---

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

             Wednesday, June 27, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 126

                             Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Abbott Continues to Defend False Pricing Suits
ABBVIE INC: 11th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of FTC Claims v. Solvay
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Hearing on "Cruz" Suit Deal Set for Aug. 29
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Motion to Dismiss "Echavez" Suit Denied
AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Claims Dismissal Bids Still Pending
AMN SERVICES: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
ARTHROCARE CORP: Gets Final Approval of Consolidated Suit Deal
BECTON DICKINSON: 3rd Cir. Reverses Decision in Antitrust Suit
CANADA: City of Thunder Bay Faces Class Action Over Flooding

CAPELLA EDUCATION: Minnesota Court Dismisses Securities Suit
CENCOSUD SA: "SERNAC" Class Suit Pending in Chile Supreme Court
CENCOSUD SA: Awaits Decision on Retail Union Class Suit Appeal
CENCOSUD SA: SERNAC Suit vs. Unit Pending in Chile Sup. Ct.
CIENA CORP: Remaining Appeal in Securities Suit Dismissed in Jan.

COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Kansas & Del.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Deny Class Cert. in "Ellis" Suit Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opposes $10-Mil. Attorneys' Fees in Fuel MDL
DENNY'S RESTAURANT: Accused of Intimidating Foreign Workers
DOLLAR GENERAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Decertify "Richter" Class

DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Marcum" Class Action Suit in Virginia
DOLLAR GENERAL: Final Hearing on "Womack" Suit Deal on July 23
DONALDSON CO: Still Awaits OK of Aftermarket Filters Suit Deal
ENERGY TRANSFER: Southern Union Defends Merger-Related Suits
ENERGY TRANSFER: Unit Continues to Defend "Price" Suit in Kansas

EXETER HOSPITAL: 44 People to Join Hepatitis C Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Removes "DeMois" Securities Suit to Dist. Court
FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Lapin" Securities Class Suit to Dist. Ct.
FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Pilgram" Securities Suit to Dist. Court
FACEBOOK INC: To Implement Changes on "Sponsored Story" Feature

FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Class Suit
FOOT LOCKER: Still in Mediation to Resolve Wage and Hour Suits
FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: "Weber" Class Suit in Discovery Phase
GENZYME CORP: Sued in Mass. Over Failure to Preserve DNA Samples
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Settles Paxil(R) False Advertising Class Action

GREEN GENIUS: Settles Class Action Over "Biodegradable" Labeling
GREENBERG TRAURIG: To Settle Ponzi Fraud Class Action for $77.5M
INDIANA: ACLU of Indiana Files Class Action v. BMV
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Continues to Defend Suit vs. Cell Companies
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Class Suit Over Overseas Calls

INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Class Suit Over Network Malfunction
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Subscribers' Suit Seeking Refunds
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Suit Over Continuing Transactions
INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Suit Over Malfunction of Phone Lines
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Judge Approves $40-Mil. Class Action Settlement

MACY'S INC: Continues to Defend "Shanehchian" Suit in Ohio
NEIMAN MARCUS: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in California
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Beeney" Suit Currently in Discovery Phase
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Suit Currently in Discovery Phase
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Gleason" Class Action Suit Settled Last Month

PANDORA MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss PII-Related Suit
PANDORA MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Video Rental Suit Remains Pending
PANDORA MEDIA: Settled "Hartford Casualty" Suit in May 2012
PLAINS MIDSTREAM: Tony Merchant Files Oil Spill Class Action
REGENECA INC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Diet Supplement

REVLON INC: Settles Dispute with Fidelity Over Exchange Offer
ROSS STORES: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suits in California
SHELL OIL: Faces Privacy Invasion Class Action in California
SYNOPSYS INC: Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition-Related Suits
TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action

ULTA SALON: Faces Employment Class Action Suit in California
VERINT SYSTEMS: Awaits Rulings on "Deutsch" Plaintiffs' Motions
WYETH CANADA: Judge Tosses Class Action Certification Appeal

