related Suit Accepted
----------------------------------------------------------------
A withdrawal arrangement between a subsidiary of Alon Holdings
Blue Square - Israel Ltd. and a plaintiff in the lawsuit over
Huggies Pure Wet Wipes and Materna Premium was accepted by the
court in April 2012, according to the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In September 2011, a lawsuit was filed against Mega Retail Ltd.
along with a request to be approved as a class action for NIS58
million.  The action referred to the offering of Huggies Pure Wet
Wipes and Materna Premium in packages designated as "economy
packs" while in practice, as argued by the claimant, the price per
unit did not reflect any saving compared with the ordinary
packages of these products.  The action relied on a previous
indictment filed against Mega Retail, which had been settled with
a plea bargain.  The lawsuit also demands that the court order
Mega Retail to provide information on the products' sales scope.

In April 2012, the court accepted a withdrawal arrangement between
Mega Retail and the plaintiff.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Mesh Device
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a Monroe County woman has joined a group of other women and
their husbands in a lawsuit against two medical companies after a
mesh device implanted in the woman's pelvis allegedly caused an
infection.

Shawn McIver, individually and as part of a class of dozens of
others, filed a lawsuit May 4 in St. Clair County Circuit Court
against American Medical Systems Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals.

According to the proposed class action, Ms. McIver was implanted
with an American Medical Systems' Monarc device in July 2005 at
Memorial Hospital in Belleville.  The Monarc device, a synthetic
mesh system used for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary
incontinence, was allegedly designed and manufactured by American
Medical Systems.  Ms. McIver claims after her procedure she began
to experience severe complications, including infection.  She says
the mesh implanted in her pelvis was the cause of the problems.

The plaintiffs allege American Medical Systems knew of the
problems with their product and the potential dangers it caused to
patients and yet failed to warn the public or physicians of those
dangers.  Instead, the women say the companies continued
implanting the allegedly dangerous device into patients' bodies.

Endo is named as a defendant after acquiring American Medical
Systems in April 2011 for $2.9 billion.

McIver and the others accuse AMS and, subsequently, Endo of
negligence, breach of warranty and fraud.  The class claims the
companies are liable for their injuries and asks for an
undetermined amount of money in damages plus court costs.

Attorney Julie B. Isen, of Orange, Va., represents the plaintiffs.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 12-L-235


AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL: Judge Dismisses Assessment Fee Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge ruled against a class of psychologists who claimed the
American Psychological Association extracted millions of dollars a
year from its members for a separate lobbying group by leading
them to believe the payment was mandatory.

"The crux of plaintiffs' claim is that they were misled to believe
that payment of the special assessment was required for membership
in the APA, when in fact it was not," stated U.S. District Judge
John Bates.

Named plaintiff Ellen Levine, of Hayward, Calif., sued the APA and
its affiliated lobbying group the American Psychological
Association Practice Organization (APAPO) in 2010, claiming that
the APA took $6 million a year from its members through the
special assessment.  The class claimed the fee -- about $140 a
year, according to Ms. Levine -- was forced on them as "a
mandatory practice assessment," meant to raise money for lobbying.

Judge Bates dismissed the claims, stating that the unjust
enrichment argument is invalid because a contract exists between
the APA and its members.

"The dues statements reminded members of their obligations or
opportunities to contribute to the APA, but the membership
contract actually explained which dues were required and the bases
upon which membership could be terminated," stated the judge.

"Even assuming . . . that the dues statements were intentionally
misleading, plaintiffs were fully capable of noting the
discrepancy between the statements and the membership contracts --
as, indeed, it appears that they eventually did -- to determine
which dues were truly mandatory."

The class includes "all APA members in the United States who paid
as part of their annual dues a charge for membership" in the
APAPO.

Judge Bates accepted the association's motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Levine v. American
Psychological Association, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01780 (D.D.C.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/APA.pdf


ARIZONA: Ruling on Immigration Suit Class Action Status This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge presiding over
challenges to Arizona's immigration enforcement law was set to
hear arguments on June 4 over a request by the law's opponents for
class-action status in their lawsuit that seeks to overturn the
law.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on May 29 dismissed a request by
Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers to dismiss the class-action allegations.

The opponents are seeking class-action status for people whose
immigration status was questioned because of their race and people
discouraged from traveling with immigrants in Arizona because of
the law.

In July 2010, Judge Bolton prohibited police from enforcing the
law's most controversial sections.

The governor has appealed Judge Bolton's 2010 ruling to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

A decision is expected in late June.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Settles Securities Class Action in Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. on June 1 disclosed that it has reached a
settlement in principle of the class action securities litigation
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee entitled Winslow vs. BancorpSouth, et al.
The settlement is subject to execution of a definitive settlement
agreement and court approval.  In this lawsuit, the plaintiff
alleged that BancorpSouth and certain of its executives violated
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding BancorpSouth's business and financial
results.  Defendants deny all of plaintiff's allegations of
wrongdoing.

The parties, including the Company's insurance carriers,
negotiated the terms of the settlement, with the assistance of a
former United States federal district judge acting as a mediator,
that they believe are in their respective best interests.  The
settlement allows both sides to avoid the potential risks and
costs of lengthy litigation.

