---

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

             Tuesday, June 26, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 125

                             Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Gets Final Approval of "Diaz" Suit Settlement
ABM INDUSTRIES: Motion Hearings in "Augustus" Suit on July 6
ABM INDUSTRIES: Enters $5.5-Mil. "Las/Yanez" Suit Settlement
ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits OK of Unpaid Overtime Suit Settlements
BERNARD MADOFF: Judge Bars Class Action vs. Picower Estate

BMO TRUST: Ontario Court Certifies Class Action Over Forex Fees
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Ohio May Join Class Action in Oklahoma
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Stay on Optionholder Class Suits Lifted
COPART INC: Awaits Approval of "Brizuela" Class Suit Settlement
COPART INC: Still Defends "Ortiz-Torres" Suit in California

CPI CORP: Awaits Court Decision on "Paige" Suit Pending in Calif.
CPI CORP: Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs Pending
CREDO PETROLEUM: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
CRESTLINE COMMUNITIES: Faces Class Action Over Apartment Fire
CURRIE TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 2,100 Tricruiser Adult Tricycles

DYNEGY INC: Awaits Ruling on Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
EMPIRE BLUE: Sued for Denying Coverage to Same-Sex Couples
FACEBOOK INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
FANNIE MAE: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Transfer Taxes
FLUSHMATE: Recalls 2.34M Pressure-Assisted Flushing System Units

GENESCO INC: Has Yet to File Song-Beverly Act Suit Settlement
GENESCO INC: Awaits Final Approval of "Overton" Suit Settlement
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Goodman-Brown" Suit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defends Suits Over Captive Reinsurance
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Certifies Flonase Class Action

GTSI CORP: Settles "Oppenheim" Acquisition-Related Class Suit
KNOLOGY INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Merger with WideOpenWest
MICHIGAN: Judge Certifies Discrimination Class Action
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Quebec Suit Set for This Month
NETFLIX INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in California

NEW YORK, NY: May Face Class Action Over Ulster Flooding
NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Product Liability Suits Remains Pending
ORIENT PAPER: Settles Securities Class Action in California
PALL CORP: Awaits Court OK of $22.5M Consolidated Suit Settlement
QUEBEC: $27-Mil. Out-of-Court Settlement Approved in December

SYNGENTA CROP: Lawyers Seek Payment for Settlement Administrator
TALBOTS INC: All Claims in "Lowe" Class Suit Dismissed in May
TALBOTS INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Washtenaw" Suit
TALBOTS INC: Faces "Leach" Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware
TALBOTS INC: Faces Two Merger-Related Class Suits in Delaware

TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
THOR INDUSTRIES: Gets Prelim. Okay of FEMA Trailer Suits Deal
TILLY'S INC: "Lyddy" Suit Remains Pending in California Court
TONE WORLD: Recalls 405 Recliner Chairs for Lead Level Violation
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits Decision on Securities Suit Appeal

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suits Deal
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stockholder Class Suit Still Stayed in Israel
ZALE CORP: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Still Pending

* Bill to Reverse Decision Limiting Class Actions Proposed


                          *********

ABM INDUSTRIES: Gets Final Approval of "Diaz" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California court approved in May 2012 ABM Industries
Incorporated's settlement of the consolidated cases of
Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking, according to the
Company's June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated
cases of Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking filed on
December 5, 2006 in L.A. Superior Court (the "Diaz case").  On
June 22, 2011, the parties accepted a mediator's proposal which
involves settling all the claims made in the first amended
complaint for the period of October 1, 2002, to the date on which
the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement.  The
Court granted its preliminary approval of the settlement on
December 13, 2011.  On January 27, 2012, the notice to the class
of the settlement was mailed.  The Court approved the settlement
on May 21, 2012.  Based on claims submitted, the amount of the
payments is approximately $3.1 million, which includes payments to
plaintiffs' attorneys.

During the quarter ended April 30, 2012, the Company increased its
accrual from $2.9 million to $3.1 million with respect to this
matter, which is included in the total amount accrued for all
litigation matters.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Motion Hearings in "Augustus" Suit on July 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated's motion for class decertification,
and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services, are scheduled to be heard on July 6, 2012, according to
the Company's June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,
2012.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services filed on July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case").  The
Augustus case is a class action involving allegations that the
Company violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest
breaks.  On January 8, 2009, the Augustus case was certified as a
class action by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County.  On October 6, 2010, the Company moved to decertify the
class and for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs also moved for summary
judgment on the rest break claim.  On December 28, 2010, the
Superior Court de-certified the portion of the class related to
the meal break claims and granted summary judgment for the
plaintiffs with respect to the rest break issue.  On July 11,
2011, the Court closed the class period as of July 1, 2011, and
vacated the previously scheduled trial date of September 12, 2011.

On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the rest break claim which seeks damages in the amount
of $103.0 million.  On February 8, 2012, the Company filed a
motion for decertification of the class.  Both motions are now
scheduled to be heard on July 6, 2012.

The Company continues to believe it has strong defenses against
this lawsuit and is vigorously defending it.  The case is set for
trial on November 30, 2012.  An estimate of the potential
exposure, if any, cannot be made at this time.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Enters $5.5-Mil. "Las/Yanez" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated entered into a $5.5 million settlement
of a class action lawsuit filed in Illinois, according to the
Company's June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in the case of Las and Yanez v. ABM
Industries Incorporated, et. al. filed on April 6, 2011, in
Illinois state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Las/Yanez
case").  The Las/Yanez case involves allegations relating to
unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work under federal and state
law. It was filed as a collective action, but has not been
certified as a class action or collective action.  On May 4, 2012,
the parties accepted a mediator's proposal, which involves
settling all the claims made in the operative complaint for the
period of April 6, 2008, through May 7, 2012, subject to court
approval.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the gross
settlement value ("GSV") is the total agreed-upon value of the
claims of all settlement class members in the Las/Yanez case
assuming that 100% of the settlement class members were to submit
a claim.  The parties have agreed that the GSV is equal to $5.5
million, less certain costs and payments to the named plaintiffs
in this action.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, in
the event that more than 30% of the settlement class, measured by
the aggregate value of their claims in relation to the GSV,
submits claims, the Company has the option to terminate the
settlement agreement.

The Company currently anticipates that payments to members of the
settlement class who properly submit claims, together with
payments to plaintiffs' attorneys, will total approximately $2.1
million and that the Company's maximum exposure would be
approximately $2.9 million.  The Company has accrued $2.1 million
with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount
accrued for all litigation matters.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits OK of Unpaid Overtime Suit Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated is awaiting court approval of
settlements resolving two lawsuits filed in Washington alleging
unpaid overtime, according to the Company's June 7, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of
Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co. - West and ABM
Industries filed on March 24, 2008, in the U.S. District Court of
Washington, Western District (the "Khadera case").  The Khadera
case is a collective action and involves allegations relating to
unpaid overtime and meal and rest claims.  It is an opt-in class
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and 343 plaintiffs are in the
class.  On March 14, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator's
proposal and settled this matter for $1.8 million, which includes
payments to plaintiffs' attorneys.  The settlement is subject to
the District Court's approval of the settlement and the state
court's approval of the settlement in the Simpson companion case.
The Company has accrued $1.8 million with respect to this matter,
which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation
matters.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of
Simpson v. ABM Janitorial Services-Northwest and ABM Industries
Incorporated filed on September 24, 2010 in the Superior Court for
the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Simpson
case").  The Simpson case involves allegations relating to unpaid
overtime, off-the-clock work, and failure to provide meal and rest
periods under Washington state law.  On March 14, 2012, the
parties accepted a mediator's proposal and settled this matter for
$1.2 million, which includes payments to plaintiffs' attorneys.
The settlement is subject to the state court's approval of the
settlement and the District Court's approval of the settlement in
the Khadera companion case.  The Company has accrued $1.2 million
with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount
accrued for all litigation matters.


BERNARD MADOFF: Judge Bars Class Action vs. Picower Estate
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Sandler, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a U.S.
bankruptcy judge barred a class-action lawsuit filed in Florida
against the estate of former Bernard Madoff investor Jeffry
Picower.

The Madoff brokerage trustee, Irving Picard, settled a lawsuit
against the Picower estate for $7.2 billion in 2010, after
alleging Mr. Picower knew of and profited from Mr. Madoff's fraud.
Pamela Goldman and a related partnership asked U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Burton Lifland in Manhattan to let their suit go forward,
even after similar actions had been barred by Judge Lifland and
other judges on appeal, the judge said on June 20 in an order
filed in court.

