CAR_Public/120625.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 25, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 124

                             Headlines

BEILINSON HOSPITAL: Patient Files Class Action Over AIDS Tests
BIG LOTS: Recalls 70,500 Portable Ceramic Space Heaters
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Zamansky & Associates File Class Action
CONAGRA FOODS: Hebrew National Disputes Kosher Class Action
COOPER COMPANIES: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing on Aug. 7

CORVEL CORP: "Williams" Suit Claims Dismissal Bid Ruling Pending
CORVEL CORP: "Roche" Suit Deal Payments to Be Completed in July
CREDIT SUISSE: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action
DIAGEO AMERICAS: Faces Class Action Over "Whiskey Fungus"
FACEBOOK INC: King & Nix, Morgan &  Morgan File Class Action

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Arbitration Motion in Kansas Suit Pending
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Paid $10-Mil. to Settle Missouri MDL Claims
FRIGIDAIRE: Recalls 185 Self-Clean Gas Ranges Due to Fire Hazard
GOOGLE INC: Sued for Intercepting E-mail From Non-Gmail Accounts
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Inkjet Suit Deal Approval Pending

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Gammel" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend Labor Code Violations Suits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Hearing in "Sinacori" Suit Set for Sept. 6
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Plaintiffs Files 6th Amended Complaint
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: N.J. Building Code Violation Suit Remanded

INTERNET GOLD: Parties in Suit vs. Pelephone Negotiate Deal
INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over VAT Collection
INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over Service Tariffs
INTERNET GOLD: Plaintiff Ordered to Pay Expenses in Suit v. Unit
INTERNET GOLD: Faces Carriers Provision Violation Suit

INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Accessories Sale vs. Unit Dismissed
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Awaits Minister's Position on Cell Radiation
KENNETH COLE: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Buyout Transaction
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Former Shareholders Have No Share in Settlement
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action

MONA VIE: Judge Grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Class Action
OPNEXT INC: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Stayed in Del. Ct.
OPNEXT INC: Plaintiffs Amend "Zilberberg" Class Suit Complaint
PINNACLE FOODS: Vermont Community Law Center Files class Action
RITE AID: Settles Store Managers' Wage & Hour Class Actions

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Indirect Flonase Buyers Must Prove Claims
SPORT CHALET: Faces "Bennett" Class Action Suit in California
THQ: Faces Three Securities Class Actions Over Failed uDraw
TORO COMPANY: Still Defends Lawnmower-Related Suit in Canada
UTI WORLDWIDE: "Precision" Antitrust Suit Still Pending in N.Y.

WENDY'S INT'L: Faces Employment Discrimination Class Action

* Quorn Residents Mull Class Action Against Solar Panel Company


                          *********

BEILINSON HOSPITAL: Patient Files Class Action Over AIDS Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Podolsky, writing for The Times of Israel, reports that a
patient filed a class action lawsuit on June 19 against Beilinson
Hospital in Petah Tikva, following an oversight where a piece of
equipment was suspected to have been improperly cleaned, leading
to HIV testing for 150 patients.

According to Maariv, the unnamed patient's application to the
District Court in Petah Tikva says "the patients are plagued by
stress and panic, and their lives have become hell due to the
hospital's failures."

The patients were required to take AIDS tests after they underwent
an endoscopy procedure with a device that may not have been
sufficiently disinfected after it was used to examine an HIV-
positive patient.

"The hospital is supposed to supervise the work of its staff and
to guide them," read the patient's statement.  "The plaintiffs had
their autonomy breached, suffered negligence, deception and
unlawful damage."

The Health Ministry said that the patients in question face a very
low risk of infection and the ministry supports the hospital's
decision to act cautiously and refer them for testing.

Beilinson Hospital, part of the Rabin Medical Center, responded to
the development by saying that "the hospital located the problem
and acted responsibly and transparently by carrying out the
appropriate tests.  The [patient's] lawsuit has not reached us
yet.  We shall respond to it through the appropriate legal
channels."


BIG LOTS: Recalls 70,500 Portable Ceramic Space Heaters
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about
70,500 units of Portable Space Heater and Portable Oscillating
Space Heater.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The heaters can overheat and melt, posing a fire or electric shock
hazard.

Big Lots has received four reports of the product overheating and
melting.  There are no reports of injury, fire or property damage.

This recall is of two models of 1500 watt Climate Keeper ceramic
heaters.  Both models have a fan, two dials on top, a wire mesh
panel in front and the name "Climate Keeper" and a label on the
bottom with the model number and ETL 3130679.  Model #FH107A has
grey plastic housing.  Model #PTC-902T is an oscillating heater
with silver-grey plastic housing, a molded handle on top of the
heater and a small extra button between the two dials which
controls the oscillation.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12200.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from September 2010
through March 2012 for about $20 for Model #FH107A and $25 for
Model #PTC-902T.

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and
return it to a Big Lots store for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Big Lots toll-free at (866) 244-5687 between
9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.biglots.com/


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Zamansky & Associates File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Zamansky & Associates, LLC on June 19 filed a class action lawsuit
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of all
employee and former employee participants in the Chesapeake Energy
Corporation's Savings and Incentive Stock Bonus Plan.  The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma and covers all current and former employees
of Chesapeake Energy Corporation who purchased or held Company
stock in the Plan from July 31, 2008 to the present.

Since April 2012, Chesapeake has been the subject of a dozen
lawsuits, alleging securities fraud, corporate waste and breach of
fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. The lawsuits arise out of
revelations about CEO Aubrey McClendon, his perks and
compensation, and certain business strategies he pursued to his
own benefit and the detriment of the Company.  Ms. McClendon took
$1.1 billion in loans against personal stakes in the Company's oil
and gas wells he obtained under the Founder's Well Participation
Program.  To bail himself out of financial problems, and maximize
his own gains, Ms. McClendon pursued an aggressive expansion
strategy for Chesapeake and piled on enormous debt through off-
balance sheet arrangements that were not disclosed on the
Company's balance sheet.  He also borrowed from firms that also
transacted business with Chesapeake, creating huge conflicts of
interest.  Ms. McClendon additionally ran a lucrative business on
the side: a $200 million hedge fund that traded in the same
commodities that Chesapeake produces from the Company's offices.

ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension
plans set up by private businesses, and protects people who
participate in employee benefit plans.  The class action lawsuit
alleges that the Plan's fiduciaries i) failed to manage and
administer the assets with the care, skill, prudence, and
diligence of a prudent person, ii) failed to disclose material
information to the Plan's participants, iii) and engaged in
activities inconsistent with, and detrimental to, the Plan and its
participants.

If you are a current or former participant in any of Chesapeake's
retirement or stock plans, and wish to be included in this ERISA
class action, please contact:

          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          Zamansky & Associates, LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          E-mail: jake@zamansky.com
          Web site: http://www.zamansky.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Hebrew National Disputes Kosher Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Rubin, writing for JTA, reports that Hebrew National boasts
of "answering to a higher authority," but several class-action
lawyers are hoping to take one of the country's largest kosher
meat producers to an earthly court.

A class-action lawsuit filed recently alleges that Hebrew
National's iconic hot dogs and other meats do not comport with the
brand's claim to be kosher "as defined by the most stringent Jews
who follow Orthodox Jewish law."  The suit filed May 18 in a
Minnesota state court accuses ConAgra Foods, Inc., which owns the
Hebrew National brand, of consumer fraud.

ConAgra, which has rejected the claims unequivocally, asked on
June 6 that the suit be moved to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota. The company has until July 13 to respond to
the complaint.

Lawyers from firms in Scottsdale, Ariz.; Long Beach, Calif.; and
Minneapolis, Minn., submitted the complaint on behalf of 11 named
plaintiffs.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Hart L. Robinovitch of
Zimmerman Reed, is based in Scottsdale but his firm has offices in
Minnesota.  Mr. Robinovitch would not say how the suit was
initiated.

Zimmerman Reed, however, solicited consumers through its Web site,
where a page until recently announced a Hebrew National
investigation.

