CAR_Public/120607.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 7, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 112

                             Headlines

ALLIANT ENERGY: Still Defends Lawsuit Over Pension Plan Benefits
ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Allowed Maximum Prices-Violation Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Purchase Vouchers Class Suit vs. Unit
ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit by Fruit and Vegetable Supplier
ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Over Hebrew Marking in Products

ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Over Sales Held at Kfar Hasha'ashuim
ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Over Weight of Product Packages
ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Continues to Defend LPG-Related Suit
ANIXTER INT'L: Garden City Won't Appeal Renewed Suit Dismissal
APPLICA CONSUMER: Recalls 159,000 Black & Decker Coffeemakers

BP: Oil Spill Claims Assistance Centers Open
CALIFORNIA: Judge Nelson Won't Recuse Self From Class Action
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Seized Properties
CH ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Litigation in N.Y.
CRANE CO: Still Defends New Jersey Homeowners' Lawsuit

CRANE CO: Still Defends Class Suit Over Merrimac Acquisition
DOE RUN: Lead Smelter Legal Actions May Run for Four Years
EL PASO NATURAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.M. Claims in Royalties Suit
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Overdraft Fees Suit Still Pending in Lake County
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Suit Over Improper Interest Calculation Pending

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Faces Indirect Lending Class Action Suit in Ohio
FORD MOTOR: Dismissal of Class Cert. Bid in Calif. Suit Appealed
FORD MOTOR: Ohio App. Ct. Overturns $2BB Damages Award in Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: Judge Certifies Copyright Infringement Class Action
INDIANA: Sued Over Sexual Offender Networking Site Ban

INTEL CORP: Still Defends Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuits
ITT CORP: Still Pursues Lawsuit Vs. Travelers Casualty
JOS A BANK: Faces Class Action Over Merchandise Sale Price
MF GLOBAL: Liquidation Trustee To Pursue Claims
NAC MARKETING: Sued Over False Claims on Testosterone Supplement

NEW YORK, NY: DOC Sued Over Excessive Jail Violence
NEWS CORP: Faces New Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
PARK JEFFERSON: Fire Victims File Class Action
ROYAL CANADIAN: 170 Officers May Join Harassment Class Action
TOYS R US: Faces Class Action in California Over Coupon Program

VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

* Fraud Victims Urge Hong Kong Gov't. to Consider Class Actions


                          *********

ALLIANT ENERGY: Still Defends Lawsuit Over Pension Plan Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit involving participants under Alliant Energy
Corp.'s pension plan 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.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.  The complaint
alleged that certain Plan participants who received distributions
prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full
benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act because the Pension Plan applied an
improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance
account to their normal retirement age.  These Plan participants
were limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age,
received a lump sum distribution or an annuity payment.  The Court
certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in aggregate include
all persons vested or partially vested in the Plan who received
these distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 to Aug. 17, 2006 including:
(1) persons who received distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 through
Feb. 28, 2002; and (2) persons who received distributions from
March 1, 2002 to Aug. 17, 2006.

In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that granted
the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability in the
lawsuit and decided with respect to damages that prejudgment
interest on damages would be allowed.  In December 2010, the Court
issued an opinion and order that decided the interest crediting
rate that the Plan used to project the cash balance accounts of
the plaintiffs during the class period should have been 8.2% and
that a pre-retirement mortality discount would not be applied to
the damages calculation.  In March 2011, the Court issued an
opinion and order that prejudgment interest on damages would be
calculated using the average prime rate from the date that the
Plan failed to make the total payment to a particular participant
through the date of the final judgment (which has not yet been
issued). In September 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a supplemental complaint to assert that the 2011 amendment to
the Plan, made to conform with the IRS determination letter, was
itself an ERISA violation.  In November 2011, the Court allowed
the filing of the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint and denied a
separate motion for reconsideration filed by the Plan arguing that
certain of plaintiffs' claims were time-barred.  Following the
November 2011 ruling, plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint
and the Plan filed an answer and an amended answer.  In March
2012, the Plan and the plaintiffs each filed motions for summary
judgment related to the supplemental complaint, and the plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification, seeking to amend the class
definition and for reappointment of class representatives and
class counsel.  In April 2012, both the Plan and the plaintiffs
filed briefs opposing the other party's motion for summary
judgment.  The Plan also filed a brief opposing the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Based on opinions and orders issued by the Court to date and the
$10.2 million of IRS-related offset benefits paid by the Plan in
2011, the Plan currently estimates that the trial court judgment
of damages, after offsetting the additional benefits paid to
participants by the Plan, will be at least $17 million, which
includes prejudgment interest through March 31, 2012, but does not
include any award for plaintiffs' attorney's fees or costs. The
trial court judgment of damages related to the additional claims
newly asserted in the supplemental complaint by the plaintiffs in
November 2011 is uncertain.  Following resolution of the
supplemental complaint, the Plan may appeal the trial court
judgment of damages to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a result, Alliant Energy, Interstate Power and Light Company
and Wisconsin Power and Light Company do not currently believe any
material losses related to the final judgment of damages from this
class action lawsuit are both probable and reasonably estimated,
and therefore have not recognized any material loss contingency
amounts for the final judgment of damages as of March 31, 2012.
Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL are currently unable to predict the
final outcome of the class action lawsuit or the ultimate impact
on their financial condition or results of operations but believe
the outcome could have a material effect on their retirement plan
funding and expense.

The IRS also considered the interest crediting rate used to
project the cash balance account to participants' normal
retirement age as part of its review of Alliant Energy's request
for a favorable determination letter with respect to the tax-
qualified status of the Plan.  Alliant Energy reached an agreement
with the IRS, which resulted in a favorable determination letter
for the Plan in 2011.  The agreement with the IRS required Alliant
Energy to amend the Plan in 2011 resulting in $10.2 million of
aggregate additional benefits paid by Alliant Energy to certain
former participants in the Plan in 2011.  The $10.2 million of
aggregate payments by Alliant Energy are an offset against any
final judgment of damages by the Court in the case, in whole or in
part, depending on the scope of the final judgment.

Alliant Energy Corporation -- http://www.alliantenergy.com/-- a
utility holding company, provides regulated electricity and
natural gas services to residential, commercial, and industrial
customers in the Midwest region of the United States. T he
company, through its subsidiary, Interstate Power and Light
Company (IPL), engages in the generation and distribution of
electricity, and distribution and transportation of natural gas in
Iowa and southern Minnesota; and generation and distribution of
steam in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Alliant Energy Corporation, through
its subsidiary, Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WPL), is also
involved in the generation and distribution of electricity, and
distribution and transportation of natural gas in southern and
central Wisconsin.  The company was founded in 1917 and is
headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Allowed Maximum Prices-Violation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is defending a purported
class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary alleging it sold
products at prices higher than the maximum prices allowed,
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 in regard to
the sale of products which, as argued by the claimant, are subject
to the Product and Service Price Regulation Order (Maximum Prices
for Milk and Milk Products) (the "Order") .  The lawsuit claims
that since the products carry special kosher certifications they
are offered at prices higher than the maximum prices allowed
according to the Order.  The claim was also filed against two
competing supermarket chains and Tnuva Corporation, the Company's
leading supplier of dairy, fresh produce and poultry products.
The damages sought from Mega Retail are NIS6 million.  In the
opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of its legal
advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.
Accordingly, the Company did not make any provision for this claim
in its financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Purchase Vouchers Class Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is defending a purported
class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary in relation to
the issuance and sale of purchase vouchers, 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 the Company's
subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., and Shufersal, the Company's main
competitor in the supermarkets segment in Israel, along with a
request to be approved as a class action in relation to the
issuance and sale of purchase vouchers.  The action consists of
two claims: (1) The designation of an expiration date to the
vouchers constitutes a "depriving condition" in a standard
contract and is therefore invalid; and (2) The voucher provision
that a consumer who uses vouchers to pay for his purchase can be
given change only in vouchers redeemable in the same store
constitutes a "depriving condition" and is therefore invalid.  The
claimant asked for declaratory relief that these provisions are
invalid, as well as for damages calculated by the court, taking
into account all holders of vouchers and/or shoppers who have used
the vouchers over the past 7 years.

