CAR_Public/120611.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 11, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 114

                             Headlines

AIG DOMESTIC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, Bhowmik Files Class Action
ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Still Defends Fueling-Related Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Eden Faces Suit Over Choking Hazard Warnings
ALON HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Special Sales
ALON HOLDINGS: Mega Retail Defends Suit Over "Economy Packs"

ALON HOLDINGS: Overcharging Suit Parties Asked to File Pleadings
ALON HOLDINGS: Series A Debentures Suit in Conclusions Stage
ARCTIC GLACIER: Ontario Super. Court OKs Class Action Settlement
ARKANSAS: Lottery Commission Disputes Ticket Flaw Suit
AUSTRALIA: Subcontractors Asked to Join Suit v. NSW Gov't.

CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Forced Furlough
CATALINA RESTAURANT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
COMCAST: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data
CVS: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Employee Seats
DJSP ENTERPRISES: Ex-Shareholders File Revised Class Action

FACEBOOK INC: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
FANNIE MAE: Oral Arguments on Motions for Summary Judgment Begin
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Time to Appeal Class Settlement Order Open
HILTON LAX: Settles Wage & Missed Breaks Class Action for $2.5MM
IDAHO: Tribe to Get $60 Million in Settlement Money

IMPERIAL TOBACCO: CEO Testifies in C$27BB Tobacco Class Action
JP MORGAN: Settles Bid-Rigging Class Action Suit for $44MM
KNOLOGY INC: Shareholders Sue Over Proposed WideOpenWest Sale
KRAFT FOODS: Faces Wage and Hour Violations Suit in California
LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Sued Over Discriminatory Arrests

MAXIMUM RETURN: Smidi Must Pay $5.6MM in Alleged Ponzi Scheme
NATIONWIDE COIN: Sued in California for False Advertising
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Awaits Updates on Tiptree-Related Suit
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Against Sager Litigation
SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Antitrust Violations

TD AMERITRADE: Pleas to Dismiss Suit Over Yield Plus Fund Pending
TREX CO: Class Suit Over Mold Growth Pending in Calif.
WEST MARINE: Recalls 1,200 Folding Chairs Due to Collapse Hazard
WHOLE FOODS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Class Action
ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION: Sued Over "All Natural" Nutrition Bars


                          *********

AIG DOMESTIC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, Bhowmik Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Employment Lawyers Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class
action lawsuit against AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. and Chartis
Claims, Inc. on June 1, 2012, alleging that the company failed to
pay the salaried workers' compensation hearing representatives
overtime pay even though these employees worked in excess of 8
hours in a workday and more than 40 hours in a workweek.
Gallardo, et al. v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. and Chartis Claims,
Inc., Case No. 30-2012-00573906-CU-OE-CXC is currently pending in
the Orange County Superior Court.

According to the wage and hour class action Complaint filed
against the workers' compensation service provider, Chartis
violated California overtime laws by failing to pay hearing
representatives for their overtime hours worked.  Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the hearing representatives regularly
worked 10 to 12 hours each workday without being compensated for
any of their overtime hours worked.  Under California law,
companies are required to pay all non-exempt employees overtime
compensation whenever the employees work more than eight hours in
a day or forty hours in a week.

In the opinion of the managing partner of the law firm, Norman B.
Blumenthal, "this illegal practice of misclassifying employees as
exempt from overtime wages strips workers of benefits and
protections, puts responsible employers at a competitive
disadvantage, and cheats taxpayers."  Mr. Blumenthal claims that
if the Courts would simply enforce overtime laws as Congress
intended, these rulings would create thousands of jobs in America
overnight.  "If the wage and hour laws were enforced by the
Courts, as, I think intended, corporations would hire more
employees to get the job done rather than pay fewer employees
overtime wages," says Mr. Blumenthal.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that focuses on salaried employee claims involving overtime
pay laws under the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards
Act.


ALON HOLDINGS: Dor Alon Still Defends Fueling-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action was lodged against Alon Holdings Blue Square -
Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd.,
and other fuel companies in December 2007.  The total amount of
the claim is NIS132 million (the subsidiary's share in this amount
is NIS8.8 million).  The claimant asserts that the defendants
charged each customer NIS2 for fueling on Saturdays and on
holidays.  Based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the
subsidiary's management believes that the chances of the claimant
would prevail in the claim are lower than 50%, and therefore did
not include a provision in its accounts for this matter.

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.


ALON HOLDINGS: Eden Faces Suit Over Choking Hazard Warnings
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is facing
a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of
regulations on choking hazard warning on 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 December 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company's 51%
subsidiary, Eden Briut Teva Market Ltd. ("Eden") and additional
food supplier, alleging that Eden and the additional food supplier
are violating the Public Health (Food) Order [new version], 5643-
1983 and its regulations, according to which certain products must
be marked with a choking hazard warning.  If the claim is approved
as a class action, the plaintiff claims it should apply to all
Eden customers that purchased products which should be marked as
aforementioned, including any customer who had bought such
products by way of bulk.  If the claim is approved as a class
action, the approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at
approximately NIS10 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: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Special Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is facing a purported
class action lawsuit alleging it misleads its customers with
respect to special sales for food products that are sliced or cut,
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 March 2012, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as a class action was filed against the Company, alleging
that it misleads its customers in special sales it holds regarding
food products that are sliced or cut to the customers' request,
and are priced per weight.  The plaintiff claims that the Company
does not provide full and correct details regarding the terms of
the special sales, violating requirements of the law in connection
with products marking and price display.  The plaintiff claims,
among other, that customers choosing to buy such products under
special sales with accordance to the Company's advertisements are
required to purchase not willingly an extra weight of the product,
for the full price.  If the Claim is approved as a class action,
the approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at
approximately NIS72 million.  The plaintiff further requests the
court to issue a decree ordering the Company to fulfill the
requirements of the law.  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: Mega Retail Defends Suit Over "Economy Packs"
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending
a purported class action lawsuit alleging it unjustly enriched
itself at the expense of the consumers by selling large packages
of goods which are labeled as "economy packs," but has not lowered
the price of the larger package, 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 July 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of
action as class action was filed against Mega Retail Ltd.,
claiming that Mega Retail has unjustly enriched itself at the
expense of the consumers by selling large packages of goods which
are labeled as "economy packs", but has not lowered the price of
the larger package, thus forcing the consumers to buy a more
expensive product instead of sufficing for an ordinary package.
The appellant argues that the financial damage incurred by all
class members is NIS15 million.  The appellant further argues that
the class suffered a non-monetary damage which it did not
quantify.  The court was also asked to issue an affirmative order
to instruct the respondent to price its products according to the
labeling as an "economy package".  In the opinion of the Company,
should it be obligated to pay any amount with regard to this
matter, it is not expected to be a material sum.  In the opinion
of the Company and its advisors, the provisions included in the
Company's financial statements are sufficient to cover the
potential liabilities.


