CAR_Public/120613.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 13, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 116

                             Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Approval of "Kaufman" Suit Deal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 2013 Trial on Arbitration Issue in Ross Suit Set
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss Canadian Suit Pending
ARCTIC GLACIER: Class Action Settlement Obtains Approval
BEAR STEARNS: Settles Securities Class Action for $275 Million

BIG TOBACCO: Quebec Government Launches Class Action
BLACK LANE: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Vehicle Towing
BMS TRUCKING: Faces Suit Filed by Misclassified Truck Drivers
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Court Closes "Rosendahl" Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits OK of Consolidated Wage Suit Deal

CANADA: Thunder Bay City Faces Class Action Over Flooding
CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Faces 3 Class Suits Relating to Northera CRL
CNA FINANCIAL: Appeals in Insurance Brokerage Suit Remain Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued Over False Claims on Kirkland Products

DINEEQUITY INC: Bench Trial in FLSA Suit to Begin in Sept.
DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Pain Pumps
EL AL: Settles Price-Fixing Scheme Class Action for $15.8 Mil.
EMORY HEALTHCARE: Faces Data Breach Class Action
FACEBOOK: Tony Merchant Files Class Action Over IPO

FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Business Practices
HMS HOST: Accused of Not Paying Employees Overtime Compensation
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
KELLOGG: 9th Cir. Examines Frosted Mini-Wheats Suit Deal
LEEDS MATTRESS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action

LIBERTY MEDIA: August 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MAKO SURGICAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
NOBELTEL LLC: Settles Prepaid Calling Card Class Action
NEW YORK: NYPD Class Action Over Mass Arrest Can Proceed
PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS: October 19 Fairness Hearing Set

SAMSUNG TELECOMS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Phones
STRUCTURED BROADBAND: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
THOMAS M. COOLEY: ABA/NALP "Not Indispensable Absent Parties"
UNITED BANCORP: Continues to Defend EFTA Class Suit
USAA CASUALTY: Sued in Oregon Over Fraudulent File Review System


                          *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Awaits Final Approval of "Kaufman" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company is awaiting final court approval of a
settlement entered in a class action lawsuit captioned Kaufman v.
American Express Travel Related Services, according to the
Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
allegations in Kaufman relate primarily to monthly service fee
charges assessed on the Company's gift card products, with the
principal claim being that the Company's gift cards violate
consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly have
difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior
to the imposition of monthly service fees.  The parties entered
into a settlement agreement that was approved preliminarily by the
Court on September 21, 2011.  The Court preliminarily certified a
settlement class consisting of (with some exceptions) "all
purchasers, recipients and holders of all gift cards issued by
American Express from January 1, 2002 through the date of
preliminary approval of the settlement, including without
limitation, gift cards sold at physical retail locations, via the
Internet, or through mall co-branded programs."  Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, an approximate $6.8 million total
settlement fund will be created and class members will be entitled
to submit claims against the settlement fund to receive refunds of
certain gift card fees.  Any monies remaining in the settlement
fund after payment of claims to class members, costs of notice and
administration and class counsel attorneys' fees and expenses
would be paid to charity.  In addition, the Company would make
available to the settlement class for a period of time the
opportunity to buy gift cards without paying a purchase fee or any
shipping fees and allow certain cardholders to obtain refunds of
unused funds on gift cards without paying a check issuance fees.
A final settlement approval hearing took place on February 29,
2012.  The Court reserved decision on final approval, and
additional briefing on various issues was submitted to the Court
on April 2, 2012.  The Company is also a defendant in Goodman v.
American Express Travel Related Services, a putative class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York that involves allegations similar to those
made in Kaufman.  Plaintiffs in Goodman have intervened in the
Kaufman proceedings and are objecting to the Kaufman settlement.
If the Court approves the final settlement in Kaufman, all related
gift card claims and actions would also be released.  In similar
gift card litigation filed in San Diego County (California)
Superior Court, Kazemi v. Westfield America, Inc., the matter
settled on a class basis in 2011, with total payments required to
be made (to class members, and for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
costs and plaintiffs' incentive awards) of less than $550,000.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: 2013 Trial on Arbitration Issue in Ross Suit Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial over arbitration clauses in a class action lawsuit captioned
Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel
Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank is scheduled
to begin in January 2013, according to the Company's May 1, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

In July 2004, a purported class action captioned Ross, et al. v.
American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services
and American Express Centurion Bank was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges that American Express conspired with Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency
conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in
certain of their cardmember agreements.  The suit seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified damages.  The class is defined as "all
Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who
used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks."  American
Express cardholders are not part of the class.  In September 2005,
the District Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
action and preliminarily certified an injunction class of Visa and
MasterCard cardholders to determine the validity of Visa's and
MasterCard's cardmember arbitration clauses.  American Express
filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Court, which
motion was denied in September 2006.  The Company filed an appeal
from the District Court's order denying its motion to compel
arbitration.  In October 2008, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit denied the Company's appeal and remanded
the case to the District Court for further proceedings.  In
January 2010, the Court (1) certified a damage class of all Visa,
MasterCard and Diners Club general purpose cardholders who used
cards issued by any of the alleged co-conspiring banks during the
period July 22, 2000 to November 8, 2006, who were assessed a
foreign exchange transaction fee or surcharge and who have
submitted valid claims in In re Currency Conversion Antitrust
Litigation, and (2) denied American Express' motion to amend its
answer to add the affirmative defense of release.  On March 29,
2011, the Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment,
which sought dismissal of plaintiff's complaint and the Company's
request that the Court certify this issue for immediate appeal was
denied.  The parties have reached an agreement in principle to
settle the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class
concerning foreign currency conversion rates under which the
Company agreed to pay $49.5 million into a settlement fund.  The
Court preliminarily approved that settlement on November 18, 2011
and a final approval hearing was held on April 27, 2012.  The
claims asserted by the injunction class concerning cardmember
arbitration clauses are not included in the proposed settlement
and will continue to be litigated.  Trial is currently scheduled
to begin on January 7, 2013.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion to Dismiss Canadian Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company's motion to dismiss a putative class
action lawsuit in Quebec, Canada, is pending, according to the
Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

In April 2011, in a matter captioned 9085-4886 Quebec Inc. and
Peter Bakopanos v. Amex Bank of Canada and Amex Canada Inc., a
motion was filed in the Quebec Superior Court seeking to authorize
the bringing of a class action lawsuit alleging that the non-
discrimination provisions in the Canadian merchant agreement
violate Canadian competition law under the price maintenance
provision (section 76) of the Canadian Competition Act. The
petitioners seek unspecified damages and the elimination of the
non-discrimination provisions. In February 2012, the plaintiff was
granted leave to amend the motion to authorize the class action
to, amongst other things, add a new representative plaintiff, make
an additional claim under articles 1411, 1437 and 1457 of the
Quebec Civil Code, as well as claim under section 61 of the
Canadian Competition Act which was the provision dealing with
price maintenance until it was repealed in 2009. The Company has
brought a motion to dismiss the class action for lack of
jurisdiction which prompted a request by petitioners to seek
permission to introduce expert evidence. The hearing on the motion
to dismiss will be scheduled after a determination is made on the
petitioner's motion to introduce expert evidence.


ARCTIC GLACIER: Class Action Settlement Obtains Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Postmedia News reports that a Miami-based private equity fund has
a friendly deal to buy Winnipeg-based Arctic Glacier, which
distributes packaged ice to retailers throughout Canada and the
United States.