BancorpSouth's insurance carriers will fund the settlement
payment, other than an immaterial amount of incidental expenses
that BancorpSouth will cover.  Management believes that the
settlement will not have a material adverse effect on
BancorpSouth's business, consolidated financial position or
results of operations.

                         About BancorpSouth

BancorpSouth is a financial holding company headquartered in
Tupelo, Mississippi, with $13.3 billion in assets.  BancorpSouth
Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of BancorpSouth, Inc., operates
290 commercial banking, mortgage, insurance, trust and broker
dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas, and an insurance
location in Illinois.  BancorpSouth's common stock is traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BXS.


BANNER SUPPLY: Settles Chinese Drywall Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Martha Brannigan, writing for The Miami Herald, reports that
plaintiffs' attorneys representing homeowners affected by Chinese
drywall announced in Miami-Dade Circuit Court on June 1 that they
had reached an $80-million class-action settlement with insurance
companies for many of the builders and installers of the toxic
building material.

The settlement was discussed at a hearing before Miami-Dade
Circuit Judge Joseph Farina.  It had previously been presented to
U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans earlier in the
week.  The agreement is scheduled to be presented to the courts
for final approval in November.

The case covers more than 9,000 homeowners, many of them in
Florida, who suffered losses because the defective drywall was
used in their homes.  The defective drywall gives off sulfur gas
that corrodes plumbing and has been associated with health
problems.

Ervin A. Gonzalez -- ervin@colson.com -- a partner in the Coral
Gables office of Colson Hicks Eidson and co-lead plaintiff's
counsel in Florida, said "The goal is to make clients who suffered
for years whole for their losses."

Mr. Gonzalez, who is also a member of the national plaintiffs'
steering committee, said the $80 million from the builders and
installers' insurance companies will complement another $55-
million settlement reached by Banner Supply last year and an $800-
million to $1-billion settlement agreed to by Knauf, a German
company that made drywall in China.


BIG LOTS: Faces Class Action Over Insider Trading
-------------------------------------------------
Dave Rice, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that San Diego
based Shareholders Foundation, Inc., which bills itself as "a
professional loss-prevention, settlement recovery, portfolio
monitoring service," is pursuing a class action claim against
directors and officers at Big Lots, Inc. of Ohio, operator of 11
Big Lots! discount stores in San Diego County.

Shareholders Foundation alleges that insider trading led to the
illegal sale of hundreds of thousands of shares of Big Lots stock
between March 6 and March 28, following an overly optimistic press
release highlighting "record results" on March 2.

Following the stock market close on April 23, Big Lots issued
another release revising its expected sales downward.  The
following day, the company's stock plummeted from $45.65 to
$34.71.

The investor filing the suit claims that the uncharacteristically
large stock sales in March, immediately following the positive
projection and just a few weeks in advance of the negative
revision, "were based on their knowledge of material, non-public
information concerning Big Lots' true financial condition
prospects, and thus were in breach of their fiduciary duties as
officers and directors of Big Lots."


CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Pelican Bay Prison System
-----------------------------------------------
Dan Whitcomb, writing for Reuters, reports that a civil rights
group sued the state of California and its prison system on
May 31, saying the long-term confinement of inmates in a special
high-security unit at Pelican Bay State Prison amounted to
torture and human rights violations.

The lawsuit demands reforms and seeks class-action status
for more than 500 current prisoners who have been held in the
Special Housing Unit at the super-maximum-security prison in
Northern California for between 10 and 28 years.

"The prolonged conditions of brutal confinement and
isolation such as those at Pelican Bay have rightly been
condemned as torture by the international community," Jules
Lobel, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said
in announcing the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland.

The Special Housing Unit at Pelican Bay is a virtual prison
within a prison and held about 1,100 prisoners last year.
Inmates spend at least 22-1/2 hours a day in small, windowless
concrete and steel cells with no telephone privileges and very
limited contact with other inmates or guards, according to the
lawsuit.

"To keep people in these crushing conditions is beyond the
pale of any civilized nation," Mr. Lobel said, and violated the
U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit calls for the release of prisoners who have
spent more than 10 years in the Special Housing Unit and
alleviation of "conditions of isolation, sensory deprivation,
lack of social and physical human contact" among other things.

The plaintiffs also seek a review of all prisoners in the
unit and the need to confine them there.

The legal action follows a hunger strike by Pelican Bay
inmates last fall in part over conditions in the Special Housing
Unit that spread to include more than 4,200 inmates at seven
prisons across the state.

Those protests coincided with California's implementation
of a state-mandated plan to ease prison overcrowding by shifting
responsibility for thousands of inmates and ex-convicts to
county authorities.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
spokesman Jeffrey Callison disputed the accusations and said
prisoners, some of whom are considered risks to others in
prison, were sent to the unit for legitimate security reasons.

"We do not torture in California prisons and we believe that
the conditions in the SHU (Special Housing Unit) satisfy the
Constitution, so they are not unconstitutional," Mr. Callison
said.