ALON HOLDINGS: Overcharging Suit Parties Asked to File Pleadings
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court asked the parties of a purported class action
lawsuit initiated against a subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue
Square - Israel Ltd. to file their pleadings before their
compromise agreement is filed, 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 2009, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received a
statement of claim and an application for approval of the claim as
a class action; the claim was lodged against Dor Alon and other
fuel companies.  The claimant claims payment of damages of NIS124
million (Dor Alon's share in the said claim amount as per the
statement of claim is NIS21.9 million).  According to the
claimant, the defendants overcharged him for fuel when filling up
his car.  According to the claimant, after passing his debit card
but before starting to fill up, the payment meter started
operating without the provision of fuel.  The overcharge has
allegedly amounted at times to several Agorot and at times to
several NIS.  The parties have reached a compromise that was
rejected by court, and the court asked the parties to file their
pleadings before the compromise agreement is filed.

In the event the parties will not reach a compromise agreement,
the Company believes that the chances that the claim will be
allowed are less than 50%, and therefore Dor Alon did not make a
provision in its financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Series A Debentures Suit in Conclusions Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. disclosed in its
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that the
claim filed by holders of its subsidiary's Series A debentures is
currently in the conclusions stage.

On June 27, 2010, a statement of claim and a request to approve
the claim as a class action and as a derivative claim was filed
against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd., members of the
Board of Directors of Dor Alon and Alon.  The claim was lodged by
holders of Series A debentures of Dor Alon that wish to represent
the holders of Series A Dor Alon debentures as of February 7,
2010, who did not convert the debentures into Dor Alon shares.  In
their claim, the plaintiffs claim that the distribution (on
February 9, 2010) of the shares of Alon Natural Gas Exploration
Ltd. to Dor Alon's shareholders was an unlawful distribution.  The
plaintiffs also claim that Dor Alon should have adjusted the
Series A debentures' conversion rate following the distribution of
shares.  The plaintiffs request that the Court would oblige Alon
and the members of Dor Alon's Board of Directors to return to Dor
Alon the shares that were distributed; alternatively, the
plaintiffs request that Dor Alon will be required to adjust the
conversion rate of the debentures to the "Ex rate" subsequent to
the distribution; alternatively, the plaintiffs seek damages for
non adjustment of the conversion rate.  In November 2010, the
defendants filed their responses to court, and as of April 30,
2012, the claim is in the conclusions stage.  Based on information
received from Dor Alon's management, the Company believes that the
chances that the claim will be allowed are less than 50% and
therefore Dor Alon did not make a provision in its financial
statements.


ARCTIC GLACIER: Ontario Super. Court OKs Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic Glacier Income Fund on June 5 disclosed that Ontario
Superior Court has approved the settlement of the class action
lawsuit filed by unitholders of the Fund.

The settlement, announced on February 8, 2012, was subject to the
approval by the Court.  The Court Order found the settlement of
$13.75 million to be fair and reasonable to the class members and
approved the Settlement Agreement.  The settlement will be
entirely funded by Arctic Glacier's insurers, without the Fund
making any admission of liability or making any monetary
contribution to the settlement.

The class action named the Fund, its trustees, its operating
company, Arctic Glacier Inc. and certain of its current and past
senior officers and directors.  The suit sought damages on behalf
of all persons who acquired Arctic Glacier units between March 22,
2002 and September 16, 2008.

The Court Order approving the settlement and the Settlement
Agreement provides for an opt-out period of 60 days for those
class members who elect not to participate in the settlement.  The
opt-out period will begin to run from the date the Notice of Court
Approval is published, which is expected to be June 13, 2012.  The
settlement is expected to become final and binding, including the
release of all parties from all claims advanced in the class
action, at the expiry of the opt-out period.

                       About Arctic Glacier

Arctic Glacier Income Fund, through its operating company, Arctic
Glacier Inc., is a producer, marketer and distributor of packaged
ice in North America, primarily under the brand name of Arctic
Glacier(R) Premium Ice.  Arctic Glacier operates 39 production
plants and 47 distribution facilities across Canada and the
northeast, central and western United States servicing more than
75,000 retail locations.


ARKANSAS: Lottery Commission Disputes Ticket Flaw Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Arkansas Lottery Commission
is denying allegations that it deliberately sold unsecure tickets
that had a design defect that could easily lead to potential
tampering.

Assistant Attorney General Mark Ohrenberger submitted the
statements on June 1 in legal papers in response to a lawsuit
filed by a Little Rock man who claims he bought two $20 Arkansas
Millionaires Club tickets that had been damaged.

State officials also disputed claims that the agency deliberately
allowed flawed tickets to remain in play rather than risk losing
revenue.

Richard Tomboli sued in April after discovering that both tickets
were tampered with to the point where someone could determine
whether the card was at least a $50 winner, the Arkansas Democrat
Gazette reported in the June 2 editions.

Mr. Tomboli's April 23 complaint to lottery officials led to a
Little Rock police investigation that resulted in the arrest of a
Raceway store's former manager, who was charged with theft.

Meanwhile, Mr. Tomboli claimed that the commission's security
chief told him the tickets had a manufacturing defect but the
commission didn't want to stop selling them, because the agency
would lose money while they were reprinted by ticket manufacturer
Scientific Games.

He also said he was given lottery marketing merchandise, including
tote bags, T-shirts, sunglasses and hats, as a "gesture of thanks"
for reporting the marred tickets.

In Mr. Ohrenberger's response, the commission said security chief
Lance Huey did speak with Mr. Tomboli, but officials say accounts
of the conversations are inaccurate.

The lawsuit accuses the commission of committing fraud and
violating its duty to manage the lottery.

Huey, Lottery Director Bishop Woosley, commission chairman Dianne
Lamberth and Scientific Games also are named as defendants in the
case.

Mr. Tomboli's lawyer, state Rep. John Walker, is seeking class-
action status for the complaint and has asked a judge to stop
further Millionaire ticket sales.


AUSTRALIA: Subcontractors Asked to Join Suit v. NSW Gov't.
----------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Lamont, writing for BusinessDay, reports that immediate
future of the Reed construction group has been thrown into doubt
amid fears that subcontractors and suppliers will not be paid what
has been estimated to be up to AUD80 million owed to them.

On June 6, the New South Wales Department of Education told
BusinessDay that it owed nothing to Reed for work done under the
Building the Education Revolution contracts.  The prospect of tens
of millions of dollars in BER payments flowing to Reed has been
the lifeline on which subcontractors and other creditors have been
relying.