* US RAILROAD FREIGHT HAULERS: Price-Fixing Class Action Certified


                          *********

ABBVIE INC: Abbott Continues to Defend False Pricing Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc.'s parent continues to defend class action lawsuits
over alleged false pricing information, according to the Company's
June 4, 2012, Form 10-12B filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Several cases, brought as purported class actions or
representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities, are
pending against Abbott Laboratories, the Company's parent, that
allege generally that Abbott and numerous other pharmaceutical
companies reported false pricing information in connection with
certain drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid
and by private payors.  These cases, brought by private
plaintiffs, state Attorneys General, and other state government
entities, generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.  The federal court cases were consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under the Multi District Litigation
Rules as In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL 1456, which now includes only one state Attorney
General lawsuit filed in August 2006 on behalf of the State of
South Carolina.  In addition, several cases are pending against
Abbott in state courts: Commonwealth of Kentucky, filed in
September 2003 in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky;
State of Wisconsin, filed in June 2004 in the Circuit Court of
Dane County, Wisconsin; State of Illinois, filed in February 2005
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; State of South
Carolina (on behalf of its state health plan), filed in August
2006 in the Court of Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit of
Richland County, South Carolina; State of Alaska, filed in October
2006 in the Superior Court for the Third Judicial District in
Anchorage, Alaska; State of Idaho, filed in January 2007 in the
District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Ada County,
Idaho; State of Utah, filed in November 2007 in the Third Judicial
District in Salt Lake County, Utah; State of Louisiana, filed in
October 2010 in the Nineteenth Judicial District, Parish of Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.


ABBVIE INC: 11th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of FTC Claims v. Solvay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed in April 2012 a district court decision dismissing some
of the Federal Trade Commission's claims against an affiliate of
AbbVie Inc., according to the Company's June 4, 2012, Form 10-12B
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in
February 2010) et al. were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia under the Multi District Litigation Rules as In re
AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084.  These cases, brought
by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"),
generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving
AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement
agreement and related agreements with three generic companies
violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection and unjust enrichment laws.  Plaintiffs generally seek
monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
MDL 2084 includes: (a) three individual plaintiff lawsuits:
Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., was filed
in April 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia; and Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and Walgreen Co. et al. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., both of which were filed in February
2009 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania and subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; (b) seven
purported class actions: Meijer, Inc. et al. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. et
al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., and Louisiana
Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al., all of which were filed in May 2009 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Fraternal
Order of Police v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in
September 2009 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia; Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Solvay
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in October 2009 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee;
LeGrand v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in September
2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia; and Health Net, Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
filed in February 2011 in the Northern District of Georgia; and
(c) a lawsuit brought by the FTC, Federal Trade Commission v.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in May 2009 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

In February 2010, Solvay's motion to dismiss the cases was
partially granted and all of the FTC's claims and all of the
plaintiffs' claims except those alleging sham litigation were
dismissed.  In April 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to
dismiss the FTC's claims.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Hearing on "Cruz" Suit Deal Set for Aug. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of Abercrombie & Fitch Co.'s
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by Spencer de la Cruz
is scheduled for August 29, 2012, according to the Company's June
5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On December 21, 2007, Spencer de la Cruz, a former employee, filed
an action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Superior
Court of Orange County, California (the "Court").  He sought to
allege, on behalf of himself and a putative class of past and
present employees in the period beginning on
December 19, 2003, claims for failure to provide meal breaks, for
waiting time penalties, for failure to keep accurate employment
records, and for unfair business practices.  By successive
amendments, plaintiff added 10 additional plaintiffs and
additional claims seeking injunctive relief, unpaid wages,
penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and costs.  Defendants
denied the material allegations of plaintiffs' complaints
throughout the litigation and asserted numerous affirmative
defenses.  On July 23, 2010, plaintiffs moved for class
certification in the action.  On December 9, 2010, after briefing
and argument, the Court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion, certifying sub-classes to pursue meal break
claims, meal premium pay claims, work related travel claims,
travel expense claims, termination pay claims, reporting time
claims, bag check claims, pay record claims, and minimum wage
claims.