"This court has sole jurisdiction over the administration and
distribution of estate assets to customers," he said.

The judge's ruling on the Florida class action may help Mr.
Picard, who has been fighting to preserve his sole right to sue to
recover money for the con man's customers.  Customers who have
little prospect of being paid by Mr. Picard, and other parties,
say he is interfering with their rights.

Joshua Angel, a lawyer for Goldman, didn't immediately return a
call seeking comment on the ruling.

Mr. Picower, one of the largest of Madoff's investors, may have
suspected the con man was running a Ponzi scheme, according to Mr.
Picard.  Mr. Picower drowned in 2009, and his estate forfeited the
money to the U.S. and Mr. Picard.

This month, Mr. Picard accused California Attorney General Kamala
Harris of breaking the law by suing to recoup $270 million in
illegal profits from Stanley Chais' estate in competition with
himself.  Ms. Harris has said her suit isn't barred under
bankruptcy law, because she is exercising her policing power under
state law.

Mr. Picard sued Mr. Chais and related entities in 2009, demanding
the return of $1 billion allegedly withdrawn fraudulently from the
Ponzi scheme.  The money manager died in 2010.

Most of the $9 billion that Mr. Picard says he has raised from
settlements is tied up in court challenges, and unavailable for
distribution to customers who lost money.

Mr. Madoff, 72, is serving 150 years in prison after pleading
guilty to orchestrating the fraud that destroyed his New York-
based firm, which collapsed in December 2008.  Mr. Picard and his
law firm, Baker & Hostetler LLP, have charged about $273 million
for liquidating the estate, while returning just $330 million to
customers.

The Lifland ruling is on the docket of the main case: Securities
Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC, 08-ap-1789, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern
District of New York (Manhattan).


BMO TRUST: Ontario Court Certifies Class Action Over Forex Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been certified by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in a class action brought by James Richard MacDonald and
others, against BMO Nesbitt Burns, BMO Investorline and BMO Trust
Company.  In the class action, the plaintiffs allege that BMO
breached their contracts with the Class Members, and that BMO
acted in breach of the trust and fiduciary duties that they owed
to the Class by automatically converting to Canadian dollars any
foreign currency that was paid into registered accounts, even
though the Income Tax Act allowed foreign currency to be held in a
registered account after June 14, 2001.

In particular, the claim alleges that BMO made unauthorized
foreign currency exchanges, and that they charged undisclosed or
inadequately disclosed and unauthorized fees in respect of foreign
currency transactions.  The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the
class, reimbursement of the foreign exchange fees charged on the
purchase and sale of foreign investments held in registered
accounts, and in respect of the conversion of foreign currencies
that have been paid into the registered accounts.

None of the allegations has been proven in court, and the
defendants deny liability.

The Class is comprised of all current and former clients of BMO
InvestorLine Inc. and BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. resident in Canada,
who held one or more registered accounts administered by BMO
Trust, BMO NB and/or Investor Line Inc. and purchased or sold
investments denominated in foreign currency in their Registered
Accounts or were paid dividends or interest in a foreign currency
in their Registered Account(s), or otherwise received foreign
currency into their Registered Account(s) which was then converted
to Canadian dollars by the defendants during the period between:
(i) June 14, 2001 and September 6, 2011 for all clients and former
clients of InvestorLine and the 14 clients of BMO NB who opted out
of the Skopit v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. action and (ii) October 1,
2002 and September 6, 2011 for all other clients of BMO NB.

Further information regarding the class action is available on
Class Counsel's Web site at http://www.paliareroland.com/rrsp.asp


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Ohio May Join Class Action in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Ohio
Attorney General Mike DeWine has initiated an investigation into
Chesapeake Energy to see if state public pension funds have been
defrauded.

Mr. DeWine disclosed in a June 12 letter to Ohio Citizen Action
that his office began its probe in April to review allegations
that former CEO Aubrey McClendon used the company to benefit his
personal interests.

Ms. McClendon announced he was stepping down in May while the
company's stock struggled.

"If these allegations are true, Chesapeake shareholders, which
include the Ohio retirement systems, may have suffered a loss to
the value of their Chesapeake shares," Mr. DeWine wrote.

Mr. DeWine says the State could join a lawsuit in Oklahoma federal
court if it is approved as a class action.

According to The Associated Press, a report shows Ms. McClendon
secured up to $1.1 billion in personal loans, including loans from
a firm that does business with Chesapeake.

Ohio Citizen Action executive director Sandy Buchanan wrote Mr.
DeWine earlier in June.

"A decade ago, the Enron scandal saw a $65 billion company's
management integrity and finances collapse in what was then the
second largest bankruptcy in history," she wrote.

"Investors, employees and electric consumers were left holding the
bag.  A string of similar scandals and bankruptcies followed:
Global Crossing, Worldcom, Qwest, Arthur Andersen, and Tyco.

"Now Chesapeake Energy is following in Enron's footsteps.  I am
writing to urge you to step in to protect Ohioans from this
company."


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Stay on Optionholder Class Suits Lifted
------------------------------------------------------------
The Tel Aviv District Court lifted on May 7, 2012, the stay of
optionholder class action lawsuits pending in Israel, according to
Comverse Technology, Inc.'s June 11, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012.

Comverse Technology, Inc. ("CTI") and certain of its subsidiaries
were named as defendants in four potential class action
litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to recover
damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or breach of
contract that allegedly prevented certain current or former
employees from exercising certain stock options.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.  On April 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to lift
the stay based on the resolution of the actions in the United
States.  On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the case
will proceed with plaintiffs' filing of an amended complaint.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on
March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation
(Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  These cases have been consolidated with the Tel
Aviv District Court cases.  The Company did not accrue for these
matters as the potential loss is currently not probable or
estimable.


COPART INC: Awaits Approval of "Brizuela" Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of a
class action lawsuit initiated by Jose E. Brizuela, according to
the Company's June 11, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012.

On February 12, 2011, Jose E. Brizuela filed a lawsuit against the
Company in Superior Court, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino
District, which purports to be class action on behalf of persons
employed by the Company paid on a hourly basis in California at
any time since the date four years prior to February 14, 2011.
The complaint alleges failure to pay all earned wages due to an
alleged practice of rounding of hours worked to the detriment of
the employees.  Relief sought includes class certification,
injunctive relief, unpaid wages, waiting time penalty-wages,
interest, and attorney's fees and costs of lawsuit.

On March 26, 2012, the Company participated in mediation of the
case with plaintiffs, which resulted in the parties agreeing to
settle this matter.  The settlement, in which the Company admits
no liability and agrees to pay a non-material cash payment, is
subject to approval by the Court.

The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a
loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  The
effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future
results of operations cannot be predicted because any such effect
depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing
of the resolution of such matters.  The Company believes that any
ultimate liability will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.  However, the amount of the liabilities associated with
these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty.  Copart
maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for
claims made against the Company.  There is no assurance that there
will be insurance coverage available when and if needed.
Additionally, the insurance that Copart carries requires that the
Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of
the insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased.


COPART INC: Still Defends "Ortiz-Torres" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed a
lawsuit against Copart, Inc. in Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class
action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the
positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in
California at any time since the date four years prior to
September 21, 2010.  The complaint alleges failure to pay wages
and overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest
breaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business and
Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of
facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt
employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive
relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney's fees
and costs, interest, and punitive damages.  The Company believes
the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 11, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a
loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  The
effect of the outcome of these matters on the Company's future
results of operations cannot be predicted because any such effect
depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing
of the resolution of such matters.  The Company believes that any
ultimate liability will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.  However, the amount of the liabilities associated with
these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty.  Copart
maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for
claims made against the Company.  There is no assurance that there
will be insurance coverage available when and if needed.
Additionally, the insurance that Copart carries requires that the
Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of
the insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased.


CPI CORP: Awaits Court Decision on "Paige" Suit Pending in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI Corp. is awaiting a court decision in the class action lawsuit
commenced by Shannon Paige, et al., according to the Company's
June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

The Company and two of its subsidiaries are defendants in a
lawsuit entitled Shannon Paige, et al. v. Consumer Programs, Inc.,
filed March 8, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC367546.  The
case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 07-2498-FMC
(RCx).  The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to pay him
and other hourly associates for "off the clock" work and that the
Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required by law.
The Plaintiff is seeking damages and injunctive relief for himself
and others similarly situated.  On October 6, 2008, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification but allowed
Plaintiffs to attempt to certify a smaller class, thus reducing
the size of the potential class to approximately 200.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking certification of the smaller class on
November 14, 2008.  The Company filed its opposition on December
8, 2008.  In January 2009, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification as to their claims that they worked "off the
clock."  The Court also deferred ruling on Plaintiff's motion for
class certification as to their missed break claims and stayed the
action until the California Supreme Court ruled on a pending case
on the issue of whether an employer must merely provide an
opportunity for employees to take a lunch break or whether an
employer must actively ensure that its employees take the break
(Brinker Restaurant v. S. C. (Hohnbaum)).