It also emerged that subcontractors owed money by Reed for work on
NSW road projects were being asked to sign up to a possible class
action against the state government.

Glenn Bower, the managing director of Recoup Contractor Debt
Recovery, said the class action was in addition to the 20 clients
he represented owed nearly AUD20 million.  "I just want to put the
pressure on the government to pay the subbies because we believe
Roads and Maritime Services is culpable," he said.

The Reed troubles underline the turmoil in the building sector,
which has recently seen the collapse of the century-old firm Kell
& Rigby, and St. Hilliers Construction.

The Reed Group, which is privately owned by Geoff Reed,
diversified into the mining and energy equipment sector last year.
In the process, Westpac approved a loan last September of up to
AUD100 million, secured against the company's assets.  Mr. Reed
has also given a personal guarantee of AUD13 million.

Mr. Reed had claims against the government for money it says it
was owed on education and roads projects.  The dispute was dealt
with by an expert panel, but its findings about quantum have not
been released.

Following inquiries on June 6, the Education Minister's spokesman,
Mark Davis, confirmed other legal communications about BER, which
BusinessDay has seen.

"The expert determination process is ongoing, which means the
department is not able to discuss details of that process at this
time," he said.

"However, the department believes it has no obligation to make
further payments to Reed under the Building the Education
Revolution program.  The department communicated this to Reed
after the interim determination was handed down on May 21."

Mr. Reed said on June 6 it was "still in negotiations" with the
government about the panel's determination.

The matter came to a head as the Queensland building firm J
Hutchinson Pty Ltd, which is owed AUD640,000 for BER work and is a
party to a winding-up application against Reed in the NSW Supreme
court this month, voiced its frustration that subcontractors and
suppliers had not been given a proper update about the panel's
determination.


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Forced Furlough
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dr. Mark Horton, former
director of the California Department of Public Health, claims in
a class action that the Department of Personnel Administration
illegally reduced his and dozens of other appointees' salaries by
forced furlough days, as they are exempt from civil service rules,
in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Horton v. Brown, et al., Case No. 34-
2012-00125438 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/06/CalBudget.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robin K. Perkins, Esq.
          Natalia D. Asbill, Esq.
          PERKINS & ASSOCIATES
          300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1800
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 446-2000
          E-mail: rperkins@perkins-lawoffice.com
                  nasbill@perkins-lawoffice.com


CATALINA RESTAURANT: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 2012, the overtime attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik filed a class action Complaint against Catalina
Restaurant Group Inc. and JoJo's California Family Restaurants,
Inc. for wage and hour violations, specifically for violating
California labor laws in regards to overtime pay and requiring
their employees to work off-the-clock without being paid for all
their hours worked. McDermott, et al. vs. Catalina Restaurant
Group Inc. and JoJo's California Family Restaurants, Inc., Case
No. 30-2012-00574113 is currently pending in Orange County
Superior Court for the state of California.

According to the class action Complaint filed against Catalina,
the restaurant "did not have in place an immutable timekeeping
system to accurately record and pay Plaintiff and other California
Class Members for the actual number of hours these employees
worked each day, including overtime hours worked."  Specifically,
the lawsuit claims that Catalina "consistently did not allocate
enough labor hours such that there was not enough time for
Plaintiff and California Class Members to complete their required
duties."  As a result, the Complaint alleges Plaintiff and
California Class Members were forced to clock out of Catalina's
timekeeping system, but were still required to perform additional
work for Catalina for which they were not compensated for.

Furthermore, the Complaint also alleges that the Plaintiff and
California Class Members received non-discretionary quarterly
bonuses from Catalina, but Catalina failed to include this extra
bonus compensation in the regular rate of pay for the purposes of
calculating the correct overtime pay rates owed to these
employees.  The failure to include the bonus compensation in the
regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, according to the
complaint, "has resulted in a systematic underpayment of overtime
compensation" to the Plaintiff and members of the California
Class.

The Complaint further claims that as a result of Catalina's
failure to record all hours worked by members of the California
Class and Catalina's failure to pay these employees the correct
overtime rate, Catalina "failed to provide the Plaintiff and the
other members of the California Class with complete and accurate
wage statements which failed to show, among other things, the
correct number of all hours worked and the correct overtime rate
for overtime hours worked."

Founding partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal asserts, "when employers exclude non-discretionary
bonuses from the regular rate of pay when calculating their
employee's overtime rate, they are violating the law."

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors
and consumers fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.


COMCAST: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data
----------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
class-action lawsuits have been launched against Comcast and Time
Warner Cable alleging the companies collect Social Security
numbers, credit card information and other information from
customers and retain the data even after cable service is
canceled.  The plaintiffs say this is a violation of the Cable
Communications Policy Act.

The two lawsuits were filed late last week in California federal
court.  According to the complaint against Comcast, "consumers are
unaware that their personally identifiable information is retained
indefinitely by Comcast, as Comcast fails to send annual privacy
notices informing consumers that Comcast continues to retain their
information."

The plaintiffs say that the CCPA requires cable operators to
destroy personally identifiable information when it is no longer
required for the purpose for which it was collected and that the
companies also have privacy disclosure duties.

The lawsuit cites "troubling" issues implicated by the alleged
practice, including the risk of identity theft and conversion of
personal financial accounts.

Besides CCPA, the proposed class of plaintiffs also asserts
violation of California Customer Records Act and breach of implied
contract.  They are seeking an order that enjoins the cable
companies from allegedly unlawful practices as well as liquidated
damages.  The complaint says the CCPA law allows an individual to
collect $100 a day for each day of violation.

TWC declined comment. Comcast hasn't responded yet.


CVS: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Employee Seats
-----------------------------------------------------
On June 1, a California judge ruled that CVS does not have to
provide chairs for its cashiers.  The decision ended a class
action lawsuit filed in 2009 by Nykeya Kilby, a former cashier at
a CVS in Chula Vista, Calif.  Ms. Kilby accused her employer of
not following a state labor law that requires retailers to provide
"suitable seats" for employees, according to court documents.

Many of the tasks performed by CVS cashiers, such as scanning
merchandise, receiving payment, making change and waiting for
customers could be performed while seated, Ms. Kilby's attorneys
wrote in her original complaint.

In Europe, most cashiers in supermarkets and other chain stores
sit down while working.  In the U.S., the custom of standing up
was hardly questioned before 2009, when a handful of California
workers filed class action lawsuits against Home Depot, 99 Cents
Only and other retailers.  Since, Walmart and Target have also
been hit with lawsuits.  Workers claim that the companies should
not only provide seats but pay each worker who was made to stand a
penalty under a 2004 law called the Private Attorneys General Act.