The parties continued to litigate questions relating to the
Court's certification order and to the merits of plaintiffs'
claims until January 25, 2012.  On that date, the named plaintiffs
and the Defendants signed a memorandum of understanding which,
subject to final Court approval, was intended to result in a full
and final settlement of all claims in the action on a class-wide
basis.  A formal Settlement Agreement and related papers were
filed with the Court on February 21, 2012, and the Court scheduled
a hearing on March 14, 2012, to determine whether to provide
preliminary approval to the proposed settlement and to order that
notice of the proposed settlement be given to the absent members
of the settlement class.  On March 14, 2012, the Court continued
the hearing to April 18, 2012.  On April 24, 2012, the Court
granted preliminary approval to a revised proposed settlement,
ordered notice to the settlement class and scheduled a hearing on
August 29, 2012, to determine whether the settlement should be
finally approved and the litigation dismissed.  As of January 28,
2012, the Company increased its litigation reserve to cover the
expected cost of the proposed settlement.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Motion to Dismiss "Echavez" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action lawsuit initiated by Amber Echavez was denied in March
2012, according to the Company's June 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

On October 17, 2011, Amber Echavez, a former employee, filed an
action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and two of its subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Defendants") in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California.  She alleged the Defendants violated
California labor laws by failing to provide suitable seats for her
and for other current and former employees.  She sought to
maintain the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of a class of
retail sales employees and also as a representative action under
California's Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  On
November 23, 2011, the Defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Court") and on February 6, 2012, moved (1) to dismiss the action
for failure to state a claim and (2) to strike plaintiff's class
allegations.  On
March 12, 2012, the Court entered an order denying Defendants'
motion to dismiss and granting Defendants' motion to strike
plaintiff's class allegations.  The parties are continuing to
litigate plaintiff's claims.


AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 23 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc. between
November 9, 2009 and June 15, 2012, inclusive, seeking to recover
damages for violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the American Oriental class action, visit the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.com or call Phillip Kim, Esq.,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail
pkim@rosenlegal.com  for information on the class action.  The
case filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against America Oriental, and its present and former officers and
directors for issuing materially false and misleading financial
statements and concealing the Company's material internal control
weaknesses.  On March 16, 2012 American Oriental announced that
Ernst & Young Hua Ming ("E&Y") informed the Company's audit
committee of certain inconsistencies noted during the course of
E&Y's audit of the Company's financial statements for the fiscal
year 2011.  That same day, trading in American Oriental shares
were halted.  On May 29, 2012 the Company's stock was delisted
from the NYSE and began trading over the counter and lost 60% of
its value that day.

On June 15, 2012 the Company announced that E&Y had withdrawn its
audit opinions for the Company's financial statements the fiscal
years 2009 and 2010.  E&Y also determined that it could no longer
rely on managements representation in connection with (a) its
audits of the financial statements for years ended December 2009
and 2010, (b) its audit of the effectiveness of the Company's
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009
and 2010, and (c) its reviews of the Company's unaudited interim
financial statements for the quarters from September 30, 2009
through September 30, 2010. In the same announcement, the Company
stated it had dismissed E&Y as its auditor.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 22, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Weekends Telephone: (917) 797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 szhang@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Claims Dismissal Bids Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation's motions to dismiss certain
claims in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit remain
under advisement, according to the Company's June 6, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended March 31, 2012.

Between April 6, 2011 and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts; one complaint additionally asserted claims
against the underwriters who participated in the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering.  On June 7, 2011, the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On August 31, 2011, Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in its November 12, 2010 securities
offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as well
as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act").  The complaint alleges that during
the relevant class period, the Company and its officers omitted to
state material facts and made materially false and misleading
statements relating to, among other things, the Company's
projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as its
relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that artificially
inflated the value of the Company's stock price.  The complaint
further alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010 securities
offering contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated therein.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  On December 16, 2011, the district court issued a
summary order declining to dismiss the Securities Act claims
against the Company and its officers, and taking under advisement
the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims against the Company
and its officers and the motion to dismiss the Securities Act
claims made against the underwriters.  To date, the district court
has not issued an order regarding the Exchange Act claims against
the Company and its officers or the Securities Act claims against
the underwriters, so those matters remain under advisement.