The Company is currently reviewing the claim and denies all the
aforementioned allegations.  However, at this time, given that
this matter is preliminary in nature, the Company's financial
statements currently do not indicate any amount in this regard.
The Company says it will continue to assess this matter as it
develops.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit by Fruit and Vegetable Supplier
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit brought by a former supplier of
fruits and vegetables, 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 and some of its subsidiaries were
served with a claim in which they are being sued by a former
supplier of fruits and vegetables claiming that the Company
breached the agreements between the parties regarding the supply
of fruits and vegetables, a breach that allegedly resulted in
damages assessed by the plaintiff at approximately NIS178 million.
As mentioned in the claim, due to court fees, it was filed for the
sum of NIS100 million.  The Company has denied all the
allegations.  The Company believes it acted according to all
binding agreements and is not liable to any damages claimed.  The
Company further denies that any damages were at all caused to the
plaintiff.  However, at this time, given this matter is
preliminary in nature, the Company's financial statements
currently do not provide for any amount.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Over Hebrew Marking in Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is defending a purported
class action lawsuit over Hebrew marking in products sold by its
"Kfar Hashashuim" chain of stores, 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 January 2012, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company regarding
the sale of toy and other products by its "Kfar Hashashuim" chain
of stores.  The Claim alleges that the company fails to mark in
Hebrew required details such as identifying details of the
importer of the products, the manufacturer, supplier, country of
manufacturing, as well as the range of ages the product is
designated for, and certain warnings required by law.  If the
Claim is approved as a class action, the approximate claim is
estimated by the plaintiff at approximately NIS8 million.  The
plaintiff further requested the court to issue a decree ordering
the Company to fulfill the requirements of the law and mark its
products accordingly.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the
opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be
rejected exceed 50%. Accordingly, the Company has not made any
provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Over Sales Held at Kfar Hasha'ashuim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is defending a purported
class action lawsuit arising from special sales held at "Kfar
Hasha'ashuim" brand toy stores, 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 May 2011, a claim and a request to recognize the claim as a
class action was filed against the Company regarding special sales
held at "Kfar Hasha'ashuim" brand toy stores operated by the
Company's 100% wholly owned subsidiary, Bee Group Retail Ltd.
According to the claimant, the toy stores misled their customers
by not presenting the prices charged for products prior to the
special sales, as required by law, in addition to the special
sales prices.  The claimant estimates the damage to the group of
claimants for the purposes of the claim at NIS30 million.  The
Company says it will continue to assess this matter as the request
for the class action develops.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defends Suit Over Weight of Product Packages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is defending itself
against a purported class action lawsuit alleging it does not
deduct the weight of the package in which it sells its products,
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 October 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company, alleging
that the Company does not deduct the weight of the package in
which it sells different products, such as various meat and
poultry products, fruit and vegetables.  If the claim is approved
as a class action, the approximate claim is estimated by the
plaintiff at approximately NIS181 million.  In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the
Company did not make any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Continues to Defend LPG-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed against Alon Holdings Blue
Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy In Israel
(1988) Ltd., and other fuel companies.  The issue in the claim is
differences between the temperature of the LPG and the energy it
provides as a result of burning.  Based on information received
from Dor Alon's management, the Company believes that, the chances
that the claim will be certified as a class action are less than
50%, and therefore Dor Alon did not make a provision in its
financial statements.

No further updates were reported in 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.


ANIXTER INT'L: Garden City Won't Appeal Renewed Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities class action have no plans of appealing
the dismissal of their second amended complaint against
Anixter International, 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 September 2009, the Garden City Employees' Retirement System
filed a purported class action under the federal securities laws
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company, its current and former chief
executive officers and its former chief financial officer.  In
November 2009, the Court entered an order appointing the Indiana
Laborers Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointing lead
plaintiff's counsel.  In January 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.  The amended complaint principally alleged that
the Company made misleading statements during 2008 regarding
certain aspects of its financial performance and outlook.  The
amended complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of persons
who purchased the common stock of the Company between January 29
and October 20, 2008.  In March 2011, the Court dismissed the
complaint but allowed the lead plaintiff the opportunity to re-
plead its complaint.  The plaintiff did so in April 2011 and the
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with
prejudice in March 2012.  In April 2012, the plaintiffs notified
the Company that it will not appeal the ruling and all parties
agreed to waive fees and costs and release any claims associated
with the bringing on of this action.

Anixter International Inc. -- http://www.anixter.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, distributes communication and security
products, electrical wire and cable products, and fasteners and
other small parts.  The company, formerly known as Itel
Corporation, was founded in 1957 and is headquartered in Glenview,
Illinois.


APPLICA CONSUMER: Recalls 159,000 Black & Decker Coffeemakers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Applica Consumer Products Inc. of Miramar, Florida, announced a
voluntary recall of about 159,000 units of Black & Decker(R)
Spacemaker(TM) 12-Cup Programmable Under-the-Cabinet Coffeemakers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The coffee pot handle can break, causing cuts and burns to the
consumer.

The firm has received 1,276 reports of handles breaking, including
68 reports of burns and/or cuts.

This recall involves Black & Decker(R) brand 12-cup coffeemakers
designed to mount under a cabinet.  Available in either white or
black models, the words "BLACK & DECKER(R) SPACEMAKER(TM)" are
printed in the top right-hand corner.  The coffeemakers have a
digital time display in the top left corner and five round buttons
above the water reservoir.  The 12-cup coffee pots are glass with
a molded handle the same color as the machine and a silver
metallic bracket running around the glass near the bottom.

The recall includes model numbers SDC740, SDC740B, SDC740BR,
SDC740C, SDC740DIS, SDC740R, SDC750, SDC750C and SDC750DIS.  The
model number is printed on the underside of the coffeemaker,
directly below the water reservoir.  A picture of the recalled
products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12191.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at major
retailers nationwide from July 2008 through May 2012 for about
$50-80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the coffeemakers and
contact Applica to exchange their coffee pot for a free
replacement.  For additional information, contact Applica Consumer
Products toll-free at (866) 708-7846 between 8:30 a.m. through
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.acprecall.com/


BP: Oil Spill Claims Assistance Centers Open
--------------------------------------------
WWLTV.com reports that oil spill claims assistance facilities
opened across the Gulf Coast on June 4 to help businesses and
individuals involved in a class action settlement.

Out of 18 centers, eight will open in Louisiana.

Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau will be visiting all of the
locations and said staffers will work with individuals and
businesses to resolve their claims in an efficient and effective
manner.

For more information and to see where centers are located, go to
http://www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com/

Fox10tv.com reports that Mr. Juneau said "Our mission is to
closely follow the terms put forth for economic loss to the
defined class of claimants using the fixed formulas as agreed upon
by the plaintiff attorneys and British Petroleum."

"We are here to serve the individuals and businesses that were
directly affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill with their
claims in an efficient and effective manner," Mr. Juneau said.

The Claims Centers will provide walk-up service but those filing
claims are encouraged to do so online.

Bayoubuz reports that under a new, court-supervised process, about
$8 billion will be distributed from 18 offices across the Gulf
Coast as part of a class-action settlement reached by attorneys
representing some 100,000 individuals and businesses and BP.  The
closest office to Jackson County is in Biloxi.

Jackson County cities, however, are concerned that their residents
and businesses have been put at a disadvantage under terms of the
settlement.  That's because the vast majority of local claimants
must meet a higher burden of proof than their counterparts in
areas that received zero oil on their beaches.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Nelson Won't Recuse Self From Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Judge D.W. Nelson
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will
not recuse herself from a proposed class action challenging
California's unclaimed property procedures, despite being a member
of the potential class.

In a brief order published on June 4, Judge Nelson said that she
"own[s] property that appears in the California State Controller's
database of unclaimed property."

A putative class of plaintiffs has claimed that the controller
violates the Fifth Amendment by taking private property for public
use without compensation.

"I believe recusal in this case would be inappropriate, especially
given that the class is not yet certified," Judge Nelson wrote.
"I therefore will not recuse, but rather announce that I will
forego any financial interest in this putative class and will not
accept any payments due myself as a member of the putative class."

A copy of the Order in Suever, et al. v. Connell, et al., No. 10-
17127 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/ZeM6qb


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Seized Properties
-----------------------------------------------------
Denny Walsh, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that lawyers
for owners of property seized by the state controller as
"unclaimed" encountered strong resistance from a Sacramento
federal judge to a plea for more aggressive searches for owners.

During a hearing on May 30, U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez
denied a motion for a short-term order halting Controller John
Chiang's property sales and annual collection of cash, securities
and other property, which was to have begun June 1.

"I do not find the requirements for a temporary restraining order
have been met," Judge Mendez declared.  "The 'imminent harm'
element hasn't been satisfied.  There's no bulldozer at the door."

But the judge's concerns are much broader, to the point that he
questioned the viability in its present form of the 10-year-old
class action challenging the controller's methods.