Critics have dubbed the Act the "Sue Your Boss Law," as it allows
employees to demand penalties for any violations of California's
labor code.  In court documents, CVS argued that Ms. Kilby was
fired after eight months of employment for missing work and never
requested a chair during her time there.

Other courts have ruled in favor of seatless employees at Home
Depot and 99 Cents Only.  But the judge in the CVS case argued
that the nature of CVS's cashier job doesn't "reasonably permit
the use of a seat," according to court documents.  CVS said it
could not "maintain its commitment to excellent customer service"
if cashiers sat rather than stood.

Employees in office jobs, meanwhile, are choosing to stand.
"Standing desks" have become the new trendy accessory in Silicon
Valley offices, and advocates say they're better for workers
health than traditional desks.


DJSP ENTERPRISES: Ex-Shareholders File Revised Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daily Business Review reports that former shareholders in
foreclosure attorney David Stern's DJSP Enterprises have filed a
more extensive version of a proposed class action that was
dismissed last year by a federal judge.  The new claims target
Mr. Stern, DJSP -- Mr. Stern's back-office foreclosure processing
operation -- and several former high-ranking DJSP executives.


FACEBOOK INC: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC announced that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Facebook, Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's  May 18, 2012 initial public offering.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-
5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.  Please visit
http://yatesclassactionlaw.comfor more information. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 23, 2012.

The complaint charges Facebook and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

On or about May 16, 2012, Facebook filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A
Registration Statement for the IPO.  On or about May 18, 2012, the
Prospectus, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became
effective and defendants sold 421 million shares of Facebook
common stock to the public at $38 per share, for total proceeds of
more than $16 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were false and
misleading in violation of the Securities Act.  The complaint
asserts that defendants failed to disclose that because Facebook
was experiencing a pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to
an increase of users of its Facebook app or Web site through
mobile devices rather than traditional PCs, at the time of the IPO
the Company had told the lead underwriters to reduce their 2012
performance estimates for Facebook.  These revisions were material
information which was not shared with all investors, but rather,
was selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred
investors and omitted from the Registration Statement and/or
Prospectus.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Facebook common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
IPO.


FANNIE MAE: Oral Arguments on Motions for Summary Judgment Begin
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, attorneys on both sides of a securities class action
against Fannie Mae made their case on June 5 for summary judgment,
with plaintiffs' counsel arguing that the mortgage giant clearly
admitted to fraud and defense counsel arguing that the evidence
proved Fannie Mae acted in good faith.

Fannie Mae and its auditor, KPMG, were sued in 2005 by the
attorney general of Ohio on behalf of that state's pension plans,
after the federal agency regulating Fannie Mae found that the
company had overstated profits and failed to comply with other
generally accepted accounting principles.

The plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on Fannie Mae's
liability for losses suffered by people who bought stock between
2001 and 2004.  If U.S. District Judge Richard Leon rules in their
favor, a jury would be tasked with deciding damages.  The
defendants have moved for summary judgment on the claims related
to their accounting practices.  If they win, Scott Fink --
sfink@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher told Judge Leon
that the defense thought it would be a "case ender."

W.B. "Bill" Markovitz -- billmarkovits@wsbclaw.com -- of Waite,
Schneider, Bayless & Chesley acknowledged in his arguments on
behalf of the plaintiffs' motion that it was unusual for
plaintiffs to move for summary judgment on liability.  Still, he
said, it was appropriate because the evidence showed Fannie Mae
had already admitted to the alleged fraud in its filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and public statements made
by Fannie Mae officials about its accounting problems.

Mr. Markovitz focused on a 2006 report by former Senator Warren
Rudman and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which found
that Fannie Mae not only departed from generally accepted
accounting principles, but also that officials did so to avoid
making costly changes to its business model.  He cited a public
statement issued in 2006 by then-chairman of Fannie Mae's board of
directors, Stephen Ashley, that the board "accepts and embraces"
the report.

Judge Leon pressed Mr. Markovitz on the issue of whether there was
fraudulent intent, asking him why he should look to the report
when Mr. Rudman wasn't tasked with deciding whether Fannie Mae had
actually committed fraud.  Mr. Markovitz said the report presented
the elements of the fraud, even if Mr. Rudman didn't come to that
formal conclusion.

Robert Stern -- rstern@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers, arguing
against the plaintiffs' motion, said the voluminous case record,
which included testimony from more than a hundred witnesses,
trumped the plaintiffs' reliance on the Rudman report.  The report
was never formally adopted by the board, Mr. Stern said, meaning
it wasn't an admission of liability by Fannie Mae.

Mr. Stern argued that no witness testified that Fannie Mae
officials knew they were acting contrary to generally accepted
accounting principles at the time.  If there was an error, he
said, it was only that.  "This simply is not the stuff of fraud,"
he said.

Whether there was any evidence of fraudulent intent is also at the
heart of the defendants' motion for summary judgment.  Gibson
Dunn's Mr. Fink, arguing on June 5 on behalf of the defendants,
told Judge Leon that the case boiled down to a difference of
opinion between Fannie Mae and the SEC over how to interpret the
accounting regulations at issue.  There was no evidence that
Fannie Mae officials intentionally advocated an interpretation of
those rules that they knew was wrong, he said.

Mr. Fink argued that the regulations in question are
extraordinarily complex and have been the subject of debate for
years, and that the SEC even changed its own opinion on how to
interpret them in 2007.

It was the first of three days of oral arguments on motions for
summary judgment in the case.  The arguments involved the core
joint motions filed by both sides, while most of the remaining
motions involve individual defendants.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Time to Appeal Class Settlement Order Open
-------------------------------------------------------------
The time provided for parties to challenge a Texas court final
approval order of a settlement resolving a customer class action
against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. is still open, according
to the Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No.
2046, 4:09-md-2046.  On August 24, 2009, the court appointed
interim co-lead and liaison counsel for the financial institution
and consumer plaintiffs.  On September 23, 2009, the financial
institution plaintiffs filed a Master Complaint in the MDL
proceedings, which the Company moved to dismiss on October 23,
2009.  On December 1, 2011, the Court entered an order granting in
part the Company's motion to dismiss the financial institution
plaintiffs' master complaint against the Company, but allowing the
plaintiffs leave to amend to re-plead certain claims. Plaintiffs'
amended complaint was due on June 4, 2012 and a status conference
will be set following the filing of the amended master complaint.
On December 18, 2009, the Company and interim counsel for the
consumer plaintiffs filed with the Court a proposed settlement
agreement, subject to court approval, of the consumer class action
claims.  On May 3, 2010, the Court entered an order preliminarily
certifying the settlement class, authorizing notice to the class
to proceed, and scheduling a fairness hearing for December 10,
2010, which was later adjourned to December 13, 2010.  On March
20, 2012, the Court issued a memorandum and opinion granting final
approval to the settlement and on April 12, 2012, the Court
entered a judgment.  The time period for parties to appeal the
Court's ruling has not yet expired.