"Our firm has received troubling reports that some slaughterhouse
plants supplying Hebrew National with its beef may not be
upholding the strict kosher standards Hebrew National promises,"
the page stated.  "Workers are threatened with losing their job,
or demotion, if they speak up and try to point out violations of
the kosher food laws."

The firm advertised a free case review for anyone who purchased
Hebrew National hot dogs in the past two years or had information
about the preparation of the products.

"The lawsuit contends that ConAgra marketed, labeled and sold
Hebrew National according to the strictest standards defined by
Orthodox Jews.  We allege that it does not meet those standards,"
Mr. Robinovitch said.  "We're certainly not alleging that they're
using pork products, or anything as blatant as that."

The lawsuit's 11 named plaintiffs live in various states,
including California, Minnesota, New York and Arizona.  JTA was
unable to reach any of the individuals.

The suit, which was reported originally by the American Jewish
World newspaper, is seeking monetary damages equal to the total
amount of monies that consumers in the class paid for Hebrew
National meat products.

Triangle-K, the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based supervising agency that
certifies Hebrew National products as kosher and the company that
processes the kosher meat, also unequivocally rejected the
allegations and contended that disgruntled former employees might
be behind them.

Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag, the owner of Triangle-K, said in a statement
that the claims in the lawsuit were "outrageously false and
defamatory."

He added, "Those who make the false allegations know full well
that because their identities are concealed and their false
statements are made in a court pleading, Triangle-K and its
principals cannot sue them for defamation."

AER, which provides the kosher slaughtering services at Hebrew
National facilities in the Midwest, including in Minnesota,
rejected the charges as well.

"The company intends to defend its reputation and good name,"
AER's president, Shlomo Ben-David, said in a statement.

Teresa Paulson, a ConAgra spokesperson, said she could not comment
on pending litigation, but that the company stood by Hebrew
National's kosher status.

Neither AER nor Triangle-K is named as a defendant in the suit.

Triangle-K has been supervising Hebrew National products since
2004. The Conservative movement accepts the Triangle-K kashrut
certification.

Kosher consumers choose among hundreds of companies nationwide as
to which certifications they trust.

There are about 750 Orthodox kosher certifying organizations in
the United States, according to Rabbi Yosef Wikler, editor of
Kashrus magazine, which also maintains a Web site for non-Orthodox
certifiers.

"Almost no kosher organization accepts 100 percent of any other
kosher organization 100 percent of the time," Rabbi Wikler said.

The suit, which does not attribute the allegations to anyone by
name, alleges that the Hebrew National brand was not, as the
company advertises, kosher "as defined by the most stringent Jews
who follow Orthodox law."  As result, plaintiffs, who paid a
premium price "believing the kosher title and certification made
them a higher quality product than other meat products on the
market" were "deprived of the value of the goods they purchased,"
the complaint states.

Among the suit's allegations:

* Knives used in the slaughtering process were nicked, preventing
a clean cut mandated by kosher law;

* Organ meat was not consistently inspected after slaughter, as
required for kashrut;

* The blood of slaughtered animals was not consistently removed
within 72 hours, as required by kosher law;

* Managers took certificates that had been issued to trained
slaughterers and replaced their names with individuals who had not
been trained;

* Kosher meat was not consistently kept separate from non-kosher
meat.

In his statement, Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag said, point by point, that
all the allegations are false.

The suit also alleges that workers at some AER facilities,
including in St. Paul, Minn., kept kosher, but would not eat the
Hebrew National products.  Those workers, according to the
complaint, were allowed to purchase meats from "specifically
selected cows [that] would be slaughtered and checked in strict
accordance with all kosher laws, unlike the cows that routinely
slaughtered for sale to Defendant and use in Hebrew National
Products."

AER said the allegation is misleading.  According to AER,
employees who eat only glatt kosher were provided meat to comply
with their personal preferences.

Glatt is a higher standard of kosher and means that the lungs of
the slaughtered animal are free of any blemishes.  If the lungs
are blemished, the meat is still considered kosher, but not glatt.
Triangle-K does not claim that the products it certifies are glatt
kosher.

Additionally, the suit alleges that employees involved in the
kosher slaughtering process complained to AER supervisor Rabbi
Moshe Fyzakov and Rabbi Aryeh Ralbag, but those officials "did
little or nothing to correct the transgressions.  Rather, the
persons making the complaints were terminated or otherwise
threatened with adverse retaliation, such as job transfers to
other facilities or states. In turn, non-kosher meat was delivered
to ConAgra and packaged, labeled and sold to the public [including
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit] as strictly 100 percent kosher."

A Triangle-K spokesman said, "Every complaint was followed up on,
and no one was disciplined for making a complaint."

The spokesman also said it is "totally false" that non-kosher meat
was delivered to ConAgra to be sold as kosher and that "We have
clear distinctions in place to prevent such happenings."


COOPER COMPANIES: Securities Suit Dismissal Bid Hearing on Aug. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider The Cooper Companies, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit is
scheduled for August 7, 2012, according to the Company's June 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

On November 28, 2011, Harold Greenberg filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Case No. 4:11-cv-05697-YGR, against the following
defendants: the Company; Robert S. Weiss, its President, Chief
Executive Officer and a director; Eugene J. Midlock, its former
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Albert G.
White, III, its Vice President of Investor Relations, Treasurer
and Chief Strategic Officer.  On December 12, 2011, a second
individual, Ross Wallen, filed a related complaint against the
same defendants in the Northern District of California, Case No.
4:11-cv-06214-YGR.  The Wallen complaint largely repeats the
allegations in the Greenberg complaint.  Greenberg and Wallen each
sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 4, 2011, and November 15, 2011.

On February 29, 2012, the court ordered the Greenberg and Wallen
actions consolidated and appointed Universal-Investment-
Gesellschaft mbH Lead Plaintiff.  On May 4, 2012, the lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which alleges
that the Company, Robert S. Weiss and Eugene J. Midlock violated
Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act by, among other
things, making misrepresentations with an intent to deceive
investors concerning the safety of the Avaira(R) Toric and Avaira
Sphere contact lenses, which the Company recalled in 2011.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of the purported class.

On June 1, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is scheduled for hearing on
August 7, 2012.  Discovery is stayed pending a resolution of
motions to dismiss.

The Company says it is not in a position to assess whether any
loss or adverse effect on the Company's financial condition is
probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if
any.


CORVEL CORP: "Williams" Suit Claims Dismissal Bid Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CorVel Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss all claims covered by its settlement of the class action
lawsuit filed by George Raymond Williams, according to the
Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

On March 25, 2011, George Raymond Williams, MD. ("Williams"), as
plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
filed a First Amended and Restated Petition for Damages and Class
Certification in the 27th Judicial District Court, Parish of St.
Landry, Louisiana, against CorVel Corporation ("CorVel") and its
insurance carriers, Homeland Insurance Company of New York and
Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and several other
unrelated parties.  Williams alleges that CorVel violated
Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act (the "AWPA"), which requires
a payor accessing a preferred provider contract to give 30 days'
advance written notice or point of service notice in the form of a
benefit card before the payor accesses the discounted rates in the
contract to pay the provider for services rendered to an insured
under that payor's health benefit plan.

On March 31, 2011, CorVel entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with attorneys representing the plaintiffs and the
class setting forth the terms of settlement of this class action
lawsuit.  The Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to
the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
final non-appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana
state court, CorVel will pay $9 million to resolve claims for
which CorVel recorded a $9 million pre-tax charge to earnings
during the March 2011 quarter.  In addition, CorVel will assign to
the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of CorVel's
insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the class.
The class action arbitration filed with the American Arbitration
Association against CorVel in December 2006 by Southwest Louisiana
Hospital Association dba Lake Charles Memorial Hospital as
previously disclosed by CorVel is encompassed within the
settlement terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.  Pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have also agreed to
request that the appropriate courts stay all related proceedings
in State and Federal Court, as well as the Louisiana Office of
Workers Compensation and the arbitration proceeding before the
American Arbitration Association in which the parties are named,
until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and receives
final court approval.  The settlement does not constitute an
admission of liability.