If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the
amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company estimates
and disclose the possible loss or range of loss. With respect to
the litigation matters, such an estimate cannot be made. There are
numerous factors that make it difficult to meaningfully estimate
possible loss or range of loss at this stage of these litigation
matters, including that: the proceedings are in relatively early
stages, there are significant factual and legal issues to be
resolved, information obtained or rulings made during the lawsuits
could affect the methodology for calculation of rescission and the
related statutory interest rate. In addition, with respect to
claims where damages are the requested relief, no amount of loss
or damages has been specified. Therefore, the Company is unable at
this time to estimate possible losses. The Company believes that
these litigations are without merit, and it intends to defend
these actions vigorously.


AMN SERVICES: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alice Ogues, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AMN Services, LLC; AMN Healthcare, Inc.; AMN
Healthcare Services, Inc.; and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
4:12-cv-03190 (N.D. Calif., June 20, 2012) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Labor and Business and
Professions Codes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay her
and similarly situated employees overtime wages by failing to
include all applicable remuneration when calculating their regular
rates of pay.  She adds that the Defendants failed to provide her
and the Class with all required meal and rest periods, to provide
them with accurate written wage statements and to timely pay them
all of their final wages following separation of employment.

Ms. Ogues is a former hourly employee of the Defendants who worked
as a registered nurse in Los Angeles County, California, in 2010.

AMN Services, LLC is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of North Carolina.  AMN Healthcare Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of Nevada.  AMN Healthcare Services is a
corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.  The Plaintiff
is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          David Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 499-4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499-4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com


ARTHROCARE CORP: Gets Final Approval of Consolidated Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
entered a final judgment on June 4, 2012, giving final approval of
the settlement in In Re ArthroCare Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated), according to
the Company's June 5, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The time to appeal the judgment expires 30 days after it was
entered.

As previously reported, in 2008, two putative securities class
actions were filed in Federal court against the Company and
certain of its former executive officers, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
financial statements and making material misrepresentations
regarding the Company's internal controls, business, and financial
results.  On October 28, 2008, and thereafter, the two putative
securities class actions and certain federal shareholder
derivative actions were consolidated and designated: In Re
ArthroCare Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-
00574-SS (consolidated) in the U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas.

The Company reached an agreement to settle the private securities
class action lawsuits consolidated into the action titled In Re
ArthroCare Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-
00574-SS (consolidated) in the U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas.  The settlement is subject to Court approval.

The settlement would settle all claims arising from the purchase
or sale of ArthroCare securities of a class of all purchasers of
ArthroCare common stock and call options, and sellers of put
options on ArthroCare common stock between December 11, 2007, and
February 18, 2009, inclusive (the Class), except those members of
the Class who opt out, for a payment of $74 million to a
settlement fund to be created for the settlement.  Counsel for the
plaintiff will apply for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses from the settlement fund.

On February 10, 2012, the Court entered an order of preliminary
approval of the settlement, ordered that Notice be sent to all
class members, and set a fairness hearing for final approval of
the settlement on May 25, 2012.


BECTON DICKINSON: 3rd Cir. Reverses Decision in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a
district court decision and ruled that the distributor plaintiffs,
not the hospital plaintiffs, are direct purchasers entitled to
pursue damages in the consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit
against Becton, Dickinson and Company, according to the Company's
June 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In the antitrust class actions consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation," on June 5, 2012, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a decision of
the District Court and ruled that the distributor plaintiffs, not
the hospital plaintiffs, are direct purchasers entitled to pursue
damages under the federal antitrust laws for certain sales of BD
products.

The previously reported settlement agreement entered into on April
27, 2009, by Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") and certain
purchaser plaintiffs (including BD's distributors) was contingent
on a ruling that the distributor plaintiffs are the direct
purchasers entitled to pursue damages.  The agreement provided
for, among other things, the payment by BD of $45 million in
exchange for a release by all potential class members of the
direct purchaser claims under federal antitrust laws related to
the products and acts enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal
of the case with prejudice, insofar as it relates to direct
purchaser claims.  The release would not cover potential class
members that affirmatively opt out of the settlement.  The
settlement agreement remains in effect, subject to certain
termination provisions, and must be approved by the district
court.