Based in Princeton, New Jersey, Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.
-- http://www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com/-- provides bankcard
payment processing services in the United States and Canada.  It
facilitates the exchange of information and funds between
merchants and cardholder's financial institutions; and offers end-
to-end electronic payment processing services, including merchant
set-up and training, transaction authorization and electronic
draft capture, clearing and settlement, merchant accounting,
merchant assistance and support, and risk management to merchants.


HILTON LAX: Settles Wage & Missed Breaks Class Action for $2.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jobmouse reports that one of LA's biggest hotels, The Hilton Los
Angeles Airport Hotel, has settled a class action lawsuit and
agreed to pay its workers $2.5 million.  The class action lawsuit
alleged that the hotel withheld wages, failed to pay overtime and
failed to provide meal and rest breaks to about 1,200 hotel
workers.

The class action was filed in 2008 and covers all hourly workers
who worked at the hotel from 2004 to 2011.

"For years, we've felt like machines only here to make more and
more money for the owners of the Hilton LAX," said Juan Banales, a
Hilton LAX cook of almost 20 years.  "This settlement is a huge
victory.  We've won justice and respect."

Mr. Banales said he would receive about $3,800 from the lawsuit.

"For years, I was unable to take breaks," Mr. Banales said.  "The
law says we have the right to take breaks.  It's a shame we had to
file a lawsuit to get the hotel to understand that."

The suit also claimed that the hotel failed to pay employees for
the time spent preparing for work and putting on and taking off
work uniforms that were required to be left at the hotel.

Further, plaintiffs alleged they were required to fill out time
sheets saying they took breaks whether they truthfully did or not.

"Since this lawsuit was filed, hundreds of workers at hotels near
LAX have won union contracts that guarantee breaks and workers'
right to negotiate fair wages and benefits," said Tom Walsh,
President of UNITE HERE Local 11, the union representing 20,000
hospitality workers in Southern California.  "Instead of choosing
to respect workers, the Hilton LAX has taken the low road,
fighting its own employees.  I hope this expensive lawsuit teaches
the Hilton LAX owners to respect the workers who make it
successful."


IDAHO: Tribe to Get $60 Million in Settlement Money
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
official in eastern Idaho says $60 million in settlement money the
tribe expects to receive as part of a class-action lawsuit will be
distributed to about 5,700 tribal members.

Public Affairs Manager Randy'L Teton tells KIFI-TV that the tribe
is planning financial workshops once the distribution begins.

Officials say it's unclear exactly how much each tribal member
will receive, and the tribe itself has yet to receive the money.

The settlement money is expected following the decision by a
three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia who last month upheld a $3.4 billion settlement
between the U.S. government and hundreds of thousands of Native
American plaintiffs whose land trust royalties were mismanaged by
the Interior Department.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: CEO Testifies in C$27BB Tobacco Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Marsden, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
the president of Canada's largest tobacco manufacturer admitted on
June 5 that all tobacco products are dangerous and none is
comparatively safer than other brands.

Marie Polet, president and CEO of Imperial Tobacco Canada,
testified in Superior Court that even low-tar cigarettes are as
risky as other brands.

"We are selling a product that is a product that can cause serious
and in some cases fatal diseases, and it is a product that we have
to manage very responsibly," she said.

She is testifying at the C$27-billion class-action tobacco lawsuit
launched by 1.8 million Quebec smokers against Canada's three
major tobacco companies.  The plaintiffs allege they have become
seriously ill because of smoking and have been unable to quit.

Ms. Polet, a native of Germany, has been in the tobacco marketing
business for more than 30 years and last November became the chief
executive of Imperial Tobacco.  She claimed in her testimony that
she was unaware of what happened at Imperial before her arrival
even though she had worked for many years for Imperial's owner,
British American Tobacco.

Under questioning from lawyer Bruce Johnston, acting for the
plaintiffs, Ms. Polet testified that it is "part of our
fundamental principles" at Imperial Tobacco not to market products
to people under 18 and not to try to persuade non-smokers to
smoke.

"We do not want to convince anyone who is a non-smoker to start
smoking," she said.

She said Imperial's marketing is designed only to take market
share away from its competitors.

"Our business is about creating value for our shareholders and our
business is about taking away share from our competition," she
said.  "It is not about convincing anybody to start smoking,
whether young or older."

She said that nobody in the tobacco business wants to expand the
market.

At the same time, she claimed that smoking "adds value" to
smokers' lives.

"I believe it does add value to our consumers," she said.
"Consumers must be adults. They must be clearly informed about the
risks.  Given those conditions, I believe that a lot of smokers in
Canada and around the world do enjoy smoking."

She also testified that Imperial does not conduct market research
on young people.

However, documents indicate that Imperial Tobacco began targeting
young people between 15 and 19 years old in 1975 with marketing
campaigns.

One Imperial document dated 1975 and titled "Du Maurier and Young
People", has a section headed "Some Hypotheses About How to Best
Appeal to Young People."

It then lists 11 suggestions.  These include showing "a male and
female couple associated with a particular activity" and the
"couple should be left shadowy and in the background so that there
are no discernible clues to their looks, or age."  The activity
should "provide an undercurrent of excitement" and should appeal
to "young people (particularly boys)."

"The activity itself should result in the impression of a
peaceful, tranquil, 'free' sort of feeling, not a hard, frenetic,
sweaty, tiresome sort of feeling (thus sailing would be better
than motor boat racing, bicycling better than jogging, etc.)," the
document states.

Other marketing documents indicate that tobacco companies followed
what they called "starters," or new smokers, as well as
"switchers," defined as smokers who had changed to another brand.


JP MORGAN: Settles Bid-Rigging Class Action Suit for $44MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that J.P. Morgan Securities has agreed
to pay up to $44.6 million to resolve claims from municipalities
that it conspired to fix prices and rig bids for municipal
derivatives, becoming the latest bank to settle the class-action
civil suit.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York approved the
settlement terms late on June 4.  He scheduled a hearing on
Dec. 14 to consider final approval.

The city of Baltimore, the Mississippi Department of
Transportation and five other public entities sued a group of
banks on behalf of other cities, universities and special
districts, accusing the banks of rigging bids to provide services
to municipalities.

Morgan Stanley and Wachovia Bank previously settled, court
documents said.

The civil suit is in addition to charges levied against J.P.
Morgan by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other
federal and state authorities.