On June 23, 2011, CorVel and class counsel executed a definitive
settlement agreement.  The settlement agreement contains the same
terms and conditions as were set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding.  Accordingly, CorVel made a $9 million cash payment
into escrow on July 6, 2011.  As set forth in the settlement
agreement, certain contingencies such as preliminary court
approval, resolutions of objections filed by class members
challenging the fairness of the settlement, class members excluded
from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold, and
final court approval, must be satisfied before the settlement can
become final.

On June 23, 2011, the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of St. Landry, Louisiana granted preliminary approval of
settlement and set a deadline of October 16, 2011, for parties to
opt out of or object to the proposed settlement. Notice of the
settlement was given to Class Members.  The Court gave final
approval of the settlement on November 4, 2011.  No appeal has
been filed since that time, so the judgment became final on
January 17, 2012.  CorVel has begun to move for dismissal of all
claims covered by the settlement in state and federal court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

In exchange for the settlement payment by CorVel, class members
will release CorVel and all of its affiliates and clients for any
claims relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or
reimbursement of a workers' compensation bill, including but not
limited to claims under the AWPA.  Plaintiffs have also agreed to
a notice procedure that CorVel may follow in the future to comply
with the AWPA.


CORVEL CORP: "Roche" Suit Deal Payments to Be Completed in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2005, Kathleen Roche, D.C., as plaintiff, filed a
putative class action in Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, against CorVel Corporation.
The case sought unspecified damages based on the Company's alleged
failure to direct patients to medical providers who were members
of the CorVel CorCare PPO network and also alleged that the
Company used biased and arbitrary computer software to review
medical providers' bills.  The Company denies that its conduct was
improper in any way and denied all liability.  On October 29,
2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement providing
for the payment of $2.1 million to class members and up to an
additional $700,000 for attorneys' fees and expenses, and as a
result the Company accrued $2.8 million of estimated liability for
this settlement agreement during the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.  In exchange for the settlement payment by the
Company, class members consisting of Illinois medical providers
(excluding hospitals) have released the Company and all of its
affiliates for claims relating to any PPO or usual and customary
reductions recommended by the Company on class members' medical
bills.  On January 21, 2011, the Circuit Court gave final approval
to the settlement and awarded class counsel $700,000 in attorneys'
fees and expenses.  A modified final judgment approving the
settlement and addressing certain class notice issues was approved
on January 20, 2012; the modified judgment did not change the
financial terms of the settlement or the release.  Initial
payments were sent to class members on July 18, 2011 and the
remaining payments to class members should be completed by July
2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 31, 2012.

The Company says there can be no assurance that it will not be
subjected to additional litigation similar to this proceeding.
Any such additional litigation could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results
of operations.


CREDIT SUISSE: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
12-cv-4756 on behalf of all persons who purchased VelocityShares
Daily2x Long VIX Short-Term Exchange Traded Notes, during the
period November 30, 2010 through March 22, 2012 against Credit
Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Group,
VelocityShares, LLC and certain individual defendants for
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that the Pricing Supplements for the TVIX
ETNs contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing their preparation.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that the relationship between short-term
measures of volatility and longer term measures of volatility,
i.e. the term structure, or yield curve risk, of volatility was a
crucial and undisclosed risk associated with the TVIX ETNs.  In
fact it was among the most important variables and the most likely
to cause an adverse price movement.

The TVIX ETNs began trading on Nov. 30, 2010 at more than $100 per
ETN.  In February 2012, defendants stopped issuing additional TVIX
ETNs, because of supposed internal limits on the size of TVIX
ETNs.  Less than one month later, without any warning or further
explanation, defendants announce the planned reopening of the
issuance of the TVIX ETNs.  As a result of this surprise
announcement, the market price dropped 29% to close at $10.20, and
further decreased to $5.88 on March 26, 2012 per ETN.  Plaintiffs
and the Class have suffered losses.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 17, 2012.  Any member of the purported 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 any questions
concerning this notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Deborah R. Gross or Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or via e-mail
at debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com

A copy of the complaint can be viewed at
http://www.bernardmgross.com

Plaintiffs are represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
The firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.


DIAGEO AMERICAS: Faces Class Action Over "Whiskey Fungus"
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that homeowners claim in a federal
class action that emissions from a Diageo Americas distillery are
feeding a "whiskey fungus" that eats airborne alcohol, and that
the ugly black fungus has contaminated their homes.

Lead plaintiff Bruce Merrick, five other Louisville residents and
a business sued Diageo Americas Supply, which operates a
distillery and warehouse in Louisville.

They claim their property has been damaged by the booze-loving
fungus.

"Defendant's operations cause the fungus Baudoinia compniacensis,
colloquially referred to as 'whiskey fungus,' to accumulate on
real and personal property in the vicinity of defendant's
operations in Kentucky," the complaint states.

"The accumulation of whiskey fungus on plaintiffs' property and
the property of others similarly caused by defendant's operations
creates an unsightly condition requiring abnormal and costly
cleaning and maintenance, early weathering of surfaces affected by
the fungus and causes unreasonable and substantial annoyance and
unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the
property, and, as a result of which, the value, value of use
and/or the rental value of the property is reduced.

"Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
others who have similarly suffered injury to their Kentucky
property as a result of the defendant's conduct described herein."

Baudoinia compniacensis is named for the French pharmacist Antonin
Baudoin, who wondered in 1872 why the black, sooty fungus grew on
the walls and roofs of buildings near distilleries in Cognac.  It
turns out that the ascomycete fungus likes to feed on airborne
alcohol.

Ascomycetes, or sac fungi, are the largest phylum of fungus, with
more than 64,000 species.  The fungus is not believed to be
harmful to the plants and buildings it grows on -- it's just ugly.

The class seeks an injunction and damages for trespass, nuisance
and negligence.  They are represented by William McMurry and
Douglas Morris.

A copy of the Complaint in Merrick, et al. v. Diageo Americas
Supply, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00334 (W.D. Ky.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/20/WhiskeyFungus.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


FACEBOOK INC: King & Nix, Morgan &  Morgan File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Former Alabama Attorney General Troy King's law firm, King & Nix,
has joined forces with Morgan & Morgan in filing a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Facebook, Inc. who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of common stock pursuant to or traceable
to the Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering.

"As the former chief law enforcement officer of the State of
Alabama, nothing makes me angrier than to see Alabamians become
the victims of corporate greed.  This lawsuit is an effort to hold
those responsible to account," said Mr. King.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO was materially false and misleading in
violation of the federal securities laws.  More particularly, the
complaint notes that Facebook failed to disclose to the investing
public the material information that the company was experiencing,
and anticipating, a significant drop in revenue due to an increase
of users accessing Facebook through mobile devices.  According to
news reports, this lower revenue projection was selectively
released by underwriter banks to only certain clients and not
included in the Registration Statement.

Facebook's May 18, 2012, IPO raised over $16 billion by selling
over 420 million shares of the Company's common stock to investors
at a price of $38.00 per share.  In connection with the IPO,
certain Defendants filed a Registration Statement with several
amendments and a Prospectus.

Investors from the State of Alabama who would like more
information about the Facebook case are encouraged to contact Troy
King at 855-335-8769, while all Facebook investors are encouraged
to contact Morgan & Morgan's Peter Safirstein and Sheila Feerick
by calling 1-800-SEC-5200 (1-800-732-5200) or e-mailing
securitieslaw@ForThePeople.com

Investors who purchased Facebook shares pursuant to or traceable
to the Company's May 18, 2012 IPO, may, no later than July 23,
2012, request that the Court appoint them lead plaintiff to act on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Arbitration Motion in Kansas Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.'s motion to compel arbitration in the
class action lawsuit pending in Kansas remains pending, according
to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012.