Judge Mendez said a motion for a preliminary injunction, which
commonly follows a motion for a temporary restraining order, would
be an exercise in futility at this point because he sees no proof
that Mr. Chiang's office is not following the 2007 state law
governing the taking and disposal of so-called unclaimed property.

Instead, opposing counsel and the judge agreed that lawyers for
the plaintiffs' class will seek his permission to amend the
complaint, including new representative plaintiffs with fresher
claims that their property was seized and sold without lawful
notice.

"There is a lack of specificity," Mr. Mendez told plaintiffs'
counsel near the end of the two-hour hearing.  "Where are the
facts? Where is the evidence?"

Hundreds of millions of dollars derived from what is deemed
unclaimed property flow into the state's coffers each year.

Financial institutions and other businesses are required to notify
the controller's office of bank accounts, stock and bond
portfolios, and safe deposit boxes that have been dormant for
three or more years, and they must deliver the contents to the
controller.  Cash, which accounts for 70 percent of the take, goes
directly into the state's general fund.  Securities may be sold
after 18 months, and those proceeds also go to the general fund.
Disposal of personal items from safe deposit boxes can take place
after seven years.

The controller has seized $6.1 billion worth of property belonging
to 17.6 million individuals and organizations.

The law mandates direct mail notice from the state as well as from
holders of the properties, plus publication notice by the state,
before property is seized.

The owners' lawyers insist the controller's notification practices
run counter to state and federal law and the U.S. Constitution's
guarantee of a fair chance to claim property before government
takes it.

Attorney Robert Buccola noted on May 30 that the controller's
office gets last-known addresses from holders of property and from
the state Franchise Tax Board.  That's as far as the effort goes,
he said, and databases, such as the one at the Department of Motor
Vehicles, are available but ignored.

"We have people in our office on the list (but never notified)
that have lived at the same address for 10 years," Mr. Buccola
told Judge Mendez.  "The fact federal judges are on the list is
ridiculous."

Class lawyers say the generic newspaper advertisements and the
controller's after-the-fact Web site are virtually worthless.

Mr. Chiang's attorney, Robin Johansen, said her client is doing
everything the law requires.  Besides, she stressed, putative
owners have the right to sue if they are convinced that a holder
illegally relinquished property or if there is a dispute over
ownership.

Judge Mendez liked the latter point and adopted it as "valid.
There are other remedies."

"You're arguing they could be doing more," the judge told the
owners' lawyers.  "What they are required to do under the law and
what you want them to do appear to be two different things."

To which Ms. Johansen added on behalf of the cash-strapped state
agency, "We can't do extra things.  We can't spend extra money."

Plaintiffs' lawyers rejoined that a federal appellate court has
already ruled that California's financial distress is not an
acceptable reason to short-circuit the notification requirements.

"Due process trumps budget problems," said attorney C. Brooks
Cutter.


CH ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Litigation in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. is defending itself against an amended
shareholder complaint relating to its acquisition deal with Fortis
Inc., 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.

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of CH
Energy Group by Fortis Inc. on February 21, 2012, several
complaints were filed by purported CH Energy Group shareholders in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York and
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess,
challenging the proposed merger.  The Dutchess County actions have
been transferred to the New York County Court, and all actions
have been joined under the master caption In re CH Energy Group,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 75,000/2012.

On April 9, 2012, a master amended complaint was filed in the
joined litigation.  The master amended complaint, which was filed
on behalf of a putative class of CH Energy Group public
shareholders, names as defendants CH Energy Group, its directors,
Fortis, FortisUS, and Cascade Acquisition Sub, Inc. and generally
alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed transaction and that the
entity defendants aided and abetted that breach.  The master
amended complaint further alleges that the preliminary proxy filed
in connection with the proposed transaction with Fortis contains
material misstatements and omissions.  The master complaint seeks,
among other things, an order preliminarily and permanently
enjoining the proposed transaction with Fortis, damages, and
plaintiffs' expenses.

The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain.  An adverse judgment
for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the
operations of the surviving company after the completion of the
merger.  A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the
completion of the merger, and an adverse judgment granting
permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion
of the transaction.  The defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves against the lawsuits.

CH Energy Group, Inc. -- http://www.chenergygroup.com/-- through
its subsidiaries, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and
Central Hudson Enterprises Corporation, engages in electric and
regulated natural gas utility, and fuel distribution businesses in
the United States. It purchases, sells at wholesale, and
distributes electricity and natural gas at retail in portions of
New York State; and delivers energy to approximately 300,000
electric customers and 75,000 natural gas customers.  The Company
was founded in 1926 and is headquartered in Poughkeepsie, New
York.


CRANE CO: Still Defends New Jersey Homeowners' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
involving homeowners allegedly affected by the operations of the
Company's manufacturing facility in New Jersey, according to the
Company's May 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2012.

Pursuant to recently enacted regulations in New Jersey, the
Company performed certain tests of the indoor air quality of
approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former
manufacturing facility in Roseland, New Jersey, to determine if
any contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from
groundwater) from the facility were present in those homes.  The
Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in three homes where
contaminants were found.  On April 15, 2011, those three
homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate
suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for their lost property value and nuisance.  In
addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested
negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action
suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 142 other
homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature
of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the
facility.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the amount of a loss and therefore, no loss amount has been
accrued for the claims because among other things, the extent of
the environmental impact, consideration of other factors affecting
value have not yet advanced to the stage where a reasonable
estimate can be made.

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

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


CRANE CO: Still Defends Class Suit Over Merrimac Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to defend itself against a class action
complaint relating to its acquisition of Merrimac Industries, Inc.
in February 2010, 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 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Merrimac was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey.  The action, brought by a purported stockholder of
Merrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac's directors, and Crane
Co. as defendants, and alleges, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors, aided and abetted by
Crane Co., that resulted in the payment to Merrimac stockholders
of an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per share in the
acquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac's directors.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class of all Merrimac
stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates, and
unspecified damages.  Simultaneously with the filing of the
complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin the
transaction from proceeding.  After a hearing on January 14, 2010,
the court denied the plaintiff's motion.  All defendants
thereafter filed motions seeking dismissal of the complaint on
various grounds. After a hearing on March 19, 2010, the court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and ordered the case to
proceed to pretrial discovery.  All defendants have filed their
answers and deny any liability.  The Court certified the class,
and the parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. The Company
believes that it has valid defenses to the underlying claims
raised in the complaint.  The Company has given notice of this
lawsuit to Merrimac's and the Company's insurance carriers and
will seek coverage for any resulting loss.  As of March 31, 2012,
no loss amount has been accrued in connection with this lawsuit
because a loss is not considered probable, nor can an amount be
reasonably estimated.

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

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


DOE RUN: Lead Smelter Legal Actions May Run for Four Years
----------------------------------------------------------
Leah Thorsen, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that in
a St. Louis courtroom last month, attorneys geared up for a trial
more than a year away that will center on whether 17 children
allegedly poisoned by the lead smelter in Herculaneum can prove
their ailments deserve compensation.

The lawsuit is one of several that could involve hundreds of
plaintiffs in the next few years.

The trial is slated for July 2013.  Two years will have passed
since a jury ordered former owners of the Doe Run smelter to pay
$358 million to 16 plaintiffs who said they suffered health
effects from lead poisoning that the company knew existed.
That award was on top of a confidential settlement reached before
the trial with the smelter's current owners, Doe Run Resources
Corp.

The former owners have appealed the verdict.

Decades ago, the smelter filled the air of the company town with
particulate matter so heavy, it sometimes made it impossible to
see even across the street.

But it also has been a core part of the town's identity, providing
jobs and tax revenue since it was built in 1892 by the St. Joseph
Lead Co.

It's the only primary lead smelter in the country.

Herky, as residents call it, is still a quiet, working-class city
spread out below the 550-foot smelter smokestack.  But the
smelter's reputation has changed in recent decades.  Homes within
a buyout zone around the smelter have been demolished, and it has
been blamed by federal and state environmental officials for
contaminating streets, yards and houses, and putting the health of
local residents at risk.

Lead is a neurotoxin that interrupts normal brain development and
has been linked to behavioral problems in children. Adults can
tolerate higher levels of lead than children but can still suffer
health problems.

"A lot of people had been there for generations, and they were
never warned of any dangers," said Maxine Lipeles, co-director of
Washington University's Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic and
senior law lecturer.  "It's not really the citizen's job to figure
out if this operation is safe.  They figure that's the
government's job."