The California Supreme Court ruled on the Brinker case on
April 12, 2012.  The Court held that employers do not have to
ensure that a meal period is taken, but have only to make it
available.  Pursuant to order of the Court in the Paige case, the
parties filed briefs in May on the impact of the Brinker case; a
hearing was scheduled June 13, 2012.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and continues
its vigorous defense on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries
against these claims, however, an adverse ruling in this case
could require the Company to pay damages, penalties, interest and
fines.  It is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of
this action or to estimate the potential impact on the Company's
results of operations, liquidity or financial position.


CPI CORP: Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A motion for appointment as lead plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit commenced by IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund remains pending,
according to CPI Corp.'s June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit entitled IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. CPI Corp., et al., filed January 13, 2012, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Civil Action No. 4:12-CV-75 AGF.  IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund
(IBEW) commenced a putative securities class action against CPI
Corp. (CPI), Renato Cataldo, Dale E. Heins and David M. Meyer on
January 13, 2012.  The Complaint was brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CPI common stock
between April 20, 2010, and December 21, 2011, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  IBEW alleges on behalf of the purported class
that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false statements
and omissions, CPI common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.  By court stipulation dated
February 9, 2012, the parties agreed that not later than 60 days
after entry of an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel, the Lead Plaintiff shall file a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which shall be deemed the operative
complaint and the Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to
the Consolidated Complaint within 60 days after service of the
Consolidated Complaint.  On March 13, 2012, plaintiffs IBEW and
George David filed a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and
for approval of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  That motion is pending.

The Company says it is not possible to determine the ultimate
outcome of this action or to estimate the potential impact on the
Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial position.
CPI currently expects to move to dismiss the amended complaint
after it is filed, believes it is without merit and will
vigorously defend itself in this matter.


CREDO PETROLEUM: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Credo Petroleum Corp. is
selling itself too cheaply to Forestar Group, for $146 million or
$14.50 per share, shareholders say in a class action in Chancery
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Farley v. Huffman, et al., Case No.
7638 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/21/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Donald K. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4292


CRESTLINE COMMUNITIES: Faces Class Action Over Apartment Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Guerra, writing for Indystar.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the owners of Noblesville
apartment complex in relation to a fire that damaged more than 20
units, multiple cars and a carport earlier this month.

The lawsuit was filed by Eric Pavlack of Pavlack Law, LLC on
behalf of about 80 to 100 apartment residents who suffered damages
and losses as a result of the fire.  The complaint was filed
Tuesday against Deer Chase Apartment owners, Crestline
Communities, LLC and Crestline Property Management, LLC.  It
focused on the lack of water pressure in the complex fire hydrants
which resulted in delayed efforts to extinguish the fire.

The fire occurred just before 11:00 a.m. June 10.  Rick Russell,
division chief with the Noblesville Fire Department, said it took
firefighters about an hour to extinguish the fire.  Crews had to
run their hoses nearly one mile to hydrants outside the complex.

According to the complaint, investigators found out that someone
had partially closed the main water line to the apartment complex.
This resulted in insufficiently pressurized red fire hydrants.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants neglected their
duty to maintain the fire hydrants with sufficient pressure. In
Noblesville, red fire hydrants are connected to a private water
line.  This means that the owners of the complex have direct
control of the hydrants.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for "damages to their personal
property, emotional damages and all other damages and losses
caused by the Crestline's negligence," the complaint states.


CURRIE TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 2,100 Tricruiser Adult Tricycles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Currie Technologies, of Chatsworth, California, and
manufacturer, Acetrikes Industrial Co., Ltd., of China, announced
a voluntary recall of about 2,100 Tricruiser Electric-Powered
Adult Tricycles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rear axle can break causing a rear wheel to detach, posing a
fall hazard to the rider.

The firm is aware of six incidents, including five reports of
bruises and scrapes.

The recalled tricycles are battery powered with 24" wheels and a
basket between the rear wheels.  Their brand name, eZip or iZip,
is printed on the sides of the bike and above the front wheel.
Bikes were sold in the following colors: red, blue and sand.
Recalled tricycles are in the serial number range ACB06L00001 to
ACB10H99999.  Serial numbers are engraved on the frame under the
handlebar support on the front of the tricycle.  Model numbers
include EZ-TRY-SD, IZ-TRY-RD, IZ-TRICR7-BL and IZ-TRY8-BL.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12202.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
independent bicycle shops and electric bicycle shops nationwide
and online at Walmart.com from March 2007 through March 2012 for
between $850 and $1120.

Consumers should immediately stop using these tricycles and
contact Currie Technologies to receive a free replacement
component and repair.  For additional information, contact Currie
Technologies at (800) 377-4532 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday or visit the Currie
Technologies Web site at http://www.currietech.com/


DYNEGY INC: Awaits Ruling on Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. is awaiting a court decision on two competing motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the class
action lawsuit commenced by Charles Silsby, according to the
Company's June 11, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On March 28, 2012, Mr. Charles Silsby ("Silsby") filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit, styled Silsby v. Icahn, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-02307(JGK), in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Dynegy, Robert Flexon,
Chief Executive Officer, Clint C. Freeland, Chief Financial
Officer, and Mr. Carl C. Icahn (collectively, the "Defendants").
Mr. Silsby alleges that Dynegy and Messrs. Flexon and Freeland
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder in making certain statements
regarding the transfer of Dynegy Coal Holdco LLC by Dynegy Gas
Investments, LLC ("DGIN") to Dynegy.  Mr. Silsby further alleges
that Messrs. Flexon, Freeland, and Icahn are liable for such
violations as control persons of Dynegy pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  Mr. Silsby seeks to bring these claims on
behalf of a putative class comprising all persons who acquired
Dynegy common stock between September 2, 2011, and March 9, 2012.

On April 26, 2012, the district court approved the parties'
stipulation adjourning the Defendants' time to respond to Mr.
Silsby's complaint without date, in light of anticipated motions
to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and the filing of an
amended complaint.  On May 29, 2012, two competing motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed.  The
district court has not ruled on these motions.

Dynegy believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously contest this lawsuit.

Two additional putative shareholder actions have been filed in
state courts:  Zahariades v. Elward et. al., No. 7539 (Del. Ch.
filed May 17, 2012) and Nicolle v. Flexon et. al., No. CC-12-
02703-A (Tex. Dallas Co. filed May 4, 2012).  Dynegy also believes
that the claims asserted in these actions are without merit and
intends to vigorously contest them.


EMPIRE BLUE: Sued for Denying Coverage to Same-Sex Couples
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Empire
Blue Cross Blue Shield and St. Joseph's Medical Center unfairly
deny health benefits to spouses of legally married same-sex
couples, two women claim in a federal class action.

"Despite the fact that New York State recognizes same-sex
marriage, St. Joseph's and BCBS [Blue Cross Blue Shield]
maintained a provision of the plan excluding same-sex spouses from
eligible dependents of plan participants," Jane Doe and Jane Roe
say in their complaint.

Ms. Roe is employed by St. Vincent's Westchester, a division of
St. Joseph's.  Ms. Doe is her spouse.  Both live in Westchester
County.

Ms. Roe claims that after passage of New York's Marriage Equality
Act in late 2011, she applied for spousal benefits but was told
"that her spouse would be denied coverage because the plan
expressly excluded 'same-sex' couples as eligible dependents of
the plan's participants."

The women claim that "the defendants, at all relevant dates, have
condoned and maintained that provision despite its clearly
discriminatory purpose and effect."

"As fiduciaries of the plan, defendants had the responsibility and
duty of providing benefits to plan participants and beneficiaries
prudently and for the sole purpose of caring for the interests of
those individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1104.  As defendants
failed to abide by their fiduciary duties by creating and
maintaining a discriminatory provision which interfered with and
denied the attainment of rights accorded to plaintiffs, they
violated ERISA."