The Company and its operating partner, Ferrellgas, L.P., have been
named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court in Kansas.  The complaint alleges that
Ferrellgas violates consumer protection laws in the manner
Ferrellgas sets prices and fees for its customers.  Based on
Ferrellgas' business practices, Ferrellgas believes that the
claims are without merit and intends to defend the claims
vigorously.  The court has stayed discovery on this matter pending
the outcome of Ferrellgas' motion to compel arbitration, and the
case has not been certified for class treatment.  Ferrellgas does
not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time
related to this class action lawsuit.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Paid $10-Mil. to Settle Missouri MDL Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. paid $10 million in March 2012 in
settlement of the claims in an antitrust multidistrict litigation
in Missouri, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company and its operating partner, Ferrellgas, L.P., have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits filed in multiple federal and
state courts that seek to certify nationwide or statewide classes
related to its Blue Rhino branded propane tank exchange
activities.  The plaintiffs in each case generally allege that
Ferrellgas failed to inform consumers of the amount of propane
contained in propane tanks they purchased and that Ferrellgas
violated anti-trust laws by allegedly conspiring with a
competitor.  The federal cases have been coordinated for
multidistrict treatment in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri.  A settlement agreement has
received approval by the Court.

Ferrellgas believes these claims will not have a material impact
on the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of Ferrellgas beyond the $10.0 million paid during
March 2012 for these claims.


FRIGIDAIRE: Recalls 185 Self-Clean Gas Ranges Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 185 units of Frigidaire Self-Clean Gas Range were
voluntarily recalled by Frigidaire, of Charlotte, North Carolina,
in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

There can be a delayed ignition on the bake/broil features of the
oven, posing a fire hazard.

One incident was reported.  No injuries or damage have been
reported.

This recall for inspection and/or repair involves Frigidaire Gas
Ranges Model # LGGF3043KFM with serial numbers within the
following range: VF20457216 to VF20457555.  The model and serial
numbers are located near the base of the range just below the
bottom right portion of the oven door.  This gas range has five
burners, stainless steel exterior and Frigidaire nameplate
centered on the lower part of the oven door.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12737.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold exclusively at Lowe's stores from February 2012
through March 2012 for between $800 and $1,000.

Consumers with the recalled model and serial numbers should stop
using the bake and broil functions immediately and contact
Frigidaire.  Frigidaire will provide information about an
inspection and arrange for a free in-home service and repair if
necessary.  For additional information, contact Frigidaire toll
free at (888) 360-8556 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.selfcleangasrangerecall.com/


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Intercepting E-mail From Non-Gmail Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a man claims in a class
action in Marin County Superior Court that Google illegally
intercepts e-mails from non-Gmail subscribers to Gmail
subscribers, to "review those e-mails for their words, content and
thought processes."

A copy of the Complaint in Diamond v. Google, Inc., Case No. CIV
1202715 (Calif. Super. Ct., Marin Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/20/GoogleCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Clifford L. Carter, Esq.
          Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 924-3100
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
                  ccarter@justice4you.com
                  kwolden@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Perry D. Litchfield, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PERRY D. LITCHFIELD
          1000 4th Street, Suite 875
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 459-2000
          E-mail: perry@sprintmail.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Inkjet Suit Deal Approval Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is involved in several lawsuits claiming
breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the
plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.  The
plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

The lawsuits in the Inkjet Printer Litigation are:

   -- A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
      Litigation is pending in the United States District Court
      for the Northern District of California where the
      plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution,
      damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief,
      interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On January 4, 2008,
      the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification
      and to add a class representative and HP's motion for
      summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court denied all
      three motions.  On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
      renewed motion for class certification.  A hearing on the
      plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for
      April 9, 2010, was postponed.

   -- A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17,
      2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern
      District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking
      class certification, restitution, damages (including
      enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
      attorneys' fees.  A class certification hearing was
      scheduled for May 21, 2010, but was taken off the calendar.

   -- A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on
      May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the
      Northern District of California.  The lawsuit alleges that
      HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use
      color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and
      white images and text.  The plaintiffs are seeking to
      certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only
      damages class.  A class certification hearing was scheduled
      for May 7, 2010, but was taken off the calendar.

   -- Two class actions against HP and its subsidiary,
      Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in Canada, one
      commenced in British Columbia in February 2006 and one
      commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are
      seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory
      relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory,
      compensatory and punitive damages.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into an
agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed
classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court
before it becomes final.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's Web site.  As part of the proposed
settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with
additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality
and to change the content of certain software and user guide
messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer
cartridges.  In addition, class counsel and the class
representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and
stipends.  On March 29, 2011, the court granted final approval of
the settlement.  On April 27, 2011, certain class members who
objected to the settlement filed an appeal of the court's order
granting final approval of the settlement.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Gammel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit initiated by Richard
Gammel, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2012.

Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative
securities class action filed on September 13, 2011, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010, to
August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making
false statements about HP's business model, the future of the
webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing and
integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC.

On April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  The court has not yet ruled on that motion.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend Labor Code Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging violations of the California Labor Code or other state
laws, according to the Company's June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2012.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of HP's subsidiary, Electronic
Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or in
violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws.  Those
matters include these:

   -- Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed
      on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the
      Southern District of New York claiming that current and
      former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing
      and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
      misclassified as exempt employees.  Another purported
      collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007,
      is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
      facts.  The Steavens case has been consolidated for
      pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case.  On
      December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional
      certification of a class consisting of employees in 20
      legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham and
      Steavens matter.  Approximately 2,600 current and former
      EDS employees have filed consents to opt-in to the
      litigation.  Plaintiffs have also alleged separate "opt
      out" classes based on the overtime laws of the states of
      California, Washington, Massachusetts, and New York, but
      plaintiffs have not yet sought class certification for
      those classes.

   -- Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation
      is a class action filed in November 2006 in California
      Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information
      technology workers in California were misclassified as
      exempt employees.  The case was subsequently transferred to
      the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
      California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of
      information technology workers in California.  On June 6,
      2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary
      judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with
      the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  A hearing
      on the appeal was held in August 2011, and the decision is
      pending.  Two other purported class actions originally
      filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom,  et al. v.
      Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on
      March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data
      Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009,
      allege similar facts.  The Karlbom case is pending in San
      Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed
      based on the pending Steavens consolidated matter.  The
      George case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
      Southern District of New York and had been consolidated for
      pretrial purposes with the Cunningham and Steavens cases.
      On September 9, 2011, the court granted a request by the
      plaintiffs' counsel in the George matter to amend the
      plaintiffs' complaint and sever the case from the Steavens
      consolidated matter.  The plaintiff thereafter filed his
      first amended complaint on October 21, 2011.  On
      November 23, 2011, the court transferred the George matter
      back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
      California.

   -- Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
      nationwide collective action filed on February 17, 2011, in
      the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
      claiming that a class of information technology support
      personnel were misclassified as exempt employees under the
      Fair Labor Standards Act.  On February 10, 2012, plaintiffs
      filed a motion requesting that the court conditionally
      certify the case as a collective action.  Only one opt-in
      plaintiff had joined the named plaintiff in the lawsuit at
      the time that the motion was filed.  HP has opposed
      plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.