Most inmates held in Pelican Bay's high-security unit were
there because of gang affiliations, he said, and could be
returned to the prison's general population by disavowing those
ties.

"These are charges that have been made many times over the
years and many of them are baseless," Mr. Callison said, adding
that officials were working on changing gang management policies,
which would alter the way inmates are admitted to the unit.

Mr. Lobel said that while other U.S. states have special housing
units, none keep large numbers of inmates there for such long
periods of time, in some cases decades.

While some inmates can earn their way out of the
high-security unit at Pelican Bay by renouncing gang ties, he
said, doing so puts them and family members at risk of
retaliation, making it an unacceptable choice.

He said the high-security unit at Pelican Bay also was
unique when compared to other states in that inmates have such
limited human contact, including being denied telephone calls,
which he said caused profound mental harm.

Among the named plaintiffs is George Ruiz, 69, who according
to the lawsuit has spent 22 years in Pelican Bay's Special
Housing unit due to his validation as a member of the Mexican
Mafia.


CAMCO MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Property Damage
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class says in court that
Camco Management is responsible for the deluge that overtook the
Center City One high rise, requiring more than 200 residents to
evacuate and suffer property damage.

A copy of the Complaint in Piper v. CAMCO Management Company, Case
No. 120503758 (Pa. C.P. Ct., Philadelphia Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/phillyflood.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas More Marrone, Esq.
          CAROSELLI BEACHLER MCTIERNAN & CONBOY, LLC
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 507
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 609-1350
          E-mail: tmarrone@cbmclaw.com


DECKERS OUTDOOR: Robins Geller Files Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 1 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Deckers Outdoor Corporation common stock during the period between
October 27, 2011 and April 26, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 1.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/deckers/

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

The complaint charges Deckers and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Deckers is a designer, producer, marketer, and brand manager of
footwear, apparel and accessories.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial condition and future business prospects.  More
specifically, defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts
concerning demand for the Company's UGG brand, which is critical
to its success.  During the Class Period, the Company's expansion
and extensive distribution created a unique circumstance: UGG
supply met demand for the first time.  As new product lines
faltered and the Company continued raising prices on its "classic"
UGG products, inventories swelled to extremely high levels,
requiring the Company and its retailers to use previously unheard
of mark-down and close-out pricing to move UGG products.  As a
result of defendants' false statements, which hid these adverse
trends from the market, Deckers common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $117.66 per share on October 28, 2011.

On February 23, 2012, the Company announced its full-year and
fourth quarter 2012 financial results, reporting better-than-
expected fourth quarter results, but also reporting that inventory
levels had increased 100%, and that it "expects full-year diluted
EPS to be approximately flat with 2011 levels."  As a result, the
price of Deckers common stock dropped $12.49 per share to close at
$77.72 per share.  Then on April 26, 2012, after the market
closed, the Company announced that it had missed its second
quarter 2012 earnings and lowered its full-year 2012 guidance,
projecting a decrease in 2012 diluted EPS of 9%-10%, compared to
previous guidance for diluted EPS to be flat year-over-year.  On
this news, Deckers common stock dropped again, falling $17.63 per
share to close at $51.83 per share on April 27, 2012, a one-day
decline of more than 25%, on volume of more than 14 million shares
traded.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was not able to
mitigate the effects of dramatically increasing prices for
sheepskin; (b) the Company was seeing a decline in demand to a
much larger extent than represented due to the unusually warm
weather; (c) the Company's extensive expansion resulted in the
over-supply of UGG products, which meant that the price increases
for those products were ineffective; (d) the Company's inventory
levels for its UGG brand were increasing rapidly, which led to the
increased use of mark-downs and close-outs; (e) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's gross margin was negatively impacted; and
(f) based on the above, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company and its revenue
outlook.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Deckers common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.


DIAGEO AMERICAS: Faces Class Action Over "Whiskey Fungus"
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Alcohol distilleries are
omitting high levels of ethanol that causing so-called "whiskey
fungus" to accumulate and damage neighboring homes, a class of
property owners claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Billy, et al. v. Diageo Americas
Supply, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-00284 (W.D. Ky.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/whiskeyfungus.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William F. McMurry, Esq.
          MCMURRY & ASSOCIATES
          1211 Herr Lane, Suite 205
          Louisville, KY 40222

               - and -

          Douglas H. Morris, Esq.
          Lea A. Player, Esq.
          Ben Carter, Esq.
          MORRIS & PLAYER PLLC
          1211 Herr Lane, Suite 205
          Louisville, KY 40222
          E-mail: dhm@morrisplayer.com
                  lap@morrisplayer.com


EBAY INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Monopoly Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to dismiss claims from a class action that claims
eBay monopolized the market for payment systems used in online
auctions.

The auction site allegedly raised fees and shut out payment-system
competitors after acquiring PayPal in 2002.

The class claimed eBay has made PayPal the only viable option for
sellers, and therefore sellers have to pay fees to eBay both for
listing and selling their products and for using PayPal.

eBay's accepted payment policy prohibits sellers from asking
buyers to contact them for additional payment methods or from
asking buyers to use a method a seller did not include in their
listing, according to the class.  If it believes a seller violates
the policy, eBay removes seller's listings.