The complaint cites several recent court rulings, including "a
recent First Circuit opinion [in which] the Court of Appeals found
that Section 1 of DOMA, which defines marriage narrowly as between
two individuals of the opposite sex, was unconstitutional on the
basis that the extreme economic burden placed on gay citizens
seeking medical benefits, tax benefits and spousal death benefits
outweighed the Congressional purposes of DOMA which violated the
Equal Protection Clause.  . . .

"Similarly, on June 6, 2012, DOMA was found unconstitutional by
Judge Barbara Jones of the Southern District of New York, who,
like the First Circuit, determined that the governmental goals set
forth by DOMA were illegitimate."

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that they are entitled to
benefits under ERISA, and want Blue Cross and St. Joseph's
enjoined from withholding benefits.

They are represented by Jeffrey Norton, with Newman Ferrara.


FACEBOOK INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a Boston-based law firm representing
investors nationwide, on June 20 disclosed that it has filed a
securities class action lawsuit against Facebook Inc., certain of
the company's officers and directors, and the underwriters of
Facebook's May 18, 2012 initial public offering.  The law firms
Susman Godfrey and Hausfeld LLP also filed the complaint along
with Block & Leviton.

The lawsuit, which is pending in the District Court for the
Southern District of New York (case no. 1:12-cv-04648), alleges
violations of U.S. securities laws on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Facebook pursuant to the Company's
IPO.  The claims arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint asserts that Facebook,
certain of the company's officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the IPO made materially untrue statements in the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, contrary to
Defendants' public statements, Facebook was experiencing a severe
and pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to an increase of
users accessing the Facebook Web site through mobile devices.  In
light of these facts, Facebook told certain of the underwriters to
materially lower their revenue forecasts for 2012, while
continuing to tout Facebook's performance to the investing public.
As details of the Defendants' misconduct emerged, Facebook's share
price plummeted, falling from an initial offering price of $38.00
to less than $32.00.  Numerous governmental agencies have also
announced that they are investing allegations of impropriety
involving Facebook's IPO.

If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than July 23,
2012, request that the court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
Class.  You may contact the attorneys at Block & Leviton to
discuss your rights in the case.  You may also retain counsel of
your choice and you need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.  Block & Leviton is a Boston-based law firm
representing investors for violations of securities laws.  The
firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases
on behalf of investors for over 50 years.

Contact: BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         E-mail: info@blockesq.com


FANNIE MAE: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Transfer Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Neil, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a Florida court
clerk has filed suit against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
contending that the mortgage-funding giants illegally avoided
paying transfer taxes on tens of thousands of properties in the
state.

Filed on June 21 by Hernando County Clerk of Courts Karen Nicolai
in federal court in Tampa, the suit seeks class action status on
behalf of all 67 of the state's court clerks, the Palm Beach Post
reports.

The Hogan Law Firm is handling the suit for the plaintiffs on a
contingency basis.  However, there is disagreement about whether
the court clerks or the state department of revenue should be
pursuing the case.

Representatives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac declined to discuss
the litigation.  A deluge of foreclosures in recent years, as well
as court budget cuts, have helped put the issue of whether the two
were obligated to pay transfer taxes on the front burner.


FLUSHMATE: Recalls 2.34M Pressure-Assisted Flushing System Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Flushmate, of New Hudson, Michigan, a division of
Sloan Valve Company, announced a voluntary recall of about
2,330,600 units of Flushmate(R) III Pressure-Assist Flushing
System in the United States of America and 9,400 units in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The system can burst at or near the vessel weld seam releasing
stored pressure.  This pressure can lift the tank lid and shatter
the tank, posing impact or laceration hazards to consumers and
property damage.

Flushmate has received 304 reports of the product bursting,
resulting in property damage and 14 impact or laceration injuries.

This recall is for Series 503 Flushmate(R) III Pressure Assist
flushing systems installed inside toilet tanks.  The recalled
systems were manufactured from October 1997 to February 2008.  The
units are rectangular, black, two-piece vessels made of injection
molded plastic.  The date code/serial number is 16 characters long
and is located on the label on the top of the Flushmate III.  The
first six numerals of the serial number are the date code.  The
date code range for this recall begins with 101497 (October 14,
1997) and continues through 022908 (February 29, 2008).  A picture
of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12201.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at The Home Depot and Lowe's stores, distributors
and plumbing contractors nationwide for about $108, and sold to
toilet manufacturers including American Standard, Crane, Eljer,
Gerber, Kohler, Mansfield and St. Thomas.

Consumers should immediately turn off the water supply to the
recalled Flushmate III unit and stop using the system.  Consumers
should contact the firm to determine if their Flushmate III serial
number is included in the recall and to request a free repair kit.
For more information, contact Flushmate toll-free at (800) 303-
5123 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.flushmate.com/
and http://recall.flushmate.com/


GENESCO INC: Has Yet to File Song-Beverly Act Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. has yet to file for court approval its settlement of
two class action lawsuits alleging violations of the California
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, according to the Company's
June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On March 3, 2011, there was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California a putative class action styled
Fraser v. Genesco Inc.  On March 4, 2011, there was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco a
putative class action styled Pabst v. Genesco Inc. et al. The
Pabst action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 1, 2011.  Both complaints
allege that the Company's retail stores in California violated the
California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 and other
California law through customer information collection practices,
and both seek civil penalties, damages, restitution, injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, and other relief.  The
Company and plaintiffs' counsel have reached an agreement in
principle to settle both actions, subject to documentation and
court approval.  The Company expects that the proposed settlement
will not have a material effect on its financial condition or
results of operations.


GENESCO INC: Awaits Final Approval of "Overton" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. is awaiting final court approval of a settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary, according to
the Company's June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28,
2012.

On June 22, 2011, the Company removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California Overton v. Hat World, Inc.,
a putative class action against its subsidiary, Hat World, Inc.,
alleging various violations of the California Labor Code,
including failure to comply with certain itemized wage statement
requirements, failure to reimburse expenses, forced patronization,
and failure to provide adequate seats to employees.  The parties
have agreed to settle the action and, on April 25, 2012, the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  The settlement
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Goodman-Brown" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit commenced by Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown, according
to the Company's June 11, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In December 2009, one of the Company's non-insurance subsidiaries,
one of the subsidiary's officers, and the Company were named in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and
Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc., et al,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.  Plaintiffs allege securities law and other violations
involving the selection of mutual funds by the Company's
subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client Group
clients.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  In response to the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety, the Court granted on
March 30, 2011, the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty
claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal
claims.

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend this action.

Genworth Financial Inc. is a financial security company that
provides insurance, wealth management, investment and financial
solutions to more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries.  The Company is headquartered in Richmond,
Virginia.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defends Suits Over Captive Reinsurance
----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. is defending three putative class action
lawsuits against its subsidiaries over captive reinsurance
arrangements, according to the Company's June 11, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In December 2011 and January 2012, one of the Company's U.S.
mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other
mortgage insurance industry participants and mortgage lenders as a
defendant in three putative class action lawsuits captioned as
follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al, United
States District Court for the Central District of California;
White, et al v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania; and Menichino, et al v. Citibank NA, et al, United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs allege that "captive reinsurance arrangements" with
providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender
through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the
borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation
of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA)
and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek
declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including
restitution.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Genworth Financial Inc. is a financial security company that
provides insurance, wealth management, investment and financial
solutions to more than 15 million customers, with a presence in
more than 25 countries.  The Company is headquartered in Richmond,
Virginia.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Certifies Flonase Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a federal judge has certified a class of third-party
purchasers who allege that GlaxoSmithKline filed "sham" citizen
petitions with the Food and Drug Administration that kept generic
versions of its nasal spray called Flonase off the market for two
years.


GTSI CORP: Settles "Oppenheim" Acquisition-Related Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
GTSI Corp. settled a consolidated class action lawsuit captioned
Mark Oppenheim v. GTSI Corp. et al., according to the Company's
June 11, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

GTSI(R) Corp., a systems integration, solutions and services
provider to government, entered into a definitive merger agreement
on May 7, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement") to be acquired through a
cash tender offer at $7.75 per share by a subsidiary of UNICOM(R)
Systems, Inc. ("UNICOM"), a global information technology company
and part of the UNICOM(R) group of companies, followed by a second
step merger, in a transaction with an expected total value of
approximately $76.67 million.