Arctic Glacier has been operating under court-protection from
creditors and recently received approval to settle a class-action
suit brought on behalf of its investors -- who would be entitled
to a share of C$13.75 million in payouts.

Financial terms of the proposed takeover by an affiliate of H.I.G.
Capital weren't disclosed in the June 8 announcement.

However Arctic Glacier said its secured lenders would be repaid in
full, all its employees will be offered work and head office will
stay in Winnipeg.


BEAR STEARNS: Settles Securities Class Action for $275 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Kozlowski, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
Bear Stearns, former CEO James Cayne and other company officials
reached a $275 million settlement with investors in a federal
securities class-action lawsuit that claimed the investment bank
misled investors about its exposure to subprime mortgages.

The $48.1 billion Michigan Retirement Systems, Lansing, is lead
plaintiff in the suit, originally filed in August 2008 in U.S.
District Court in New York.  The settlement was filed with the
court on June 6.

The pension fund lost $62 million from its Bear Stearns
investment, the largest amount among the plaintiffs in the class,
according to court documents.

Terry Stanton, spokesman at Michigan Retirement Systems, wrote in
a statement that the pension fund is "pleased to have reached a
settlement agreement with Bear Stearns and other defendants in
this matter," and hopes the agreement will be approved.

Thomas A. Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- partner at co-lead
counsel Labaton Sucharow, did not return a phone call by press
time.

A phone call to J.P. Morgan Chase, which bought Bear Stearns in
March 2008, was not returned by press time.


BIG TOBACCO: Quebec Government Launches Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Randall Palmer, writing for Reuters, reports that the Quebec
government launched a C$60 billion (US$59 billion) lawsuit against
Big Tobacco on June 8 to recover health care costs, the largest in
a string of claims against the industry made by Canada's
provinces.

The government suit is on top of a C$27 billion class action suit
by Quebec smokers, and in addition to a C$50 billion suit by the
Ontario government.  Four other provinces have also made claims in
an apparent bid for settlements similar to those the industry has
made with U.S. federal and state governments.

"What we're seeing is a strong common front by the provinces,"
Canadian Cancer Society senior policy analyst Rob Cunningham said.
"There is strength in numbers."

The suit names, among others, Philip Morris International Inc and
Japan Tobacco Inc's JTI-MacDonald Corp unit, and B.A.T. Industries
Plc, affiliated with British American Tobacco PLC.

The Quebec government seeks to reclaim healthcare costs, past and
future, from 1970 through 2030.


BLACK LANE: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Vehicle Towing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
attorney Thomas G. Maag -- tmaag@maaglaw.com -- has filed a motion
for class certification in a suit that claims a local firm has
towed hundreds or more vehicles without owners' consent.

Mr. Maag represents Tiffany A. Craycraft of East Alton in her case
against Black Lane Auto Parts in Caseyville.

Ms. Craycraft alleges Black Lane towed her Ford Taurus from a
Caseyville road on April 11 without her consent. She claims it had
only been left for less than two hours.

The proposed class action claims the company does not have
authorization to tow vehicles unless they have been abandoned on a
toll highway or interstate highway for more than two hours or have
been abandoned on a highway in an urban district for more than 10
hours.

In a June 6 motion, Mr. Maag proposes certifying a class that
includes persons whose vehicles were towed from May 10, 2009, in
which the vehicles were alongside roadways for a time period less
than that specified by statute, "and the operator of the vehicle
was not placed under arrest for a violation of . . . the Illinois
Vehicle Code."

He also seeks to include persons who paid funds to Black Lane Auto
Parts to get vehicles that had been towed with authorization from
law enforcement, from May 10, 2009, and in which Black Lane did
not provide a detailed signed receipt showing the legal name of
the towing service at the time of payment.

The class action suit was filed approximately one month after
Ms. Craycraft's vehicle was towed.

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-641.


BMS TRUCKING: Faces Suit Filed by Misclassified Truck Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anatoli Kouchnirov, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. BMS Trucking, Inc., an Illinois corporation,
and Audrius Vaitiekunas, an individual, Case No. 2012-CH-21398
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., June 8, 2012), is brought on behalf of
those who currently work, or who worked, as non-exempt truck
drivers or other similar positions performing similar
responsibilities for the Defendants at any time during the maximum
period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and the other members of the
proposed class were improperly classified by the Defendants as
independent contractors, even though they actually worked as
employees.  He contends that the Defendants also improperly
deducted amounts from his and the class members' wages, including
two weeks' wages that was held as a "deposit" for damages to the
BMS trucks or related equipment.  The "deposit" was not returned
to the Plaintiff after his employment was terminated, he adds.

Mr. Kouchnirov is a resident of Rochester, New York, and worked as
a non-exempt truck driver for the Defendants.

BMS is an Illinois corporation.  Mr. Vaitiekunas is a resident of
Palos Hills, Illinois, and the president of BMS.  The Defendants
are in the business of long-haul trucking and freight delivery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Betzen, Esq.
          BETZEN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          2863 W. Leland Ave., Suite 1
          Chicago, IL 60625
          Telephone: (312) 714-5984
          Facsimile: (312) 327-7124
          E-mail: abetzen@betzenlaw.com

               - and -

          John Sawin, Esq.
          SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD.
          217 N. Jefferson, Suite 602
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 853-2490
          E-mail: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Court Closes "Rosendahl" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
A federal court in southern California closed a class action
lawsuit captioned Rosendahl v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., and
compelled the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against the
Company, according to Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s May 1, 2012
Form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

In January 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed
as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University
and University of the Rockies as defendants.  The complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California and is captioned Rosendahl v. Bridgepoint Education,
Inc.  The complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
other defendants engaged in improper, fraudulent and illegal
behavior in their efforts to recruit and retain students.  The
Company responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety and motions to strike certain
allegations in the complaint.  The court allowed the matter to
proceed on certain claims for alleged violations of the Business
and Professions Code, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and negligent misrepresentations, but only as the specific
alleged misrepresentations made to the named plaintiffs.  The
Company then moved to compel the plaintiffs' claims to
arbitration.  In February 2012, the Court issued an order
compelling the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against the
defendants and closed the court case.  The Company has not yet
received an arbitration demand from the plaintiffs.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits OK of Consolidated Wage Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a
settlement entered in a consolidated class action lawsuit pending
in California, according to Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s May 1,
2012 Form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed
as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University,
LLC, and certain employees as defendants.  The complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego and
is captioned Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.  The complaint
generally alleges that the plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections
under California law.

In April 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as
a class action lawsuit naming the Company and Ashford University,
LLC, as defendants.  The complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California in San Diego, and is captioned Moore v.
Ashford University, LLC.  The complaint generally alleges that the
plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly denied
certain wage and hour protections under California law.

In May 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a
class action lawsuit naming the Company as a defendant.  The
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego and is captioned Sanchez v. Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.  The complaint generally alleges that the
plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly denied
certain wage and hour protections under California law.

In October 2011, the cases captioned Moore v. Ashford University,
LLC and Sanchez v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. were consolidated
with Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. , with Stevens v.
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. designated as the lead case, as the
three cases involve common questions of fact and law.

In March 2012, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs of the above named cases to
memorialize the terms of a settlement agreement among the parties.
In April 2012, the Company signed a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs which did not change the terms of the memorandum of
understanding.  Under the settlement agreement, which is pending
court approval, the Company agreed to pay to the plaintiffs an
amount to settle their claims, plus any related payroll taxes.  As
the Company determined that the loss related to settling the
consolidated cases is both probable and reasonably estimable, the
Company accrued $10.8 million for such a loss during the three
months ended March 31, 2012.