Lawsuits with claims of adverse health effects linked to lead
exposure have been making their way through courtrooms in
Jefferson County, St. Louis and St. Louis County for well over a
decade.

A suit filed in 1995, believed to be among the first against the
smelter alleging lead-related ailments, dragged on for 15 years
before a settlement was reached.

While there's no way of knowing how much money has been awarded to
plaintiffs in these cases -- most settlements are confidential --
rare glimpses into the outcomes emerge, such as a $55 million
settlement reached in April.

The settlement in that lawsuit, which was filed in 2001, includes
about $46 million representing the value of 453 properties had
they not been contaminated by lead.

Two local firms -- Gray, Ritter and Graham in downtown St. Louis
and Newman, Bronson and Wallis in Maryland Heights -- are handling
most of the claims.

Maurice Graham, one of the attorneys who won the $55 million
settlement, said hundreds more people could sue if other cases get
class-action status.  He said the legal actions could continue for
four years.

One trial scheduled for April seeks damages on behalf of seven
people who, as children, lived near St. Francois County chat
dumps, which are waste from processing.

The current owners of Doe Run will not be defendants in the July
2013 trial, but are still defendants in the case slated to go to
trial in April, said Tammy Stankey, a Doe Run spokeswoman.  She
would not elaborate.

Mark Bronson, who represents the plaintiffs in the July 2013
trial, said he has about 60 plaintiffs in pending cases against
the former owners and about 50 in cases that have been resolved.
The current owners have settled his cases, he said.

He represented the plaintiffs in the $358 million verdict, the
first such case to reach trial.  The lawsuit centered on the
plant's operation from 1986 to 1994 under former owners Texas-
based Fluor Corp., Virginia-based A.T. Massey Coal and Missouri-
based Doe Run Investment Holdings Co.

Because the defendants are appealing, the plaintiffs have not
received any money.

Mr. Bronson said he thought the large judgment would spur the
smelter and its former owners to settle, but attorneys on the
other side continue to mount vigorous defenses -- even hiring off-
duty police officers as private investigators to question
potential witnesses.

In a hearing last month in St. Louis before Judge Dennis
Schaumann, Mr. Bronson argued that the private investigators were
"harassing and intimidating" potential witnesses.  He asked the
judge to stop such behavior.

Mr. Bronson told of a process server who approached a teenager on
the parking lot of his school in an effort to reach the boy's
mother.  He said a Des Peres police officer who also works as an
investigator for the private investigative firm Mid-West
Protective Service showed up at a family's home with a badge on
his belt and carrying a gun.

"We're entitled to go to anybody's home and ask what questions we
want to ask," said Keith Phoenix, who represents former owners of
the smelter.

Phoenix argued that it would be "more comforting" for a police
officer to appear than say a heavily tattooed man on a motorcycle.
Judge Schaumann has not ruled on Mr. Bronson's request.

Mr. Bronson was one of the attorneys who won a settlement in 1992
with companies that handled dioxin in Times Beach, where more than
2,000 residents were evacuated after the industrial waste product
was found on town roads.

It was that victory that sparked his first lawsuit against the
smelter.  Brenda Browning called him after learning of the
settlement.  She grew up in Herculaneum and started her own family
in the house where she grew up, about a block from the smelter.
"It was a nuisance, but growing up in Herky, you were told and
believed that if you didn't work at the plant, there was no harm,"
said Browning, who now lives in Festus.  Doe Run has since bought
her old home and demolished it.

In the early 1990s, when her three children were young, she asked
her pediatrician whether she should have their blood tested for
lead.  When the doctor asked where she lived and she told him
Herculaneum, the doctor told her to move, Ms. Browning said.
She called the smelter to complain when her children's eyes
watered because of the dirty air and she found dead birds in her
yard.  But nothing happened. She sued in 1995 and got a settlement
in 2010.

Her kids all had elevated levels of lead in their blood and
required tutors to help them in school, she said.

Ms. Browning, now 51, said she was made to feel like she was to
blame for living so close to the smelter.

"In those simple times, we didn't question things," she said.
"The information wasn't out there like it is nowadays."


EL PASO NATURAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.M. Claims in Royalties Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Natural Gas Company is asking an Oklahoma court to dismiss
royalty underpayment claims relating to shallow wells in New
Mexico, 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 Company is a named defendant, along with Burlington Resources,
Inc., now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips Company, in a class
action lawsuit styled Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural
Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P., filed in
October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma
asserting royalty underpayment claims related to specified shallow
wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. The Plaintiffs assert
that royalties were underpaid starting in the 1980s when the
purchase price of gas was lowered below the Natural Gas Policy Act
maximum lawful prices.  The Plaintiffs have only alleged an amount
of damages against the Company's co-defendant, Burlington.  The
Company believes that its actions in the 1980s were proper in
light of a declining market.  It also contends that it is entitled
to an indemnity from Burlington under its 1992 separation
agreement for all claims related to royalty payments, which
Burlington denies.  The Plaintiffs assert that royalties were
further underpaid by Burlington as a result of post-production
cost deductions taken starting in the late 1990s.  The Company has
no liability for the post-production claims as they pertain to
periods after its separation from Burlington.  This action was
transferred to Washita County District Court in 2004.  A tentative
settlement reached in November 2005 was rejected by the court in
June 2007.  A class certification hearing occurred in April 2009.
The court certified a Texas and Oklahoma class of royalty owners
and stayed the claims pertaining to New Mexico wells.  The class
certification was upheld by the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, and a
petition for review was denied by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  The
Plaintiffs have proceeded with discovery of the post-production
claims against Burlington.  The Defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the New Mexico claims because of a pending New Mexico
class action covering the same claims.  The Company's costs and
legal exposure related to this lawsuit are not currently
determinable.

El Paso Natural Gas Company's primary business consists of the
interstate transportation and storage of natural gas.  The Company
conducts its business activities through its natural gas pipeline
systems and a storage facility.  The Company is based in Houston,
Texas.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Overdraft Fees Suit Still Pending in Lake County
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against FirstMerit Corporation and its
banking unit, FirstMerit Bank, N.A., relating to overdraft fees
remains pending in the Lake County Court of Common Plea, 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.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Plea against the Corporation and the Bank. The
complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions.  The lawsuit that had been
filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without
prejudice on July 11, 2011.  The remaining suit in Lake County
seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive
damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

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

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Suit Over Improper Interest Calculation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against FirstMerit Corp.'s subsidiary
relating to improper interest calculation 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.

The lawsuit was filed in August 2008 in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Bank, N.A.  The breach of
contract complaint was brought as a putative class action on
behalf of Ohio commercial borrowers who had allegedly had the
interest they owed calculated improperly by using the 365/360
method.  The complaint seeks actual damages, interest, injunctive
relief and attorney fees.

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

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Faces Indirect Lending Class Action Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation and its banking subsidiary, FirstMerit
Bank, N.A., are facing a class action complaint relating to the
Bank's role as indirect lender in the purchase of motor vehicles
in Ohio by certain individuals, 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 April 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against
the Corporation and Bank.  The complaint was brought as a putative
class action on behalf of all persons who purchased a motor
vehicle in Ohio from an Ohio motor vehicle dealer, which purchase
and sale was financed by the Bank.  The lawsuit alleges a
violation of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman
Act, breach of common law of agency, a violation of the Ohio
Retail Installment Sales Act and a violation of the federal Truth
in Lending Act.  The complaint seeks disgorgement of fees, treble
damages, interest and attorney fees.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstMerit Corporation --
http://www.firstmerit.com/-- operates as a bank holding company
for FirstMerit Bank, N.A. that provides various banking,
fiduciary, financial, insurance, and investment services to
corporate, institutional, and individual customers.  The Company
was founded in 1855.


FORD MOTOR: Dismissal of Class Cert. Bid in Calif. Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a California antitrust suit against Ford Motors
Company appealed a state court decision dismissing a motion for
class certification, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

About 83 purported class actions have been filed in various state
and federal courts against numerous defendants, including Ford, on
behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the United
States since January 1, 2001.  The complaints allege, among other
things, that vehicle manufacturers, aided by dealer associations,
conspired to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles
produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada at
lower prices than vehicles sold in the United States.  The
complaints seek injunctive relief under federal antitrust law and
treble damages under federal and state antitrust laws.  The
federal actions were consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
and have been dismissed.  Cases remain pending in state courts in
Florida, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.  In California,
where a statewide class had been certified, the court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment; plaintiffs have now filed
an appeal of the dismissal.