UBS Financial Services, Banc of America Securities, GE Funding
Capital Market Services, Wachovia and J.P. Morgan, have agreed to
settle those charges for more than $700 million in total,
according to the SEC.

"It shows that it is possible to have a dual resolution where
state and private recoveries are complementary," said Michael
Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com -- co-lead attorney for the
municipalities.

The allegations involve bidding and pricing for various investment
products, which municipalities use to reinvest proceeds from
municipal-bond sales that are not immediately needed, according to
the SEC.  Proceeds of tax-exempt municipal bonds must be invested
at fair market value, and the most common way to do so is through
a competitive bidding process.

According to the SEC, J.P. Morgan at times won bids because it
obtained information from the bidding agents about competing bids.
Other times, the bidding agent deliberately obtained non-winning
bids from other providers, allowing the bank to essentially win in
advance.  The municipalities alleged they received lower interest
rates than they would have received otherwise.

"Anytime that you have collusion in the financial markets, it
means that purchasers or investors are going to be cheated,"
Mr. Hausfeld said.

Other banks have not yet settled the class-action case,
Mr. Hausfeld said.

A representative for J.P. Morgan declined to comment.


KNOLOGY INC: Shareholders Sue Over Proposed WideOpenWest Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Knology is selling itself too
cheaply through a "tainted process" to WideOpenWest Finance, for
$19.75 a share or $1.5 billion, shareholders say in a class action
in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lewis v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 7592
(Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/06/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Allen Schwartz, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


KRAFT FOODS: Faces Wage and Hour Violations Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Salinas, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-12-520292 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., April 25, 2012) is brought on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, who are or were employed as a Route
Salesperson by Kraft Foods in the state of California within the
applicable class period designated as from April 25, 2008, through
the date of trial.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime
compensation, compensation for missed meal and rest periods
interest thereon and other penalties, injunctive and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, Kraft Foods has
had a consistent policy of, among other things, permitting,
encouraging and requiring its allegedly overtime-exempt salaried
route salespersons to work in excess of eight hours per day and in
excess of forty hours per week without paying them overtime
compensation as required by California's wage and hour lawsuit.

During the Class Period, Mr. Salinas was employed by the
Defendants as a route salesperson at one or more of their
California locations.

Kraft Foods is a corporation doing business in the county of San
Francisco, California.  Kraft Foods is purportedly the second
largest food company in the world with annual revenues of over
forty-nine billion dollars.  Kraft Foods operates numerous
manufacturing facilities worldwide and in California, including
the one in which the Plaintiff worked as a route salesperson.  The
Plaintiff is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants.

Kraft Foods removed the lawsuit on June 4, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of San Francisco, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the District Court has original jurisdiction over this case in
that it is a civil action filed as a class action wherein the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $5 million, exclusive of
interest and costs.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:12-cv-02894 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
          Hannah R. Salassi, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
                  hsalassi@scalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas J. Farmer, Esq.
          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: douglas.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com
                  michael.nader@ogletreedeakins.com
                  chris.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Sued Over Discriminatory Arrests
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the Los
Angeles Police Department unconstitutionally uses decoys to arrest
gay men for the bogus crime of soliciting "nonmonetary intimate
association with other men," a man claims in a federal class
action.

Eric St. Mark Christie seeks to represent a class of men "arrested
for soliciting or engaging in lewd conduct by Los Angeles Police
acting as decoys."

Mr. Christie claims the LAPD targets the men because "they are
perceived to be interested in meeting, in public, men interested
in nonmonetary intimate association with other men."

Mr. Christie says he was arrested after he unwittingly solicited
an undercover cop.

He claims the LAPD has a "policy and custom" of sending decoys
into areas where men solicit sex from one another, and that this
policy violates constitutional guarantees of free speech, equal
protection, and protection from search and seizure.

He sued the City of Los Angeles, Chief Charlie Beck and the four
officers who allegedly arrested him in Hollenbeck Park on May 6,
2011.

Mr. Christie says that on that day he encountered a male
plainclothes officer who "pretended to be sexually interested" in
him.

"After a short conversation, the two adults agreed to engage in
oral sex to take place inside a totally enclosed restroom stall
whose door could be locked from the inside," according to the
complaint.

Mr. Christie says the decoy-cop signaled to his three fellow
officers to initiate an arrest, though Mr. Christie had not broken
any law, and the agreement to have sex in a stall was a "legal
solicitation."

As the plainclothes officers moved in, Mr. Christie says, he "ran
in terror" believing he was about to be mugged.  He claims the
cops ran him down and assaulted him.

"(T)he LAPD never arrest men by women decoy officers for
nonmonetary sexual solicitations nor do they arrest women by male
decoy officers for nonmonetary sexual solicitations," the
complaint states.

Mr. Christie says criminal charges against him were dropped in
April.

He seeks a jury trial, an injunction and class damages for
excessive force, discriminatory arrest, false arrest and
conspiracy.

The LAPD declined to comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Christie v. City of Los Angeles, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-04866 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/06/Decoys.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Bruce W. Nickerson, Esq.
         231 Manor Drive
         San Carlos, CA 94070
         Telephone: (650) 594-0195
         E-mail: brucenic@pacbell.net


MAXIMUM RETURN: Smidi Must Pay $5.6MM in Alleged Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Burstein, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that a traveling
yoga teacher must pay federal authorities almost $5.6 million for
her role in an alleged Ponzi scheme out of Plantation that raked
in more than $30 million from investors.

Zeina "Zeeluv" Smidi, who tours the country in a bus fueled by
vegetable oil, had the multimillion-dollar judgment entered
against her in Fort Lauderdale federal court.  Ms. Smidi and her
former fiance, James Clements, once ran a group of companies under
the names MRT or Maximum Return Transactions that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission alleged served as fronts for an
investment fraud involving foreign currency trading.

Ms. Smidi, 31, and Clements, 50, have been accused by SEC lawyers
of moving about $3 million of investors' money to their personal
bank accounts and using another $3 million for travel, luxury
items and other expenses.  In one three-week span, money from an
MRT account was used to pay for $8,000 in NFL tickets, meals at
ski resorts in Vermont and Colorado, and hotel reservations in Las
Vegas, bank records show.

Ms. Smidi must pay $2.5 million in profits she made, $2.5 million
in civil penalties and another $600,000 in interest, U.S. District
Judge William Dimitrouleas ordered May 21 in the SEC civil case
against her.  In a separate judgment, Mr. Clements was ordered to
pay $768,000 to the SEC.

The attorney for Mr. Clements and Ms. Smidi said that they have
done everything they can to help clients recover their money, and
that allegations they used the funds to support an extravagant
lifestyle are not true.