CANADA: Thunder Bay City Faces Class Action Over Flooding
---------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter.ca reports that the city of Thunder Bay is
the target of a class-action lawsuit by a law firm alleging that
recent flooding in the region was foreseeable and predictable.

Watkins Law Professional Corporation filed the lawsuit on behalf
of city residents hit by the floods, which prompted the city to
declare a state of emergency in late May.  Specifically, the suit
will argue that Thunder Bay was grossly negligent in the design
and maintenance of its storm, water and sewage systems.

"The recent heavy rains were a predictable event and should have
been designed for and the City failed to maintain the sewage
treatment plant and other storm sewer facilities which resulted in
extensive damages for many city residents," noted lawyers Sandy
Zaitzeff, Christopher Watkins and Nancy Erickson on the web site
of Watkins Law.  "This class action will cover the insured and
uninsured."

The city of Thunder Bay declined to comment on the lawsuit,
according to the CBC.  None of the allegations have been proven in
court.


CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (12 Civ. 4512) in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Central European Distribution
Corporation securities between March 1, 2010 and June 4, 2012,
inclusive.  This securities class action seeks to recover damages
caused by the Company's violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased CEDC securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 7, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

CEDC is one of the largest producers of vodka in the world and
Central and Eastern Europe's largest integrated spirit beverage
business.  The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's reported net
sales in the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011 were
materially inflated; (2) as a result of its failure to
appropriately account for customer rebates, the Company
anticipates restating its reported consolidated net sales,
operating profit and related accounts receivable for these periods
by approximately $30 to $40 million; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 4, 2012, the Company disclosed that it estimates a
reduction of its previously reported consolidated net sales,
operating profit and related accounts receivable for the periods
of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011 by approximately $30
to $40 million, due to the Company's failure to properly account
for the retroactive trade rebates provided to the customers of its
main operating subsidiary in Russia, the Russian Alcohol Group.
On these revelations, CEDC shares declined $0.38 per share or
approximately 10.7%, to close at $3.17 per share on June 5, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is
acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  The
company represents victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  It has offices in New
York and Chicago.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Faces 3 Class Suits Relating to Northera CRL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd., is facing two putative
class action lawsuits following its receipt of a Complete Response
Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the
potential launch of Northera in the United Sates, according to the
Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Following the receipt of CRL in March 2012 and the subsequent
decline of the market price of the Company's common stock, two
purported class action lawsuits were filed on April 4, 2012 and
another purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2012 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
against the Company and certain of its executive officers.

The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule
10b-5 and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act in making various statements related to the Company's
development of Northera for the treatment of symptomatic
neurogenic orthostatic hypotension and the likelihood of FDA
approval.  The class periods alleged in the three complaints run
from November 3, 2008 to March 28, 2012 for two of the complaints
and from June 9, 2011 to February 17, 2012 for the other.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.  Additional similar lawsuits might be filed. The
Company and its officers believe that all of the claims in these
lawsuits are without merit and the Company intends to vigorously
defend against these claims, but is unable to predict the outcome
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CNA FINANCIAL: Appeals in Insurance Brokerage Suit Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from an order approving a settlement in a consolidated
insurance brokerage antitrust class action lawsuit against CNA
Financial Corporation remain pending, according to the Company's
May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

In August 2005, CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries were
joined as defendants, along with other insurers and brokers, in
multidistrict litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184 (GEB).  The plaintiffs'
consolidated class action complaint alleged bid rigging and
improprieties in the payment of contingent commissions in
connection with the sale of insurance.  After various motions and
preliminary court rulings providing for further proceedings,
plaintiffs and various defendants, including CNAF and its named
insurance subsidiaries, executed final settlement documents and
the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement in May 2011, which was ultimately approved by the Court
in March 2012.  In April 2012, objectors to the settlement filed
notices of appeal.  As currently structured, the settlement will
not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations.
In addition, the Company does not believe it has any material
ongoing exposure relating to this matter.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued Over False Claims on Kirkland Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Costco Wholesale Corp. makes
misleading claims about the nutrient content of Kirkland-brand
products, a class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
Case No. 12-cv-02908 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/08/FullText.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1901 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 350
          Campbell, CA 95008
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com


DINEEQUITY INC: Bench Trial in FLSA Suit to Begin in Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A bench trial in the collective action captioned Gerald Fast v.
Applebee's International, Inc., is scheduled to begin on
September 10, 2012, according to DineEquity, Inc.'s May 1, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company is currently defending a collective action in United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Central Division filed on July 14, 2006 under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Gerald Fast v. Applebee's International, Inc., in
which named plaintiffs claim that tipped workers in company
restaurants perform excessive amounts of non-tipped work for which
they should be compensated at the minimum wage.  The court has
conditionally certified a nationwide class of servers and
bartenders who have worked in company-operated Applebee's
restaurants since June 19, 2004.  Unlike a class action, a
collective action requires potential class members to "opt in"
rather than "opt out."  On February 12, 2008, 5,540 opt-in forms
were filed with the court.

In cases of this type, conditional certification of the plaintiff
class is granted under a lenient standard.  On January 15, 2009,
the Company filed a motion seeking to have the class de-certified
and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, both of
which were denied by the court.

The parties stipulated to a bench trial which was set to begin on
September 8, 2009 in Jefferson City, Missouri.  Just prior to
trial, however, the court vacated the trial setting in order to
submit key legal issues to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for
review on interlocutory appeal.  On April 21, 2011, the Eighth
Circuit affirmed the trial court's denial of the Company's motion
for summary judgment.  On July 6, 2011, the Eighth Circuit denied
the Company's petition for rehearing.

On October 4, 2011, the Company filed a petition for certiorari
asking the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of
the Eighth Circuit.  On January 17, 2012, the Supreme Court
declined to review the case.  The bench trial is currently
scheduled to begin on September 10, 2012.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend this case. An estimate of the possible loss or a
range of the loss, if any, cannot be made and, therefore, the
Company has not accrued a loss contingency related to this matter.


DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Pain Pumps
------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC continues to defend itself from several lawsuits
related to disposable drug infusion pump products commonly called
pain pumps, according to the Company's May 1, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company is currently named as one of several defendants in a
number of product liability lawsuits involving approximately 80
plaintiffs in U.S. cases and a lawsuit in Canada which has been
granted class action status, related to a disposable drug infusion
pump product (pain pump) manufactured by two third party
manufacturers that the Company distributed through its Bracing and
Vascular segment.  The Company sold pumps manufactured by one
manufacturer from 1999 to 2003 and then sold pumps manufactured by
a second manufacturer from 2003 to 2009.  The Company discontinued
its sale of these products in the second quarter of 2009.  These
cases have been brought against the manufacturers and certain
distributors of these pumps, and in some cases, the manufacturers
of the anesthetics used in these pumps.  All of these lawsuits
allege that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for
prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries has resulted in
cartilage damage to the plaintiffs.  The lawsuits allege damages
ranging from unspecified amounts to claims of up to $10 million.
Many of the lawsuits which have been filed in the past three years
have named multiple pain pump manufacturers and distributors
without having established which manufacturer manufactured or sold
the pump in issue.  In the past three years, the Company has been
dismissed from more than 360 cases when product identification was
later established showing that it did not sell the pump in issue.
At present, the Company is named in approximately 55 lawsuits in
which product identification has yet to be determined and, as a
result, the Company believes that it will be dismissed from a
meaningful number of such cases in the future.  In the past two
years, the Company has entered into settlements with plaintiffs in
approximately 60 pain pump lawsuits.  Of these, the Company has
settled approximately 34 cases in joint settlements involving its
first manufacturer and it has settled approximately 26 cases
involving its second manufacturer in each of which the
manufacturer's carrier has made some contribution to its
settlement amount or any joint settlement, but for which the
Company is seeking indemnity for the balance of its costs.  As of
March 31, 2012, the range of potential loss is not estimable.