GTSI announced on June 11, 2012, the expiration of the "go-shop"
period pursuant to the terms of the previously announced Merger
Agreement with Unicom under which GTSI and its representatives
were permitted to actively solicit alternative acquisition
proposals for a period of 30 calendar days, which expired at 11:59
p.m. New York City time on June 6, 2012, and to continue
negotiations with certain qualifying bidders.  On June 8, 2012,
the Board of Directors of GTSI confirmed that, while GTSI did
receive a letter of interest, it did not receive any superior
acquisition proposals during the "go shop" period.

GTSI also announced that it and other named defendants have
reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle the
consolidated class action lawsuit captioned Mark Oppenheim v. GTSI
Corp. et al.  This lawsuit relates to the proposed acquisition of
GTSI by UNICOM.  Pursuant to this agreement, GTSI has filed an
amendment to its Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule
14D-9 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which can be
accessed free of charge at the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/,or GTSI's Web site,
http://www.gtsi.com/ The amended Schedule 14D-9 contains certain
additional disclosures GTSI has agreed to make in connection with
the settlement of the class action lawsuit, although GTSI has not
admitted in any way that those disclosures are material or are
otherwise required by law.  The settlement will not affect the
offer price to be paid in the tender offer by a subsidiary of
UNICOM or the merger consideration GTSI's stockholders would be
entitled to receive pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement.
The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things,
negotiation of a memorandum of understanding, confirmatory
discovery, final stipulation of settlement and receipt of final
required court approvals.

                        About GTSI Corp.

GTSI (NASDAQ: GTSI) is a leading provider of technology solutions
and professional services to federal, state and local governments.
Founded in 1983, GTSI has helped meet the unique IT needs of more
than 1,700 governmental agencies nationwide.  GTSI professionals
draw on their deep knowledge, strategic partnerships, customer
service and more than 740 industry certifications to guide
agencies in selecting the most cost-effective technology
available.  GTSI has extensive capabilities and past performance
in software development, data center, networking, collaboration,
security and cloud computing solutions.  In addition, GTSI's
advanced engineering, integration, support and financial services
-- and broad portfolio of contracts -- ease the planning,
purchasing and deployment of solutions, and facilitates the
management of mission-critical IT throughout the lifecycle.
Headquartered in Herndon, Virginia, GTSI has approximately 450
employees.  For more information visit GTSI's Web site at
http://www.gtsi.com/

                   About Unicom Systems, Inc.

UNICOM(R) Systems, Inc., a division of the UNICOM group of
companies, is a global leader in providing innovative software and
solutions for the enterprise computing community.  Through over
three decades of continued development and commitment, UNICOM has
redefined the economics and quality of automation for its
customers, delivering a new era of collaboration, data management,
data-warehousing, outsourcing, integration, communications and
commerce.

                    About The UNICOM(R) Group

The UNICOM Group consists of twenty (20) entities with offices in
Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Germany,
France, UK, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Switzerland.  UNICOM focused
on acquiring and integrating mature and growing mid-cap NASDAQ and
London Stock Exchange AIM companies in the technology, financing,
real estate, and business services.  UNICOM offers deep in-house
resources and flexible solutions to sellers worldwide, including
privatization, core-products consolidation, IT assets alignments,
management independence, integration matrix, and global business
strategy.

For more information about the UNICOM(R) group of companies please
go to:

http://www.unicomglobal.com/ IBM mainframe systems products
http://www.macro4.com/       Document management solutions
http://www.softlanding.com/  IBM i software products
http://www.illustro.com/     Internet enablement products
http://www.ietsolutions.com/ IT services management products
http://www.eden.com/         ITPowerPac solutions for Open
                               Systems
http://www.cics.com/         Outsourcing and corporate
                               procurement


KNOLOGY INC: Faces Suit Over Proposed Merger with WideOpenWest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knology, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit over its proposed
merger with WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, according to the Company's
June 11, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On April 18, 2012, Knology, Inc. entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with WideOpenWest Finance,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("WOW"), and Kingston
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of WOW ("Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will be merged
with and into Knology (the "Merger"), with Knology surviving as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of WOW.

On June 4, 2012, a purported class action on behalf of
stockholders of Knology, styled Lewis v. Johnson, et al., C.A. No.
7592-VCN, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The plaintiff in the action claims to be a stockholder
of Knology and proposes to represent a class of all of Knology's
public stockholders.  The action names as defendants Knology, WOW
and Merger Sub, as well as the members of the Board of Directors
(the "Board") of Knology, Rodger L. Johnson, Campbell B. Lanier,
III, Alan A. Burgess, Donald W. Burton, O. Gene Gabbard and
William H. Scott, III.

The action alleges that the members of the Board violated their
fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of Knology in connection
with the approval of the Merger Agreement and the Merger and that
the definitive proxy statement filed by Knology with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 24, 2012,
contains material misrepresentations and/or omissions.  The action
asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the members
of the Board, a claim for material misrepresentations and/or
omissions in Knology's definitive proxy statement against the
members of the Board, and a claim for aiding and abetting against
Knology, Merger Sub and WOW.  The action seeks to enjoin the
Merger and requests other relief.

Knology believes that the action is without merit and intends to
defend the action vigorously.


MICHIGAN: Judge Certifies Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Detroit Free Press reports that Circuit Judge Archie Brown on
June 20 certified as a class action a lawsuit charging the
Michigan Department of Corrections with gender discrimination for
limiting male employment in the Women's Huron Valley Correctional
Facility, the state's only prison for female inmates.

The ruling came in a case brought by a corrections officer in
2011, said attorney James Fett.  The officer, Tom Nowacki, says
his employment opportunities have been stymied by department
requirements that effectively bar contact between male employees
and female inmates.  Similar requirements are not applied to
female employees working in men's prisons, the lawsuit said.

The limits on male employees were enacted after MDOC was
repeatedly and successfully sued by female inmates over sexual
assaults committed by male employees.  Mr. Fett said he believes
about 80 male employees qualify for inclusion in the class action.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Hearing in Quebec Suit Set for This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 20, 2011, 9046-9478 Quebec Inc. ("Quebec Inc.") filed a
motion to authorize the bringing of a class action against
Navistar International Corporation, as well as Ford and Ford Motor
Company of Canada, Limited (collectively, "Ford Defendants") in
Superior Court (the "Superior Court") in Quebec, Canada (the
"Quebec Action").  The Quebec Action seeks authorization to bring
a claim on behalf of a class of Canadian owners and lessees of
model year 2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power
Stroke(R) engine that the Company previously supplied to Ford.
Quebec Inc. alleged that the engines in question have design and
manufacturing defects, and that the Company and Ford Defendants
are solidarily liable for those defects.  For relief, the Quebec
Action seeks monetary damages sufficient to remedy the alleged
defects, compensate the alleged damages incurred by the proposed
class, and compensate plaintiffs' counsel.  The Quebec Action also
asks the Superior Court to order the Company and the Ford
Defendants to recall, repair, or replace the Ford vehicles at
issue free of charge.  In December 2011, the Company and Quebec
Inc. reached an agreement in principle whereby the Company
voluntarily would produce certain documents to Quebec Inc.
pursuant to a protective order and Quebec Inc. voluntarily would
dismiss the Company from the Quebec Action without prejudice.
That agreement was confirmed on the record at a case management
conference before the Superior Court on February 1, 2012.  Quebec
Inc. has agreed to file a motion for authorization to remove the
Company from the Quebec Action, and the Superior Court has stated
such motion will be heard in June 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.


NETFLIX INC: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Netflix stiffed workers for
overtime and breaks for four years, a class action claims in Santa
Clara County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Gaggero v. Netflix, Inc., et al., Case
No. 112CV226587 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/21/NetflixCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES JH HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200


NEW YORK, NY: May Face Class Action Over Ulster Flooding
--------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Hudson News Network reports that The State Department of
Environmental Conservation's fine against the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection for violations is not
sufficient to resolve problems of flooding in Ulster County,
according to County Legislator Robert Aiello.

The Saugerties Republican said the county should file a class
action lawsuit against the City of New York for not responding to
permit violations that they have refused to abide by.

Mr. Aiello has concerns about what could happen if flooding from
water discharges and leaks in the aqueduct continue for much
longer.

"In the event my worst fears come to fruition and you start
dumping that much water and disturbing water tables, that the
water tables are going to rise; people could live a half a mile, a
mile away from this; you are going to begin to see sink holes
form, you are going to begin to see water in people's basements in
the beginning and if the sink holes form, that's going to weaken
the structure itself," Mr. Aiello said.

He said the DEP issue must get the governor involved and he must
prove where his allegiance is -- with the New York City or the
whole state, said Mr. Aiello.


NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Product Liability Suits Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. is currently a party to two purported state
class actions and one purported national Canadian class action.
The cases include allegations that a certain model car seat sold
by an affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite
government safety standards.  The Company is vigorously defending
all three actions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 11, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


ORIENT PAPER: Settles Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper, Inc. on June 21 disclosed that it reached a proposed
settlement of the securities class action lawsuit pending against
the Company and certain current and former officers and directors
of the Company.

The securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Mark
Henning, et. al, v. Orient Paper, Inc. et al., Case no. CV-10-5887
RSWL (AJWx)) and alleges, among other things, that the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to
state material facts that rendered its affirmative statements
misleading as they related to the Company's financial performance,
business prospects, and financial condition, and that the
defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued or
corrected.  The terms of the proposed settlement call for
dismissal of all the Orient Paper defendants from the action in
exchange for a $2 million payment from the Company's insurer.

The proposed settlement remains subject to court approval and
class notice administration.  The parties expect to complete full
documentation of the settlement and file a motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement and approval of the class
notice no later than July 30, 2012.

                    About Orient Paper, Inc.

Orient Paper, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary, Shengde
Holdings, Inc., controls and operates Baoding Shengde Paper Co.,
Ltd., and Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd.  Founded in
1996, HBOP is engaged in the production and distribution of
products such as corrugating medium paper, offset printing paper,
and other paper and packaging-related products in China.  The
Company uses recycled paper as its primary raw material.  Baoding
Shengde, founded in June 2009 located in Baoding, is engaged in
the production and distribution of digital photo paper.  As one of
the largest paper producers in Hebei Province, China, HBOP is
strategically located in Baoding, a city in close proximity to
Beijing where the majority of publishing houses are based. Orient
Paper is led by an experienced management team committed to
diversifying the Company's product offering and delivering
tailored services to its customers.


PALL CORP: Awaits Court OK of $22.5M Consolidated Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2012, Pall Corporation submitted to the court, and is now
awaiting approval of its $22.5 million settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit, according to the Company's June
11, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company has reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff to
settle a consolidated putative securities class-action lawsuit
originally filed in August 2007 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  Under the terms of
the proposed settlement, the lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice, without any admission of liability by the Company or
the individual defendants.  Both the Company and the individual
defendants will receive a full and complete release of all claims
asserted against them in the litigation, in exchange for the
payment of an aggregate of $22,500,000, substantially all of which
will be funded with insurance proceeds.

The proposed settlement was submitted to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
preliminary approval on May 16, 2012.  The agreement is subject to
the execution of definitive settlement documents and court
approval after the class has been notified of its terms.

The Company says it has reflected appropriate costs, contingent
liabilities and related insurance recoveries in the condensed
consolidated financial statements as of April 30, 2012, and
July 31, 2011.


QUEBEC: $27-Mil. Out-of-Court Settlement Approved in December
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court approved in December 2011 Quebec's $27 million
out-of-court settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by the
Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and
Labrador, according to the Company's June 7, 2012, Form 18-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 30, 2003, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations
of Quebec and Labrador filed a motion in Quebec Superior Court for
authorization to file a class action on behalf of all status
Indians (except for James Bay Crees) who have paid Quebec fuel tax
since July 1, 1973 (the date on which this tax came into force) on
purchases of fuel on a reserve in Quebec.  An out-of-court
settlement in the aggregate amount of $27 million was reached on
June 30, 2011, and approved by the court on
December 9, 2011.


SYNGENTA CROP: Lawyers Seek Payment for Settlement Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that the City of Greenville has asked a federal judge
handling the proposed $105 million settlement in the class action
lawsuit over the weed killer atrazine to issue an order directing
about $25,000 from a settlement fund to a Minnesota company
helping in the implementation of the parties' agreement.

On behalf of the city and the other plaintiffs in the case against
Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta AG, attorneys at Korein
Tillery filed the unopposed motion for approval of interim payment
of expenses on June 19.  The plaintiffs' attorneys said in their
motion that the Minnesota company, BMC Group Class Action
Services, "has incurred a number of expenses in furtherance of the
proposed settlement as reflected in the invoice attached as
exhibit 1."

The invoice, which BMC sent to Korein Tillery, details the
company's $25,687.64 bill, for the professional services it
rendered in April and May, as well as other costs.  The company's
services, which included designing the settlement notices and
creating a settlement Web site and online form, totaled about
$14,400.  The remaining $11,287.64 of the bill comes from the
costs associated with publishing notice of the settlement
agreement, the invoice shows.

The motion states that under the settlement agreement, expenses
incurred by the settlement administrator will be paid from the
settlement fund within 30 days of invoice.

Syngenta Crop Protection has already paid $5 million of the
proposed settlement fund into an escrow account held by U.S. Bank,
the plaintiffs' attorneys said in the motion.

The Syngenta defendants agreed to settle the case for $105 million
late last month, nearly eight years after St. Louis attorney
Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery filed six separate class action
lawsuits in the Madison County Circuit Court against various
manufacturers of atrazine.

Mr. Tillery and co-counsel will share approximately $35 million in
fees under terms of the proposed settlement.

In 2010, Mr. Tillery brought the case to federal court on behalf
of the city of Greenville and other Midwestern water providers,
claiming that atrazine ran off farm fields and into their drinking
water supplies.  This, the plaintiffs contend, forced them to
incur past and future expenses related to the testing and
monitoring of their water supplies, as well as the installation of
filter systems.

U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert presides over the case.  Earlier
this month, he issued an order dealing with two previously filed
motions.  One of the motions was filed by the Environmental Law
and Policy Center (ELPC) and Prairie River Network, both of which
intervened in the case in July 2011, and the other one came from
Syngenta Crop Protection.

The interveners asked Judge Gilbert to unseal certain documents in
the case while Syngenta Crop Protection requested the continued
confidentiality of these documents.  The 88 documents at issue
were filed as exhibits in the plaintiff's opposition to the
Syngenta AG's May 2010 motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

While the interveners argue the public has a right of access to
these documents, Syngenta Crop Protection contends that since the
documents deal with the operations of Syngenta AG, a Swiss holding
company that does not manufacture or sell atrazine, they provide
no information on the potential effects of the farming chemical.

Judge Gilbert's June 12 order directs these two motions to
Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier for disposition. Judge Frazier
has been handling preliminary matters in the case for Judge
Gilbert, a relatively common procedure in complex cases.

"In light of this reference, the court denies as moot the
intervenors' motions for a status conference and for a ruling
unsealing the remaining sealed records in this case," Judge
Gilbert said in his order.

Judge Gilbert is set to preside over a settlement fairness hearing
in the case on Oct. 22 in Benton.  Objectors to the settlement of
fees or expenses to class counsel have until Aug. 27 to file a
statement with the court.

If the court approves the settlement, about 2,000 water districts
will each be eligible to make a claim for a fixed payment of
$5,000, plus a share of the remaining balance after legal fees and
costs.

Michael A. Pope, an attorney at McDermott, Will and Emery in
Chicago, represents the Syngenta defendants.  Mr. Tillery
represents the plaintiffs along with co-counsel Scott Summy of
Baron & Budd in Dallas.


TALBOTS INC: All Claims in "Lowe" Class Suit Dismissed in May
-------------------------------------------------------------
All claims in the shareholder class action lawsuit filed in
Delaware were dismissed without prejudice in May 2012, according
to The Talbots, Inc.'s June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

On December 12, 2011, a purported Talbots shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Lowe v. Pfeiffer, C.A. No. 7104-
VCN, in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Talbots and the
members of its Board of Directors.  The complaint, purportedly
brought on behalf of all public shareholders of Talbots common
stock, alleges breach of fiduciary duties against the Board of
Directors (and, as against Talbots, aiding and abetting the Board
of Director's breach) by not properly considering the unsolicited
takeover proposal received on December 6, 2011, from a third
party, not apprising themselves of the true value of Talbots or
the benefits of any potential transaction and generally not taking
steps necessary to comply with their fiduciary obligations.  The
complaint demands, among other things, injunctive relief directing
the Board of Directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction in the best interest of Talbots shareholders,
costs and fees.

On May 8, 2012, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal was granted
by the Delaware Court of Chancery, and all claims pending in this
action were dismissed without prejudice.