"The [SEC] case is resolved," said Inger Garcia, their attorney.
"I'd love to comment, but I can't on certain issues."

Mr. Clements testified at a June 2008 court hearing that he had
"nothing to be ashamed of" and had made no guarantees to clients.

The U.S. Attorney's Office sent letters in March 2010 to Mr.
Clements and Ms. Smidi informing them that they were targets of a
criminal investigation.  The status of that inquiry was unclear on
June 1.

That frustrates MRT clients such as Nyra Horowitz, 75, a Boynton
Beach widow who lost $140,000 to the company.

"That's what gets me -- they still walk the streets," Ms. Horowitz
said.  "In the meantime, I haven't seen one nickel."

Mr. Clements and Ms. Smidi ran MRT from 2005 until the summer of
2007, first promising investors high returns from foreign currency
trading and then saying the company was investing in high-yield
overseas products, according to the SEC lawsuit.  Less than $3
million was used for currency trading, while old investors were
paid with new investors' money, federal authorities said.

Besides the judgments in the SEC case, Mr. Clements and Ms. Smidi
are on the hook for a $50 million judgment entered against them in
a class-action lawsuit filed by MRT investors.

Jeffrey Sonn, the attorney who brought the class-action case, said
that by all indications Clements headed MRT while Ms. Smidi filled
a role analogous to a chief operations officer.  He said that
there have been some small recoveries of investors' money, but the
MRT bank accounts had been emptied and there were no visible
assets by the time the class-action suit was brought.


NATIONWIDE COIN: Sued in California for False Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nationwide Coin & Bullion
Reserve, of Houston, falsely claims a relationship with the
federal government to sell "$5 Gold American Eagles" for $172
apiece, with a five-coin minimum, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bayonne v. Nationwide Coin & Bullion
Reserve, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-04900 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/06/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          895 Dove Street, Suite 425
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  jhardin@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Awaits Updates on Tiptree-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies is awaiting developments in the case titled
Carol Curran, et al. v. AGL Life Assurance Co. et al., according
to Phoenix's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On January 4, 2010, the Company signed a definitive agreement to
sell PFG Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries, including AGL Life
Assurance Company, to Tiptree.  Because of the divestiture, these
operations are reflected as discontinued operations.  On June 23,
2010, the Company completed the divestiture of PFG and closed the
transaction.  The definitive agreement contains a provision
requiring the Company to indemnify Tiptree for any losses due to
actions resulting from certain specified acts or omissions
associated with the divested business prior to closing.

The Curran case was filed in the state district court in Boulder
County, Colorado that falls under the indemnification with
Tiptree.  The Company is not a party to the lawsuit.  On August 8,
2011, the state district court judge certified a class action. On
October 18, 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court granted defendants'
petition to determine whether the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act deprives the state court of jurisdiction of the
class action as certified and issued a stay of the state court
proceedings.  On January 17, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.  The trial court
proceedings will now continue.  The outcome of this litigation is
uncertain and the amount of potential loss in the event of an
adverse outcome cannot be estimated.

Based in Hartford, Connecticut, The Phoenix Companies, Inc. --
http://www.phoenixwm.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides
life insurance and annuity products through independent agents and
financial advisors in the United States.  Its subsidiaries include
Phoenix Life Insurance Agency and PHIL Variable Insurance Company.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Against Sager Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Soundbite Communications Inc. continues to defend itself against a
complaint referred to as the Sager Litigation, according to the
Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On January 11, 2012, a class action litigation, which the Company
refers to as the Sager Litigation, was filed against Bank of
America and the Company as co-defendants.  The Sager Litigation
alleges that the Company and Bank of America sent text messages to
the plaintiff without the plaintiff's prior express consent, in
violation of the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act or TCPA.
Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of a class of individuals who
received unauthorized text message solicitations from the Company.
The Company's response to the complaint in the Sager Litigation
was due on May 7, 2012.  The Company intends to defend vigorously
against the claims in the Sager Litigation that allege it violated
provisions of the TCPA in delivering text messages.  The Company
is continuing to investigate this matter. At this time, it is not
possible for the Company to estimate the amount of damages,
losses, fees and other expenses that it will incur as the result
of the Sager Litigation, but such an amount could have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition and operating
results.  Even if the Company succeeds in defending against the
Sager Litigation, it is likely to incur substantial costs and
management's attention will be diverted from its operations.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.


SOUNDBITE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Soundbite Communications Inc. has been sued in two class action
complaints alleging antitrust violations relating to its
acquisition of 2ergos Americas, according to the Company's May 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In February 2012, the Company acquired 2ergos Americas, a provider
of mobile business and marketing solutions.  The Company has just
begun the process of integrating the operations, technology and
personnel of 2ergo Americas.  It expects the process will be more
complex than in its previous acquisitions due to the need to
integrate elements of the 2ergo Americas software platform with
its platforms and to the complexities likely to be involved in
addressing certain technologies previously shared by 2ergo
Americas and its parent.  The Company acquired 2ergo Americas in
order to broaden its client base and gain technology and
personnel, and it will be unable to recognize the anticipated
benefits of the acquisition if it is unable to integrate the
acquired technology effectively in a timely manner or if it fails
fail to maintain and incentivize the former 2ergo Americas
employees in a manner that enables it to maintain existing clients
and add additional mobile marketing clients.

On April 5, 2012, a class action litigation, which the Company
refers to as the "Club Texting Litigation," was filed against
numerous defendants, including the Company.  On April 6, 2012, a
related class action litigation, which the Company refers to as
the "TextPower Litigation," was filed against numerous defendants,
including the Company.  In both the Club Texting Litigation and
the TextPower Litigation, the Company is named as successor-in-
interest to 2ergos Americas, which the Company acquired in
February 2012.  Both the Club Texting Litigation and the TextPower
Litigation allege that the named mobile telecom companies and
aggregators violated antitrust provisions set forth in the Sherman
Act through the use of various common short code requirements
related to the sending of text messages by businesses to
consumers.  Further, both the Club Texting Litigation and the
TextPower Litigation are seeking confirmation of a class of
entities and persons who leased a common short code from Neustar,
Inc. and sent or received text messages through one or more
aggregators.  All of the alleged violations occurred prior to the
Company's acquisition of 2ergo Americas, and the Company has
served an indemnification claim on 2ergo Group plc, the former
parent company of 2ergo Americas, in relation to both the Club
Texting Litigation and the TextPower Litigation. In connection
with the acquisition, $750,000 was deposited in an escrow account
to secure claims by the Company for breaches of representations
and warranties made with respect to 2ergo Americas.  The Company
intends to defend vigorously against the claims in the Club
Texting Litigation and the TextPower Litigation that allege
violations of the Sherman Act.  At this time it is not possible
for the Company to estimate the amount of damages, losses, fees
and other expenses that it will incur as the result of the Club
Texting Litigation or the TextPower Litigation, but such an amount
could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
condition and operating results.  Even if the Company succeeds in
defending against the Club Texting Litigation and the TextPower
Litigation, it is likely to incur substantial costs and
management's attention will be diverted from its operations.