EL AL: Settles Price-Fixing Scheme Class Action for $15.8 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Port2Port reports that El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. agreed to pay
$15.8 million to settle a class-action suit in New York over a
claim that the company, and 38 other carriers, engaged in price-
fixing scheme in the United States on air cargo rates.  The
payment will be to scores shippers.

The carrier has agreed to cooperate in the ongoing case against
the remaining defendant.  El Al noted the settlement should not be
construed as an admission of guilt.

The deal, which must be approved by a federal judge in New York,
covers alleged price fixing by El Al and more than 20 Asian,
European and Latin American airlines from 2000 to 2006.

The airline has already paid out $9.8 million of the settlement
proceeds.  According to the terms, the agreement represents a full
settlement of any claims involving cargo pricing within the United
States, or to, or from the United States, at any time before the
settlement.

El Al is the sixteenth carrier to agree to a settlement, bringing
the total recovery to nearly $480 million.


EMORY HEALTHCARE: Faces Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Becker's Hospital Review, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports
that Atlanta-based Emory Healthcare is facing a class-action
lawsuit over a data breach that occurred in April, when the system
lost 10 discs containing personal information for roughly 315,000
patients.

The recently-filed class-action suit could cost the system more
than $200 million, as it seeks $1,000 for each person affected.
At least 200,000 patients are expected to become members of the
class, and the suit also wants Emory to pay for identity theft and
credit insurance for each member for at least three years.

The data loss affected patients treated at Emory University
Hospital, Emory University Hospital Midtown and the Emory Clinic
Ambulatory Surgery Center between 1990 and 2007.  Roughly 228,000
of the lost records contained Social Security numbers, according
to the report.


FACEBOOK: Tony Merchant Files Class Action Over IPO
---------------------------------------------------
The Regina Leader-Post reports that Regina lawyer Tony Merchant
and his firm have filed a Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against
Facebook, its founder and financial institutions that helped in
its disappointing initial public offering (IPO) of stock.

It was filed on June 8 on behalf of Reginan Shayla Dewhurst.

The suit's statement of claim says Facebook "discreetly contacted"
more than 20 financial analysts, including some working for the
offering's underwriters, to tell them 2012 and 2013 profit
estimates would be lower than expected.

"Despite their obligation to promote Facebook's IPO in a fair
manner, the Underwriter Defendants only disclosed this secret
information to certain selected clients, thus curtailing demand
for Facebook shares in the IPO," the statement of claim says.

"This enabled selected clients to benefit from insider knowledge
to avoid purchasing shares of Facebook at inflated prices or to
short Facebook's shares to the detriment of other investors."

It further says Facebook failed to disclose pending litigation,
and possible shortfalls in advertising revenues because users were
accessing it with mobile devices or mobile apps, so that the
corporation does not "derive any meaningful revenue" from them.

A class-action lawsuit must be certified by a judge in order to
proceed, so the filing of the claim is only the first step.  A
statement of claim contains allegations not yet proven in court.

Defendants in the suit are Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg,
Facebook investor-director Peter Thiel, Facebook itself and
financial firms Allen & Company LLC, Barclays Capital Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and
RBC Capital Markets LLC.

A news release accompanying the statement of claim, which was
filed in Regina, notes the Merchant Law Group's class actions on
subjects ranging from residential schools to silicon breast
implants and from pharmaceuticals to the Canadian Wheat Board.


FIRST AMERICAN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First American Financial Corporation continues to defend itself
from various class action lawsuits challenging practices in its
title insurance business, according to the Company's May 1, 2012
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

The Company is named a party in several putative class action
lawsuits.  For a substantial majority of these lawsuits, however,
it is not possible to assess the probability of loss. Most of
these lawsuits are putative class actions which require a
plaintiff to satisfy a number of procedural requirements before
proceeding to trial. These requirements include, among others,
demonstration to a court that the law proscribes in some manner
the Company's activities, the making of factual allegations
sufficient to suggest that the Company's activities exceeded the
limits of the law and a determination by the court-known as class
certification-that the law permits a group of individuals to
pursue the case together as a class. If these procedural
requirements are not met, either the lawsuit cannot proceed or, as
is the case with class certification, the plaintiffs lose the
financial incentive to proceed with the case (or the amount at
issue effectively becomes de minimus). Frequently, a court's
determination as to these procedural requirements is subject to
appeal to a higher court. As a result of, among other factors,
ambiguities and inconsistencies in the myriad laws applicable to
the Company's business and the uniqueness of the factual issues
presented in any given lawsuit, the Company often cannot determine
the probability of loss until a court has finally determined that
a plaintiff has satisfied applicable procedural requirements.

Furthermore, because most of these lawsuits are putative class
actions, it is often impossible to estimate the possible loss or a
range of loss amounts, even where the Company has determined that
a loss is reasonably possible. Generally class actions involve a
large number of people and the effort to determine which people
satisfy the requirements to become plaintiffs-or class members-is
often time consuming and burdensome. Moreover, these lawsuits
raise complex factual issues which result in uncertainty as to
their outcome and, ultimately, make it difficult for the Company
to estimate the amount of damages which a plaintiff might
successfully prove. In addition, many of the Company's businesses
are regulated by various federal, state, local and foreign
governmental agencies and are subject to numerous statutory
guidelines. These regulations and statutory guidelines often are
complex, inconsistent or ambiguous, which results in additional
uncertainty as to the outcome of a given lawsuit-including the
amount of damages a plaintiff might be afforded-or makes it
difficult to analogize experience in one case or jurisdiction to
another case or jurisdiction.

The class action lawsuits allege that the Company, one of its
subsidiaries or one of its agents:

   * charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance
     transaction, including:

        -- Boucher v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on May 16, 2007 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the Western District of Washington;

        -- Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on August 22, 2007 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Northern District of
           Texas,

        -- Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed on August 25, 2008 and pending in the
           Superior Court of the State of North Carolina, Wake
           County,

        -- Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on September 29, 2010 and pending in the United
           States District Court of New Jersey,

        -- Johnson v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on May 27, 2008 and pending in the United States
           District Court of Arizona,

        -- Lang v. First American Title Insurance Company of New
           York, filed on March 9, 2012 and pending in the United
           States District Court of New York,

        -- Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
           on February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States
           District Court of Pennsylvania,

        -- Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
           on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the District of Idaho,

        -- Loef v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
           on August 16, 2008 and pending in the United States
           District Court of Maine,

        -- Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit
           Court, Nassau County, Florida, and

        -- Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on December 19, 2005 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Western District of
           Pennsylvania.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions.  A court has
only granted class certification in Loef, Hamilton (North
Carolina), Johnson, Lewis, Raffone and Slapikas.  An appeal to a
higher court is pending with respect to the granting of class
certification in Hamilton (North Carolina).  For the reasons
stated above, the Company has been unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of
loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the
Company believes the amount is immaterial to the financial
statements as a whole.

   * purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as
     an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting
     business to the Company or gave items of value to title
     insurance agents and others for referrals of business, in
     each case in violation of the Real Estate Settlement
     Procedures Act, including:

        -- Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation,
           filed on June 12, 2007 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Central District of
           California, and

        -- Galiano v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed on February 8, 2008 and pending in the
           United States District Court for the Eastern District
           of New York.

Galiano is a putative class action for which a class has not been
certified.  In Edwards a narrow class has been certified. The
United States Supreme Court is reviewing whether the Edwards
plaintiff has the legal right to sue.  For the reasons stated
above, the Company has been unable to assess the probability of
loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

   * conspired with its competitors to fix prices or otherwise
     engaged in anticompetitive behavior, including:

        -- Holt v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed March 11, 2008 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Eastern District of
           Pennsylvania,

        -- Katz v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed March 18, 2008 and pending in the United
           States District Court for the Northern District of
           Ohio,

        -- McCray v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed October 15, 2008 and pending in the United
           States District Court of Delaware, and

        -- Swick v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed March 19, 2008, and pending in the United
           States District Court of New Jersey.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class
has not been certified.  For the reasons described above, the
Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or
estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

   * engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

        -- Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
           filed on October 16, 2006 and pending in the United
           States District Court of Connecticut, and

        -- Katin v. First American Signature Services, Inc., et
           al., filed on May 9, 2007 and pending in the United
           States District Court of Massachusetts.

Katin is a putative class action for which a class has not been
certified. A class has been certified in Gale, however the
Company's motion to decertify the class is pending.  For the
reasons described above, the Company has not yet been able to
assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or
the range of loss.

   * misclassified employees and failed to pay overtime,
     including:

        -- Bartko v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
           on November 8, 2011, and pending in the Superior Court
           of the State of California, Los Angeles.

Bartko is a putative class action for which a class has not been
certified.  For the reasons described above, the Company has not
yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
possible loss or the range of loss.

   * overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and
     services provided in connection with the closing of real
     estate transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded
     telephone calls, acted as an unauthorized trustee and gave
     items of value to developers, builders and others as
     inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
     laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
     prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain
     obligations, including:

        -- Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection
           Corporation, filed on September 23, 2009 and pending in
           the Superior Court of the State of California, County
           of Los Angeles,

        -- Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et
           al., filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the
           United States District Court of New Jersey,

        -- Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection
           Corporation, et al., filed on August 24, 2009 and
           pending in the Superior Court of the State of
           California, County of Los Angeles,

        -- Eberhard v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
           al., filed on April 4, 2011 and pending in the Court of
           Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, Ohio,

        -- Eide v. First American Title Company, filed on
           February 26, 2010 and pending in the Superior Court of
           the State of California, County of Kern,

        -- Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company,
           filed on July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,

        -- Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et
           al., filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the
           Superior Court of the State of California, County of
           Los Angeles,

        -- Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on
           June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the
           State of California, County of Los Angeles,

        -- Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et
           al., filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the
           Superior Court of the State of California, County of
           Los Angeles,

        -- Smith v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed
           on November 23, 2011 and pending in the United States
           District Court for the Western District of Washington,

        -- Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009 and
           pending in the United States District Court for the
           Western District of Washington, and

        -- Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
           filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior
           Court of the State of California, County of Los
           Angeles.

All of these lawsuits, except Sjobring and Tavenner, are putative
class actions for which a class has not been certified.  In
Sjobring a class was certified but that certification was
subsequently vacated.  In Tavenner, the Company has filed a notice
of appeal of the class certification.  For the reasons described
above, the Company has not yet been able to assess the probability
of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

While some of the lawsuits described above may be material to the
Company's operating results in any particular period if an
unfavorable outcome results, the Company does not believe that any
of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's overall financial condition or liquidity.


HMS HOST: Accused of Not Paying Employees Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Vigil, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. HMS
Host USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Host International, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation; Christian Henry; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. RG12626915 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.,
April 23, 2012) is brought on behalf of a proposed class, which
consists of all non-exempt or hourly paid employees, who worked
for the Defendants at their Oakland, California airport location
within four years prior to the filing of the complaint until the
date of certification.

The Plaintiff contends that employees were not paid for all hours
worked because all hours worked were not recorded.  Ms. Vigil
contends that the Defendants knew or should have known that she
and the class members were entitled to receive certain wages for
overtime compensation, and that they were not receiving certain
wages for overtime compensation.

Ms. Vigil is a resident of Alameda County, California.  She was
employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly paid "Server"
from October 2008 to November 2011 at their Oakland, California
business location.

HMS Host and Host International are Delaware corporations doing
business in California.  Christian Henry, a resident of
California, was the store manager for HMS Host and Host
International at the Oakland airport location while the Plaintiff
was employed there.  The Plaintiff is currently unaware of the
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

HMS Host and Host International removed the lawsuit on June 8,
2012, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County
of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that removal is proper
because diversity of citizenship exists among the parties.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-02982 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq.
          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          Katharine Den Bleyker, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP AFC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          Facsimile: (310) 861-9051
          E-mail: MSchimmel@InitiativeLegal.com
                  CoryLee@InitiativeLegal.com
                  KDenBleyker@InitiativeLegal.com
                  TZohdy@InitiativeLegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
          Matthew I. Bobb, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
                  sshadi@bakerlaw.com
                  mbobb@bakerlaw.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser stiffed "site support
specialists" for overtime, a class action claims in Superior
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lemmons v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,
Inc., Case No. 34-2012-00125488 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/08/Kaiser.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NODREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223


KELLOGG: 9th Cir. Examines Frosted Mini-Wheats Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that an attorney
urged the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
reject a $10.6 million settlement for a class which claimed
Kellogg falsely advertised its Frosted Mini-Wheats as improving
kids' memory and attentiveness.

Advertisements for Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats cited clinical
studies that claimed the cereal improved cognitive function and
memory in children by close to 20 percent.  When the Federal Trade
Commission found that these representations were false or
misleading, a class of consumers filed suit.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, Kellogg reached a settlement
with the class, and a San Diego federal judge approved that deal
in April 2011.

The settlement included a fund of $2.75 million to refund claims,
a $5.5 million charitable food donation, and an injunction that
bars Kellogg from making similar advertising claims.  Kellogg also
agreed to pay attorneys' fees and other costs.

Facing objections from some class representatives, the matter went
before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit on June 7.

Attorney Janine Menhennet, who represents objector Stephanie Berg,
called the settlement "unfair" and claimed it had "some real
obvious flaws."

Contributing $5.5 million worth of cereal to organizations for
needy adults was "inconsistent with the purposes for which the
lawsuit was filed, in that they duped children and the parents of
children who eat Frosted Mini-Wheats," said Ms. Menhennet, an
attorney with the Law Offices of Darrell Palmer.

"Just off the top of my head, it occurs to me perhaps serving
school breakfast programs in neighborhoods which are dramatically
underfunded would serve the class a lot better than serving high
fiber cereal to adults," Ms. Menhennet said.

Though Kellogg agreed to a $5.5 million contribution, there was no
indication that the pledge would not be included in "what they
already do," the lawyer added.

Ms. Menhennet also asked the court to take a look at attorneys'
fees for class counsel, claiming the figure would surely amount to
about $2,100 per hour.

"That doesn't represent a market rate in any market, as far as I
can tell," Ms. Menhennet said.

Class counsel Timothy Blood, however, called the settlement an
"outstanding result," given the likelihood of losing class
certification.