   -- Fenn, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
      collective action filed on May 24, 2011, in the United
      States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging
      that customer service representatives working in HP's U.S.
      call centers are not paid for time spent on start-up and
      shut-down tasks (such as booting up and shutting down their
      computers) in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
      On December 12, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff's
      motion for conditional class certification but allowed the
      plaintiff to re-file that motion following limited
      discovery on the issue of conditional certification.  On
      March 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended motion for
      conditional certification seeking to certify a class of all
      HP customer service representatives located in Boise,
      Idaho.  On May 17, 2012, the court granted in part and
      denied in part plaintiff's motion.  The court authorized
      plaintiff to notify certain HP employees of the collective
      action, but narrowed the scope of the proposed class and
      shortened the length of the proposed class period.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Hearing in "Sinacori" Suit Set for Sept. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the class
action lawsuit captioned Sinacori v. Hewlett-Packard Company is
scheduled for September 6, 2012, according to the Company's June
8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

Sinacori v. HP is a consumer class action originally filed against
HP on December 1, 2011, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging that HP printers have
a design defect in the software installed on the printers which
could allow hackers and unauthorized users to gain access to the
printers, steal personal and confidential information from
consumers and otherwise control and cause physical damage to the
printers.  The original complaint also alleged that HP was aware
of this security vulnerability and failed to disclose it to
consumers.  The original complaint sought certification of a
nationwide class of purchasers of all HP printers and unspecified
damages, restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On February 3, 2012, an amended
complaint was filed substituting a new plaintiff from the state of
New York in place of the original plaintiff.  The amended
complaint asserts only a single claim under the New York consumer
protection statute, and the amended complaint now seeks to certify
a class of consumers in the state of New York who purchased an HP
printer that lacks a "digital signature" or "code signing"
security feature.  Like the original complaint, the amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, punitive
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  HP has
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and a hearing on
HP's motion is scheduled to be held on September 6, 2012.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Plaintiffs Files 6th Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skold, et al. filed their sixth amended complaint in the lawsuit
captioned Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard
Company on May 31, 2012, according to Hewlett-Packard Company's
June 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is
a lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004, that is pending
in state court in Santa Clara County, California.  The lawsuit
alleges that Intel Corporation ("Intel") misled the public by
suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems
that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and
slower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor.  The
lawsuit alleges that HP aided and abetted Intel's allegedly
unlawful conduct.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class.  On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking to certify a nationwide class asserting claims under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

On April 19, 2012, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion.  As to Intel, the court
certified a nationwide class excluding residents of Illinois.  As
to HP, the court certified a class limited to California
residents.  As required by the same order, the plaintiffs filed
their Fifth Amended Complaint on April 30, 2012, pursuant to which
the plaintiffs have limited their claims against HP to a
California class while reserving the right to seek additional
state-specific subclasses as to HP.  On May 31, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Complaint eliminating one
claim against Intel but not affecting the claims against HP.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: N.J. Building Code Violation Suit Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court, in May, remanded the class action
lawsuit filed by the D'Andreas back to the appellate court,
according to Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.'s Company's June 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C.
have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit.  The
action was filed by Mike D'Andrea and Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Gloucester County.  The action was initially filed
on May 8, 2006, alleging that the HVAC systems installed in
certain of the Company's homes are in violation of applicable New
Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue.  On
December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification;
the potential class is 1,065 homes.  The defendants filed a
request to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class
certification decision.  The Appellate Division denied the
request, and the defendants filed a request for interlocutory
review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case
back to the Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the
appeal on May 8, 2012.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages as
well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act.

The Company believes there is insurance coverage available to it
for this action.  While the Company has determined that a loss
related to this case is not probable, it is not possible to
estimate a loss or range of loss related to this matter at this
time.  On December 19, 2011, certain subsidiaries of the Company
filed a separate action seeking indemnification against the
various manufactures and subcontractors implicated by the class
action.


INTERNET GOLD: Parties in Suit vs. Pelephone Negotiate Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action lawsuit against Internet Gold
- Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary, Pelephone Communications Ltd.,
are negotiating to resolve their dispute, 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 2007, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Cellcom
Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Company Ltd., together with
a motion to certify it as a class action in the amount of NIS1
billion.  The claim relates to alleged radiation damage from
cellular antennas which were ostensibly erected unlawfully.  On
February 28, 2012, the parties notified the Court that they need
an additional time to reach an agreement.  The Company says in the
event that an agreement will not be reached, the legal procedure
will continue.


INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over VAT Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending a
purported class action lawsuit over its collection of value added
tax from customers, who use its services when they are outside
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 August 2010, a claim was filed with the District Court for the
Central District, together with a motion to certify it as a class
action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd.  The amount of the
claim is not stated, but the application is estimated to be in
tens of millions of shekels.  According to the plaintiff,
Pelephone should refrain from collecting Value Added Tax from
customers who use its services when they are outside Israel.  The
application also seeks an order instructing Pelephone to cease
charging its customers for the services they use outside Israel
and an order instructing that the fees collected to date be
refunded.  A pre-trial hearing was scheduled for May 23, 2012.


INTERNET GOLD: Pelephone Defends Suit Over Service Tariffs
----------------------------------------------------------
Pelephone Communications Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold -
Golden Lines Ltd., is defending a purported class action lawsuit
over service tariffs for business customers, according to the
Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In December 2011, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with an application for its
certification as a class action, against Pelephone for a total
amount of NIS381 million.  The plaintiff alleged that Pelephone
unlawfully updated its service tariffs for business customers.


INTERNET GOLD: Plaintiff Ordered to Pay Expenses in Suit v. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff was ordered to pay court expenses after he abandoned
his application for class certification in a lawsuit against
Pelephone Communications Ltd., according to Internet Gold - Golden
Lines Ltd.'s April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In January 2011, a claim was filed with the Jerusalem District
Court, in Israel, together with an application to certify it as a
class action.  The plaintiff alleged that he purchased two Samsung
handsets but was unable to use them for surfing the Internet even
though he purchased surfing services.  In February 2012, the Court
approved the applicant's abandonment of the certification and
ordered him to pay court expenses.


INTERNET GOLD: Faces Carriers Provision Violation Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. and its subsidiary are facing a
purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the carriers
provision of telecommunication services to handicapped customers,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In February 2012, a claim was filed with the Jerusalem District
Court, in Israel, against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Cellcom
Israel Ltd., Partner Communications Company Ltd. and Bezeq - The
Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., together with an
application for its certification as a class action, for a total
amount of NIS361 million.  The claim alleges violations with
respect to the carriers provision of telecommunication services to
handicapped customers.


INTERNET GOLD: Suit Over Accessories Sale vs. Unit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit over sale of accessories filed
against a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd. was
dismissed in September 2011, 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 June 2011, a motion was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court,
in Israel, together with an application to certify it as a class
action, against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Partner
Communications Company Ltd. and Mirs Communications Ltd.  The case
arises from the sale of accessories for carrying handsets on the
body that does not comply with the instructions of the handset
manufacturers and the Ministry of Health with respect to non-
ionizing radiation.  In addition to financial relief, additional
relief in the form of an injunction to prohibit the sale of these
items, or alternatively to publish a warning, was requested.  In
September 2011, the action against Pelephone was dismissed, after
the Court concluded that there was no firm evidence for the filing
of an action against Pelephone.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Awaits Minister's Position on Cell Radiation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is waiting for the
Minister of Communication of Israel to provide its position on the
issue about bodily damage arising from exposure to cellular
radiation, 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, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court,
in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class action,
against Pelephone Communications Ltd. and Cellcom Israel Ltd.  The
total amount of the claim is approximately NIS4.2 billion and the
amount of the claim against Pelephone is NIS2.1 billion.  The
plaintiffs claim that Pelephone acts in contravention of its
license and the law in that it does not purchase insurance
covering its liability for bodily damage arising from exposure to
cellular radiation.  The application also seeks an order
instructing Pelephone to take out such insurance.  On October 25,
2010, the Court requested the Minister of Communication to provide
its position on this issue.  When the position is submitted to the
Court, the parties will have an opportunity to respond.


KENNETH COLE: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Buyout Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Lawrence, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., Kenneth D. Cole, Paul
Blum, Michael J. Blitzer, Robert C. Grayson, Denis F. Kelly,
Philip R. Peller, KCP Holdco, Inc., and KCP Mergerco, Inc., Case
No. 652111/2012 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 18, 2012) is brought on behalf
of all public shareholders of the Company arising out of the
proposed buyout of the Company by its chairman, chief creative
officer and controlling shareholder, Kenneth D. Cole.

On June 6, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with KCP
Holdco, Inc., a Delaware corporation wholly controlled by Mr. Cole
and formed for the purposes of the buyout, and KCP Mergerco, Inc.,
a New York corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Mr. Cole will take the
Company private in a leveraged buyout transaction whereby Parent
will acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares for $15.25
per share in cash.  In connection with the Proposed Buyout, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Board failed to adequately discharge
its fiduciary duties to the shareholders by failing to ensure that
minority shareholders will receive maximum value for their shares.