CANADA: City of Thunder Bay Faces Class Action Over Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------
Watkins Law Professional Corporation and Merchant Law Group have
commenced class action litigation against the Corporation of the
City of Thunder Bay for all persons who owned or occupied property
in Thunder Bay and who suffered damages or injuries as a result of
flooding and sewer back-up occurring on or about May 28, 2012.
The lawsuit seeks compensation for affected property owners, both
insured and uninsured, for damage to buildings and personal
property and other injuries sustained as a result of the flooding
and sewer backup.

Sandy Zaitzeff -- szaitzeff@watkinslawtbay.com -- lead counsel for
Watkins Law, stated "the recent heavy rains were a predictable
event and should have been designed for and the City failed to
maintain the sewage treatment plant and other storm sewer
facilities which resulted in extensive damages for many city
residents."

Zaitzeff further added "we have been working tirelessly on the
ground, going through homes and meeting directly with families in
the most devastated areas.  We are keenly aware that the persons
and families affected by this tragedy are amongst the most
vulnerable in our community and many have been stripped overnight
of the possessions and assets that represent their life's work."

Damages are estimated at over 300 million dollars.

Clean water, deteriorating and dangerous water and sewage
facilities in Canada's municipalities is an issue for all
Canadians and unless addressed these mishaps will become
commonplace.

Watkins Law is comprised of litigation counsel recognized as the
top in Canada in their fields.  These counsel have produced
millions of dollars in settlements for their personal injury
clients.  Merchant Law Group, a leading Canadian class action
firm, has offices in 12 cities across Canada, from Montreal to
Victoria.

Anyone who believes they may be eligible to participate in this
class action should provide their contact information online at
http://www.watkinslawforthepeople.com/client-information-form/or
http://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/thunderbay.php,or call
Watkins Law at 807-345-4455 or Merchant Law at 1-888-567-7777 for
further information.

For further information:

Media may contact Tony Merchant, Q.C. at 306-539-7777, Christopher
Watkins at 807-345-4455 or Sandy Zaitzeff at 807-345-4455.


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Minnesota Court Dismisses Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed
all claims asserted in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit against Capella Education Company, according to the
Company's June 4, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On June 1, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota dismissed with prejudice all claims in a purported
securities class action lawsuit, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. Capella Education Company, J. Kevin
Gilligan, Lois M. Martin and Amy L. Ronneberg, that was filed in
June 2011.  By dismissing the action with prejudice, the District
Court has precluded the plaintiffs from filing an amended
complaint in the future.


CENCOSUD SA: "SERNAC" Class Suit Pending in Chile Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by the National Consumer Service
(SERNAC) against Cencosud S.A.'s subsidiary is currently pending
before the Supreme Court of Chile, according to the Company's June
5, 2012, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In December 2006, SERNAC filed a class action lawsuit before the
Courts of Justice against Cencosud Administradora de Tarjetas
S.A., which was notified of the lawsuit in January 2007.  The
first instance court issued its decision on December 31, 2010,
ruling in the plaintiff's favor and sentencing the defendant to
return the excess money charged.  It accepted the statute of
limitations claim alleged by the Company's side only with respect
to charges made before 07/12/06; it sentenced the defendant to pay
each affected consumer one monthly tax unit and to pay the
government a fine of 50 monthly tax units.  As a result of legal
opinions from experts in the matter, Cencosud Administradora de
Tarjetas S.A. appealed the ruling.  On October 3, 2011, the
Santiago Court of Appeals issued its ruling, upholding the statute
of limitations argument and, as a result, overturned the first
instance ruling.  The case is currently pending before the Supreme
Court of Chile.

The Company says the legal proceeding is deemed to be of a remote
outcome.


CENCOSUD SA: Awaits Decision on Retail Union Class Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cencosud S.A. is awaiting a decision on an appeal in the class
action lawsuit filed by Retail and Service Establishment Employees
Union, et al., according to the Company's June 5, 2012, Form F-1/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A class action lawsuit was also filed against the Company's
indirectly controlled affiliate, G Barbosa Comercial (Brazil),
filed by the Retail and Service Establishment Employees Union,
Paulo Afonso and the Region based on the alleged violation of the
clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that prohibits
stores in this region from operating on Sundays after 13:00 hours.
The request for payment of fines to the union has been confirmed
in the first and second instance rulings and today is awaiting the
decision on an appeal.