"Frankly, it's the kind of settlement the court should embrace,"
said Mr. Blood, an attorney with Blood Hurst & O'Reardon.

Mr. Blood also defended fees award, noting that his firm had gone
through an appeal, negotiated a settlement, and that the fees were
locked in -- even if he did more work on the case.

The three-judge panel pressed Blood and Kellogg's attorney on the
$5.5 million charitable contribution to the poor, which it said
seemed disconnected to false-advertising claims.

Kellogg attorney Kenneth Lee countered that the case was about the
"nutritional value" of the cereal and that it was therefore
reasonable for the company to make a food contribution to the
poor.

"This complaint was about statements about the nutritional value
of cereal, we are providing nutritious cereal to charities that
will serve children . . .  and these children will benefit from
these nutritious cereals," said Mr. Lee, of Jenner and Block.

Judge Stephen Trott asked Mr. Lee: "How do we know you're not
going to include this in what you would otherwise give, and
therefore not feel any lash from it?"

Mr. Lee said that he could only represent that Kellogg would make
good on the contribution.

Judge Trott responded: "It seems to me you're asking us to trust
the same people who told everybody that their kids would get
smarter if they ate frosted Mini-Wheats."

Omar Rivero, the other objector in the case, is represented by:

          Christopher Bandas, Esq.
          500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 1020
          Corpus Christi, TX 78471
          Telephone: (361) 698-5200
          E-mail: cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com


LEEDS MATTRESS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2012, the employment law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against Leeds Mattress
Stores, Inc. alleging Leeds misclassified their Sales
Representatives as exempt from overtime wages and violated other
California wage and hour laws. Williams II, et al. vs. Leeds
Mattress Stores, Inc., Case No. BC484340 is currently pending in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California.

The Sales Representatives alleged in the class action wage and
hour Complaint they were primarily engaged in non-exempt duties,
including cleaning windows, watering plants, and sweeping
sidewalks.  Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that "they were
paid a flat rate of $100 as a draw per day worked, without regard
to the actual number of hours worked per day."  As a result, the
Complaint claims that these employees were systematically denied
overtime pay at the applicable overtime rates throughout their
employment with Leeds.

Specifically, the complaint contends that when the Sales Reps made
sales that were paid in cash, "they were required to collect . . .
then deposit the cash at Leeds' bank before arriving for work the
next day."  Additionally, the Complaint contends that, "As a
result of their rigorous work schedules, they were often unable to
take off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for
meal periods."

The managing partner of the law firm, Norman B. Blumenthal, stated
"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."

The employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
represent many California employees in class action lawsuits
against their current and/or former employers for wage and hour
violations.


LIBERTY MEDIA: August 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP on June 8 issued a
statement regarding Liberty Media Tracking Stock Litigation.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

BLACKTHORN PARTNERS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
JOHN C. MALONE, EVAN D. MALONE, GREGORY B. MAFFEI, ROBERT R.
BENNETT, DONNE F. FISHER, MALCOLM IAN GRANT GILCHRIST, PAUL A.
GOULD, DAVID E. RAPLEY, M. LAVOY ROBINSON, and LARRY E. ROMRELL
Defendants. C.A. No. 5260-CS

TO: ALL BENEFICIAL AND RECORD OWNERS OF SERIES B LIBERTY
ENTERTAINMENT TRACKING STOCK (CUSIP: 53071M609; TICKER SYMBOL:
LMDIB) AS OF OCTOBER 9, 2009, OTHER THAN DEFENDANTS AND THEIR
AFFILIATES.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware, that a hearing will be held on
August 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., at the New Castle County Courthouse,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, for the purpose
of: (1) determining whether a settlement of the claims asserted
against the Defendants in the case captioned above should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the
best interests of the Class (as defined in an order entered in the
Action on January 14, 2011); (2) determining whether an Order and
Final Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice and
extinguishing and releasing all Settled Claims (as defined in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release
filed in the Ac?tion) should be entered by the Court; (3)
considering the application of Blackthorn's counsel in the Action
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as provided in the
Stipulation; and (4) ruling on such other matters as the Court may
deem appropriate.  If you owned directly or beneficially Series B
Liberty Entertain?ment Tracking Stock as of October 9, 2009, your
rights are affected by the Settle?ment.  If you have not received
a copy of the detailed NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING AND RIGHT
TO APPEAR, Proof of Claim form and Substitute Form W-9, you may
obtain copies by immediately writing to Liberty Media Shareholder
Litiga?tion Settlement, c/o Heffler Claims Administration, P.O.
Box 59090, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9090, or you can download copies
at http://www.LMDIBsettlement.hrsclaims.com

If you are a member of the Class, you must submit a Proof of Claim
form and/or Sub?stitute Form W-9 and supporting documentation no
later than August 7, 2012, in order to obtain a payment under the
terms of the Settlement.  PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT ABOUT
THE SETTLEMENT.  If you have any questions about the Settlement,
you may contact Class counsel:

          R. Montgomery Donaldson, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
          1105 North Market Street, Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 504-7840
          E-mail: rdonaldson@mmwr.com

or go to the Web site: http://www.LMDIBsettlement.hrsclaims.com


MAKO SURGICAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all investors who purchased MAKO Surgical Corp. common
stock during the period between January 9, 2012 and May 7, 2012.

MAKO is a medical device company that primarily markets the RIO
Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopedic system and MAKOplasty
applications for minimally invasive orthopedic procedures.  The
Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose that: (a) the Company was poised to suffer a larger
first-quarter loss due to higher costs and slower sales of its RIO
systems; (b) utilization rates were declining for the Company's
RIO systems; (c) the Company's 2012 outlook, provided at the start
of the Class Period, lacked a reasonable basis when made; and (d),
based on the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company or its outlook lacked a reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased MAKO stock between January 9, 2012 and May 7,
2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc Grobler at
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton and Boston,
specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class
actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.

Contact:

        Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
        Marc Grobler, Esq.
        Saxena White P.A.
        2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
        Boca Raton, FL 33431
        Telephone: (561) 394-3399
        E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                mgrobler@saxenawhite.com
        Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


NOBELTEL LLC: Settles Prepaid Calling Card Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action Settlement of a lawsuit captioned Sabaj et al. v.
NobelTel, LLC et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC435467
could affect you if you purchased prepaid calling cards that were
sold, serviced or distributed in California by Nobel, Inc., Nobel,
Ltd., NobelCom, LLC, and NobelTel, LLC, or if you purchased any
prepaid calling services sold online and submitted a California
billing address through http://www.nobelcom.comand
http://www.enjoyprepaid.combetween April 8, 2006 and May 24,
2012.  If you made such a purchase, you may be a member of the
Settlement Class.

What Is This About?

The Lawsuit claims that the Defendants did not inform consumers
sufficiently about the applicable rates and charges for their
prepaid calling cards and services, failed to deliver minutes
voice prompted by the cards, and violated California consumer
protection laws. Defendants deny they did anything wrong.

Am I Affected By The Settlement?

You are a member of the Class if you purchased a prepaid calling
card issued by Nobel, Inc., Nobel, Ltd., NobelCom, LLC, and
NobelTel, LLC in California between April 8, 2006 and May 24,
2012.  A list of eligible calling cards is available on the Web
sites listed below.

You are also a member of the Class if you purchased any prepaid
calling services sold online between April 8, 2006 and May 24,
2012 and you provided a California billing address through
http://www.nobelcom.comand http://www.enjoyprepaid.com

What Benefits Does The Settlement Provide?

Defendants will provide 400,000 $5.00 calling card Settlement
Personal Identification Numbers ("Settlement PINs").  These
Settlement PINs can be used to make international and domestic
calls, originating from California, to any place in the
continental United States and to 879 foreign locations.  A
complete list of locations is available on the Web sites below.
If you purchased Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards online, you may be
entitled to receive one (1) Settlement PIN for up to the first $40
in Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards purchased, and an additional
Settlement PIN for every $40 increment thereafter.  If you
purchased Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards in a physical store in
California, you may be entitled to receive one (1) Settlement PIN
for up to the first $20 in Nobel Prepaid Calling Cards purchased,
and an additional Settlement PIN for every $20 increment
thereafter, up to a maximum of six (6) Settlement PINs.

How Do I Get an Award?

If you purchased prepaid calling services sold online through
http://www.nobelcom.comand http://www.enjoyprepaid.com you will
automatically receive the Settlement PIN(s) at the e-mail address
you provided to Defendants without having to submit anything.

If you purchased a prepaid calling card in some other manner, you
must submit a Refund Form to receive the Settlement PIN(s) by mail
no later than November 20, 2012 to February 18, 2013.

What Are My Other Legal Rights?

Remain in the Settlement: You will be bound by the terms of the
Settlement and give up your right to sue Defendants.  To receive
the Settlement PIN(s) see the instructions above.

Get out of the Settlement: If you wish to keep your right to sue
Defendants, you must exclude yourself by August 13, 2012.

Remain in the Settlement and Object: If you stay in the
Settlement, you can object to it by August 13, 2012.  You give up
your right to sue and are bound by all Court orders even if your
objection is rejected.

The Los Angeles Superior Court will hold a hearing in the case,
Sabaj et al. v. NobelTel, LLC et al. Case No. BC435467 on
September 13, 2012 to consider whether to approve the Settlement
and a request for attorneys' fees and expenses up to $500,000.
You may ask to appear and speak at the hearing, or you may hire a
lawyer to request to appear and speak at the hearing, at your own
expense.

Questions? Call 888-453-3638 toll free or visit
http://www.nobelcaliforniasettlement.com,
http://www.ltlcounsel.comand http://www.ziaeelaw.com


NEW YORK: NYPD Class Action Over Mass Arrest Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Village Voice reports that a federal judge ruled on June 8 that a
class action suit against the NYPD over the mass arrest of more
than 700 people on the Brooklyn Bridge October 1 can go forward.

The march over the vehicular roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge was
one of the most visually dramatic events of the young Occupy Wall
Street movement, and one of the earliest examples of the NYPD's
use of mass arrests to attempt to control protesters.

Police kettled the march with orange nets, preventing anyone from
leaving the bridge, then arrested hundreds of marchers for
blocking traffic.

But many marchers argued that they were only proceeded onto the
bridge because the police gave the impression they were allowing
the march to proceed over the roadway.

The police may have made a statement forbidding the march from
carrying on over the vehicular portion of the bridge, protesters
said, but they did it in a way in which the vast majority of
marchers could never have heard it.  And when police turned their
backs on the march and started moving down the roadway themselves,
they were effectively leading the protest, sanctioning the march
onto the bridge.

Three days after the march, some of those arrested filed a class
action suit against the city, the police officers, Police Chief
Ray Kelly, and Mike Bloomberg, alleging their constitutional
rights were violated by unlawful arrest.

The city came back with a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing the
protesters fail to adequately allege a constitutional
infringement, and that in any case, the officers were reasonably
doing their job, and so have qualified immunity from this sort of
suit.

Judge Rakoff's ruling on this motion to dismiss begins with a
striking statement on the need for police restraint when
addressing non-violent protest:

"What a huge debt this nation owes to its "troublemakers."  From
Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King, Jr., they have forced us to
focus on problems we would prefer to downplay or ignore.  Yet it
is often only with hindsight that we can distinguish those
troublemakers who brought us to our senses from those who were
simply troublemakers.  Prudence, and respect for the
constitutional rights to free speech and free association,
therefore dictate that the legal system cut all non-violent
protesters a fair amount of slack."

Judge Rakoff denies the motion to dismiss the suit against the
police, finding no evidence had been presented to show there was
any reason for the mass arrests.

"Because the defendants have not argued that plaintiffs posed a
threat of imminent harm, they have shown neither that
circumstances would have alerted demonstrators to the illegality
of their conduct nor that mass arrest served some pressing law
enforcement need."

Judge Rakoff did dismiss the suit against Mr. Bloomberg,
Mr. Kelly, and the City, however, finding that the plaintiffs
didn't present adequate evidence that they were responsible, or
that the arrests were part of a wider program to smother Occupy
Wall Street.

"The plaintiffs cannot bridge the gap between the broad,
conspiratorial policy they attribute to the City and the
violations that they have plausibly alleged in this case,"
Judge Rakoff wrote.


PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS: October 19 Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 8 issued a statement
pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York:



                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
                                            x
        PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL      :  Civil Action No.
        UNION NO. 630 PENSION-ANNUITY       :  1:08-cv-04063-PAE
        TRUST                               :  CLASS ACTION
        FUND                                :  SUMMARY NOTICE
        , Individually and On Behalf of     :
        All Others Similarly                :
        Situated,                           :
        Plaintiff,                          :
        vs.                                 :
        ARBITRON INC., et al.,              :
        Defendants.                         :
                                            :
                                            :
                                            x
        -----------------------------------    ------------------



TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED ARBITRON INC. COMMON STOCK DURING
THE PERIOD JULY 19, 2007 THROUGH NOVEMBER 26, 2007, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a
hearing will be held on October 19, 2012, at 11:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007,
for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement
of the Action for the sum of Seven Million United States Dollars
(USD $7,000,000.00) in cash should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated May 14, 2012; (3)
whether the Plan of Distribution of settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4)
the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection
with this Action, together with interest thereon, and
reimbursement to Lead Plaintiff for its costs and expenses
incurred representing the Class.

If you purchased Arbitron common stock during the period July 19,
2007 through November 26, 2007, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by this Action and the settlement thereof.  If you have
not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form,
you may obtain copies by writing to Arbitron Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box
990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990, or by downloading this
information at http://www.gilardi.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than August 30, 2012, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Action unless you request to be excluded,
in writing, to the above address, postmarked by October 5, 2012.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than October 5, 2012, and received
by the following no later than September 28, 2012:

Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.       Jeffrey D. Rotenberg, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP   DLA PIPER LLC
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900      1251 Avenue of the Americas,
San Diego, CA 92101                27th Floor
cstewart@rgrdlaw.com               New York, NY 10020
                                   jeffrey.rotenberg@dlapiper.com
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff
                                   James Wareham, Esq.
                                   James Anklam, Esq.
                                   DLA PIPER LLC
                                   500 Eighth Street, NW
                                   Washington, DC 20004
                                   james.wareham@dlapiper.com
                                   james.anklam@dlapiper.com

                                   Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq.
                                   Robert F. Carangelo, Esq.
                                   Evert J. Christensen, Jr., Esq.
                                   WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
                                   767 Fifth Avenue
                                   New York, NY 10153
                                   jonathan.polkes@weil.com
                                   robert.carangelo@weil.com
                                   evert.christensen@weil.com

                                   Counsel for Defendants

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: May 17, 2012

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


SAMSUNG TELECOMS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Phones
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Samsung's Galaxy S mobile
phones freeze and shut down in standby mode, and so do its
replacement phones, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Galitski, et al. v. Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-00903 (C.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/08/Samsung.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Doyle II, Esq.
          Katherine S. Didonato, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (213) 867-1777
          E-mail: bill@doylelowther.com
                  kate@doylelowther.com