FORD MOTOR: Ohio App. Ct. Overturns $2BB Damages Award in Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court altered a lower court order awarding about
$2 billion in damages to plaintiffs in a medium/heavy truck sales
procedure class action against Ford Motor Company, 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 action pending in the Ohio state court system alleges that the
Company breached its Sales and Service Agreement with Ford truck
dealers by failing to publish to all Ford dealers all price
concessions that were approved for any dealer.  The trial court
certified a nationwide class consisting of all Ford dealers who
purchased from Ford any 600-series or higher truck from 1987 to
1997, and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
liability.  In February 2011, the jury awarded $4.5 million in
damages to the named plaintiff dealer.  In June 2011, the trial
court applied the jury's findings with regard to the named
plaintiff to all dealers in the class, entering a judgment of
approximately $2 billion in damages (comprised of about $800
million in damages, and $1.2 billion in pre-judgment interest).
The trial court also denied the Company's motion to decertify the
class.

The Company appealed, and on May 3, 2012, the Ohio Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to
plaintiffs, vacated the damages award, and remanded the matter for
a new trial.  Plaintiffs may request review by the state supreme
court.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Certifies Copyright Infringement Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge has certified a class action that claims Google failed to
get permission before copying and digitizing works still under
copyright.

In a 2005 complaint, the Authors Guild claimed that Google had
reproduced in-copyright books, distributed them to libraries and
excerpted those works for online search results.  Claiming that
Google was "engaging in massive copyright infringement," the
representative authors sought class certification.

Google has scanned more than 12 million books since 2004, when it
made an agreement to digitize works from major research libraries,
according to that complaint, which says many of those books are
still under copyright.

Several publishers also sued Google independently.

After three years of negotiations, Google, the authors and the
publishers reached a much-disputed settlement.

Rejecting approval of that deal, United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit Judge Denny Chin called it "an attempt to
use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking
business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the
court."  Judge Chin heard the case in the Southern District of New
York by designation.

Google was hit with another class action in 2010, this time from
individual photographers and graphic artists joined by the
American Society of Media Photographers and other professional
associations of photographers.  This complaint claimed that Google
had also infringed on their copyrights by reproducing their visual
works in digitized books.

Though Google had asked the court to dismiss the associations as
plaintiffs for lack of standing, Judge Chin refused last week.

Neither their claims for copyright infringement nor the sought-
after injunction requires each individual association member to
participate in the lawsuit, the judge found.

Copyright holders will not have to prove their ownership
individually, because copyright information is available publicly,
Judge Chin wrote.  What's more, Google does not dispute that it
copied millions of original works without the copyright holders'
permission.

Some members who still receive royalties despite having
transferred their copyrights may have to prove that they retain
interest in their works, but this degree of individual
participation does not defeat associational standing, the order
states.

Judge Chin noted that forcing authors to sue individually would be
"burdensome and inefficient," especially since the associations
seek only injunctive relief against Google.

"Furthermore, 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,"
Judge Chin wrote.  "When Google copied works, it did not conduct
an inquiry into the copyright ownership of each work; nor did it
conduct an individualized evaluation as to whether posting
'snippets' of a particular work would constitute 'fair use.' It
copied and made search results available en masse.  Google cannot
now turn the tables and ask the court to require each copyright
holder to come forward individually and assert rights in a
separate action."

Judge Chin certified the proposed class, noting that it is likely
to include thousands of authors.

He rejected Google's argument that the class does not adequately
represent all authors, some of whom may perceive Google's copying
of their work as a benefit.

"Indeed, Google has not pointed to any legal or factual argument
made by the lead plaintiffs that would undermine the copyright
claim of any other class member," Judge Chin wrote.

"Second, that some class members may prefer to leave the alleged
violation of their rights unremedied is not a basis for finding
the lead plaintiffs inadequate."

A copy of the Opinion in The Authors Guild, et al., v. Google,
Inc., Case No. 05-cv-08136 (S.D.N.Y.), and in American Society of
Media Photographers, et al. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-02977
(S.D.N.Y.), is available at http://is.gd/8Nxy9V


INDIANA: Sued Over Sexual Offender Networking Site Ban
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Montaldo, writing for About.com, reports that the American
Civil Liberties Union of Indiana (ACLU) has filed a class-action
suit against the law banning registered sex offenders from using
social networking sites like Facebook.  According to the ACLU, the
law was designed to protect children from online predators, but it
also goes against the sexual offenders' First Amendment rights of
communication.

ACLU attorney Ken Falk argued that the 2008 state law is outdated
and to ban sex offenders usage of sites like Facebook, Twitter and
LinkedIn prevents them from being able to use these sites for
communications for business, politics and religion.

Mr. Falk also argued that with a law already making it a crime to
use the Internet for the purpose of sexual gratification with a
child, that the social networking ban is not necessary.

Indiana Deputy Attorney General David Arthur defended the law by
pointing out that social networking sites are not the only forms
of communication and that the ban does not include e-mail,
messaging or Internet forums.  It only bans social networking
sites where children are allowed access.

"We still have television.  We still have radios.  And believe it
or not, people still talk face-to-face," argued Mr. Arthur.


INTEL CORP: Still Defends Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging unfair trade practices, 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.

At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern
District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska,
District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee
state courts. These actions generally repeat the allegations made
in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel by Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (AMD litigation).  Like the AMD litigation,
these class-action suits allege that Intel engaged in various
actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among
other things, providing discounts and rebates to the Company's
manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or
near-exclusive dealings that allegedly unfairly interfered with
AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors, interfering with
certain AMD product launches, and interfering with AMD's
participation in certain industry standards-setting groups.  The
class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that
consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher
prices for computers containing the Company's microprocessors.
The Company disputes the class-action claims and intends to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings).  The Delaware district court has appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court.  In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for the Company's alleged failure to
preserve evidence.  This motion largely copies a motion previously
filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The
plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of
a class of members who purchased certain PCs containing products
sold by Intel.  In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report
and Recommendation (Class Report) denying the motion to certify a
class.  The MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special
Master's Class Report, and a hearing on these objections was held
in March 2011.  The Delaware district court has not yet ruled on
those objections.  All California class actions have been
consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara
County.  The plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for
class certification, which the Company is in the process of
opposing.  At the Company's request, the court in the California
actions has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the
Delaware district court rules on the similar motion in the MDL
proceedings.  Based on the procedural posture and the nature of
the cases, including, but not limited to, the fact that the
Special Master's Class Report is on review in the Delaware
district court, the Company is are unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from these matters.

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

Intel Corporation -- http://www.intel.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and sells integrated digital technology platforms
primarily in the Asia-Pacific, the Americas, Europe, and Japan.
The company offers microprocessors that process system data and
controls other devices in the system; and chipsets, which sends
data between the microprocessor and input, display, and storage
devices, such as keyboard, mouse, monitor, hard drive or solid-
state drive, and CD, DVD, or Blu-ray drives; system-on-chip
products that integrate its processing functions with other system
components, including graphics, audio, and video onto a single
chip; wired network connectivity products; and wireless
connectivity products. It also provides mobile phone components
comprising baseband processors, radio frequency transceivers, and
power management integrated circuits; and mobile phone platforms,
such as Bluetooth wireless technology and GPS receivers, software
solutions, customization, and interoperability tests.  Intel
Corporation was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


ITT CORP: Still Pursues Lawsuit Vs. Travelers Casualty
------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation and its subsidiary continue to pursue their
lawsuit against insurer Travelers Casualty and Surety, 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 January 2012, ITT and Goulds Pumps Inc. filed a putative class
action against Travelers Casualty and Surety, alleging that
Travelers is unilaterally reinterpreting language contained in
older Aetna policies so as to avoid paying on asbestos claims.
The Company says it continues to negotiate settlement agreements
with other insurers, where appropriate.

ITT Corporation -- http://www.itt.com/-- designs and manufactures
engineered critical components and customized technology solutions
for energy infrastructure, electronics, aerospace, and
transportation industries.  The Company operates in four segments:
Industrial Process, Motion Technologies, Interconnect Solutions,
and Control Technologies.  ITT Corporation was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in White Plains, New York.


JOS A BANK: Faces Class Action Over Merchandise Sale Price
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Wolak, writing for Citybizlist, reports that a class action
complaint has been filed against JoS. A. Bank alleging that the
retailer's merchandise is "perpetually on sale and the sale price
is actually the price at which the merchandise is regularly
offered."

James Waldron and Matthew Villani, both from New Jersey, filed the
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey (Case 2:33-av-00001).