SoundBite Communications, Inc. -- http://soundbite.com/-- is a
global provider of cloud-based, multi-channel proactive customer
communications solutions designed to transform the way
organizations communicate throughout the customer lifecycle to
build trusted, lifelong and profitable relationships.


TD AMERITRADE: Pleas to Dismiss Suit Over Yield Plus Fund Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a securities class action complaint against
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation relating to the Yield Plus Fund
remain pending, according to the Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund.  The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al., and is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
Reserve Yield Plus Fund.  On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's
advisor, certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of
its directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control
persons.  The complaint alleges claims of violations of the
federal securities laws and other claims based on allegations that
false and misleading statements and omissions were made in the
Reserve Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements
regarding the fund.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages including interest, attorneys' fees,
rescission, exemplary damages and equitable relief.  On January
19, 2010, the defendants submitted motions to dismiss the
complaint.  The motions are pending.

Based in Omaha, Nebraska, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation --
http://www.ameritrade.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides
securities brokerage services and technology-based financial
services to retail investors, traders, and independent registered
investment advisors (RIAs) in the United States.


TREX CO: Class Suit Over Mold Growth Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated lawsuit against Trex Co Inc. over allegations of
mold growth remains pending in California, according to the
Company's May 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On January 19, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Cruz County, by the lead law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP and certain other law firms on behalf of Eric Ross
and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs.  These
plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate
remedies for defective products.  On February 13, 2009, the
Company removed this case to the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California.  On January 21, 2009, a purported class
action case was commenced against the Company in the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington by the law firm of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of Mark Okano and similarly
situated plaintiffs, generally alleging certain product defects in
the Company's products, and that the Company has failed to provide
adequate remedies for defective products.  This case was
transferred by the Washington Court to the California Court as a
related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on March
15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.  On April
14, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm filed a notice to appeal the
District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  On July 9, 2010, the Hagens Berman Firm dismissed their
appeal, effectively making the settlement final.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
The Hagens Berman firm has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint.  In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated the two pending
actions relating to the mold claims, and appointed the Hagens
Berman Firm as lead counsel in the case.  The Company believes
that these claims are without merit, and will vigorously defend
this lawsuit.

Headquartered in Winchester, Virginia, Trex Company, Inc. --
http://www.trex.com/-- manufactures and distributes wood/plastic
composite products, and related accessories primarily for the
residential and commercial decking and railing applications in the
United States.


WEST MARINE: Recalls 1,200 Folding Chairs Due to Collapse Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
West Marine Products Inc., of Watsonville, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,200 units of folding deck chair.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The chair cannot support the stated weight capacity.  This poses a
collapse hazard to consumers.

West Marine is aware of six incidents of the chair collapsing.  No
injuries were reported.

The recalled item is a West Marine Deluxe Deck Chair.  It is a
folding deck chair with metal legs and light-colored wood
armrests.  It has plastic feet on the corners of each leg.  The
seat and back are covered with blue and gray nylon fabric.  The
back can be adjusted to various angles.  Model/SKU number
"13110341" is printed on a coated paper tag attached to the chair
frame.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12193.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at West Marine stores nationwide, online at
westmarine.com and in the West Marine catalog from February 2012
to May 2012 for about $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the deck chairs and call
West Marine for a full refund or store credit.  Consumers may also
return the chairs to any West Marine store to receive the refund
or store credit.  For additional information, please contact West
Marine toll-free at (800) 262-8464 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.westmarine.com/


WHOLE FOODS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that the plaintiff in a civil
antitrust lawsuit against Whole Foods Market over its merger with
Wild Oats has agreed to judgment in favor of the company,
following a decision in April by the D.C. Circuit not to hear an
appeal of an order denying class certification.


ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION: Sued Over "All Natural" Nutrition Bars
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Colucci and Kimberly S. Sethavanish, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. ZonePerfect Nutrition
Company, a Delaware corporation, Case No. SCV-251556 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Sonoma Cty., April 26, 2012) is a class action on
behalf of Plaintiffs and a nationwide class of consumers, who,
from September 14, 2007, through the present, purchased
ZonePerfect's Nutrition Bars, which are labeled, marketed and sold
as being "All Natural" even though each bar contained between six
and nine of these artificial and synthetic ingredients: Ascorbic
Acid, Calcium Pantothenate, Calcium Phosphate, Glycerine,
Potassium Carbonate, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Disodium Phosphate,
Sorbitan Monostearale, Tocopherols and/or Xanthan Gum.

Throughout the Class Period, ZonePerfect prominently made the
claim "All Natural" on the labels of its Nutrition Bars,
cultivating a wholesome and healthful image in an effort to
promote the sale of these products, even though its Nutrition Bars
were actually not "All Natural," the Plaintiff contends.  They add
that while the "All Natural" Nutrition Bars' labels did disclose
that they contained Ascorbic Acid, et al., the labels did not
disclose that these ingredients were artificial or synthetic.

The Plaintiff has been a resident of Windsor, California, since
December 2010.  Prior thereto, Mr. Colucci actively served in the
United States Marine Corps and was stationed in Camp Pendleton in
San Diego County, California.  From September 2009 through April
2010, he was deployed as part of his service with the Marines, and
during that time, he asked Ms. Sethavanish to purchase two multi-
bar packs of ZonePerfect Nutrition Bars per month, including its
Classic ZonePerfect "All-Natural" Nutrition Bars Chocolate Peanut
Butter flavor, to include in the packages that she sent him on a
monthly basis.

ZonePerfect is a Delaware corporation based in Abbott Park,
Illinois.  ZonePerfect manufactures, distributes and sells
nutrition bars through walk-in and online retailers.  ZonePerfect
has operated as a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories.

ZonePerfect removed the lawsuit on June 5, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Sonoma, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company argues that the removal is proper because the lawsuit
asserts a cause of action arising under federal law.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-02907 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: llspielberg@jlslp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  wlison@stemberfeinstein.com
                  mdavidsonwelling@stemberfeinstein.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
          E-mail: elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C., Esq.
          Jonathan D. Brightbill, Esq.
          Dennis J. Abdelnour, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: glocascio@kirkland.com
                  jbrightbill@kirkland.com
                  dabdelnour@kirkland.com


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *