---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 19, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 120

                             Headlines

ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Sued Over Disabled Parking Law Violation
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Price of Gasoline 95 Octane Pending
ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Product Labels in Alonit Stores Pending
ALON HOLDINGS: Water Contamination Suit Still Pending in Israel
ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Still Defends Class Suit Over 1994 Cartel

ALON HOLDINGS: Defense in Phone Services Suit Not Yet Filed
ALON HOLDINGS: Has Yet to File Defense in Vending Machines Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: Units' Settlement of "YOU"-Related Suit Approved
ALON HOLDINGS: Packaging-related Claims vs. Mega Retail Withdrawn
ALON HOLDINGS: Court Accepts Cheese Products Suit Withdrawal

ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Claim Over Product Markings Approved
ALON HOLDINGS: Yet to File Defense in Discounted Products Suit
ALON HOLDINGS: "YOU" Loyalty Plan-Related Suit vs. Unit Settled
ALVARION LTD: Settlement of IPO-Related Class Suit Now Final
AMERICA MOVIL: Radiomovil Dipsa Faces Class Action Lawsuits

AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Faces "Profeco" Class Suit in Mexico
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Defends "Baker" and "Collier" Class Suits
AMERICAN HONDA: Suit Over Tire Defect Gets Class Certification
APPLE INC: New York Man Files Class Action Over Siri Feature
APPLE INC: Judge Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed

AUSTRALIA: Firm to Hold Meetings to Discuss Flood Class Action
BLUE SHIELD: Consumer Watchdog Files Class Action
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medicaid Recipients Can Sue Over Coverage
EL PASO CORP: Trial in KMI Merger-related Suits Set for March 2013

GUAM: Senator Urges Gov't. to Respond to Tax Refund Suit
GUAM: Judge Recommends Political Status Suit Dismissal
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Nurses File Overtime Class Action
KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES: Recalls 36,270 Contours Options Strollers
LG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Optimus M Phones

LHC GROUP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
LOUISIANA: Sued for Denying Children's Right to Counsel
MERCK & COMPANY: Faces Zocor Class Action in Louisiana
NASDAQ: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Facebook IPO
PASADENA, CA: Employees Sue Over Wrongful Termination

PUBLISHAMERICA LLLP: Authors File Class Action in Maryland
SAGE RUTTY: Faces RICO Class Action Over High-Risk Investment
SEMPRA ENERGY: Unit Not Blamed for Sept. 2011 Power Outage
STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
SWISHER HYGIENE: Seeks to Consolidate Class Action Cases

UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Bank Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit
WALGREEN CO: Overtime Class Action Can Proceed, Judge Rules
WHIRLPOOL CORP: NAM Supports Class Certification Rehearing Bid
WR GRACE: ZAI & Asbestos-related Suits Remain Pending


                          *********

ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Sued Over Disabled Parking Law Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. is facing
a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Parking for Disabled People Law, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 15, 2012, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received
a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class
action against a subsidiary of Dor Alon and third parties for a
total amount of approximately NIS4.4 million.  The letter of claim
argued that the defendants violated the provisions of the Parking
for Disabled People Law, 1993-5753 and the Equality for People
with Disabilities Law, 1998-5758, by not providing free parking to
disabled people in the parking lot of "City Windows" in Haifa,
Israel.  The plaintiff argued that pursuant to the Law, the
defendants are obligated to provide free parking in public parking
lots and in public places that the only access to them is through
parking in such public places.  The subsidiary is learning the
claim and has not yet filed a statement of defense.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Price of Gasoline 95 Octane Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is facing a
purported class action lawsuit over the calculation of the maximum
price of gasoline 95 octane, according to the Company's April 30,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 22, 2011, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received
a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class
action against Dor Alon and the three other gasoline companies for
a total of NIS1 billion (of which Dor Alon's share is NIS167
million).  The claimants argue that the gasoline companies
inflated the "marketing expense item" which is incorporated into
the calculation of the maximum price of gasoline 95 octane by
adding expenses unrelated to the sale of gasoline, thus misleading
the regulator and enabling themselves to sell gasoline 95 octane
at a higher price than the price that should be charged.  The
claimants assert that this is violation of legislated provisions
in the Supervision Order on Goods and Services (Maximum Prices in
Gasoline Stations) - 2002; the Consumer Protection Law - 1981; and
the Damage Ordinance (new version) - 1968.  Dor Alon has not yet
filed a statement of defense.  In the opinion of the Company,
based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the
claim will be rejected exceed 50%; accordingly, the Company has
not made any provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Suit Over Product Labels in Alonit Stores Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary is facing a
purported class action lawsuit over labels on products in Alonit
stores, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On October 23, 2011, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd.
received a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as
class action against Dor Alon and a subsidiary of Dor Alon for a
total amount of NIS6 million.  The letter of claim argued that
pursuant to the Consumer Protection Regulation (Price per unit of
measure), 2008, the subsidiary is obligated to label the products
in Alonit stores with a price per unit of measure in addition to
the total price.  Dor Alon has not yet filed a statement of
defense.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of
its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%; accordingly, the Company has not made any provision
for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Water Contamination Suit Still Pending in Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to
defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit alleging that
liquid oil in pipes and petrol tanks caused the contamination of
ground water in Israel, according to the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2010, a claim and an application for approval of the
claim as a class action was filed with the District Court in Tel
Aviv, in Israel, against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd., a
subsidiary of Dor Alon and the three largest fuel companies in the
total amount of approximately NIS200 million.  The claim was filed
arguing that liquid oil in the pipes and petrol tanks caused the
contamination of ground water.  According to the claimants the
fuel companies did not adhere to the guidelines of the Environment
Ministry and did not check the fueling installations were
waterproof.  Dor Alon filed its response to court.  Based on
information received from Dor Alon's management, the Company
believes that the chances that the claim will be allowed are less
than 50%, and therefore Dor Alon did not make a provision in its
financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Unit Still Defends Class Suit Over 1994 Cartel
-------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2003, a claim was filed in the amount of NIS450
against gas companies (including a subsidiary of Dor Alon Energy
In Israel (1988) Ltd.) alleging that the defendants were parties
to a cartel, which they entered into beginning in 1994 (and even
prior thereto) and up to 2003, in the course of which the
Restrictive Practices Authority gave notice of a recommendation to
file charges against the gas companies and their managers in
connection with the existence of a cartel, as stated.  Dor Alon is
a subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.

The plaintiff contends that by means of the alleged cartel the gas
companies collected unfair and unreasonable prices.  A request for
certification of the claim as a class action pursuant to the
Restrictive Practices Law, the Consumer Protection Law and Rule 29
of the Rules of Civic Procedure (1984), was filed together with
the claim.  The amount of the class action was set by the
requesting party at an amount of at least NIS1 billion, along with
punitive damages.  The subsidiary of Dor Alon has submitted its
response to the request for certification of the claim as a class
action.  The parties twice reached a compromise agreement that was
submitted to Court's approval.  However, the Court rejected the
two compromise agreements and therefore the legal procedures
continue.  Based on information received from Dor Alon's
management, the Company believes that the chances that the claim
will be allowed are less than 50% and therefore Dor Alon did not
make a provision in its financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


ALON HOLDINGS: Defense in Phone Services Suit Not Yet Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. disclosed in its
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that its
subsidiary has not yet filed a statement of defense in the
purported class action lawsuit over free phone services.

On August 10, 2011, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received
a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class
action against a subsidiary of Dor Alon and its subsidiary for a
total amount of NIS2.5 million.  The letter of claim argued that
pursuant to the Consumer Protection Law, 1981, the defendants are
obligated to provide their customers free phone services for a
call in connection with complaints about products or services
provided by the defendants.  Dor Alon has not yet filed a
statement of defense.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the
opinion of its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be
rejected exceed 50%; accordingly, the Company has not made any
provision for this claim in its financial statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Has Yet to File Defense in Vending Machines Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. disclosed in its
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that its
subsidiary has not yet filed a statement of defense in the
purported class action lawsuit related to automatic cigarette
vending machines.

On August 11, 2011, Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd. received
a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action as class
action against Dor Alon, a subsidiary of Dor Alon and others for a
total amount of NIS33 million.  The letter of claim argued that
the defendants violated the provisions of the law which prohibits
selling tobacco products to minors by placing automatic cigarette
vending machines in the fueling stations operated by the
defendants even though the automatic vending machines are not
owned and/or operated by Dor Alon or its subsidiary.  Dor Alon has
not yet filed a statement of defense.  In the opinion of the
Company, based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the chances
that the claim will be rejected exceed 50%; accordingly, the
Company has not made any provision for this claim in its financial
statements.


ALON HOLDINGS: Units' Settlement of "YOU"-Related Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class action lawsuit involving
subsidiaries of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. has been
approved, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In March 2010, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary Mega Retail
Ltd. and its "YOU" customer loyalty plan were served with a claim
and a request for approval as a class action (the "Claim"), in
which they are sued together with Dor-Alon Energy In Israel (1988)
LTD. (which holds 25% of the customers club and which has been the
Company's subsidiary since October 3, 2010) regarding the grant of
discounts to "YOU" card holders in certain stores of the "Alonit"
chain.  The Claim requests that the customer loyalty plan return
discount amounts that according to the Claim should have been
granted to "YOU" card holders who purchased in certain Alonit
stores and did not receive a discount, or received a discount of
5% instead of the allegedly Claimed discount of 10%.  The
plaintiff's personal Claim is estimated by him at approximately
NIS130, and if the Claim is approved as a class action, the
approximate Claim is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately
NIS49.4 million.  In addition, the plaintiff requests a
declaratory relief according to which the customers club must
grant a 10% discount in all Alonit chain of stores.

The parties have reached an agreement.  The Company and the
claimant settled the claim as a result of which the Company paid
an immaterial amount to the claimant.  The settlement has been
approved by court.


ALON HOLDINGS: Packaging-related Claims vs. Mega Retail Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court accepted in April 2012 a plaintiff's withdrawal
of his claim against a subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square -
Israel Ltd., according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In July 2010, a claim was filed against Mega Retail Ltd. including
a request for it to be approved as a class action, alleging that
Mega Retail is misleading the customer when it sells certain
products in closed packaging, for an amount per item rather than
by weight, even though there are differences in weight between the
packages, and without an indication of the weight of each package.
The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated by him at NIS14, and
if the claim is certified as a class action, the approximate claim
is estimated by the plaintiff at NIS6 million.

In April 2012, the court accepted the plaintiff's request to
withdraw the claim.


ALON HOLDINGS: Court Accepts Cheese Products Suit Withdrawal
------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court accepted in April 2012 a withdrawal arrangement
between Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd.'s subsidiary and
the plaintiff of a purported class action lawsuit regarding the
sale of certain cheese products, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In May 2011, the Company's 51% subsidiary, Eden Briut Teva Market
Ltd. ("Eden"), was served with a claim and a request to recognize
it as a class action in which Eden is sued together with a cheese
supplier regarding the sale of certain cheese products.  The
plaintiff claims that Eden sells in its supermarkets certain
cheese substitute products while presenting them as cheese
products, and that customers are misled by Eden's alleged
representations regarding such products.  The plaintiff filed for
the claim to be approved as a class action representing all
customers who bought such products in the seven years prior to the
filing of the claim.  The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated
by her at approximately NIS200, and if the claim is approved as a
class action, the approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff
at approximately NIS84 million.

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


ALON HOLDINGS: Withdrawal of Claim Over Product Markings Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Israeli court approved the withdrawal of claim in the purported
class action lawsuit over product markings initiated against a
subsidiary of Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd., according
to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In April 2011, a class action was filed in the amount of NIS30
million, against Dor Alon Energy In Israel (1988) Ltd.'s
subsidiary.  In the statement of claim it is asserted that
accordant to Customer Protection Regulations (Price Per Unit) the
defendants must mark its products, which are being sold at the
AM:PM supermarket chain, by unit of measure and not only by
pricing the product as a whole.  According to the plaintiff,
refraining from such way of marking, does not allow comparison
between products which are sold in containers of different size or
volume.  After Dor Alon filed its response in December 2011, the
court approved the plaintiff's withdrawal from the claim.


ALON HOLDINGS: Yet to File Defense in Discounted Products Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. said in its April 30,
2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011, that it has yet
to file a defense in the purported class action lawsuit filed
against it and its "Kfar Hashashuim" chain of stores.

In May 2011, a letter of claim and a motion for approval of action
as a class action was filed against the Company and "Kfar
Hashashuim" regarding an alleged violation of the Consumer
Protection Law, by selling products at discount without
advertising the original price of the products before the
discount, and by that causing damage to the customers who did not
know the original price of the products, which was less expensive
in other chains.  If the Claim is approved as a class action, the
approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at approximately
NIS30,000.  The plaintiff further requested the court to issue a
decree ordering the Company to fulfill the requirements of the law
and advertise the price of the products before the discount.  The
Company and "Kfar Hashashuim" have not yet filed a statement of
defense.  In the opinion of the Company, based on the opinion of
its legal advisers, the chances that the claim will be rejected
exceed 50%.  Accordingly, the Company has not made any provision
for this claim in its financial statements


ALON HOLDINGS: "YOU" Loyalty Plan-Related Suit vs. Unit Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alon Holdings Blue Square - Israel Ltd. has entered into a court-
approved agreement to settle a purported class action lawsuit
against its subsidiary, Mega Retail Ltd., relating to the omission
to grant discounts on certain products, according to the Company's
April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On February 9, 2011, a claim was filed against Mega, together with
a request to recognize the claim as a class action, relating to
the omission to grant discounts on certain products, which only
applied to members of the Company's "YOU" loyalty plan customer
club, in contravention with the promotion price which was shown on
the signage next to those products.  If the claim were to be
accepted as a class action, the claim was assessed by the claimant
at approximately NIS2.5 million.  The Company and the claimant
settled the claim as a result of which the Company will pay an
immaterial amount to the claimant.  The settlement has been
approved by court.


ALVARION LTD: Settlement of IPO-Related Class Suit Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------
The global settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit
arising from Alvarion Ltd.'s initial public offering became final
after appeals were dismissed early this year, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On November 21, 2001, a purported Class Action lawsuit ("the
Action") was filed against interWAVE (which merged into the
Company in 2003), certain of its former officers and directors,
and certain of the underwriters for interWAVE's initial public
offering ("the IPO").  On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  The amended complaint alleged that the
prospectus from interWAVE's IPO failed to disclose certain alleged
improper actions by various underwriters for the offering, in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act").
Similar complaints have been filed concerning more than 300 other
IPOs; all of these cases have been coordinated as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  On October 8,
2002, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal as to all of the
individual defendants in the IPO litigation, without prejudice.
In 2007, a settlement that had been pending with the Court since
2004, was terminated by stipulation.  After a ruling by the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals in six "focus" cases in the coordinated
proceedings (interWAVE is not one of the six test cases) made it
unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval
plaintiffs filed amended master allegations and amended complaints
in the six test cases.  In 2008, the Court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaints.

This action has been resolved through a global settlement of the
coordinated litigation.  Under the settlement, the insurers pay
the full amount of the settlement share allocated to the Company,
and the Company bears no financial liability.  InterWAVE, as well
as the officer and director defendants who were previously
dismissed from the Action pursuant to tolling agreements, have
received complete dismissals from the case.  On October 5, 2009,
the Court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  Although certain objectors filed appeals, by early
2012 all of those appeals had been withdrawn or dismissed and the
settlement is now final.


AMERICA MOVIL: Radiomovil Dipsa Faces Class Action Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V., is facing class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2011.

In March 2012, a series of legal amendments allowing class actions
seeking compensation became effective.  These class actions may
arise from antitrust, consumer, data and privacy protection
issues, as well as administrative, criminal and environmental
violations, and may be filed by the competent authorities or the
affected groups.  Recently, Radiomovil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V.
("Telcel") has been notified that some class actions have been
initiated against it.  However, the Company currently does not
have enough information to determine if these class actions could
have an adverse effect on its business and results of operations
if they are resolved against it.


AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Faces "Profeco" Class Suit in Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------
Radiomovil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V. ("Telcel"), a subsidiary of America
Movil, S.A.B. de C.V., faces a class action lawsuit alleging
deficiencies in the quality of its network in 2010, according to
the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

The Mexican Federal Consumer Bureau (Procuraduria Federal del
Consumidor, or "Profeco") filed a class action in Mexican courts
on behalf of customers who filed complaints before it alleging
deficiencies in the quality of Telcel's network in 2010 and breach
of customer agreements.  If the action is resolved in favor of
Profeco, Telcel's customers would be entitled to compensation for
damages.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Defends "Baker" and "Collier" Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation is defending two putative class
action lawsuits pending in Ohio and Oklahoma, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
February 29, 2012.

American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative
class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance
policies (the "Insurance Policies"): one filed in the Northern
District of Ohio on January 11, 2012, by Theresa Baker as the
personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe
(the "Baker Litigation"); and the other filed in the Northern
District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010, by Keith Collier as the
personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the
"Collier Litigation").

In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees' names and
identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by
using its employees' identities and personal information to
benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt
of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and
investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy
benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe's life.  The
plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits
associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including
investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits
that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of
the former employees whose estates form the putative class.  The
plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorney's fees.

In the Collier litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it
obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received
the benefits from those policies.  The plaintiff seeks damages in
the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings
Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as
attorney's fees and costs and interest.  On April 2, 2012,
Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding
misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary
duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages.

Class certification has not been decided in either of these cases.
The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations in these lawsuits
are without merit and intends to continue to defend the actions
vigorously.  The Company currently does not believe that the
impact of the lawsuit, if any, will have a material adverse effect
on its financial position, liquidity or results of operations.


AMERICAN HONDA: Suit Over Tire Defect Gets Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Stendahl, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on June 12 struck a blow to American Honda Motor
Co., granting class certification to a suit alleging the automaker
violated warranties and consumer protection laws by knowingly
selling Civics that contained a major tire defect.

U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow certified two classes of
plaintiffs who purchased or leased Civics made between 2006 and
2007 and Civic Hybrids made between 2006 and 2008.  The cars had a
rear suspension defect that could cause uneven and premature wear
on the rear tires.


APPLE INC: New York Man Files Class Action Over Siri Feature
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Barfield, writing for The Telegraph, reports that a New York
man has brought a class-action lawsuit against Apple in
California, saying that the company's voice-activated Siri
software failed to live up to the expectations created by its
adverts.

Court papers released online revealed plaintiff Frank Fazio's
complaint that Apple's advertising "conveyed the misleading and
deceptive message that the Siri feature . . . performs useful
functions and otherwise works as advertised."

The document goes on to say that Siri failed to help Mr. Fazio
"make appointments, find restaurants, and even learn the guitar
chords to classic rock songs or how to tie a tie," all activities
accomplished by Apple iPhone 4S users in TV adverts.

The suit highlights the 33 million sales of the iPhone 4S in the
three months following its release last October, which it says
were largely based on the TV and other marketing campaigns
focusing on Siri.

This success, it alleges, was only possible because Apple did not
acknowledge the fact that Siri remains a "beta" (work-in-progress)
feature of the iPhone software in its marketing, something the
company has since rectified on its Web site.  Siri's beta status
was not mentioned in the iOS 5 End User License Agreement at the
time of the iPhone 4S's release.

It remains unclear whether other dissatisfied customers have
joined Mr. Fazio in his David-and-Goliath battle.  The relevant
section of the court documents states only that the case has been
brought "on behalf of himself and all others . . . who purchased
an Apple iPhone 4S."


APPLE INC: Judge Allows Privacy Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple may
be liable for sending unauthorized iPhone user information to the
third parties behind applications, but the application developers
are in the clear, a federal judge ruled.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action have sufficiently
showed that Apple was responsible for transmitting the personal
information of iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch users to the
application companies, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh found.

Apple and the developers faced claims of having violated
consumers' privacy rights by letting third-party applications that
run on Apple devices collect and profit from users' personal
information without their knowledge.  The class alleges computer
fraud, invasion of privacy, conversion and many other statutory
violations.

Apple and the developers had tried to dismiss on the basis of
standing, but Judge Koh said that the "Wiretap Act provides that
any person whose electronic communication is 'intercepted,
disclosed, or intentionally used' in violation of the act may in a
civil action recover from the entity which engaged in that
violation."

The judge pointed to claims that Apple designed its products to
allow personal information to be transmitted to third parties.

"This transfer has led to the consumption of bandwidth and storage
space on their iDevices and has led them to overpay for their
devices," Judge Koh said, summarizing the complaint.  "Thus, as a
matter of pleading Article III standing, plaintiffs have
sufficiently articulated the alleged injury is fairly traceable to
the conduct of both defendants."

While Apple claims that the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
allegations arise from the consumers' own actions -- downloading
the apps -- Judge Koh agreed with the class that the claims arise
out of the sale of a good.

Apple users say that the availability of programs in the Apps
Store is a large reason they chose to buy their respective Apple
product.  Their choice to buy the product also relied on Apple's
promises to safeguard personal information against unauthorized
access and disclosure.

The class says it did not then expect or consent to the tracking
and collecting of their app use or other personal information.  It
also claims that Apple's failure to disclose its practices
regarding the supposedly free apps makes their devices overpriced.

"Had Apple disclosed the true cost of the purportedly free Apps .
. . the value of the iPhones would have been materially less than
Plaintiffs paid," Judge Koh wrote, summarizing the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act allegations.

The judge also refused to dismiss allegations of unfair
competition at this stage.

According to the ruling, plaintiffs have "alleged breaches of
Apple's representations that it would not track consumer's
whereabouts."

But Judge Koh pointed out that "it is possible that Apple's
conduct might be useful to society, and that this benefit
outweighs the harm to plaintiffs."

"However, at this juncture the court cannot say that Apple's
practices are not injurious to consumers, or that any benefit to
consumers outweighs the harm," the decision states.

The court also found that the class has sufficiently alleged that
Apple tracked and disclosed user information despite
representations to Congress, and in its Terms and Conditions, that
consumers could opt out of the geo-tracking feature of their
device by turning off the Location Services setting on their
devices.

Judge Koh dismissed all allegations against the third-party
application companies, finding that Apple's devices are not
facilities through which an electronic communication service can
be provided.  She also found that plaintiffs could not show the
developers had accessed data that was in "electronic storage," as
required under the Stored Communications Act. The third-party
application companies named in the complaint were Google, Admob
Inc., Flurry Inc., AdMarval Inc. and Medialets Inc.

Judge Koh similarly dismissed allegations under the Wiretap Act
against Apple, noting that "personally identifiable information
that is automatically generated by the communication but that does
not comprise the substance, purport, or meaning of that
communication is not covered by the Wiretap Act."

"Because plaintiffs allege the interception only of automatically
generated geolocation data, plaintiffs have not stated a claim
under the Wiretap Act," the ruling states.

Judge Koh also tossed claims against Apple for Stored
Communications Act violations, invasion of privacy, negligence,
computer fraud, trespass, conversion and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in In re iPhone Application Litig.,
Case No. 11-md-02250 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/4WWWMU


AUSTRALIA: Firm to Hold Meetings to Discuss Flood Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a law firm
considering a class action against the Queensland Government over
last year's floods says time is running out for victims to sign
up.

Maurice Blackburn, along with litigation funder IMF Australia,
will hold a series of public meetings across flood-affected areas
of Brisbane.

IMF executive director John Walker says the meetings are an
opportunity for residents and businesses to hear how the claims
investigations are proceeding and to sign up.

Flood victims will be told they don't have long to join the case,
with a claim likely to be made in July.

The meetings will be held in the Brisbane suburbs of
Indooroopilly, Yeerongpilly, Acacia Ridge and South Brisbane on
June 24 and 25.


BLUE SHIELD: Consumer Watchdog Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Jessie Geoffray, writing for Santa Monica Mirror, reports that a
class action lawsuit was filed on June 13 against health insurer
Blue Shield that alleges the company is illegally pushing
customers with pre-existing conditions into low quality, low
benefit, high deductible insurance policies, and even causing some
clients to end up uninsured.

At a press conference at Consumer Watchdog's Santa Monica office
earlier on June 13, Executive Director Doug Heller and Litigation
Director Pamela Pressley announced the organization had filed a
class action lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court.

"Blue Shield issues enormous rate hikes and the threats of rate
hikes on these customers to illegally force them into a
predicament that no one should have to accept," Mr. Heller said at
the press conference.  "These are loyal customers, people who have
been Blue Shield customers for years, who pay for their policy
month after month, year after year.  But now Blue Shield is
leaving them unprotected when they need their healthcare the
most."

According to Mr. Heller, the lawsuit, which is filed specifically
on behalf of Californians who buy their own health insurance,
seeks to stop Blue Shield from forcing its policy holders into
what is known as a "death spiral."

"Death spiral" is term used to describe when a health insurer
closes certain insurance policies to new customers and later
raises rates to those remaining in the closed policy until the
original customers can no longer afford coverage.  This forces
customers stuck in the old policies to pay higher rates or move
into policies with less coverage.

According to Mr. Heller, Californians are supposed to have the
right to switch to comparable policies in these situations, which
has not been the case with Blue Shield.

"It's very clear -- the health insurance death spiral is
absolutely illegal in California.  You can't do it," Mr. Heller
said.  "(Blue Shield) is refusing to follow the rules that are set
forward, that are clear, that are very simple for the insurance
companies to comply with but they are not doing it."

The lawsuit accuses Blue Shield of closing eight different
policies in 2010 and placing more than 60,000 Californians with
those policies in the "death spiral."  The lawsuit also alleges
Blue Shield is threatening to close another 23 policies on July 2,
which will affect more than 250,000 Californians.

At the press conference, Ms. Pressley said the lawsuit is both
seeking an injunction that would stop the July 2 closures, as well
as relief from the court to allow those who have already been
affected to get comparable coverage from other policies that Blue
Shield offers.  The lawsuit also seeks to refund customers who
paid higher rates as a result of "death spiral" practices.

"We've been getting many complaints on this issue, its not just
Blue Shield," Ms. Pressley said.  "We've actually previously
brought a successful lawsuit against Blue Cross for these very
same practices, and as a result of the settlement of that case,
Blue Cross was forced to offer rate deductions and rate caps going
forward that will more smoothly bring about lesser increases in
the future, as well as provide opportunities over the next three
years for customers to switch to comparable policies.  We're
hoping to accomplish similar goals with this lawsuit."

Santa Monica resident Deborah Goodwin spoke at the press
conference.  She told reporters that she has been a Blue Shield
customer for more than a decade.

When she was diagnosed with a serious but treatable eye condition
several years ago, she said she found herself fighting Blue Shield
for the care that she needed to save her vision.

"Now I find out that they're planning to close my policy to new
customers, trapping me in a death spiral as premiums increase over
time," Ms. Goodwin said.  "Blue Shield is supposed to offer me
new, open coverage that provides benefits that are comparable.
But the only policy available to me now is one that has a high
deductible and offers more bare bones coverage.  Blue Shield tells
me that I will be allowed to stay in my policy, the death spiral,
but how long will it be before the rates go up, and how long will
I be able to afford these increasing premiums? I'm not sure that
I'll be able to get the care that I need, that I'll be able to
afford it."

Blue Shield officials denied wrongdoing in a statement.

"The allegations are false," the company said in a statement.  "We
comply with all aspects of the block closure law and have since it
was enacted."


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (2:12-cv-05107) in the United States
District Court, Central District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased ChinaCast Education Corporation securities
between February 14, 2011 and April 2, 2012, inclusive.  This
class action is brought 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 ChinaCast securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 25, 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.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.  Specifically, that: (1) the Company permitted the
wrongful transfer of at least $120 million from two CAST
subsidiaries' bank accounts; (2) the Company permitted the
wrongful transfer of the Company's assets including two private
colleges, to unauthorized persons; (3) the Company permitted
illicit related party transactions by using the Company's assets
to establish and operate education-related companies for
unauthorized entities; (4) the Company permitted loans to third
parties secured by Company assets; and (5) the Company's internal
controls were deficient.

On April 2, 2012, the Company disclosed that it had received a
letter from NASDAQ advising that it was no longer in compliance
with NASDAQ's reporting requirements.  That same day, NASDAQ
halted trading of the Company's stock at the last trading price of
$4.24 until it received "additional information requested."

On April 19, 2012, the Company disclosed that it was
investigating, among other things, the transfer of two of the
Company's colleges to unauthorized persons; possible undisclosed
related party transactions; possible undisclosed loans to third
parties secured by the Company's assets; and suspicious trading of
the Company's securities.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- focuses its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  The firm has offices in New York and Chicago.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Medicaid Recipients Can Sue Over Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that Medicaid
recipients may sue the District of Columbia for systematically
denying Medicaid coverage for prescription drugs, the D.C. Circuit
ruled, citing evidence that Medicaid denies 30 to 50 percent of
prescription coverage requests.

Five Medicaid recipients filed a federal class action in the
District of Columbia, claiming the District did not explain its
reason for denying coverage.

Without such an explanation, a Medicaid recipient cannot request a
hearing to challenge the decision.

The District Court dismissed for lack of standing.  It found that
"in many of the instances alleged by plaintiffs, they were, in
fact, ultimately able to obtain their prescriptions at no cost,"
so there was "no injury."

But the D.C. Circuit found that the alleged facts established that
the plaintiffs might be denied medications in the future.

Judge David Tatel wrote for the panel: "Because plaintiffs seek
only forward-looking injunctive and declaratory relief, 'past
injuries alone are insufficient to establish standing,' and
plaintiffs must show that they 'suffer[] an ongoing injury or
face[] an immediate threat of injury.'"

One John Doe plaintiff suffers from severe asthma and requires two
inhalers every 30 days.  He claims that the out-of-pocket costs of
his prescriptions range from "several hundred to over one thousand
dollars each month."

"Even if recipients are able to pay out-of-pocket for medications,
such payments 'can result in financial harm to a population
acutely vulnerable to such injury,'" Judge Tatel found.

"Doe explains that when DHCF [Department of Health Care Finance]
denies coverage, his mother has to pay out-of-pocket for his
medications, 'typically' causing her to 'forego paying a bill or
another necessary living expense in order to buy the medication.'"

Plaintiffs presented statistical evidence showing that "the DHCF
denies prescription medication coverage at quite a high rate,"
Judge Tatel found.

On one day in March 2009, the judge wrote, "District pharmacies
denied nearly half (49.7 percent) of all Medicaid prescription
claims."

"Viewed in this light, the complaint in this case fairly shows
that Doe will face a relatively high likelihood of denial --
possibly ranging from thirty to fifty percent -- each time he
submits a prescription for coverage."

The panel found: "The District contends that Doe's history of
coverage denials actually undermines his claim to standing.
Because his coverage problems have been 'fixed,' the District
argues, Doe is unlikely to experience denials in the future.  But
Doe's experience -- especially DHCF's repeated denials of his
inhaler prescription for recurring and varying reasons -- suggests
that, in practice, resolving a denial once does not necessarily
make a problem less likely to recur and that DHCF's evolving
coverage restrictions can result in denials of prescriptions
previously obtained without difficulty.

"Moreover, given that prior authorizations expire, and . . .
doctors treating hundreds of patients cannot easily stay abreast
of how any given patient is insured and which prescriptions
require prior approval, it is far from clear that resolving a
prior authorization issue once will make a Medicaid recipient less
likely to experience prior authorization-based denials in the
future."

A copy of the decision in NB, et al. v. District of Columbia, et
al., No. 11-7084 (D.C. Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/14/DCMedicaid.pdf


EL PASO CORP: Trial in KMI Merger-related Suits Set for March 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in shareholder class action lawsuits challenging El Paso
Corporation's proposed merger with Kinder Morgan, Inc., is set for
March 2013, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Since October 2011, twenty-one purported shareholder class actions
have been filed challenging the proposed acquisition of El Paso by
Kinder Morgan, Inc.  The lawsuits were filed against both
companies, an advisor and the El Paso board of directors. The
shareholder class actions generally allege that the El Paso board
breached its fiduciary duties to the shareholders by approving the
transaction and that the two companies aided in the alleged
breach. Eight of the actions were filed and consolidated in state
district court in Harris County, Texas, and thirteen were filed
and consolidated in Delaware Chancery Court. In February 2012, the
Delaware Chancery Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to enjoin
the transaction. A trial is scheduled to commence in early March
2013. An additional purported class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of unitholders of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. (EPB) in
the Delaware Chancery Court in December 2011 against El Paso and
its board of directors. The lawsuit alleges that the merger
transaction with KMI adversely affected the unitholders of EPB and
that El Paso and its board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties. A motion to dismiss that suit has been filed. The Company
believes these purported shareholder class actions are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.


GUAM: Senator Urges Gov't. to Respond to Tax Refund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Purna Nemani at Courthouse News Service reports that a Guam
senator has pushed for prosecution of the territory's Department
of Administration, which faces a federal class action that claims
it mismanaged millions of dollars in income tax refunds.

Sen. Vicente "Ben" Pangelian has sent his fellow senators and the
Guan attorney general three letters to date since the filing of an
April 2011 citizens complaint alleging that the government of Guam
failed to deposit into trust five years' worth of taxpayer
refunds.

Lead plaintiffs Rea Mializa Paeste, Jeffrey Paeste and Sharon
Zapanta say they never received their income tax refunds "since at
least tax year 2008 to the present."

"Defendant has not paid plaintiff[s] the income tax refunds
corresponding to those returns and claims," according to the
complaint.

"By the government's own admissions, according to media reports,
the government of Guam owes taxpayers millions of dollars in
income tax refunds," the class says.

"According to the Guam Dept. of Revenue & Taxation, the Govt. of
Guam will owe taxpayers about $269 million in refunds by the time
the tax filing season ends in April 2011, representing refunds
owed to thousands of taxpayers," the complaint also states.

Mr. Pangelian wants the government to take action.  In a June 8
letter to Guam Attorney General Leonardo Rapadas, the senator
asked for the department's compliance with Guam's Income Tax
Refund Efficient Payment Trust Fund law.

"Recently the governor of Guam has announced that there is
approximately $33 million available to for income tax refunds that
he agrees to pay out for tax year 2011," Mr. Pangelian wrote.
"Based on the analysis by the Office of Finance and Budget, there
should be approximately $10 million more that should have been
deposited into the Income Tax Refund Efficient Payment Trust."

Mr. Pangelian claims that a December audit by the Office of Public
Accountability found that the Department of Administration did not
deposit approximately $41 million into the trust fund between
October 2010 and September 2011.

"It is apparent the Tax Refund Law is not being completely adhered
to by DOA, despite actual revenue collections being within 2% of
estimated revenues," Mr. Pangelian wrote.

The senator released another statement on June 13.

"I am reminding the attorney general that his first duty is to
protect the rights of citizens who elected him," he said.
"Clearly, when refunds are withheld from taxpayers who are owed
refunds because someone is not following the law, he must defend
their rights and not those denying the people their rights."

Pacific News Center reported that the attorney general would not
comment on the pending litigation.

U.S. District Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood recused herself from
the federal lawsuit in November because her son is expecting a tax
refund. U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall now presides over
the case.

Guam Territorial Income Tax, or GTIT, is paid to Guam's
government, rather than the U.S. government.  The 1950 Organic Act
of Guam established the framework to "mirror" federal tax laws for
the island.

The complaint states: "Upon opportunity for further discovery, it
may be revealed that the government of Guam has not paid income
tax refunds for periods preceding 2006."

The class seeks declaratory judgment and restitution.  It is
represented by:

          Ignacio Aguigui, Esq.
          LUJAN, AGUIGUI & PEREZ
          300 DNA Building
          238 Archbishop Flores St.
          Hagatna, Guam 96910
          Telephone: +1 (671) 477-8064
          E-mail: manager@lujanaguiguiperez.com

               - and -

          Daniel Girard, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California St., 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com
                  dks@GirardGibbs.com

  
GUAM: Judge Recommends Political Status Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports that U.S.
Magistrate's Judge Joaquin Manibusan is recommending dismissal of
Dave Davis' class action suit which makes a civil rights challenge
to the law authorizing a plebiscite on Guam's political status.

Mr. Davis filed his lawsuit after he was barred from registering
to vote in the non-binding referendum because he is not a "native
inhabitant of Guam."  His attorneys have argued that his
constitutional rights were violated when he was denied the right
to register for the referendum.

In his report and recommendation, Judge Manibusan concludes:

1. "Plaintiff's complaint . . . presents no case or controversy
since the matter is not ripe for adjudication.  There is no
plebiscite vote set in the 2012 general election and no plebiscite
vote date is in sight.  Plaintiff's allegations present no
sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant intervention by the
court."

2. "Plaintiff has no standing to bring an action to enjoin the
Attorney General from enforcing the provisions of the plebiscite
law that makes it a misdemeanor to register or allow anyone to
register with the Guam Decolonization Registry if the person were
not a Native Inhabitant of Guam.  Plaintiff has not alleged that
he has been charged with any crime in relation to the Political
Status Plebiscite act nor has he shown that he is subject to a
genuine threat of imminent prosecution in relation to the said
act."

Both sides have 14 days to file objections to the report and make
recommendations.

Chief District Court Judge Francis Tydingco-Gatewood will decide
whether or not to accept Judge Manibusan's recommendations.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Nurses File Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Healthsouth Corp. stiffed
nurses for overtime for 3 years, a nurse claims in a federal class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Turner v. Healthsouth Corporation, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-00515 (W.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/14/HealthsouthCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES: Recalls 36,270 Contours Options Strollers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Kolcraft Enterprises Inc., of Chicago, Illinois,
announced a voluntary recall of about 36,000 units of Contours
Options three- and four-wheeled strollers in the United States of
America and 270 units in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A child or consumer's finger can become caught in the opening
formed when locking and unlocking the hinge mechanism which is
used to adjust the handlebars on the strollers.  This presents an
amputation and laceration hazard to children and the adults
handling the stroller.

Kolcraft and CPSC have received five reports of injuries involving
the hinge mechanism, including reports of three children whose
fingertips were amputated and two adults whose fingers were either
smashed or lacerated.

This recall involves Kolcraft Contours Options three- and four-
wheeled strollers.  Strollers included in the recall have model
numbers starting with ZL002, ZL005, ZL008, ZL015 and ZL018.  On
the ZL002 model, the model number and date of manufacture is
printed on a sticker above the left wheel.  On the ZL005, ZL008,
ZL015 and ZL018 models, the model number and date of manufacture
is printed on a label sewn into the edge of back of the stroller
seat pad.  The strollers were manufactured from January 2006
through November 2009 and sold in various color schemes.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12196.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
juvenile product specialty stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com, Target.com and ToysRUs.com from January 2006 and June
2012 for between $150 and $160.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
the company to receive a free repair kit.  For additional
information, please contact Kolcraft at (800) 453-7673 between
8:00 a.m. and 6:45 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Thursday, 8:00
a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.kolcraft.com/


LG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Optimus M Phones
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that LG Electronics' Optimus M
cellphone randomly freezes, resets and turns off, say two
customers who claim the defects persisted through seven
replacement phones, in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Frost, et al. v. LG Electronics
MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 37-2012-00098755 (Calif. Super.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/14/LGCell.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


LHC GROUP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
On June 13, 2012, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of LHC Group, Inc. common stock
during the period between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011,
inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you purchased the common stock of LHC during the Class Period
and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move
the Court no later than August 13, 2012.  Any member of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact:

          Scott+Scott
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537)
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

or visit the Scott+Scott LHC Web site for more information:

http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/new/securities-fraud-litigation-
1687-lhc-group-inc-lhcg.html

There is no cost or fee to you.

The securities class action charges LHC and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act.  The
Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides post-acute
health care services primarily to Medicare beneficiaries
throughout the United States. LHC is headquartered in Lafayette,
Louisiana.

The complaint filed in the action alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, the Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Defendants failed to disclose that the reported growth in LHC's
home-based healthcare segment during the Class Period was created,
in large part, by the Company engaging in a pattern of practice
designed to achieve the most profitable number of therapy visits
under the Medicare home health program, manipulating the number of
patient visits, regardless of patient need, to maximize revenue.

The complaint alleges that the truth began to come to light on
May 12, 2010, when LHC announced that the Company received a
letter from the Senate Finance Committee asking LHC to respond to
questions regarding therapy utilization in prior years.  It is
alleged that this partial disclosure caused LHC's stock price to
sharply decline, removing some of the stock inflation.  Then,
following the Company's July 13, 2010 announcement that it had
received a request from the Securities and Exchange Commission to
preserve all documents relating to LHC's Medicare reimbursement
practices, the Company's stock fell further on heavy trading
volume.  The complaint alleges that this decrease in the price of
LHC's stock was a result of some of the artificial inflation
caused by Defendants' misleading statements coming out of the
price.

On October 3, 2011, the Senate Committee released a report on its
investigation that found that LHC and two other home health care
companies engaged in practices that "at best represent abuses of
the Medicare home program" and "[a]t worst, they may be examples
of for-profit companies defrauding the Medicare home health
program at the expense of taxpayers."  That day, the price of LHC
shares fell $1.42 per share, or 8.3%, to close at $15.64.
Finally, on October 26, 2011, LHC disclosed that the Company was
lowering its earnings forecast, in part because of a payment to
the federal government to settle an inquiry into whether LHC
improperly billed for home health services that were medically
unnecessary. On this news, LHC's stock price fell an additional
15% in a single trading session.


LOUISIANA: Sued for Denying Children's Right to Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Louisiana Office of
Juvenile Justice and its prisons deny children access to courts
but "have instead created a series of obstacles designed to impede
access," a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in R.B., et al. v. Dr. Mary Livers, et
al., Case No. 12-cv-01502 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/14/Constitution.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John S. Williams, Esq.
          Juvenile Justice Project of LA
          1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd.
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          E-mail: williams@jswlawoffices.com
          Telephone: (504) 486-0300

               - and -

          William E. Rittenberg, Esq.
          RITTENBERG, SAMUEL & PHILLIPS, LLC
          715 Girod Street, Suite 100
          New Orleans, LA, 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5555 Ext. 18
          E-mail: rittenberg@rittenbergsamuel.com

               - and -

          Carol Kolinchak, Esq.
          Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana
          1600 Oretha Castle Haley Boulevard
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 522-5437 x234
          E-mail: ckolinchak@jjpl.org


MERCK & COMPANY: Faces Zocor Class Action in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gonzalez, writing for Zocor Lawsuit, reports that on June 1,
2012, plaintiff Irene Richardson filed a Zocor class action
lawsuit against manufacturer Merck & Company and generic
manufacturers, including Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.  Among other allegations,
Richardson claims that Zocor and its generic counterpart,
simvastatin, was sold without adequate warnings of Zocor
rhabdomyolysis, a severe form of Zocor muscle injury.  The class
action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

Until 2005, when the drug's patent protections expired, Zocor was
Merck & Co.'s best-selling drug, grossing $4.3 billion in 2005
alone.  Since that time, other drug manufacturers -- many listed
as defendants in Ms. Richardson's Zocor class action lawsuit --
have begun selling simvastatin, the generic version of Zocor.
Both the name brand and generic versions of the cholesterol-
lowering drug have been linked to severe muscle injury, including
Zocor rhabdomyolysis and myopathy.  Rhabdomyolysis occurs when a
patient's muscle fibers break down and release the protein
myoglobin.  In the process of filtering myoglobin, the protein can
damage the kidneys and cause muscle cramps, spasms, pain, and
tenderness.  In severe cases, rhabdomyolysis can be fatal.

In June 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restricted
use of high-dose (80 mg) Zocor prescriptions, including twice-
daily doses of 40 mg.  The agency warned physicians and the public
of the risks associated with Zocor and therefore, simvastatin, and
stated that high doses were associated with muscle injury.  The
FDA also warned prescribing doctors that no new patients should be
placed on a Zocor or simvastatin dosage of 80 mg.

Ms. Richardson's class action suit states that Zocor is
"defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marked and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings as to the
dangers associated with its use."

Furthermore, her case alleges that Merck knowingly chose to market
a dangerous product with "significant risk factors," and is
therefore liable for the plaintiff's pain and suffering, physical
injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, lost wages, lost earning
capacity, medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses,
embarrassment and humiliation, fright and apprehension, emotional
distress and other damages, all of which are believed to be
permanent.


NASDAQ: Two Law Firms File Class Action Over Facebook IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey & McKenna and Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 13 disclosed
that a class action has been commenced on behalf of all
individuals or entities who purchased shares of Facebook, Inc.
during Facebook's Initial Public Offering on May 18, 2012 (the
"IPO") and whose purchase and/or cancellation orders were not
promptly and accurately processed, were delayed, or otherwise were
adversely affected and who suffered losses. The action was filed
in United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and NASDAQ OMX Group,
Inc.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. of Gainey & McKenna
at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com
or Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. at (516)
683-3516, or via e-mail at tjm@rigrodskylong.com

The Complaint alleges that, as a result of the negligence of
Defendants The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.,
the processing and execution of trades in connection with
Facebook's IPO was improperly handled. Defendants failed to
process and execute Facebook orders promptly and in a timely
manner.  Indeed, Defendants failed to process some orders for
hours on end, and failed to cancel other orders despite customer
requests to do so. In fact, NASDAQ's CEO offered an "apology" to
the "industry" for technical problems that marred Facebook's
highly anticipated IPO.

Plaintiff is represented by Gainey & McKenna and Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., whose attorneys have decades of experience in prosecuting
class actions and investor class actions throughout the United
States.


PASADENA, CA: Employees Sue Over Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------
Terry Miller, writing for Pasadena Independent, reports that the
law offices of Stephen J. Horvath has filed a suit on behalf of
seven city employees who were laid off in March.  The lawsuit asks
the city of Pasadena for almost $9 Million in damages for wrongful
termination.

The claim for damages alleges City Manager Michael Beck, Mayor
Bill Bogaard and several other city officials terminated employees
without due process.

The former employees listed on claim number 11,681 are: Sheri
Stevenson, Emily Stadnicki, Neville Pereira, Thelma Luter, Antonio
Gardea, Ursula Schmidt and Maria Valenzuela.

The $9.8 million in damages sought by the plaintiffs represents
the total pension benefits the former employees believe they stand
to lose due to the layoff and compensation for the physical and
emotional distress.

The claim seeks "legal remedies and recovery of damages, in excess
of the jurisdictional limit for the wrongful separation from their
employment with the city of Pasadena in violation of their rights
under the memorandum of understanding between the PMA and the city
of Pasadena, and in violation of their rights under the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act."

Claimant Sheri Stevenson alleges that City Manager Michael Beck
and the city are jointly liable "for defamation and false light"
invasion of privacy.  She alleges that Beck called her a "resident
contrarian" of the city.

City employees "responsible for the claimed damages: according to
the suit are: Michael Beck, Richard Kunz, Andrew Green, Bill
Bogaard and Julie Gutierrez.

The claim was filed June 7, 2012.


PUBLISHAMERICA LLLP: Authors File Class Action in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
On June 11, 2012, a class action summons and complaint was filed
in Maryland District Court in Baltimore against PublishAmerica
LLLP, by plaintiffs Darla Yoos, Edwin McCall, and Kerry Levine
(Case Number 12-cv-1696).

Quoting from the Introduction to the complaint:

Defendant PublishAmerica is a book publisher that portrays itself
as "a traditional, royalty paying publisher."  But unlike
traditional publishers, which profit from the sale of books,
defendant profits from its own clients, i.e., the authors who
submit works for publication by defendant.  Defendant lures these
authors in by promising to publish their book at no cost, and it
makes false and misleading representations that it will promote
their books and support the authors' efforts to sell their own
books. But this is not the case.

Instead, once the authors sign the contract, which gives defendant
the rights to their book for seven to ten years, defendant does
nothing constructive to promote their books, but instead offers
various promotion packages on a fee-for-service basis . . . These
services, which are either misrepresented or never carried out,
are not reasonably designed to promote class members' books . . .

Defendant provides very poor editing services, is slow to respond
to book orders, and it routinely overprices the books it
publishes.  This is no accident.  Defendant will only lower the
price of its clients' books to a competitive rate for a $399 fee.
These practices make it difficult for even the most enterprising
authors to promote their own books.

Defendant is not responsive to inquiries from its clients, or
worse it is dismissive or belligerent.

Like plaintiffs, thousands of other aspiring authors who signed up
with PublishAmerica have become demoralized because the publishing
contract appears to be little more than a pretext for selling
dubious services . . . These authors also feel trapped because
PublishAmerica owns the rights to their books for seven to ten
years.  This presents a Hobson's choice for the authors: either
throw good money after bad for suspect promotional services or
abandon the book that was a labor of love.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that PA makes money off
its authors while billing itself as a traditional publisher,
requires authors to pay for "usual and customary marketing that
any reputable publisher would do as a matter of course," offers
"services that are not reasonably designed to promote book sales"
(the complaint includes numerous examples of PA's marketing
solicitations, including the "Hey Amazon" banner I noted in my
recent BEA Report, for which authors had to pay $99), removes
negative comments from its Web site and "attacks the credibility
of its detractors," and "duped" the three plaintiffs with, among
other things, "bogus services" and books "riddled with errors."

The complaint seeks "a declarative judgment that defendant's
publishing contracts violate the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act," including the MCPA's prohibition against deceptive trade
practices.  It asks the court to certify the class action, return
publication rights to the three plaintiffs and other members of
the class who so desire, allow plaintiffs and the class to recover
damages, allow plaintiffs and the class to recover the costs of
the suit, require PublishAmerica to pay restitution to the
defendants and the class, and grant "further relief as may be
determined to be just," including punitive damages.

A jury trial is demanded.

Per PACER, a Notice of Appearance for the plaintiffs was filed
electronically on June 12 by John B. Isbister --
jisbister@tydingslaw.com -- of Tydings & Rosenberg LLP (a
Baltimore law firm).  The complaint also mentions Daniel S Katz of
the same firm.

The complaint is also signed by Steve Berman and Barbara Mahoney
of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a high-profile Seattle law firm
involved, among other things, with the recent ebook price-fixing
litigation against Apple and several Big Six publishers.  The
complaint notes that a pro hac vice motion has yet to be filed for
Berman and Mahoney.

The law firm that's acting for the plaintiffs is:

          Tydings & Rosenberg, LLC
          100 East Pratt Street, 26th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 792-9714


SAGE RUTTY: Faces RICO Class Action Over High-Risk Investment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Astor, writing for Rochester Business Journal, reports that
claiming triple damages under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act a formerly local retired physician is accusing
Sage Rutty and Co. Inc. of improperly luring him and other
investors into a high-risk investment.

Sage Rutty advisers concealed heavy risks attached to a private
placement investment in a Florida real estate project, Michael
Cappette M.D. alleges in a RICO complaint filed on June 8 in the
U.S. District Court in Rochester.  Under the RICO statute, Dr.
Cappette is seeking three times the $50,000 he invested.

Sage Rutty principal Wayne Holly could not immediately be reached
for comment.

In addition to making RICO claims, the suit, hoping to add others
who invested in Odyssey Diversified VII LLC, seeks class action
status.  If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, others who
invested in the development could join and also seek triple
damages.

Dr. Cappette's attorney, Wade Eaton of Chamberlain, D'Amanda,
Oppenheimer & Greenfield LLP, would not hazard a guess as to how
many others purchased the 9 percent $50,000 Odyssey notes.

An ophthalmologist who had long practiced in the Rochester area,
Dr. Cappette retired to Cyprus in 2001 and opened retirement
accounts with Sage Rutty beginning in 2006.  As a retiree relying
on investments and social security, Dr. Cappette sought low-risk
investments, the court complaint states.

According to the complaint, Sage Rutty advisor Neil Frood
convinced Dr. Cappette, who initially put his money into
conservative mutual funds, to invest in the Odyssey private
placement.  The complaint describes the private placement as one
of a series of ventures controlled by Lawrence Maxwell and Todd
Maxwell, a pair of Florida developers whose interests include
shopping centers, office buildings, flex and warehouse space, and
self-storage centers, mostly located in central Florida.

After making some of the LLC's promised payments, monthly Odyssey
checks were first reduced from $450 to $125 and then stopped
coming.  When Dr. Cappette tried to move his money out of the
private placement, he was told it could not be done because the
Odyssey notes were in default, the complaint states.

In addition to Sage Rutty as a firm, the lawsuit personally names
Messrs. Frood, Holly and firm principal Terri Rumans as
defendants.

Charges leveled in the complaint include that:

Mr. Frood concealed the investment's high risks from Dr. Cappette
but falsely claimed to Odyssey to have adequately informed Dr.
Cappette of the substantial risks involved in the placement;
Mr. Rumans falsely represented Dr. Cappette as informed by
endorsing a limited liability compliance questionnaire; and
Mr. Holly encouraged Sage Rutty advisors to push Odyssey
investments.  Dr. Cappette's first inkling of the risks entailed
in the private placement, which Mr. Frood had characterized as
backed by collateral, came in the spring of 2011, when Mr. Holly
provided him with a subscription agreement laying out the risks,
the complaint alleges.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Unit Not Blamed for Sept. 2011 Power Outage
----------------------------------------------------------
A report issued in May 2012 disclosed that there was no failure
on the part of SDG&E, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy, that led to a
12-hour power outage in September 2011, according to the Company's
May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours
affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County,
California. Within several days of the outage, several SDG&E
customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court
against Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West, and SDG&E
alleging that the companies failed to prevent the outage. The
lawsuit seeks recovery of unspecified amounts of damages,
including punitive damages. In March 2012, the court stayed the
case until the conclusion of the joint regulatory investigation
and dismissed Arizona Public Service Company and Pinnacle West but
allowed plaintiffs to amend their complaint. In addition, more
than 7,000 customers' claims, primarily related to food spoilage,
have been submitted directly to SDG&E. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and North American Electric
Reliability Corp. (NERC) conducted a joint inquiry to determine
the cause of the power failure and issued a report in May 2012
regarding their findings. The report does not include any findings
of failure on SDG&E's part that led to the power failure.


STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation continues to defend
itself from several antitrust class action lawsuits, according to
the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title
insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and
licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware. All of the complaints make
similar class action allegations, except that certain of the
complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages
in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees. As of May 4, 2012, 78 such complaints have been
filed, each of which names the Company and/or one or more of its
affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the
aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily
dismissed.

As of April 5, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court
dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary
judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all
proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed). The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal in Ohio to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the dismissals
in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The dismissals in New York
and Texas have been affirmed by the United States Courts of
Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively, and on
October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' petitions for review of those decisions. The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of the RESPA claims by the
court in New York to the Second Circuit. Although the Company
cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it is vigorously
defending itself against the allegations and does not believe that
the outcome will materially affect its consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Seeks to Consolidate Class Action Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gale, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that Swisher Hygiene's powerhouse New York law firm of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is asking a U.S. District Court
judge to move a class action suit filed there to western North
Carolina.

Meanwhile, it appears a Fort Lauderdale resident may emerge as the
lead plaintiff in the combined cases.

Moving the New York case would allow consolidation with four other
cases already filed in North Carolina.  U.S. District Court Judge
Graham C. Mullen has already issued an order consolidating those
cases, a letter from the law firm to U.S. District Court Judge
Denise L. Cote states.

The plaintiffs in the New York case do not object to the transfer,
the letter notes.

The Swisher motion is in line with federal multidistrict
litigation procedures, which are designed to avoid duplicate
proceedings by grouping cases together.

On June 12, Memphis businessman Avron Fogelman was the subject of
a motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff in the New York case.

The Caird Group would be the presumptive lead plaintiff in the
combined cases because it has the largest losses, according to a
motion by Nicholas I. Porritt and Thomas M. Gottschlich of the law
firm of Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

The Caird plaintiffs -- James F. Caird, Harry F. Noyes and Eugene
W. Stranch -- suffered a loss of $1.8 million in Swisher stock, a
court filing states.

An exhibit with the filing shows the Caird stock purchases started
with 12,590 shares at $6.40 on March 31, 2011, and were followed
by 48 more transactions at under $8 until April 5.

The stock sales started at $3.53 on Feb. 21 and ended at $2.14 on
April 3.

Broward County property records indicate James F. Caird and a
trust with his name have a home in Fort Lauderdale's waterfront
Bay Colony neighborhood that has a market value of $2.29 million.
Swisher has many South Florida shareholders because Chairman H.
Wayne Huizenga and CEO Steven R. Berrard previously teamed at
Blockbuster and AutoNation in Fort Lauderdale.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Bank Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
There has been no material developments in a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Umpqua Bank by Amber Hawthorne relating to
overdraft fees and check posting order since the case was filed,
according to Umpqua Holdings Corporation's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.


WALGREEN CO: Overtime Class Action Can Proceed, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Walgreen Co.
employee's proposed class action claiming the pharmacy chain
failed to pay regular and overtime wages can move forward,
according to a California federal judge who denied the bulk of the
company's motion for dismissal on June 12.

In the motion filed in April, Walgreen had argued that two
previous class action settlements -- made in state court in
California in 2008 and 2009 -- barred potential class members from
bringing these claims.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: NAM Supports Class Certification Rehearing Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that the
National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups on
June 11 voiced support for Whirlpool Corp.'s petition for a
rehearing of a Sixth Circuit panel's decision to uphold class
certification for a group of consumers who said their washing
machines were defective.

The business groups claim that when the appeals panel didn't
overturn a lower court's certification of a class of thousands of
Ohio consumers who say their washers accumulate mold, ruin laundry
and give off unpleasant odors, it bucked the Supreme Court's
ruling in Wal-Mart.


WR GRACE: ZAI & Asbestos-related Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits asserting asbestos-related personal and
property damage claims against W.R. Grace & Co. are still pending
due to the Company's bankruptcy filing, according to the Company's
May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

Grace is a defendant in property damage and personal injury
lawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-containing products.
As of the April 2, 2001, Grace was a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-
related lawsuits, 17 involving claims for property damage (one of
which has since been dismissed), and the remainder involving
129,191 claims for personal injury. Due to Grace's bankruptcy
filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from
continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing new
lawsuits against the Debtors. Grace's obligations with respect to
present and future asbestos claims will be determined through the
Chapter 11 process.

Plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek to
have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings. Various factors can affect the merit and value of PD
Claims, including legal defenses, product identification, the
amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and use
of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the
jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case
is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if
necessary.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the Filing Date, 16 remain
unresolved. Eight cases relate to Zonolite(R) Attic Insulation and
eight relate to a number of former asbestos-containing products
(two of which also are alleged to involve ZAI).

Approximately 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court. (The March 31, 2003 claims bar date did not apply to ZAI
claims.) Grace objected to virtually all PD claims on a number of
legal and factual bases. As of March 31, 2012, approximately 430
PD Claims subject to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date remain
outstanding. The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement
agreements covering approximately 410 of such claims for an
aggregate allowed amount of $151.6 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all
such insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is in
millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several
thousand dollars per home. As a result of the Filing, all of these
cases have been stayed.

Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these
lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and
others, Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for
its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human
health. The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's
position on the safety of ZAI. In December 2006, the Bankruptcy
Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is
contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when
disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. In the
event Grace's Joint Chapter 11 Plan does not become effective, the
ZAI claimants have reserved their right to appeal such opinion and
order if and when it becomes a final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved
a related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
October 31, 2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were
filed prior to the October 31, 2008 claims bar date, and as of
March 31, 2012 an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.
As described above, under the Canadian ZAI Settlement, all
Canadian ZAI PD Claims filed before December 31, 2009 would be
eligible to seek compensation from the Canadian ZAI property
damage claims fund. Approximately 13,100 Canadian ZAI PD Claims
were filed by December 31, 2009.

In November 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to the
U.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity
Committee reached an agreement designed to resolve all present and
future U.S. ZAI PD Claims. The terms of the U.S. and Canadian ZAI
agreements in principle have been incorporated into the terms of
the Joint Plan and related documents.  Grace's recorded asbestos-
related liability does not include the agreements in principle to
settle the ZAI liability that is part of the Joint Plan. The
recorded asbestos-related liability at March 31, 2012, which is
based on the Prior Plan, assumes the risk of loss from ZAI
litigation is not probable. If the Joint Plan or another plan of
reorganization reflecting the agreements in principle does not
become effective and Grace's view as to risk of loss from ZAI
litigation is not sustained, Grace believes the cost to resolve
the U.S. ZAI litigation may be material.

                           *********

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  * * *