In January, U.S. District Judge James White disagreed that the
class tied its claims of attempted and actual monopolization to
eBay's acquisition of PayPal.

The class instead tied the claims to the continued modification of
eBay's accepted payment policy.  This included prohibiting
payments through Google Checkout in 2006; doubling PayPal Buyer
Protection in 2007, which allegedly eliminated buyer protection
for non-PayPal transactions; requiring sellers to accept
electronic payments in 2008.

eBay moved to dismiss claims that the alleged tying between eBay
and PayPal harmed competitors, which Judge White denied in an
unpublished order on May 29.

Earlier in this litigation, the judge gave the class leave to
amend its allegations, referred to as "tying claims."

"At the hearing on this motion, plaintiffs clarified that the tied
product market is narrower and is defined as the national online
payment services market for use in online auctions.  Plaintiffs
also clarified that they allege that the tying product market is
the national online auction services market," the judge wrote.

Because the class narrowed its definition of the "tied product
market," the court concluded that the alleged tying arrangements
could have had a significant effect on commerce, and the
plaintiffs' facts "cross the line from possible to plausible."

eBay also moved to strike paragraphs about its acquisition of
PayPal in 2002, and of Verisign in 2005, which Judge White denied.
The class claims the disputed paragraphs "demonstrate the
historical progression of the eBay/PayPal business empire, a
necessity for later proofs."  "Although Plaintiffs do not explain
what these later proofs might be, on this record, the Court cannot
say that the allegations have no possible bearing on the issues in
this litigation," Judge White wrote.

A copy of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Tying Claims and
Strike Certain Factual Allegations From Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Class Action Complaint in Smith, et al. v. eBay Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-03825 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/310-cv-03825.pdf


FACEBOOK INC: Stamell & Schager Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stamell & Schager, LLP 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-4332) on behalf of
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 either
contacting Andrew R. Goldenberg, Esq. via e-mail at
goldenberg@ssnyc.com or by visiting
http://www.facebookclassactionipo.com
You may move the Court, no later than July 23, 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
realized that it would suffer a severe and pronounced reduction in
revenue growth in the current year due to an increase of users of
its Facebook mobile application or Web site through mobile devices
rather than through traditional personal computers.  The reduction
was so pronounced that the Company told the Underwriter Defendants
to materially lower their revenue forecasts for 2012.  In
addition, that Facebook failed to disclose in the Registration
Statement and the Prospectus that, during the roadshow conducted
in connection with the IPO, certain of the Underwriter Defendants
reduced their second quarter and full year 2012 performance
estimates for Facebook.  These reductions were material
information which was selectively disclosed by defendants to
certain preferred investors, but was omitted from the Registration
Statement and the Prospectus.

Stamell & Schager, LLP specialize in the fields of securities,
corporate governance and consumer protection litigation.

CONTACT: Andrew R. Goldenberg, Esq.
         STAMELL & SCHAGER, LLP
         1 Liberty Plaza
         New York, NY 10006
         Fax: (212) 566-4061
         Web site: http://www.facebookclassactionipo.com


FACEBOOK INC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against
Facebook, Inc., certain Company executives and/or directors,
including Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and certain
underwriters.  The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and is brought on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased shares of Facebook's Class A common stock issued in
connection with Facebook's May 18, 2012 initial public offering
("IPO") through May 21, 2012.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  A copy of the Complaint may be
obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that statements in Facebook's Registration
Statement and Prospectus that use of Facebook through the
Company's mobile products as a substitute for use on personal
computers may negatively affect the Company's revenue and
financial results were untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein or
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading because,
at the time of the IPO, users' access of Facebook through mobile
products had already materially negatively affected Facebook's
revenue and earnings and caused Facebook to materially reduce its
revenue and earnings estimates for the quarter ending June 30,
2012 and for full years 2012 and 2013.

The Complaint further alleges that prior to the IPO, certain of
the Underwriter Defendants materially lowered their revenue and
earnings estimates for Facebook's quarter ending June 30, 2012 and
full years 2012 and 2013, but the material information about
Facebook's revenue and earnings was not disclosed in the
Registration Statement.

On May 22, 2012, the price of Facebook's Class A common stock
declined from a closing price on May 21, 2012 of $34.03 per share
to close at $31 per share, a decline of $3.03 per share or
approximately 9%, down more than 18% from the $38 per share IPO
price on May 18, 2012.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than July 23, 2012 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to
share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP --
http://www.kaplanfox.com

The firm, with offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Chicago and New Jersey, prosecutes investor class actions and
actions involving fraud.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

        Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
        KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
        850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
        New York, New York 10022
        Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                   (212) 687-1980
        Fax: (212) 687-7714
        E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

        Laurence D. King, Esq.
        KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
        350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
        San Francisco, California 94104
        Telephone: (415) 772-4700
        Fax: (415) 772-4707
        E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


FACEBOOK INC: Initiative Legal Group Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Initiative Legal Group APC on May 31 disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Mateo, on behalf of all persons residing
in the United States who purchased common stock of Facebook, Inc.
that can be traced to the company's $16 billion Initial Public
Offering, which occurred on May 18, 2012.

The action, Lieber v. Facebook, Inc. et al., is brought against
Facebook, as well as various Facebook officers and directors and
the company's IPO underwriters.  The May 29, 2012 complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws, specifically that
the defendants disclosed lower earnings projections to select
analysts and investors, but failed to disclose this material
information in its Registration Statement and Prospectus and did
not otherwise make this information publicly known.

Facebook shareholders who wish to learn more about the class
action or speak with an attorney about their rights at no cost may
contact Initiative attorney Jamie Greene, Esq. toll-free at 888-
926-5420 or via e-mail at FacebookIPO@InitiativeLegal.com
Individuals with information relating to the claims also are
encouraged to contact Initiative to discuss.

Initiative is a plaintiffs' law firm with over 40 attorneys based
in Los Angeles, California.


GATEWAY BANK: Faces Suit Over Property in San Mateo, Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Qureishi, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Gateway Bank, FSB, as the Original
Lender; Gateway Bank, FSB, as the Original Trustee; Alliance Title
Company Title Company; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Sub Servicer;
EMC Mortgage Corporation, as the PSA Master Servicer; EMC Mortgage
Corporation, PSA Sponsor and Seller; Structured Asset Mortgage
Investments II Inc, as PSA Depositor; Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as PSA Trustee; Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association PSA custodian; Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust
2007-AR5, as the PSA Trust Issuing Entity; Pearl M. Burch, as Vice
President of MERS, Inc.; Angela Ruth Payne the Notary of the
Assignment of Deed of Trust; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:12-cv-02787 (N.D. Calif., May 31, 2012) is brought for
declaratory judgment, injunctive and equitable relief, and for
compensatory, special, general and punitive damages.

The Plaintiff disputes the title and ownership of a real property,
which the Plaintiff claimed to own and located at 149 Elm St., San
Mateo, California, in that the originating mortgage lender and
others alleged to have ownership, have unlawfully sold, assigned
and transferred their ownership and security interest in a
Promissory Note and Deed of Trust related to the property, and
thus, do not have lawful ownership or security interest in the
Plaintiff's home.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
cannot show proper receipt, possession, transfer, negotiations,
assignment and ownership of the borrower's original promissory
note and deed of trust, resulting in imperfect security interests
and claims.  Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts, none of the
Defendants have perfected any claim of title or security interest
in the Property.

The Plaintiff is a resident of San Mateo, California.

Gateway is the originator of a loan involving the Property.
Alliance, Gateway and JP Morgan oversaw the recording and
processing of both Deed of Trust and Promissory Note.  EMC is the
present purported Securitization Seller of a portion of the
mortgage loans.  Structured Asset is the present purported
Securitization Depositor of the mortgage.  Wells Fargo is the
present purported PSA Trustee and Custodian of the mortgage.  Bear
Stearns is the present purported PSA Issuing Trust of the
mortgage.  Pearl M. Burch is the Executor of the recorded
Assignment of Deed of Trust as Vice President of Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Angela Ruth Payne is the
Notary of the recorded Assignment of Deed of Trust.  The Plaintiff
does not know the true names capacities, or basis for liability of
the Doe Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are
purported participants in the (i) imperfect securitization of the
Note and Deed of Trust, and (ii) fraud on the Plaintiff in the
origination of the Note.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Book Scanning
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, writing for The Wall Street Journal,
reports that a New York federal judge on May 31 granted class-
action certification to a seven-year-old lawsuit brought against
Google Inc. for its efforts to electronically scan millions of
books in public and university libraries and make them available
online.

The ruling means that individual authors no longer have to sue
Google individually over allegations of copyright violation.  "The
lawsuit now represents all U.S. authors with a copyright interest
in the books that Google scanned," said Paul Aiken, executive
director of the Authors Guild.  "This changes the contours of the
case dramatically."

"[Thurs] day's ruling is significant because the judiciary is
saying that it can rule on Google's scanning program as a unit,"
said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School.
"Google had said each author had to come to it individually.
Instead, the judge has decided to hear this as a single case."

A Google spokesman, Chris Gaither, said in a statement: "As we've
said all along, we are confident that Google Books is fully
compliant with copyright law.  [Thurs]day's decision doesn't
determine the underlying merits of the case, nor does it resolve
the lawsuit."

In his decision Judge Denny Chin noted that Google in 2004 struck
agreements with leading research libraries to "digitally copy
books" in an effort widely known as the Library Project.  Since
then, Google has scanned in excess of 12 million books, and it has
given digital copies to the participating libraries.  This, in
turn, has created "an electronic database of books, and made text
available for online searching."

The issue for the Authors Guild is that millions of those titles
were still under copyright, and that Google didn't seek permission
to scan them.  Publishers later filed their own suit.  Eventually
the parties reached a settlement but Judge Chin ruled that the
settlement was unfair to class members.  Eventually the Authors
Guild and Google went back to court.