Mr. Lawrence is a Company shareholder.

The Company, a New York corporation, designs, sources, and markets
a range of fashion footwear, handbags, and apparel in the United
States and internationally.  The company, through license
agreements, also designs and markets apparel and accessories under
its Kenneth Cole New York, Kenneth Cole Reaction, Unlisted, and Le
Tigre brand names, and footwear under the proprietary Gentle Souls
trademark.  Mr. Cole has served as the Company's Chairman of the
Board since its inception in 1982 and was also President until
February 2002 and Chief Executive Officer until May 2008.  The
other Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.  KCP Holdco was formed by Mr. Cole for the purpose of the
Buyout.  KCP Mergerco is a New York corporation and an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Andrea Y. Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  alee@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB LLP
          2501 N. Harwood St., Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233
          Facsimile: (214) 583-2234
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbllp.com


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Former Shareholders Have No Share in Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Kirchen, writing for The Business Journal, reports that the
attorneys who represented former Marshall & Ilsley Corp.
shareholders will be paid $695,000 in fees but shareholders, will
receive no cash in a settlement of class-action suits filed
against the company and its former board of directors.

A settlement including the attorneys' fees and the $0 for
shareholders was approved on June 19 by Milwaukee County Circuit
Court Judge Jane Carroll.

The shareholders' lead attorney was Jeffrey Light of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego.  The shareholders' Milwaukee
attorney was Scott Wagner.

A notice of the settlement was sent to about 95,000 former
Marshall & Ilsley shareholders.  Only three filed objections to
the settlement and one withdrew an objection before the June 19
brief hearing.

Toronto-based BMO Financial acquired M&I in July 2011 for about
$4.1 billion plus the payment of M&I's $1.7 million in debt from
the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Each outstanding share of M&I was exchanged for 0.1257 shares of
BMO.  The transaction valued each share of M&I at $7.75.

Class action attorneys from across the country filed a total of 10
shareholder suits against Marshall & Ilsley in December 2010,
claiming the M&I board breached its fiduciary duty by selling the
company for less than it was worth.

In the only concession the plaintiffs' attorneys received,
Marshall & Ilsley agreed to file additional disclosures on what
led to the transaction.  That happened in May 2011 when the
company filed an updated prospectus with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 2012, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court,
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. between
September 26, 2007 and through and including June 8, 2012, against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors, alleging fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)]
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. Sec.
240.10b-5].

The case name is styled Shnerer v. Lawler, et al., Case 1:12-cv-
11078.  A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available
from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com

The complaint alleges that Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded numerous facts known to them during the Class Period
concerning the Company's profitability, business and accounting
practices.  It is further alleged that Defendants continually
issued statements in its SEC filings that were materially false
and misleading. Specifically:

a) The Company's scheme was to aggregate its business in order to
acquire volume discounts from vendors, and then mark up the
discounts to clients without their knowledge, inconsistent with
their contracts, and incorrectly account for these discounts and
mark-ups as revenue;

b) All of the press releases and Form 10-Ks and Form 10-Qs issued
by the Company and the Individual Defendants during the Class
Period were materially false and misleading because they did not
accurately reflect the Company's treatment of rebates associated
with volume discounts by vendors; and

c) Defendants continually made false and materially misleading
statements and omissions during the Class Period concerning the
Company's treatment of rebates associated with volume discounts
provided by vendors, vendor costs which were marked-up to clients
in a manner not consistent with client contracts, volume discounts
and mark-ups incorrectly accounted for as revenue, the Company's
accounting practices, generally, and the Company?s revenue and net
income.

On the morning of June 11, 2012, ModusLink disclosed, for the
first time that the Company had continually reported inflated
revenue and net income figures during the Class Period and that it
would restate its financial results going back to 2007, as a
result of its serious problems in how it accounted for revenues
and net income, as well as the way it billed customers for certain
services.  The press release also stated that ModusLink President
and Chief Executive Officer Joseph C. Lawler would be stepping
down and also relinquishing his seat on the Board of Directors,
effective immediately.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of ModusLink common stock.  Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they
would not have purchased said common stock, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased ModusLink common stock during the Class Period,
you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
August 11, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City and San Diego.  The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. or Derek Behnke), via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.whafh.com


MONA VIE: Judge Grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for Legal Newsline reports that in a
pending class action lawsuit against Mona Vie juice products, U.S.
District Judge Susan O. Hickey has granted plaintiff's motion to
remand the case back to Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas.

Judge Hickey ruled that the plaintiff's complaint, which alleges
misleading advertising, contained statements that were specific
enough to avoid removal to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).

She wrote that, "[R]emoval is defeated by adding to the complaint
a binding stipulation promising not to seek greater damages than
the jurisdictional minimum."

Named plaintiff Joe Neal Oliver, individually and as class
representative on behalf of similarly situated persons, filed the
class action against Mona Vie Inc. and Mona Vie L.L.C. on Dec. 16,
2010 in Miller County Circuit Court.  In the complaint, the
plaintiff stated that he was seeking less than $75,000 per class
member and less than $5 million in total damages.

Oliver and the proposed class are represented by John C. Goodson
and Matt Kiel of Kiel & Goodson in Texarkana and Michael B.
Angelovich, Brad E. Seidel and Christopher Johnson of Nix,
Patterson & Roach in Austin, Texas.

Mona Vie removed the case to the Western District of Arkansas,
Texarkana Division on Dec. 16, 2011, arguing that diversity of
jurisdiction existed and citing provisions of CAFA -- namely that
if the damages sought by plaintiffs exceed $5 million in total,
then federal court is the appropriate jurisdiction.

The company's attorney, Darby Doan of Haltom & Doan in Texarkana,
argued that case law requires the plaintiff to make the
stipulations separate from the complaint, not within it.

Mr. Doan argued that plaintiffs were attempting to "game the
system" by refusing to admit that damages will be lower than the
federal court threshold.

"Because Oliver refuses to stipulate by admission that his damages
award will be less than the jurisdictional limit, he has
functionally denied that his damages claim is limited under
$75,000 or $5,000,000 in aggregate, and the Court must disregard
Oliver's unsworn pleading for purposes of jurisdiction," Mr. Doan
wrote.

"Oliver's failure to stipulate to the jurisdictional limits and
attempt to game the system should not be rewarded by the Court."

Judge Hickey disagreed with the defendants and stated that in
Arkansas, a stipulation within a complaint can function the same
as a separate stipulation, because it binds the plaintiff.

Judge Hickey's May 31 order goes on to state that Arkansas law
allows a plaintiff to declare an amount in controversy in order to
establish jurisdiction and if the plaintiff does so, the
declaration is binding.

Judge Hickey's order is consistent with an August 2011 order
entered by District Judge Paul K. Holmes II in McClendon v. Chubb
Corp., which found that the amount-in-controversy stipulation is
valid even if included in its complaint rather than in a separate
stipulation.

Judge Holmes noted that an Arkansas plaintiff can plead damages
specifically, and Arkansas law will hold the plaintiff to recovery
below the federal jurisdictional threshold.

In contrast, Judge Hickey's ruling is counter to District Judge
Jimm Hendren's May 29 ruling in Thatcher v. Hanover Ins. Group
Inc.

In that case, Judge Hendren ruled that the plaintiffs need a
separate affidavit or stipulation in order for the amount in
controversy to be binding.

"Ad damnum clauses and disclaimers within a complaint are
inadequate to cap the amount in controversy below the minimum for
removal jurisdiction," Judge Hendren wrote.

In each of the cases, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs
could return to Miller County Circuit Court and amend their
complaint asking for a higher amount of damages.

Judge Hickey addressed the issue in Oliver, noting that the
plaintiff's responses to questions about the amount-in-controversy
issue are vague and "could equate to a refusal to admit being
bound to the pleaded amounts."

However, she wrote that judicial estoppel would prevent Oliver
from thwarting his stipulations once the case is back in Miller
County Circuit Court.

"[A]s a general matter, courts are not friendly toward parties
scheming to alter jurisdiction," Judge Hickey wrote.