JoS. A. Bank Clothiers said in a regulatory filing that it intends
to "defend this lawsuit vigorously."

Citybizlist procured the court document and has excerpted a few
blurbs of the accusation:

The suit claims that:

- "Jos. A. Bank's misleading, inaccurate and deceptive marketing
cultivates the perception that consumer (sic) are being offered a
discount from the Company's regular prices when, in fact, they are
not.  Plaintiffs and the Class were intended to and did rely upon
Jos. A. Bank's representations when they purchased Jos. A. Bank
merchandise. Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased
Jos. A. Bank merchandise, or would have paid significantly less
for the merchandise, if Jos. A. Bank had not represented that the
merchandise had a "regular price" that was well above the "sale"
price.  As a result, Jos. A. Bank has handsomely profited from its
misrepresentations to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class
..."

- "Jos. A. Bank uses this method of advertising knowing that
consumers would rely on the misrepresentation that the Company's
merchandise is on sale, creating a false sense of urgency to
purchase Jos. A. Bank's merchandise.  Accordingly, Jos. A. Bank's
advertisements and promotions to sell its merchandise are
perpetually false and misleading."

- "Each advertised sale is described as being of a limited
duration, thus creating the false impression that the price of the
merchandise will increase back to the 'regular price' if a
consumer does not make a purchase by the end of the sale.  To
increase a consumer's sense of urgency about the expiration of the
sale, Jos. A. Bank's advertisements use expressions such as 'Final
Day!', '2 Days Only!', 'Monday & Tuesday Only!', 'Today Only!',
'1-Day Only!', 'Final Hours!', etc.  As a result, consumers are
misled into believing that the 'sale' is a limited time event.
However, there are no 'final days' to sales offered by Jos. A.
Bank, as the Company places merchandise back "on sale" immediately
after a given sale ends."

Mr. Waldron asserts that he would not have:

- "purchased Jos. A. Bank merchandise during the Class Period.  At
the time of his purchase, Jos. A. Bank marketed, advertised and
promoted its merchandise as being 'on sale.'  However, in contrast
to the manner in which Jos. A. Bank merchandise was marketed,
advertised and promoted, the merchandise purchased by Mr. Waldron
was not 'on sale,' and the regular price was not the actual price
of the merchandise, as represented.  As a result of Jos. A. Bank's
misleading, and/or inaccurate, and/or deceptive marketing,
advertising and promotion of its merchandise, Mr. Waldron suffered
an ascertainable loss.  Had Jos. A. Bank informed Mr. Waldron at
the time of his purchase that the merchandise he purchased was not
'on sale,' and that the merchandise did not have a 'regular price'
that was well above the 'sale' price.  He would not have purchased
the merchandise or would have paid substantially less for the
merchandise that he purchased."

Matthew Villani makes the same assertion in the complaint.

They both indicate:

- "Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased Jos. A. Bank
merchandise, or would have paid significantly less for the
merchandise, if Jos. A. Bank had not represented that the
merchandise had a 'regular price' that was well above the 'sale'
price.  As a result, Jos. A. Bank has handsomely profited from its
misrepresentations to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class .
. ."


MF GLOBAL: Liquidation Trustee To Pursue Claims
-------------------------------------------------
James W. Giddens, the Trustee for the liquidation of MF Global
Inc., on June 4 filed a report on his independent investigation
into the failure of the broker-dealer with the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, the
Honorable Martin Glenn, presiding.

"As attempts were made to transform MF Global into a full-service
global investment bank, management failed to add to its Treasury
Department and technology infrastructure, which was needed to meet
the demands on global money management and liquidity," Mr. Giddens
said.  "My investigation has concluded that management's actions,
along with the lack of sufficient monitoring and systems, resulted
in customer property being used during the liquidity crisis to
fund the extraordinary liquidity drains elsewhere in the business,
including margin calls on European sovereign debt positions."

"In light of these conclusions, I have determined there may be
valid claims against individuals and entities.  In my capacity as
Trustee, I will make every effort to ensure that such claims
result in the greatest possible returns to customers in an
efficient and fair manner, whether those claims are pursued by my
office or others," Mr. Giddens said.

The Trustee's findings in the report are based on his counsel's
interviews of more than one hundred people, along with review of
hundreds of thousands of documents, and an extensive forensic
investigation conducted with the assistance of forensic
accountants at Ernst & Young LLP.

Because the Trustee does not have law enforcement or regulatory
authority, the report draws no conclusions about possible criminal
liability or whether sanctionable regulatory violations occurred.
The Trustee has been cooperating with the various law enforcement
and regulatory agencies investigating MF Global's collapse and
does not wish to impede those efforts.

CAUSES OF ACTION

The Trustee has concluded that valid claims may be asserted
against certain individuals and entities.  He will use his efforts
to pursue these claims, either through litigation or negotiation,
or to support the pursuit of these claims by others to recover
customer property in accordance with his goal to return as much
customer property as possible.  The Trustee expects, in light of
progress in negotiations, further consultation with customer
representatives, and legal analysis, to reach decisions about
commencing most major litigation to recover customer property
within 60 days.

The Trustee is working diligently and expeditiously in the pursuit
of potential claims:

DIRECTORS & OFFICERS: The Trustee believes that claims, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, may be
asserted against former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine, former MF
Global CFO Henri Steenkamp, and former MF Global Assistant
Treasurer Edith O'Brien, among others.  The Trustee is already
consulting with commodities' customers' class action counsel about
actions against officers and directors and other employees, and
the Trustee has also communicated with relevant insurers.

JPMORGAN CHASE: The Trustee is engaged in discussions with
JPMorgan Chase (JPM) with respect to transfers that the Trustee
believes may be voidable or otherwise recoverable.  JPM has
cooperated with the Trustee's investigation, and the Trustee has
announced publicly that he is engaged in active discussions with
JPM with respect to these matters.  In the event these discussions
do not result in an agreement, the Trustee, if appropriate, will
commence litigation.  To date, JPM has returned approximately
$89.2 million in customer property and $518.4 million in non-
segregated unallocated MF Global Inc. assets, subject to certain
reservations of JPM's security interest in such funds.  This sum
includes $168.1 million in funds representing the proceeds of
excess collateral that JPM held at the commencement of MF Global
Inc.'s liquidation, which will be subject to an appropriate
allocation.

30.7 FUNDS: Legal proceedings are underway in the U.K. to restore
property that was or should have been segregated for customers
trading on U.K. and other foreign exchanges.  A procedural
hearing, the first before the U.K. Court, was held this past
Friday, in part setting the schedule for this litigation.

The report explains that the Trustee does not believe, based on
his investigation and his counsel's analysis, that there are
likely to be sound bases for pursuing claims against non-insider
customers for return of accounts.

The Trustee, in his efforts to preserve his negotiating position,
cannot comment on the details of the potential causes of action
that may be available to him or to others to restore customer
property.

MF GLOBAL INC. ESTATE

The current gap between the value of allowable commodities claims
and the assets that are under the Trustee's control continues to
be approximately $1.6 billion, consisting of an approximate $900
million deficiency in domestic accounts (both commodities and
securities) and an approximate $700 million deficiency related to
trades by customers on foreign exchanges (30.7 funds).

The Trustee's goal remains a 100 percent return of property to all
public commodities and securities customers.  The Trustee has
determined that the elimination of the shortfall and the
possibility of a 100 percent return of property to all public
commodities customers will require a combination of three material
developments: first, successful recovery of funds in the U.K.
proceedings; second, recoveries, if available, through litigation
and negotiation with third parties; and third, allocation of non-
segregated property to the pools of customer property pursuant to
the Securities Investor Protection Act and the Commodities
Exchange Act, and the regulations thereunder.

At this time, the Trustee continues to expect that the prospects
for substantial dividends to general unsecured creditors are low.

DETAILED ACCOUNTING OF MF GLOBAL'S DEMISE

The Trustee's report provides extensive details about the factors
that led to MF Global Inc.'s demise, the nature of the liquidity
crisis and flow of funds and transactions in the last week of MF
Global Inc.'s existence, and the circumstances surrounding the
invasion of customer property.

The investigation shows that MF Global's business dramatically
changed after Jon Corzine took over as CEO and Chairman of the
Board of MF Global Holdings in March 2010.  The company moved from
being a modest customer and proprietary security business into a
full-service global investment bank, with new lines of business
that increased demands for daily liquidity.  Despite the increased
demands on global money management and liquidity, the firm's
Treasury Department did not expand or modernize and the firm never
implemented systems or tools for accurate real-time monitoring of
liquidity.  The firm often tracked liquidity and ability to
transfer funds by informal means that were derived from several
different reports, both computerized and oral.