Mr. Aiken of the Authors Guild said that the next step in the case
will focus on liability, which turns on Google's "fair use"
defense.  In effect, the court will rule on whether the scanning
that Google has already done on millions of books is covered by
the principle of "fair use" or not.

"The real battleground now moves from class certification to the
fair-use defense," added Mr. Aiken.  "Google has maintained all
along that scanning entire books is protected by the fair-use
doctrine as long as Google only displays small snippets of those
books.  We contend that fair use does not allow for the
unauthorized scanning of entire books."

                         ASMP's Statement

ASMP disclosed that Judge Denny Chin has issued an opinion denying
Google's motion to dismiss lawsuits by the American Society of
Media Photographers and the Authors Guild.  The motion to dismiss
had been based primarily on Google's assertion that ASMP and other
trade associations did not have standing to bring a copyright
infringement suit on behalf of members.  In his ruling, the Judge
asserted that "given the sweeping and undiscriminating nature of
Google's unauthorized copying, it would be unjust to require that
each affected association member litigate his claim individually."
The associational plaintiffs in the American Society of Media
Photographers ("ASMP") action include ASMP, the Graphic Artists
Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American
Nature Photography Association, and Professional Photographers of
America.  Judge Chin also granted the Authors Guild's motion for
class certification.

ASMP Executive Director Eugene Mopsik said, "We are delighted that
Judge Chin has validated the ability of trade associations to
represent their members, which is one of the primary benefits of
joining ASMP and other associations."  ASMP General Counsel Victor
Perlman said, "As a result of this decision, our suit to stop
Google's unauthorized scanning and display of massive amounts of
copyrighted materials will be able to move forward in the courts."

ASMP's class action copyright infringement suit against Google,
Inc. was filed in the U.S. District for the Southern District of
New York in 2010.  ASMP and the other trade associations,
representing thousands of members, decided to file the class
action after the Court denied their request to join the pending
class action that had previously been filed primarily on behalf of
text authors in connection with the Google Library Project.


HEALTH PURE: Sued Over False Advertising on Glucosulin Pills
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Health Pure Products charges
$50 for Glucosulin pills that supposedly help reduce weight and
burn body fat without a change in lifestyle, but the product
doesn't work, a class claims in court.

A copy of the Complaint in Tsabetsaye, et al. v. Health Pure
Products, LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2012-00098140 (Calif. Super.
Ct., San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/glucosolin.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derrick F. Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN FROST LLP
          429 Santa Monica Blvd., #700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 576-7312


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Shareholders Won't Get Money From Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Kirchen, writing for The Business Journal, reports that
shareholders of the former Marshall & Ilsley Corp. will get no
money under a settlement reached in class action lawsuits that
were filed after the company announced its planned sale to BMO
Financial.

Class action attorneys from across the country filed a total of 10
shareholder suits against Marshall & Ilsley in December 2010,
claiming the M&I board breached its fiduciary duty by selling the
company for less than it was worth.  Toronto-based BMO Financial
completed the $4.1 billion acquisition in July 2011.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in SGLI/VGLI MDL Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts court has yet to rule on a motion to certify a
consolidated class action complaint against Prudential Financial,
Inc. over the use of retained asset accounts, 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.

From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class
actions were filed challenging the use of retained asset accounts
to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life
insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA Contract) that covers the lives of members
and veterans of the U.S. armed forces.  In 2011, the cases were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI
Contract Litigation.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the
use of the retained assets accounts that earn interest and are
available to be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part,
at any time, to settle death benefit claims is in violation of
federal law, and asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of
fiduciary duty and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud
and unjust enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post-
judgment interest.  In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was
denied.  In January 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
class.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Penn. Court Stays "Huffman" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Pennsylvania federal court has stayed the class action complaint
titled Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company pending the
outcome of another insurer case, 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.

The purported nationwide class action was brought in September
2010 on behalf of beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts
owned by ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plans and was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, challenging the use of retained asset accounts in
employee welfare benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a
violation of ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement
of profits. In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings was denied.  In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify the class.  In April 2012, the Court stayed the case
pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is on
appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in N.J. Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification of state law claims remains
pending in the consolidated lawsuit that accuses Prudential
Financial, Inc. of failing to pay overtime to insurance agents.

In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay overtime to
insurance agents in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and
that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in
violation of state law.  The complaint seeks back overtime pay and
statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and
attorneys' fees.  In March 2008, the court conditionally certified
a nationwide class on the federal overtime claim. Separately, in
March 2008, a purported nationwide class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to pay its agents
overtime and provide other benefits in violation of California and
federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts.  In September 2008, Wang was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
consolidated with the Bouder matter.  Subsequent amendments to the
complaint have resulted in additional allegations involving
purported violations of an additional nine states' overtime and
wage payment laws.  In February 2010, Prudential moved to
decertify the federal overtime class that had been conditionally
certified in March 2008 and moved for summary judgment on the
federal overtime claims of the named plaintiffs. In July 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the state law
claims.  In August 2010, the district court granted Prudential's
motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal overtime
claims.  The motion for class certification of the state law
claims is pending.