Attorneys Goodson and Angelovich are also the lead attorneys in
the McClendon and Thatcher cases.

They have been accused of forum shopping and writing their
complaints in a manner to keep the cases in the Circuit Court of
Miller County, Arkansas, which is reputed to be plaintiff-
friendly.

Those attorneys have made millions in fees from cases in which the
defendants settled in an effort to limit escalating defense costs
and extensive discovery requests in the rural court.


OPNEXT INC: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Stayed in Del. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit in Delaware was
stayed, according to Opnext, Inc.'s June 8, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended March 31, 2012.

On March 26, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization ("Merger Agreement"), with Oclaro,
Inc. ("Oclaro") and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc., a newly formed
wholly owned subsidiary of Oclaro ("Merger Sub").  Under the
Merger Agreement, the Company will combine our business with
Oclaro through a merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company.

Two putative class actions challenging the proposed merger have
been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery: (1) Glenn Freedman
v. Opnext, Inc., No. 7400-VCL, filed on April 5, 2012; and (2)
David Berger v. Harry L. Bosco, No. 7406-VCL, filed on April 9,
2012.  The defendants in each case are the Opnext Defendants and
the Oclaro Defendants.  Each action alleges that the Opnext
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by
entering into the Merger Agreement and that the Oclaro Defendants
aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.  Among other
relief, the plaintiff in each case seeks an order enjoining the
merger, attorneys' fees, damages and an accounting.

On April 16, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the
two actions pending before it under the caption In re Opnext, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 7400-VCL.  On May
14, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action
complaint alleging that the Opnext Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Company stockholders by entering into the
Merger Agreement and by failing to disclose all material
information relating to the proposed merger, and that the Oclaro
Defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.
The verified amended class action complaint seeks an order
enjoining the merger, an award of attorneys' fees and other
relief, including damages and an accounting.  On May 16, 2012, the
Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order staying the actions
before it in deference to the action pending before the Alameda
County Superior Court.

The Company says additional lawsuits may be filed against it
and/or members of its Board in connection with the proposed
merger.  One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is
that no order, injunction, decree or other legal restraint or
prohibition shall be in effect that prevents completion of the
merger.  Consequently, if a settlement or other resolution is not
reached in the lawsuits and the plaintiffs secure injunctive or
other relief prohibiting, delaying or otherwise adversely
affecting the defendants' ability to complete the merger, then
such injunctive or other relief may prevent the merger from
becoming effective within the expected time frame or at all.


OPNEXT INC: Plaintiffs Amend "Zilberberg" Class Suit Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit
filed an amended complaint last month, Opnext, Inc. disclosed in
its June 8, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

On March 26, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization ("Merger Agreement"), with Oclaro,
Inc. ("Oclaro") and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc., a newly formed
wholly owned subsidiary of Oclaro ("Merger Sub").  Under the
Merger Agreement, the Company will combine our business with
Oclaro through a merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company.

Five putative class actions challenging the proposed merger have
been filed in Alameda County Superior Court: (1) Martin Zilberberg
v. Charles J. Abbe, No RG12623460, filed on March 28, 2012; (2)
Eleanor Welty v. Harry L. Bosco, Case No. RG12624240, filed on
April 4, 2012; (3) Todd Wright v. Harry L. Bosco, Case No.
RG12624343, filed on April 5, 2012; (4) Stephen Greenberg v.
Charles J. Abbe, No. RG12624444, also filed on April 5, 2012; and
(5) Mark Graf v. Opnext, Inc., No. RG12624798, filed on April 9,
2012.  The defendants in each case are the Company, and the
members of the Company's Board (collectively, the "Opnext
Defendants"), Oclaro and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc.
(collectively, the "Oclaro Defendants").  Each action alleges that
the Opnext Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to our
stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement.  Each action
further alleges that the Oclaro Defendants aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duties.  Among other relief, the plaintiff
in each case seeks an order enjoining the merger and attorneys'
fees.  All of the actions except for the Graf action seek damages
and an accounting.

On April 25, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court consolidated
all five cases pending before it under the caption Zilberberg v.
Abbe, Lead Case No. RG12623460.  On May 14, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint alleging that
the Opnext Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Company
stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement and by failing
to disclose all material information relating to the proposed
merger, and that the Oclaro Defendants aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The consolidated amended class
action complaint seeks an order enjoining the merger, an award of
attorneys' fees and other relief, including damages and an
accounting.

The Company says additional lawsuits may be filed against it
and/or members of its Board in connection with the proposed
merger.  One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is
that no order, injunction, decree or other legal restraint or
prohibition shall be in effect that prevents completion of the
merger.  Consequently, if a settlement or other resolution is not
reached in the lawsuits and the plaintiffs secure injunctive or
other relief prohibiting, delaying or otherwise adversely
affecting the defendants' ability to complete the merger, then
such injunctive or other relief may prevent the merger from
becoming effective within the expected time frame or at all.


PINNACLE FOODS: Vermont Community Law Center Files class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Dobbs, writing for VTDigger, reports that the Vermont
Community Law Center on June 19 filed a class action lawsuit
against Pinnacle Foods Group, a national food corporation,
alleging that the company's products are misleadingly packaged and
labeled in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act.

The case focuses on two products: Log Cabin syrup and Bird's Eye
Super Sweet Corn.  Both are labeled as "All Natural," but the
Vermont Community Law Center and Law for Food, a group working
with them on the case, say the ingredients aren't natural at all.

"You have to do some significant research to find out where
xanthan gum, for example, comes from, but it comes from corn
powder.  It's highly processed and, by definition, synthetic,"
said Kenneth Miller of Law for Food.  The lawsuit says that
xanthan gum, an ingredient in Log Cabin syrup, is recognized by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a synthetic substance.

"By information and belief, [Pinnacle Foods Group's] products
including the Birds Eye frozen corn products and Log Cabin syrup
contain ingredients that are highly processed and derived from
corn, rice or soy all of which are likely derived from genetically
engineered . . . sources," the lawsuit states.

At a press conference announcing the lawsuit, Jared Carter,
managing attorney at the Vermont Consumer Litigation Center, and
Mr. Miller presented an example of the Log Cabin syrup.  Sometimes
sold in "an opaque, tan plastic jug with a small round handle and
a non-funtional 'pour-spout' lip," Log Cabin syrup could present a
confusing choice to consumers, who are accustomed to seeing
genuine Vermont maple syrup in such jugs.

In response to a request for comment, Elizabeth Rowland, a
Pinnacle Foods representative, said in an e-mail, "Although we
have heard about a pending lawsuit, we have yet to be served and
have not received any information."

Mr. Miller said the packaging and marketing of Pinnacle Foods
Group's products also hurts Vermont sugarers.

"Side by side, as it is with Vermont maple syrup, it's much
cheaper.  So they're undercutting Vermont producers, and in the
end you can call it a lot of things, but we're protecting
consumers, but indirectly we're also protecting producers and
promoting a fair and honest economy," he said.

Of the two samples the groups presented, they said the Log Cabin
syrup, which came in a slightly larger container, cost $5.99 while
the genuine Vermont maple syrup cost $12.50.

In 2010, after complaints from Rep. Peter Welch and the Vermont
Department of Agriculture that Log Cabin syrup was not exactly
"all natural," Pinnacle removed caramel coloring as an ingredient
in its syrup.

The lawsuit is not the only effort to fight misrepresented
products.  In Washington, Sen. Bernie Sanders recently announced
an amendment to a Farm Bill that would allow states to require the
labeling of genetically modified foods.  The bill itself would not
require such foods to be labeled nationwide.

In the Statehouse, a bill to require the labeling of genetically
modified foods stalled in the House this year.  State Sen. Phillip
Baruth of Chittenden County said at the press conference for the
lawsuit that it may have been hindered by threat of legal action
from Monsanto.

"As somebody who sits on the Senate Agriculture committee, I
waited eagerly this past session for a bill to come over from the
House that would require labeling of genetically modified
organisms within the state," he said.  "That bill never made it
over to us, and I won't speculate on the reasons why, but at a
certain point in the session, Monsanto did issue a threat of a
lawsuit and it seemed to me that the momentum for the bill outside
the building picked up, and the momentum inside the building died
from that point on."