The Company says there is no evidence that could support a
reasonable estimate of the amount in question, given the extreme
difficulty of determining the number of employees allegedly
affected by the work schedule at that time.

The legal proceeding is deemed to be of a remote outcome.


CENCOSUD SA: SERNAC Suit vs. Unit Pending in Chile Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit commenced by Chile's Servicio Nacional del
Consumidor against a subsidiary of Cencosud S.A. is currently
pending before the Supreme Court of Chile, according to the
Company's June 5, 2012, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company's subsidiary, Cencosud Administradora de Tarjetas
S.A., is a defendant in a class action filed by the Servicio
Nacional del Consumidor (the National Consumer Protection Agency,
or "SERNAC"), a Chilean government entity that enforces compliance
with the Ley de Proteccion al Consumidor (the Consumer Protection
Law), alleging that certain cardholders did not expressly agree to
an increase in the annual fee on their credit cards as required by
the Ley de Proteccion al Consumidor.  The case is currently
pending before the Supreme Court of Chile.

Based on management's assessment, the Company does not believe
that the outcome of this litigation will have a material effect
upon its operations or financial condition.


CIENA CORP: Remaining Appeal in Securities Suit Dismissed in Jan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final appellant in Ciena Corporation's settlement of a
securities class action lawsuit dismissed the appeal in January
2012, according to the Company's June 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2012.

As a result of its June 2002 acquisition of ONI Systems Corp.,
Ciena became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York in August 2001.  On January 9, 2012, the
final appellant in this securities class action lawsuit withdrew
and dismissed his appeal with prejudice in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement.  Ciena was not required to pay
any amount toward the settlement or to make any other payments to
plaintiffs in connection with the resolution of this matter.


COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Kansas & Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Collective Brands, Inc. is defending merger-related lawsuits in
Kansas and Delaware, according to the Company's June 6, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On January 25, 2012, a federal lawsuit was filed in the District
of Kansas entitled Local 191 I.B.E.W. Joint Trust Funds v.
Collective Brands, et al., Case No. 12-cv-2046 (KHV), naming as
defendants the Company, Matthew Rubel, Douglas Treff and Douglas
Boessen.  The federal complaint purports to state claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act,
generally alleging that defendants caused the Company to issue
false and/or materially misleading public statements concerning
its business financial results between December 1, 2010, and
May 24, 2011.  Plaintiff claims this resulted in the Company
common stock trading at artificially inflated levels beginning in
December 2010, followed by a sharp decline in the trading price
when the Company released its financial results after the close of
trading on May 24, 2011.

Subsequently, after the public announcement of the Company's
proposed sale to an entity controlled by Blum Strategic Partners
IV, L.P., Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P. and Wolverine
World Wide, Inc., five lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware: on May 4, 2012, Dusablon v.
Collective Brands, Inc., et al., case no. 7498; on May 9, 2012,
Augenbaum v. Rubel, et al., case no. 7509; on May 11, 2012, Walker
v. Collective Brands, Inc., et al., case no. 7523; on
May 17, 2012, Strobeck v. Collective Brands, Inc. et al., case no.
7538; and, Son et al. v. Collective Brands, Inc. et al., case no.
7542.  These lawsuits were filed against some or all of the
following parties: the Company, its directors and certain of its
former and current executive officers, and Blum, Golden Gate,
Wolverine, Parent, WBG -- PSS Holdings LLC and WBG -- PSS Merger
Sub Inc.  A previously pending stockholder derivative lawsuit,
Israni v. Rubel, et al., case no. 12C297, filed in the District
Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, was amended on May 2, 2012, to
include class action allegations relating to the merger agreement
and naming the Company, its directors and certain of its former
and current executive officers, Blum, Golden Gate, and Wolverine
as defendants.