No updates were reported in 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.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Schultz Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a lower
court order dismissing the class action complaint titled Schultz
v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, according to
Company's May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The purported nationwide class action, on behalf of participants
claiming disability benefits under certain employee benefit plans
insured by Prudential, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois in April 2009.  As
amended, the complaint alleges that Prudential Insurance and the
defendant plans violated ERISA by characterizing family Social
Security benefits as "loss of time" benefits that were offset
against Prudential contract benefits.  The complaint seeks a
declaratory judgment that the offsets were improper, damages and
other relief.  The Company has agreed to indemnify the named
defendant plans.  In April 2011, Schultz was dismissed with
prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.  In March 2012, the court affirmed the dismissal.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Suit Dismissal Appeals Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals challenging court orders dismissing two class action
complaints filed against Prudential Financial, Inc. units remain
pending.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint was brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of
individual life insurance policies for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts.  The complaint alleges
that by failing to disclose material information about the
accounts, the Company wrongfully delayed payment and improperly
retained undisclosed profits, and seeks damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and pre and post-judgment interest.  In
February 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court.

In December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide class action
raising substantially similar allegations brought by the same
plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, was
dismissed.

In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in state court
and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  The complaint makes allegations under
Illinois law, substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf
of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefit claims were
settled by retained assets accounts.  In March 2011, the complaint
was amended to drop the Company as a defendant and add Pruco Life
Insurance Company as a defendant and is now captioned Phillips v.
Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company.  In
November 2011, the complaint was dismissed.  In December 2011,
plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.

No updates were reported in 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.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Suit on Premium Increases Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey federal court affirmed dismissal of a class action
complaint against Prudential Financial Inc. relating to
significant insurance premium increases, 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.

In February 2011, a fifth amended complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company.  The complaint brought on
behalf of a purported class of California, Indiana, Ohio and Texas
residents who purchased individual health insurance policies
alleges that Prudential Insurance failed to disclose that it had
ceased selling this type of policy in 1981 and that, as a result,
premiums would increase significantly.  The complaint alleges
claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and omission, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and California's Unfair
Competition Law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  The
matter was originally filed in 2008 and certain of the claims in
the first four complaints were dismissed.  In February 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  In March 2012,
the court affirmed the dismissal.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE: PRU), also
known as Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/
-- is a Fortune Global 500 and Fortune 500 company whose
subsidiaries provide insurance, investment management, and other
financial products and services to both retail and institutional
customers throughout the United States and in over 30 other
countries.


RIVERVIEW LAND: Faces Class Action Over Landfill Stench
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kasuba, writing for The News-Herald, reports that a group of
area residents has filed a class action lawsuit against the
Riverview Land Preserve over the smell coming from the city-owned
landfill.

The Detroit-based law firm of Macuga, Liddle & Dubin P.C. filed
the complaint on May 31 in Wayne County Circuit Court on behalf of
residents who say the landfill consistently releases noxious odors
and interferes with their ability to enjoy their property.

The 212-acre landfill, 20863 Grange Road, is operated as a for-
profit venture by the city of Riverview, but bounds Trenton, where
many of the complaints are originating.

According to the complaint, the landfill causes a pungent odor
that blankets the nearby neighborhood and has prompted complaints.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has issued
several notices of violation about the smell.

Steven Liddle, lead counsel for the residents who filed the
complaint, said Trenton officials have requested assistance
regarding the stench from various governmental agencies. The
residents are hoping to get some relief, he said.

"These residents are being forced to live with this putrid odor,
all for the sake of profit," Mr. Liddle said.  "It's not even
their own trash, and yet it affects their quality of life and
their property values.  This lawsuit is their only recourse."

The suit seeks damages in excess of $25,000.  Macuga, Liddle &
Dubin is a firm that specializes in cases involving environmental
contamination, governmental liability and complex consumer class
action suits.

On April 19, a turbine explosion at the city's methane recovery
facility exacerbated a problem in which excess methane could not
be burned off fast enough.

One of two turbines exploded, destroying both.  The facility had
one flare to burn off the methane, but that wasn't enough before
the explosion and it became more of a problem after.

City Manager Dean Workman said the failure at the DTE Biomass Gas
to Electricity plant brought about the need for an emergency flare
that was installed to burn off excess gas, which he believes has
addressed the smell.  He said DTE is working to get both turbines
working.

Mr. Workman said the law firm that took this case has a history of
filing these sorts of "nuisance lawsuits" over allegations of
landfill odors.

"It is unfortunate that a handful of residents have engaged this
law firm to seek some monetary compensation," Mr. Workman said.
"The lawsuit will do nothing to hasten the repair of the turbines.
In the end, the only people that will benefit from this lawsuit
will be the plaintiffs' attorneys."

Mayor Tim Durand, who has been hospitalized and on and off the job
for the past month, found out about the lawsuit on June 1 from The
News-Herald.

He said these complaints have surfaced over a certain time, most
in the past six months or so.  Trenton officials said they have
received several complaints from residents over what they believe
are landfill odors and have directed complaints to a Wayne County
hotline, 1-888-223-2363.