TALBOTS INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Washtenaw" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Talbots, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit initiated by the Washtenaw County
Employees' Retirement System, according to the Company's June 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On February 3, 2011, a purported Talbots shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Washtenaw County Employees'
Retirement System v. The Talbots, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-
10186-NMG, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Talbots and certain of its officers.  The
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Talbots common stock from December 8, 2009 through and including
January 11, 2011, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and sought, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.  On July 27, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint which continues to assert claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) alleging certain false and misleading statements and
alleged omissions related to Talbots' financial condition,
inventory management and business prospects.  The amended
complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of Talbots common stock during the class period, thus
purportedly harming investors.  On October 17, 2011, Talbots and
the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the
claims asserted in the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 9(b)
and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  A hearing on
the motion to dismiss was scheduled for June 12, 2012.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or an estimate of damages, if any.


TALBOTS INC: Faces "Leach" Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Talbots, Inc. is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit in
Delaware, according to the Company's June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On May 10, 2012, a purported Talbots shareholder filed a putative
class action captioned Leach v. Pfeiffer, C.A. No. 7513-CS, in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against Talbots and the members of its
Board of Directors.  The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary
duties against the Board of Directors in connection with the
proposed acquisition of the outstanding shares of the Company's
common stock by a third party.  The Company believes that these
claims are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously.  At this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict
the outcome of these proceedings or an estimate of damages, if
any.


TALBOTS INC: Faces Two Merger-Related Class Suits in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Talbots, Inc. is facing two class action lawsuits in Delaware
arising from its proposed merger with TLB Holdings LLC, according
to the Company's June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28,
2012.

On May 30, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with TLB Holdings LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (the "Parent"), and TLB Merger Sub Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent
(the "Sub"), which are both affiliates of Sycamore Partners
Management LLC.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon the terms
and subject to the conditions thereof, the Sub will, among other
things, commence a tender offer, within ten business days of the
execution of the Merger Agreement, to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of the Company at a price of
$2.75 per share, without interest, net to the seller thereof in
cash, on the terms and subjection to the conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement.

On or about June 4 and 5, 2012, two purported Talbots shareholders
filed putative class actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Talbots, the members of its Board of Directors including
its Chief Executive Officer, Sycamore Partners, TLB Holdings LLC
and TLB Merger Sub Inc. captioned (i) Schwartz, et al. v. The
Talbots, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7589-CS, and (ii) Wilkin v. The
Talbots, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 7594.  The complaints assert
claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation
and approval of the Merger Agreement.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive, declaratory, rescissory and monetary relief, including
an order to enjoin the consummation of the transactions
contemplated in the Merger Agreement.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the
Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings
or an estimate of damages, if any.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on June 20, 2012
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Tempur-Pedic
International Inc. common stock between January 25, 2012 and
June 5, 2012, inclusive.

The action charges Tempur-Pedic and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company
misrepresented its deteriorating competitive position and
financial performance for the Company's full year of operations in
2012.

Tempur-Pedic manufactures and distributes mattresses and related
products that incorporate visco-elastic polyurethane foam.  The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Tempur-Pedic
concealed from shareholders that: (1) the Company's competitive
position had drastically weakened, and was continuing to weaken;
(2) the Company was already experiencing severe negative effects
from competition; (3) the Company's outlook for 2012 net sales and
earnings per share was not simply weaker than earlier optimistic
estimates, but was in fact, negative; and (4) as a result,
Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for the positive statements
made concerning the Company's condition, competitive position, and
outlook.

Tempur-Pedic's true condition was revealed through a series of
disclosures.  Following the markets' close on April 19, 2012,
Tempur-Pedic reported its financial results for the first quarter
of 2012 and confirmed net sales and earnings per share guidance
for full-year 2012--figures that the Company had traditionally
raised when announcing first-quarter results in the two preceding
years.  In reaction to this news, Tempur-Pedic's stock dropped
$17.22 per share, or 20.5 percent, to close at $66.53 per share on
April 20, 2012.

On May 7, 2012, it was reported that an analyst had revealed that
Tempur-Pedic would be offering one of its most popular mattress
models at a significant discount (ranging from 12 to 17 percent
off) between May 16 and July 8, 2012--an unprecedented move by the
Company in the context of a non-clearance model.  As a result of
this news, the Company's stock fell $8.42 per share, or 14.85
percent, to close at $48.29 per share on May 7, 2012.

Finally, on the morning of June 6, 2012, the Company issued a
press release prior to the markets' open.  Tempur-Pedic stunned
the markets by slashing its recently confirmed outlook for full-
year net sales by more than 10 percent and earnings per share by
nearly 29 percent.  In reaction to this revelation, Tempur-Pedic's
stock price fell $21.28 per share, or 48.73 percent, to close at
$22.39 per share on June 6, 2012.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

If you purchased Tempur-Pedic common stock during the Class
Period, you may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky no later than August
20, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative
for absent Class members.  You do not need to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If
you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you
can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may
retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about the lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at (888) 753-2796 or (212) 907-0709,
or via e-mail at ravan@labaton.com


THOR INDUSTRIES: Gets Prelim. Okay of FEMA Trailer Suits Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted preliminary approval of the class settlement in
the multidistrict litigation against trailer and manufactured
housing manufacturers, including Thor Industries, Inc., according
to the Company's June 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012.

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed against
numerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, including
complaints against the Company.  The complaints were filed in
various state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama,
Texas and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who lived
in travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homes
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  The complaints
generally allege that residents who occupied FEMA supplied
emergency housing units, such as travel trailers, were exposed to
formaldehyde emitted from the trailers. The plaintiffs allege
various injuries from exposure, including health issues and
emotional distress.  Most of the initial cases were filed as class
action lawsuits.  The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the "MDL panel") has the authority to designate one court to
coordinate and consolidate discovery and pretrial proceedings in a
proceeding known as multidistrict litigation ("MDL").  The MDL
panel transferred the actions to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court") because
the actions in different jurisdictions involved common questions
of fact.  The MDL Court denied class certification in December
2008, and consequently, the cases are now being administered as a
mass joinder of claims (the "MDL proceeding").  There are
approximately 4,100 lawsuits currently pending in the MDL Court.

The number of cases currently pending against the Company is
approximately 500.  Many of these lawsuits involve multiple
plaintiffs, each of whom have brought claims against the Company.
A number of cases against the Company have been dismissed for
various reasons, including duplicative and unmatched lawsuits and
failure of plaintiffs to appear or prosecute their claims.  In the
event a case does not settle or is not dismissed during the MDL
proceeding, it is remanded back to the original court for
disposition or trial.  In September 2009, the MDL Court commenced
hearing both bellwether jury trials and bellwether summary jury
trials.  The summary jury trial process is an alternative dispute
resolution method which is non-binding and confidential.  The
Company has participated in one confidential summary jury trial.

On December 21, 2011, the MDL Court issued an Order that, among
other matters, mandated certain manufacturing defendants in the
litigation, including the Company and several of its recreation
vehicle (RV) subsidiaries, to participate in mediation in January
2012.  The Company's Heartland subsidiary participated in a
mediation on January 27, 2012, and reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the pending claims against it on February 2,
2012.  The other Thor RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL
proceeding collectively participated in a mediation on
January 19, 2012, and during a second mediation session held on
February 10, 2012, reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the litigation.  On March 27, 2012, Heartland and its insurance
carriers entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
memorializing the February 2, 2012 settlement.  On March 30, 2012,
Thor Industries, Inc., for itself and on behalf of its other RV
subsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding, and its insurance
carriers entered into an MOU memorializing the settlement reached
on February 10, 2012.

As previously reported on April 19, 2012, by the Company on its
Form 8-K, the Company and its RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL
proceeding, their respective insurance carriers, several
unaffiliated manufacturers of RVs and their insurers, and legal
representatives of the plaintiffs each executed a Stipulation of
Settlement in April 2012 (the "Stipulation of Settlement").  As
set forth more fully in the Stipulation of Settlement, if the MDL
Court grants final approval, among other things, (i) the claims
against the Company will be dismissed with prejudice and released,
such that every member of the settlement class will be forever
barred from asserting against the Company any claims alleged in
the MDL proceeding; (ii) a payment of $6,250,000 will be made by
the Company and its insurance carriers for the benefit of the
settlement class; and (iii) a payment of $552,600 will be made by
Heartland, a subsidiary of the Company and its insurance carriers
for the benefit of the settlement class.

On May 31, 2012, the MDL Court temporarily certified the proposed
settlement class and granted preliminary approval of the class
settlement and the Stipulation of Settlement.  The Company had
previously recorded adequate amounts for this settlement, and paid
$4.7 million into the Registry of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana on June 1, 2012.