Under the personal direction of Corzine, MF Global began trading
European sovereign debt securities.  Those investments peaked at
nearly $7 billion in October 2011, and the exposure was more than
four-and-a-half times the firm's total equity -- a level of risk
that was orders of magnitude greater than the relative exposure at
other, larger institutions.

The Trustee's investigation shows that a risk analysis conducted
by MF Global in September and October 2011 examined the likely
sources of losses and demands for funding if the company suffered
a significant financial disaster, including a downgrade, but
seriously underestimated both the speed and extent of demands on
liquidity.  The total underestimating was between $600 million and
$1 billion, which was the approximate amount of customer funds
released from segregation and not returned during the final days
of the firm's operation.

The investigation found that a customer "run on the bank" and
unwinds of repo counterparty and proprietary positions, all within
a three-day time period, overwhelmed MF Global, which one former
MF Global executive called the "liquidity asphyxiation" of the
company.

During the last week of MF Global's existence, as intraday
transfers significantly increased, there was a panic regarding
segregation compliance within MF Global's Treasury Department.  If
customer funds had been properly protected, those funds should
have been largely, if not completely, unaffected by the liquidity
crisis.  Instead, those funds were used to fund MF Global's
liquidity needs in at least the latter part of the week of October
24th, ultimately resulting in the firm reporting that there was an
approximately $952 million shortfall in segregated funds.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The report also includes a discussion of the Trustee's
recommendations for legislative, regulatory or other reforms that
might help avert similar liquidations in the future, or at least
alleviate their consequences:

Abolish the alternative calculation method and implement a
requirement to segregate an amount in excess of 100% of customer
funds.

Eliminate the segregated versus secured distinction in Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Regulation 30.7, ensure
consistency of customer protection when trading overseas, and
monitor compliance abroad closely.

Create a protection fund for futures and commodities customers
under a certain threshold, and implement suitability standards for
customers of Futures Commission Merchants (FCMs).

Provide for civil liability for officers and directors in the
event of a commodities segregation shortfall.

Consider simplifying some CFTC rules for bulk transfers and claims
in an FCM liquidation proceeding.

Enact legislation explicitly authorizing Trustee standing on
behalf of customers.

INTERIM REPORT AND FEES

The Trustee on June 4 also filed with the Bankruptcy Court an
interim report on claims processing and fee applications for his
legal counsel.

The Trustee has now determined virtually all commodity claims and
will, to the extent possible, shortly commence making interim
distributions authorized by the Bankruptcy Court to both 4d
commodity customers and 30.7 commodity customers.  Most retail
claimants have agreed to the determinations made by the Trustee.
The primary objections are for claims filed by administrators or
trustees for MF Global entities, including MF Global UK Ltd. and
MF Global Holdings Ltd., which represents primarily banks and bond
holder creditors, the largest of which is JPMorgan Chase.  These
objections will be heard by the Bankruptcy Court, and the Trustee
must continue to hold sufficient reserves until these objections
are resolved.  The Trustee is working expeditiously to resolve
objections and will seek to make interim distributions while
maintaining a sufficient reserve.

The Trustee also filed a motion with the Court for approval of
counsel's fees through February 2012, which total approximately
$17 million.

The Trustee's investigative report and interim report are
available on the Trustee's Web site at
http://www.MFGlobalTrustee.com


NAC MARKETING: Sued Over False Claims on Testosterone Supplement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NAC Marketing dba New
Vitality's Ageless Male supplement does not boost testosterone
levels in men by upwards of 50 percent as advertised, a class
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Brackett v. Rosenstein, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-02775 (E.D.N.Y.) (Wexler, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/04/male.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
                  cmarlborough@faruqilaw.com


NEW YORK, NY: DOC Sued Over Excessive Jail Violence
---------------------------------------------------
Graham Rayman, writing for The Village Voice, reports that city
Correction Department has been hit with a new very toughly worded
class action lawsuit alleging a program of excessive violence by
correction staff on inmates throughout the jail system.

Eleven inmates allege that they were severely beaten by correction
staff, including Mark Nunez who claims he was maced, struck
repeatedly with a radio, stripped and taunted, for intervening in
a dispute.

"Members of the uniformed staff regularly apply unnecessary,
excessive, and injurious force to beat inmates under circumstances
where, at most, some minimal, non-injurious restraint may have
been justified to control the inmates," the lawsuit claims.

Rodney Brye was knocked unconscious while handcuffed in one
incident, and suffered spinal injuries.  Today, Mr. Brye can't
walk without limping and can't run at all, the lawsuit claims.

Shameik Smallwood was taken to a room with no video cameras in a
headlock, handcuffed, and beaten by four staffers, while a captain
looked on.  He suffered a badly broken nose which required facial
surgery.

Travis Woods was beaten badly, and then threatened in the medical
clinic by staffers who didn't want him to disclose the beating or
the extent of his injuries, the lawsuit claims.  He was finally
diagnosed with a perforated eardrum, among other injuries.

There's more, but you get the picture.

Perhaps most troublingly, the lawsuit, filed by Legal Aid's
Prisoners Rights Project and two private law firms, charges that
rather than firing or demoting offending officers, they were
rewarded with promotions; some to the highest echelons of the
department, including Chief Carmine LaBruzzo.  Between 1996 and
2003, Mr. LaBruzzo was charged in six use of force incidents.  He
was promoted and is now the second-ranking uniformed department
official.

Defendant Eric Ramos was a captain at a jail in 2002, where he
allegedly lured an inmate out of his cell and ordered officers to
assault him.  He was then promoted to deputy warden, and
transferred to the central punitive segregation unit, where the
most violent inmates are held.  Since that transfer, the lawsuit
claims, the level of unnecessary force by staff has increased
dramatically.

Defendant Mark Scott was a security captain in the CPSU in 1997,
where he beat an inmate and tried to cover up the incident.  He
was suspended for 42 days, but was then promoted to Assistant
Chief of Security for the entire department.

There have been five previous class action lawsuits filed about
the DOC.  This lawsuit, the sixth, claims that once a consent
decree, which had helped reduce staff on inmate violence, was
lifted several years ago, things got worse.

While the introduction of video cameras in the system was supposed
to stem the violence, the lawsuit claims that staff often take
inmates to areas where there are no cameras and beat them there,
naked and handcuffed.

The document cites settlements totaling about $5 million dollars
since 2002 in which inmates were severely injured by correction
staff.

As for the top officials in DOC including Commissioner Dora
Schriro, Investigations boss Florence Finkle, Labruzzo, Scott and
Chief of Department Hourihane, "Their failure to take measures to
curb this pattern of brutality constitutes deliberate indifference
to the rights and safety of the inmates in their care and
custody," the lawsuit claims.

Ms. Finkle, the lawsuit claims, "has taken no meaningful steps to
address these deplorable facts repeatedly brought to her
attention," the lawsuit claims.  She systematically fails to
conduct meaningful investigations into DOC uses of force.  When
her office does investigate, it fails to follow guidelines and
shows bias in favor of officers' accounts.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit claims, that staff routinely falsify
documents or lie to cover up the beatings.  They also threaten
inmates to keep their mouths shut.

So, what does Correction Commissioner Dora Schriro think about the
lawsuit? Correction Department spokeswoman Sharman Stein said, "To
suggest, much less allege, that the department condones improper
uses of force in any way ignores the reality of the Department's
many actions to the contrary."

She went on to suggest that the 11 incidents cited in the
complaints are not evidence of a systematic program of condoning
guard abuse.


NEWS CORP: Faces New Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that
News Corp. has been hit with another shareholder lawsuit.  A new
proposed class action in Delaware court comes from a Swedish
pension firm that wants to enjoin the company from suspending half
of the voting rights of its non-American shareholders.  The
company announced the changes in April in an effort to come into
compliance with the Federal Communications Act limiting foreign
investor ownership in broadcast stations to 25 percent.  The
shareholders suing insist the move was really made for the benefit
of the Murdochs.


PARK JEFFERSON: Fire Victims File Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Jeff Harrell, writing for SouthBendTribune.com, reports that Park
Jefferson residents were not warned of deficient electrical wiring
and other dangerous conditions that existed at Park Jefferson
before fire destroyed their apartments, a lawsuit claims.

The class-action suit, filed May 21 in St. Joseph Circuit Court on
behalf of 17 former Park Jefferson residents, also contends that
losing everything in the Jan. 6 blaze caused Ashley Lear to commit
suicide the next day.