Sen. Baruth said he plans to introduce a labeling bill in the
Senate in January and hopes that a pro-labeling Senate Agriculture
committee will be able to send it to the House, who has already
done a lot of work on the issue for quick passage, he said, before
the final days of the session.


RITE AID: Settles Store Managers' Wage & Hour Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation and its subsidiaries and plaintiffs' counsel
in fifteen wage and hour collective and class action lawsuits
announced on June 19 that they have reached a global settlement in
these lawsuits which involve the alleged misclassification of Rite
Aid's salaried assistant store managers and co-managers and seek
overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiffs contended that overtime pay was required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the laws of certain states.

Under the terms of the global settlement, which is subject to
court approval, the Company has agreed to pay up to $20.9 million
to resolve the allegations and avoid further distraction from
litigation that has been ongoing for the past four years.  The
settlement amount resolves claims for damages dating back as far
as 2002 for some of the settlement class members and covers more
than 6,000 current and former associates.

Both plaintiffs and Rite Aid believe that the proposed settlement
represents a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of cases
challenging Rite Aid's classification of its assistant managers
and co-managers as exempt.  According to Seth Lesser, lead
plaintiffs' counsel, "This is an excellent result for the present
and former Rite Aid assistant managers and co-managers who will
benefit from it because the settlement will provide a definite and
sure recovery long before any possible payment could be achieved
through continued litigation.  The settlement, if approved, will
avoid the possibility of adverse rulings or even no recovery at
all."

Rite Aid believes that its previous classification of assistant
managers and co-managers as exempt employees is fully compliant
with applicable state and federal law.  Rite Aid denies any
wrongdoing in the global settlement.

The settlement has been presented to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania and preliminarily approved.
Official forms will soon be mailed to settlement class members.

Rite Aid Corporation RAD -2.50%  is one of the nation's leading
drugstore chains with approximately 4,700 stores in 31 states and
the District of Columbia and fiscal 2012 annual revenues of $26.1
billion.

Contact:

        RITE AID MEDIA:
        Susan Henderson, 717-730-7766

        or

        RITE AID INVESTORS:
        Matt Schroeder, 717-214-8867
        investor@riteaid.com

        or

        PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL:
        Seth Lesser, 914-934-9200


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Indirect Flonase Buyers Must Prove Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that to participate in a class
action, indirect purchasers who say SmithKline Beecham unfairly
stifled generic competition to its steroid nasal spray Flonase
must show that they bought the generic equivalent of Flonase when
it became available, a federal judge ruled.

A copy of the Memorandum in In re: Flonase Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 08-cv-03301 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/20/flonase.pdf


SPORT CHALET: Faces "Bennett" Class Action Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sport Chalet, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit commenced by
Brian Bennett in California, according to the Company's June 8,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 1, 2012.

On April 12, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
entitled Brian Bennett v. Sport Chalet, Inc. and Sport Chalet Team
Sales, Inc. (Case No. BC482472), alleging violations of the
California Civil Code.  The complaint was brought as a purported
class action on behalf of wheelchair-bound persons located in
California.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
Company violated California state law by failing to make certain
store locations accessible to individuals with disabilities. The
plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, unspecified
amounts of damages; attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs'
demands for injunctive relief claim that the features of some of
the Company's California stores are not in compliance with state
or federal regulations and therefore are not accessible to
individuals who use wheelchairs.  The Company intends to defend
this litigation vigorously.


THQ: Faces Three Securities Class Actions Over Failed uDraw
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Caoili, writing for Gamasutra, reports that three different
law firms have filed class action lawsuits against THQ over
allegations that the publisher violated federal securities laws
with the handling of its failed uDraw franchise and GameTablet
peripherals.

Lawyers have come out of the woodwork to sue THQ over allegations
that the company knowingly made "false and misleading statements"
when informing investors about anticipated uDraw sales for Xbox
360, PlayStation 3, and Wii.

Despite healthy sales for uDraw's Wii game in early 2011, the
company overestimated demand when it attempted to expand the
franchise during the holiday season.  That error resulted in over
$30 million in operating losses, and THQ eventually killed the
series and laid off developers who worked on the games.

Atlanta law firm Holzer Holzer & Fistel earlier announced that
it's investigating whether THQ failed to warn investors in a
timely manner about low uDraw sales -- and now three other three
firms have filed class action lawsuits making identical
allegations.

Class action specialist Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, shareholders
litigation firm Robbins Umeda, and boutique business and
securities law firm Federman & Sherwood have all filed suits
against THQ on behalf of their plaintiffs with the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

All of the firms seek to recover damages for shareholders who
purchased THQ stock between May 2011 and February 2012.  They are
also all encouraging those affected shareholders to contact them
and participate in the class action suit.

Jeffrey Matulef, writing for Eurogamer.net, reports that the
complaint was filed by Robbins Umeda in the US District Court for
the Central District of California.

Purportedly, THQ ignored the following: "(a) that demand for the
Company's uDraw was well below internal expectations and the
Company would have to take back, or provide price protection, on
hundreds of thousands of uDraw units that it had sold; (b) that
the uDraw for the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Sony PlayStation 3 was a
failure and not being purchased by owners of those gaming systems;
and (c) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company
and its prospects."

If successful, the suit would compensate all shareholders who
invested during the period covered by the lawsuit.

The uDraw peripheral fell $100 million short of the publisher's
expectations, with a whopping 1.4 million units left unsold.
THQ CFO Paul Pucino singled out uDraw as the company's Achilles'
heel a few months back during an investor Q&A.

"From a contribution margin perspective, we would have doubled the
profitability in the quarter were it not for uDraw.  So it was
something in excess of $30 million in operating loss in the
quarter as a result of uDraw."

This could be the latest in a long line of financial difficulties
for THQ, which is in danger of being delisted from Nasdaq unless
stockholders approve a reverse split at the company's next
shareholder's meeting on June 29.


TORO COMPANY: Still Defends Lawnmower-Related Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against The Toro Company
and other defendants that (i) contains allegations under
applicable Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made
by the United States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a
class of all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994,
purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30
horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the Company and other
defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs
and fees, and equitable relief.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 4, 2012.

Management continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation.  In the
event the Company is unable to favorably resolve this litigation,
management is unable to assess at this time whether this
litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
annual consolidated operating results or financial condition,
although an unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to
the Company's consolidated operating results for a particular
period.


UTI WORLDWIDE: "Precision" Antitrust Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. (along with several other global logistics
providers) has been named as a defendant in a federal antitrust
class action lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of New York (Precision
Associates, Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding)
Ltd., et. al.).  This lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged
in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 8, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company says it has incurred, and may in the future incur,
significant legal fees and other costs in connection with
governmental investigations and lawsuits.


WENDY'S INT'L: Faces Employment Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tribune-Review reports that a Munhall woman claims in a federal
class-action lawsuit filed on June 18 that Wendy's International
Inc. has a policy of firing workers who become permanently
disabled.

Patricia Semenko, 51, claims in the lawsuit that she worked for
Wendy's for about 30 years in hourly and managerial positions but
was fired in January 2008 when she tried to return to work after
taking a long-term disability leave for treatment of complications
from her degenerative arthritis.  Gregory Paul, her lawyer, said
the company refuses to accommodate employees who have permanent
restriction on their ability to work.

A spokesman for the Dublin, Ohio, company declined comment.


* Quorn Residents Mull Class Action Against Solar Panel Company
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Moran, writing for The Transcontinental Port Augusta, reports
that a group of Quorn residents are banding together to get their
deposits back from a solar panel company which didn't honor its
contracts.

The company, based in Victoria, has not responded to e-mails or
phone calls from The Transcontinental about the matter.

Peter McMillan, Greg Wright and Elaine and Ernie Ash each signed
contracts for solar system installation from September last year.

The group had raised the issue with consumer affairs, and were
advised that there are more people who had complained about the
same company.

                           *********

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  * * *