TILLY'S INC: "Lyddy" Suit Remains Pending in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Deborah Lyddy in California is
still pending, according to Tilly's, Inc.'s June 11, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

In October 2011, a putative class action, Deborah Lyddy v. World
of Jeans & Tops and Tilly's, Inc. (37-2011-00098812-CU-BT-CTL) was
filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, alleging various causes of
action based on the Company's California gift card redemption
policies.


TONE WORLD: Recalls 405 Recliner Chairs for Lead Level Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About 405 recliner chairs were voluntarily recalled by importer,
Bluestem Brands, Inc., of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and
distributor, Tone World International Inc., of Minneapolis,
Minnesota, 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.

The surface paint on the legs of the recliner contains excessive
levels of lead which is prohibited under federal law.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled adult-sized recliner chairs have wooden legs.  The
chairs include a reclining function and foot rest extension.  The
fabric is jacquard in a paisley design.  The phrases:
"Manufactured By Xiamen Xinzhjheng Foam Products Co., LTD Xiang-
Bei Industrial Area, Xiang' An District, Xiamen" and "Made in
China" are printed on a label located on the underside of the
recliner chair.  Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12738.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Fingerhut catalogs, Fingerhut.com and Gettington.com from July
2011 through January 2012.

Consumers should contact Tone World International Inc. to receive
free replacement legs along with instructions on removing the old
legs and attaching the new ones.  For more information, contact
Tone World International Inc. at jeffg@twmpls.com or call collect
at (763) 513-9596 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Central Time
Monday through Friday.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits Decision on Securities Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on an appeal
from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit titled In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, according to the Company's June 11, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2012.

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against the Company and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director.  These lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP.  The original actions were: Eichenholtz
v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; Lien v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management
LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW.  On August 22, 2008, the court
appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its
attorneys lead counsel.  Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims
under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that the Company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the Company's
business and operations during the putative class periods and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008.  The
court granted the Company's motion on May 26, 2009, and dismissed
the consolidated amended class action complaint with leave to
amend within 30 days of the ruling.  The proceedings were stayed
pending a mediation held in October 2009 at which time the parties
failed to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.  Lead plaintiff's
first amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2009, followed by
a second amended complaint filed on January 19, 2010.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and the
hearing on its motion was held on May 17, 2010.  In July 2010,
prior to any court ruling on the Company's motion, lead plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on the
basis that it had newly discovered evidence.  Pursuant to a
briefing schedule issued by the court the Company submitted its
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and lead plaintiff
filed its opposition, following which the court took the matter
under submission without further hearing.

On March 8, 2011, the court ruled in the Company's favor and
dismissed the consolidated securities class action without leave
to amend.  On April 5, 2011, lead plaintiff filed its notice of
appeal of the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On June 24 and June 27, 2011, lead
plaintiff dismissed its appeal as against defendants Paul
Periolat, William Atkinson, and Craig Bondy.  Lead plaintiff filed
its opening brief on appeal on July 28, 2011.  The Company filed
its answering brief on September 28, 2011, and lead plaintiff
filed its reply brief on October 31, 2011.  A hearing on oral
arguments for this appeal was held before a judicial panel of the
Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2012.  There has been no ruling on this
appeal to date.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Still Awaits Okay of Merger-Related Suits Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 4, 2011, VeriFone Systems, Inc. completed its
acquisition of Hypercom Corporation, a provider of electronic
payment solutions and value-added services at the point of
transaction, by means of a merger of one of the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiaries with and into Hypercom such that Hypercom
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of VeriFone following the merger.

In connection with the announcement of the merger with Hypercom,
several purported class action lawsuits were filed in Arizona and
Delaware state courts alleging variously, among other things, that
the board of directors of Hypercom breached its fiduciary duties
in not securing a higher price in the merger and that VeriFone,
Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco, LLC and Francisco Partners II, L.P.
aided and abetted that alleged breach. The actions seek injunctive
relief and unspecified damages.  An agreement in principle has
been reached to resolve the litigation based on confirmatory
discovery, enhanced public disclosures, and, reimbursement by
Hypercom of a portion of the plaintiffs' attorneys fees which the
Company does not expect to be material to its results of
operations.  The terms of settlement between the parties are
subject to court approval.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 11, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Stockholder Class Suit Still Stayed in Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
VeriFone Systems, Inc. in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv,
Israel, on behalf of purchasers of its stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports.  The Company filed a motion to stay
the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the
United States, on March 31, 2008.  A hearing on the motion was
held on May 25, 2008.  Further briefing in support of the stay
motion, specifically with regard to the threshold issue of
applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008.  On
September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the
Company's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining
the Company's liability.  On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to appeal the District Court's ruling to the
Israeli Supreme Court.  The Company's response to plaintiffs'
appeal motion was filed on January 18, 2009.  The District Court
has stayed its proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on
plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal.

On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Supreme Court, the
court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and
addressed the case back to the District Court.  The Supreme Court
instructed the District Court to rule whether the Israeli class
action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable
law is U.S. law.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for
reconsideration of the District Court's ruling that U.S. law is
the applicable law.  Following a hearing on plaintiffs'
application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the
proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class
action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the
District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the
Supreme Court.  On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to appeal the decision regarding the applicable law with the
Israeli Supreme Court.  In August 2010, plaintiff filed an
application to the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia
Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the
outcome of the appeal currently pending before the Court and
requesting that this authority be added to the Court's record.
Plaintiff concurrently filed an application with the Israeli
District Court asking that court to reverse its decision regarding
the applicability of U.S. law to the Israeli class action, as well
as to cancel its decision to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor
of the U.S. class action in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Morrison.  On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District
Court issued a decision denying plaintiff's application and
reaffirming its ruling that the law applicable to the Israeli
class action is U.S. law.  The Israeli District Court also ordered
that further proceedings in the case be stayed pending the
decision on appeal in the U.S. class action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 11, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.


ZALE CORP: Appeal From Consolidated Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2009, Zale Corporation and four former officers, Neal
L. Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  On August 9, 2010, the two lawsuits were
consolidated into one consolidated lawsuit, which alleged various
violations of securities laws arising from the financial statement
errors that led to the restatement completed by the Company as
part of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2009.  The lawsuit requests unspecified damages and
costs.  On August 1, 2011, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed the decision.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 7, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the dismissal.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit and cannot
estimate the damages, if any, that the Company may incur in
connection with this matter.


* Bill to Reverse Decision Limiting Class Actions Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------
Pete Kasperowicz, writing for The Hill, reports that democrats in
the House and Senate proposed legislation on June 20 that would
reverse a 2011 Supreme Court decision that was widely seen as
making it harder for groups to pursue class-action cases against
employers.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said
their bill, the Equal Employment Opportunity Restoration Act, is
particularly needed to help assure women of employment equality,
because it would reverse the court's decision to block a class-
action suit against Wal-Mart brought by female employees claiming
gender discrimination.

In that case, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the court decided that the case
could not proceed as a class action because the women involved had
not shown "convincing proof of a company-wide discriminatory pay
and promotion policy."  Opponents of the decision said it makes it
much harder for class-action suits to proceed, and requires
plaintiffs to prove their case before the trial starts.

"If workers can't seek justice without first proving an impossible
standard, then justice is denied," Mr. Franken said.  "This
legislation would reverse the harmful effects of the Dukes
decision and once again give American workers the right to band
together and seek their day in court."

"Upending decades of judicial practice and precedent, the court
erected new unwarranted and challenging barriers for groups of
private employees to challenge employment discrimination," Ms.
DeLauro said on the House floor on June 21.

"As a result, 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were denied
remedy for discrimination that resulted in smaller paychecks,
limited professional advancement and increased financial pressures
for families trying to make ends meet," she said.

Supporters of the Supreme Court decision argue that it placed
appropriate limits on class actions and forces the lower courts to
take the process of certifying class actions more seriously.  Most
significantly, this includes deciding whether all plaintiffs
actually suffer from the same problem in the workplace.

Supporters of the decision said that before the Dukes case, lower
courts were too casually allowing class actions to proceed, based
on generalizations but not always hard evidence that the
plaintiffs all suffered injury due to the same policy.  Many
called the class-action suits that were surviving the judicial
process "frivolous," and in the Dukes case, argued that plaintiffs
were trying to justify their case by improperly using statistical
sampling to show discrimination against female workers.

The Supreme Court opinion said the plaintiffs were looking to sue
Wal-Mart over "literally millions of employment decisions at
once."

The Senate bill, S. 3317, is co-sponsored by 23 Democrats, while
the House bill, H.R. 5978, is co-sponsored by 38 Democrats.


                           *********

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  * * *