Mayor Durand said he takes exception to Mr. Liddle's comment that
"It's not even their own trash . . .," saying that at least some
of it is.

"Trenton has been using our landfill for over 30 years, so I will
say that there is Trenton trash in there," Mayor Durand said.  "We
took sludge from Trenton a few years ago, but decided not to keep
it because it was too offensive.  We took that sludge as a
courtesy."

Mayor Durand echoed Mr. Workman's comment that the installation of
an additional flare at the methane plant has decreased odor
complaints.

Mr. Workman said anyone with complaints regarding the landfill can
call the city at 1-734-785-7358.

"The Riverview Land Preserve has been in existence for decades and
has worked very hard to be a good neighbor," Mr. Workman said.
"We always address any complaints that we received and continue to
do so."


SCHELL & KAMPETER: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Pet Food
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Schell & Kampeter dba Diamond
Pet Foods made pet food, sold at Costco, that contained
salmonella, a class claims in court, adding that the tainted food
killed a dog called Benji.

A copy of the Complaint in Marciano v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc.
d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, et al., Case No. 12-cv-02708 (E.D.N.Y.)
(Feuerstein, J.) (Tomlinson, M.) , is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/benji.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          William J. Geddish, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  malba@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  wgeddish@rgrdlaw.com


TROPICANA: Faces Class Actions Over Orange Juice Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Gresko, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
orange juice maker Tropicana markets its brand as fresh from the
grove, but a series of lawsuits nationwide claim the company's
juice is so heavily processed it shouldn't be called "natural."

In approximately 20 lawsuits, the first one filed in New Jersey,
lawyers claim the company adds chemically engineered "flavor
packs" to its juice, making it taste the same year-round.  On
May 31, lawyers were set to come together in Washington to argue
before a panel of judges about where the lawsuits should be heard
as a group.

Tropicana declined to comment but said in a statement that it is
committed to full compliance with labeling laws and to producing
"great-tasting 100 percent orange juice."

The orange juice lawsuits are just the latest disputes over "all
natural" claims.  Over the past several years, a number of major
national brands have been attacked for what consumers have called
deceptive labeling.  Tostidos, SunChips, Snapple and Ben & Jerry's
ice cream have all faced similar attacks.

The lawsuits have become common enough that the Grocery
Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food and
beverage makers, had a panel that discussed the topic as part of a
conference in February.  Lawyers representing food and beverage
companies have told their clients to be wary.  Part of the
problem, lawyers agree, is that consumers are looking for
healthier products, and companies have responded by creating and
branding their products as "all natural."

The Food and Drug Administration, the agency that oversees
packaged food labeling in the United States, has no definition of
what counts as "natural."  As long as a food labeled "natural"
doesn't contain added color, artificial flavor or synthetic
substances, the agency doesn't object.

That's not enough guidance, some lawyers said.

"The whole natural issue is a mess," said Michael Jacobson, the
executive director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, a Washington-based food safety and advocacy group that
helped get the makers of 7UP and Capri Sun to stop making natural
claims about their products.

Mr. Jacobson and others say the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's lack of guidance has left lingering questions.

One question has been whether a product with high fructose corn
syrup, which is made by processing corn but does not occur
naturally, can be labeled natural.  That was the issue in a 2007
lawsuit over Snapple drinks.  Snapple has said it no longer uses
high fructose corn syrup in products marked "all natural," and a
New York judge ultimately ruled in Snapple's favor and closed the
case last year, but other lawsuits are still questioning the use
of the term.

Many "all natural" lawsuits are still in their infancy, said
Kellie Lerner a lawyer who is involved in the orange juice
litigation and closely following "all natural" cases.  Ms. Lerner
said like the orange juice lawsuit, other similar lawsuits have
sought class action status, where one or more consumers sue on
behalf of all people who bought the product.

The lawsuits could get dismissed or go to trial, but companies
could agree to settle with consumers and offer product vouchers or
rebates.  The company that owns Ben & Jerry's and Breyers ice
cream, for example, settled "all natural" lawsuits for $7.5
million earlier this year, providing customers who bought flavors
like "Chubby Hubby" and "Chunky Monkey" cash rebates of up to $20.
The ice cream company also agreed to change its packaging, and
that's something lawyers involved in the orange juice lawsuit want
too.

"I'd like them to modify their marketing so that consumers can
make an informed judgment on their purchases," said Stephen A.
Weiss, a lawyer involved in one of the lawsuits against Tropicana.
The Tropicana lawsuits are partly the result of a 2009 book about
the orange juice industry, Alissa Hamilton's "Squeezed: What You
Don't Know About Orange Juice."  Ms. Hamilton, a doctoral student
at Yale when she started researching orange juice, spent five
years learning about the industry, interviewing Tropicana
employees, growers, farmers, and others.  Ms. Hamilton, who has
consulted with one of the firms involved in a Tropicana lawsuit,
said she would like to see Tropicana be clearer in its labeling
and stop using words such as "fresh," "natural" and "pure."
"It's not simply orange, it's complicated orange," she said.  "I'm
just trying to advocate for more honesty and more transparency."


                           *********

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  * * *