Each of the Delaware complaints and the Kansas state court
complaint generally allege, among other things, that the Company's
board of directors and certain of its executive officers have
violated various fiduciary duties relating to maximizing
stockholder value in negotiating and approving the merger, and
that the Company, Blum, Golden Gate and Wolverine aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The two Kansas
complaints additionally allege that the Company, its directors and
certain of its executive officers made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's performance during
the third fiscal quarter of 2010, which resulted in the Company's
common stock trading at artificially inflated levels in December
2010, followed by a sharp decline in the trading price when the
Company released its financial results in May 2011; and, that the
Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers
authorized payments to former CEO Matthew E. Rubel upon his
termination that were not in the best interests of the Company.
Further, the Kansas state court complaint alleges that the
Company's directors are attempting to evade any liability related
to the alleged false and misleading statements by entering into
the merger agreement with buyers who will indemnify the Company's
directors from any such liability.  The plaintiffs seek various
remedies, including an injunction against the merger and/or the
stockholder vote, declaratory relief with respect to the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty, and monetary damages including
attorneys' fees and expenses.

All defendants deny any wrongdoing in connection with the proposed
merger or any of the events that preceded it, and plan to
vigorously defend against all pending claims.  An estimate of the
possible loss, if any, or the range of loss cannot be made and
therefore the Company has not accrued a loss contingency related
to these matters.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Deny Class Cert. in "Ellis" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
request to deny class certification in the lawsuit filed by
Shirley "Rae" Ellis, according to the Company's June 6, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 6, 2012.

Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States
District Court (San Francisco), Case No. C-04-3341-MHP, is a case
brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and former
female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of promotion
based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and California state law.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, interest and
attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by the district
court on January 11, 2007.  On September 16, 2011, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
of class certification and remanded to the district court for
further proceedings.  The Company has filed a motion to deny class
certification, and it is expected that plaintiffs will move for
class certification.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opposes $10-Mil. Attorneys' Fees in Fuel MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its June 6, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 6, 2012, that it opposes plaintiffs'
application for an award of $10 million in attorneys' fees and
other costs in the class action lawsuit brought against motor fuel
retailers.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.  The Company is named in the
following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D.
Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);
Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v.
Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James
Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v.
BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D.
Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast
Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.);
Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J.
Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No.
07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins,
et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D.
Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al.,
Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant.  Under the settlement, which is
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law, to install over five years from the
effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers
in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.  Other than payments to
class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash
payments to class members.  On September 22, 2011, the court
preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which did not
materially alter the terms.  On April 24, 2012, the court granted
final approval of the revised settlement.  A class member who
objected has filed a notice of appeal from the order approving the
settlement.  Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 million in
attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to
class representatives.  The Company has opposed the motion.


DENNY'S RESTAURANT: Accused of Intimidating Foreign Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Stueck, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that in the
latest skirmish of a running battle, lawyers representing
temporary foreign workers at the Denny's Restaurant group say the
company has been using threats and intimidation in an attempt to
get employees to back out of a $10-million lawsuit against the
chain.

Employees have been warned that the company will not back their
bids for permanent residency if workers take part in the lawsuit,
the lawyers and court documents allege.

In a June 13 affidavit, Denny's waitress Charo Salazar says a
manager told her Denny's would not support her application for
permanent residency status if she took part in the class action,
but "if I was going to opt-out [of the lawsuit] Denny's will
guarantee, 100 per cent, support for me with all the documents I
need for residency in Canada," Ms. Salazar says in the affidavit.

In urging Ms. Salazar and other employees to opt out, Denny's is
trying to reduce the number of employees who could be eligible for
compensation and flouting an April court order directing the
company not to interfere in the process, lawyer Christopher Foy
said on June 21.

"The fact of the matter is, we have a previous court order that
restrains Denny's from any improper communication with the class
members," said Mr. Foy, one of the lawyers representing workers in
a class-action suit that was certified earlier this year.

Mr. Foy said lawyers for the class-action plaintiffs would ask the
court to consider any opt-out letters null and void.  That
application is expected to be heard on July 4.

Denny's had not yet received all of the court filings on June 21,
said Rob Toor, a lawyer for Northland Properties, which operates
Denny's and other businesses.  But the company believes the recent
allegations to be untrue and will contest them in court, Mr. Toor
said.

The claims are the latest development in a dispute that dates back
to 2008, when Herminia Vergara Dominguez came to work at a Denny's
restaurant as a temporary foreign worker.

Ms. Dominguez claimed Denny's didn't provide as much work as she
had been promised, failed to pay her overtime for hours worked and
also failed to pay her for job-related expenses, such as travel
and agency fees.

Ms. Dominguez, who filed her claim last year, is the
"representative plaintiff" for about 70 Denny's employees who have
made similar claims.