"Ashley N. Lear was in a weakened and vulnerable psychological
state at the time of the fire," Peter J. Agostino, attorney for
the Park Jefferson fire victims, charged in the "wrongful death"
portion of the complaint.  "The fire had a serious impact on her
as she had to watch all her belongings burn up."

Since 2003 eight major fires have hit the Park Jefferson complex,
which is home to about 2,000 people.

The blaze Jan. 6 destroyed all 24 units in one building while the
residents escaped without anyone being injured.

Park Jefferson's managers reacted to the Jan. 6 fire by sending a
letter to residents outlining intentions to make improvements at
the complex.  The letter was issued one day after Park Jefferson's
management met with city officials to mull over how future blazes
could be prevented.

"The city wants the building to be safer, the owners want the
building to be safer," Mayor Pete Buttigieg told The Tribune in
January.  "We've just got to make sure they have all the advice
they need to get it done."

Approached at the rental office on May 31, a manager at Park
Jefferson said, "We aren't allowed to talk about" the suit.

While Park Jefferson's managers met with city officials in
February, victims of the Jan. 6 blaze gathered with Mr. Agostino
to discuss a potential class-action suit.

The result is a three-count suit seeking "an amount sufficient to
compensate them for their losses, for costs of this action and for
all other just and proper relief."

"We don't have a specific dollar amount," Mr. Agostino says.  "It
will be up to the ultimate finder of fact on calculating what
would be appropriate compensation."

Under the first count -- "Complaint For Damages" -- the names of
the 17 residents and their Park Jefferson addresses are listed.

Tammy Thielke, the mother of Ashley Lear, is listed as the
personal representative of her daughter's estate.

"Park Jefferson knew of the dangerous condition that existed at
the apartment complex as other fires have occurred there in the
past," the suit alleges, listing several "dangerous conditions"
that existed at the complex, including "improper, inadequate,
overloaded, and otherwise deficient wiring; deficient fire walls;
and other hazards."

The first count also maintains that "Park Jefferson . . . owed a
duty to its tenants to exercise due care in warning its patrons of
the danger that existed.  These dangerous conditions made the
premises untenable."

In Count II, the residents seek damages for "Infliction of
Emotional Distress."

"As a result of the negligence of Park Jefferson and the breach of
its duty, plaintiffs have suffered emotional trauma and
psychological injuries," the suit claims.

"These injuries occurred as a result of the impact of the fire. .
. . The gross impact of the fire has had a serious impact on the
plaintiff and in the case of Ashley N. Lear contributed to cause
her death."

Ms. Lear, 24, suffered from long-standing depression before the
blaze that destroyed her apartment and wiped out all of her
belongings.

The morning after the Jan. 6 fire, Lear, a mother of two small
children, took a lethal overdose of pain medication prescribed to
her for a degenerative back problem.

"Her losing everything in the fire definitely didn't help
anything," Ms. Thielke says. "I know how distraught my daughter
was when she called me that morning as she sat there with her two
children watching everything she had going up in flames."

Ms. Thielke admits to being concerned for her daughter's safety
knowing Park Jefferson's history of fires.

"I knew they had had fires," she says.  "I was under the
impression they were doing stuff to help prevent that.  I figured
they were taking steps so that it wouldn't happen again."

Mr. Agostino says there is "no specific formula" to putting a
dollar value on the loss of a mother to her two small children --
damages of which the suit is seeking in its wrongful death claim.

"We try to measure the value of loss of services and care of
companionship she would have provided for her children," Mr.
Agostino says, "then try to come up with a dollar figure for loss
of love.

"The theory," Mr. Agostino maintains, "is that given the pre-
existing condition, that this final event may have pushed this
girl to the edge."


ROYAL CANADIAN: 170 Officers May Join Harassment Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Geddes, writing for NewsTalk650, reports that the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police are under growing allegations of internal
harassment but at least one former officer insists the problem
isn't with initial training.

RCMP members from across the country are coming together in
lawsuits that allege wide spread bullying and sexual harassment
between officers.

One of those victims is also coming to the aid of Regina's Depot
Division saying the behavior she witnessed was never tolerated in
training.

Heli Kijanen quit from her post at a detachment in Saskatchewan
last year.  She alleges the constant bullying from her co-workers
had her thinking about taking her own life.

She's working on a class action lawsuit about her experience
afterward and says 170 other officers have shown an interest in
joining.

"I worked my ass off to get that badge and it makes me sad and it
makes me sick to my stomach," Ms. Kijanen commented.

Ms. Kijanen says her time in Regina at Depot division was just
about the only positive experience in her short career because she
never found such behavior was acceptable there.

"I don't think that Depot in Regina has an issue," she said.

Canadians are about to learn further details of exactly what
Ms. Kijanen and others went through while working at detachments
across the country as these lawsuits make their way through the
courts.

Ms. Kijanen cautioned people not to judge everyone involved with
RCMP.

"There are RCMP members out there who are doing an awesome job
because you can't paint them all with the same brush," she said.


TOYS R US: Faces Class Action in California Over Coupon Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toys R Us offers a coupon
that promises a "free" gift card worth a set amount, while
concealing that it will not refund the full purchase price of
products purchased with the gift card in the event of a return, a
class claims in court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lewan v. Toys "R" US, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CIV514347 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/04/tuysrus.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David C. Parisi, Esq.
         Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
         Azita Moradmad, Esq.
         PARISI & HAVENS LLP
         15233 Valleyheart Drive
         Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
         Telephone: (818) 990-1299
         E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
                 shavens@parisihavens.com
                 amoradmand@parisihavens.com

              - and -

         Joshua A. Gratch, Esq.
         GRATCH LAW GROUP
         1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200
         San Mateo, CA 94404
         Telephone: (650) 558-8729
         E-mail: jag@gratchlawgroup.com


VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Veolia Environnement on June 4 announced the dismissal of the
purported class action lawsuit filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In a letter addressed to the Court on May 25, 2012, counsel for
the lead plaintiffs informed the Court that, after careful
consideration of the facts and circumstances involved, the lead
plaintiffs have determined to voluntarily dismiss the action.
Judge Victor Marrero subsequently signed an order dismissing the
case.

The lawsuit was originally filed in December 28, 2011, and it was
subsequently consolidated with a second lawsuit filed on January
13, 2012.  The dismissal covers the consolidated lawsuit, and
therefore covers both of the lawsuits that were initially filed.


* Fraud Victims Urge Hong Kong Gov't. to Consider Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winnie Chong, writing for The Standard, reports that the
government has been urged to open the door to the filing of class
action suits as soon as possible.

Making the call was the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and
Progress of Hong Kong, which cited hundreds of complaints it
received in recent years about beauty parlors, modeling agencies,
vacation clubs and marketing companies.

The losses amounted to millions of dollars in total, while the
financial toll for individuals ranged from HK$4,500 to HK$200,000.

One of the complainants, a woman in her 20s surnamed Hui, claimed
she was not only conned out of HK$20,000 but also had salt rubbed
into her injury when billed for HK$10,000 in costs following the
dismissal of her case by the Small Claims Tribunal.

Ms. Hui was approached by a saleswoman in Tsim Sha Tsui to take
part in a modeling course a few years ago.

Ostensibly to prepare herself, she had to buy a facial package
costing HK$20,000, which she agreed to pay in installments over
two years.

When the deal soured, she sought help from the police and the
Consumer Council before going to the tribunal -- all without
success.

To make matters worse, she found the modeling agency had withdrawn
the HK$20,000 in full, claiming the agreement to pay in
installments was between Ms. Hui and her bank.

"Besides myself, there were several others who were misled or
cheated," Ms. Hui said, adding she is willing to cough up more
money to meet legal costs to ensure the injustice ends.

Ms. Hui said class action lawsuits will help as the legal costs
are shared among victims.

Another complainant, surnamed Ms. Chan, said she spent HK$10,000
on a vacation club membership but did not get any of the benefits
promised.

Ms. Chan accused the club of putting pressure on her to buy the
membership.

Elizabeth Quat Pui-fan, who leads women's affairs at the party,
said the cases are only the "tip of the iceberg."

Ms. Quat said her party was unable to satisfactorily resolve 413
complaints, leaving class action lawsuits as the best way forward,
as suggested by the Law Commission last week.

"Individuals are at a disadvantage in fighting corporations that
intend to cheat people.  Collective action is the only option,"
she said.

She also called on the authorities to amend the Pyramid Selling
Prohibition Ordinance to eliminate fraudulent multilevel marketing
activities and offer a cooling off period for prepaid services.

                           *********

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  * * *