               - and -

          John A. Lowther, Esq.
          James R. Hail, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 935-9960
          E-mail: john@doylelowther.com
                  jim@doylelowther.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Glynn, Esq.
          GLYNN LAW GROUP
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 170
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 271-1100
          E-mail: tom@glynnlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          Scott Kitner, Esq.
          STANLEY IOLA, LLP
          310 Monticello Ave., Ste. 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 443-4300
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com


STRUCTURED BROADBAND: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 11, 2012, the wage and hour lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against
Structured Broadband Services, Inc. for violating California labor
laws, including allegedly failing to pay their Technicians
overtime wages and failing to reimburse these employees for
required business expenses they spent for Broadband's benefit.
Brand, et al. vs. Structured Broadband Services, Inc., Case No.
34-2012-00124076 is currently pending in the Sacramento County
Superior Court for the State of California.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Broadband only
paid the Plaintiff and California Class Members a piece rate based
on the specific job task completed by these employees and as a
result, "systematically miscalculated overtime compensation and/or
outright failed to provide compensation for overtime hours
worked."  Additionally, the complaint alleges that Broadband
required the Technician employees to, "purchase supplies and
equipment in furtherance of their job duties . . . and were not
reimbursed or indemnified by [Broadband] for these business
expenses."

Managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal advocates, "Employers who fail to reimburse their
employees who put up their hard earned money for goods and
services vital to the performance of their occupation, are taking
advantage of these very employees."

The employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik are
dedicated to representing the California worker whose rights have
been violated by their employer.


THOMAS M. COOLEY: ABA/NALP "Not Indispensable Absent Parties"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the American Bar Association and NALP are not "indispensible
absent parties" to a proposed fraud class action brought by 12
recent graduates against the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, a
federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist's June 7 ruling dealt a blow to
Cooley's argument that it was "just following orders" by providing
the job figures required by NALP, formerly the National
Association for Law Placement, and the ABA, said attorney Jesse
Strauss -- jesse@strausslawpllc.com -- who represents the
plaintiffs alongside attorneys David Anziska and Frank Raimond.

"So far, we're two for two on that," Mr. Strauss said, noting that
a New York state trial judge in March rejected a similar argument
by New York Law School before dismissing the larger suit. (Strauss
said he plans to file an appeal in the New York case by early
July).

Lawyers for Cooley and the plaintiffs faced off on June 5 in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan during a
hearing on the law school's motion to dismiss the case, which was
filed in August.  Cooley was among the first schools sued in what
has become a wave of litigation directed at law schools that
plaintiffs claim puffed up their post-graduate employment data in
efforts to lure students.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone attorney Michael Coakley, who
represents Cooley, did not respond to calls for comment.  Cooley
general counsel James Thelen said that while Judge Quist did rule
against Cooley on a number of limited, procedural matters, he is
optimistic that the larger motion to dismiss will be granted.

In its motion to dismiss, Cooley argued that the plaintiffs'
claims are aimed primarily at the ABA and NALP, and that failing
to include those organizations as defendants was ground to dismiss
the complaint.

"Plaintiffs ask for an "industry"-wide rewrite of those standards,
but fail to name as defendants the very entities whose standards
they want the court to rewrite," Cooley argued in its motion.

Judge Quist disagreed, ruling that the ABA and NALP's reporting
requirements "are a floor, not a ceiling," and that Cooley could
provide employment information beyond what those organization
mandate.

"Even though the plaintiffs' goal may be to fix systemic problems
in law school employment data reporting, that goal is not what
they seek to accomplish with this particular lawsuit," Judge Quist
wrote.  "Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief solely from
Cooley and its agents."

Judge Quist has yet to rule on Cooley's larger argument: that the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) does not apply to
educational purchases.  That law applies only to "providing goods,
property, or service primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes," Cooley argued.

Mr. Strauss replied in court that another Michigan federal judge's
2009 ruling that the MCPA did not apply to Cooley was "off the
cuff" and had little statutory support.  "I don't think that the
Michigan Legislature intended [for providers of education to be
exempt]," he said.

Mr. Strauss said the fate of the Cooley suit likely would come
down to the MCPA issue.  A ruling on that matter was expected
soon.


UNITED BANCORP: Continues to Defend EFTA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
United Bancorp Inc. continues to defend itself against a putative
class action relating to ATM fees and violations of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act, 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.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Bank in early 2011
that alleges the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
(EFTA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1693 et seq., by allegedly failing to
provide adequate notice of automated teller machines (ATMs) fees
at the Bank's ATMs.  The plaintiff is seeking class certification
of the lawsuit, statutory damages, payment of costs of the lawsuit
and payment of reasonable attorneys' fees.  This case is in the
discovery stage, and the class has not been certified.  The
Company is unable to determine potential liability in this case.
Although the Bank intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit, the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is neither probable nor
remote, and as such, no conclusion can be made at this time.  The
Bank believes this complaint is a routine legal proceeding
occurring in the ordinary course of its business as an operator of
ATMs.  The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit,
but that disclosure of the potential liability is prudent.

Founded in 1974, United Bancorp, Inc. --
http://www.unitedbancorp.com/-- operates as the holding company
for The Citizens Savings Bank that provides various commercial and
retail banking products and services in the northeastern, eastern,
southeastern, and south central Ohio.  Its deposit products
include interest-bearing deposits, certificates of deposit, demand
deposits, savings accounts, NOW accounts, and money market
deposits.


USAA CASUALTY: Sued in Oregon Over Fraudulent File Review System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that USAA Casualty
Insurance and affiliates target military veterans with a
fraudulent file review system that deprives them of medical
coverage for auto accidents, two vets claim in a class action in
Multnomah County Court.

Lead plaintiffs Randi Byers and Rebecca Farris claim USAA Casualty
Insurance and its affiliates refuse to cover medical expenses for
car accidents involving active, reserve and former military
personnel.

"When plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result of automobile
accidents, they sought reasonable and necessary medical care which
USAA promised to pay for," the complaint states.  "However,
payment for plaintiffs' medical treatment was then wrongfully
denied by USAA on the basis of fraudulent file reviews in order to
deprive plaintiffs, and those like them, of their medical
treatment and thereby save USAA money at the expense of its
military insureds."

Also named as defendants are the United States Automobile
Association, USAA General Indemnity Co., USAA County Mutual
Insurance Corp., Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Co., and
John Does 1-20.

The class claims that USAA hired (nonparty) Auto Injury Solutions
to audit medical bills in insurance disputes and determine what is
"medically necessary," according to the complaint.  The veterans
say USAA relies solely on those reports to deny or reduce medical
coverage for car accidents.

"The scheme employed by USAA categorically eliminates, abates,
and/or reduces charges actually incurred when submitted in
conjunction with what it perceives to be certain deficiencies in
the medical documentation provided," the complaint states.

The class claims USAA saved more than $1 million since 2006 by
using the review process, but has not used the money to reduce
insurance rates.

And they claim that despite this, USAA represents itself as a
superior insurer for members of the military.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, and fraud.

A copy of the Complaint in Byers, et al. v. USAA Casualty
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1206-07178 (Ore. Cir. Ct.,
Multnomah Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/08/VetsvUSAA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thane W. Tienson, Esq.
          LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 224-4100


                           *********

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  * * *