In her affidavit, Ms. Salazar alleged that a Denny's manager tried
to convince her to opt out of the class action and told her that
other employees had already signed forms to do so.

The manager also talked about the potential financial implications
of the class-action suit, according to her affidavit.

"Mr. [Russell] Jen [the manager] also said that the foreign
workers will not get the $10-million," the affidavit states.  "Mr.
Jen said that the foreign workers cannot get the $10-million
because there is a cut from the lawyer.  Mr. Jen said that the
foreign workers will not get $20,000 each, that Denny's has
calculated the amount and that the foreign workers will get
$5,000.00 each and that we can earn that $5,000.00.

"I told Mr. Jen it was not only the money, I explained to him that
I paid $6,000.00 because I was promised I can apply for my
permanent resident and I am almost four years here and I haven't
got residency."

The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is a federal program that
allows foreign workers to work in areas subject to labor
shortages.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Decertify "Richter" Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to decertify the class in the lawsuit commenced by Cynthia
Richter, et al., according to the Company's June 4, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended May 4, 2012.

On August 7, 2006, a lawsuit entitled Cynthia Richter, et al. v.
Dolgencorp, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 7:06-cv-
01537-LSC) ("Richter") in which the plaintiff alleges that she and
other current and former Dollar General store managers were
improperly classified as exempt executive employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seeks to recover overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 15,
2006, the Richter plaintiff filed a motion in which she asked the
court to certify a nationwide class of current and former store
managers.  The Company opposed the plaintiff's motion.  On March
23, 2007, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class.
On December 2, 2009, notice was mailed to over 28,000 current or
former Dollar General store managers.  Approximately 3,950
individuals have opted into the lawsuit, approximately 800 of whom
have been dismissed for various reasons, including failure to
cooperate in discovery.

Except as to certain limited fact discovery, the discovery period
has closed.  On April 2, 2012, the Company filed its
decertification motion.  Plaintiff's response to that motion was
filed on May 9, 2012.  No deadline currently exists for
potentially dispositive motions, and the Court has not set a trial
date.

The Company believes that its store managers are and have been
properly classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and that
the Richter action is not appropriate for collective action
treatment. The Company has obtained summary judgment in some,
although not all, of its pending individual or single-plaintiff
store manager exemption cases in which it has filed such a motion.

The Company is vigorously defending the Richter matter. However,
at this time, it is not possible to predict whether Richter
ultimately will be permitted to proceed collectively, and no
assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its
defense of the action on the merits or otherwise. Similarly, at
this time the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims asserted in Richter.
For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate any potential
loss or range of loss in the matter; however, if the Company is
not successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of Richter
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces "Marcum" Class Action Suit in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in
Virginia filed by Jonathan Marcum, according to the Company's June
4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2012.

On April 9, 2012, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia entitled Jonathan Marcum v. Dolgencorp. Inc. (Civil
Action No. 3:12-cv-00108-JRS) in which the plaintiff, whose
conditional offer of employment was rescinded, alleges defamation
and that certain of the Company's background check procedures
violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  According to the
complaint, the plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
applicants in connection with his FCRA claims.  The Company's
response to the complaint was due to be filed on June 15, 2012.

At this time, it is not possible to predict whether the court
ultimately will permit the action to proceed as a class under the
FCRA.  Although the Company intends to vigorously defend the
action, no assurances can be given that it will be successful in
the defense on the merits or otherwise.  At this stage in the
proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims raised by the
plaintiff.  For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate
any potential loss or range of loss in such a scenario; however,
if the Company is not successful in defending this action, its
resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Final Hearing on "Womack" Suit Deal on July 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for the final approval of Dollar General Corporation's
settlement of the class action lawsuit filed by Wanda Womack, et
al., is scheduled for July 23, 2012, according to the Company's
June 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2012.

On March 7, 2006, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Janet Calvert
v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH ("Calvert")), in
which the plaintiff, a former store manager, alleged that she was
paid less than male store managers because of her sex, in
violation of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII") (now captioned, Wanda
Womack, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00465-VEH).
The complaint subsequently was amended to include additional
plaintiffs, who also allege to have been paid less than males
because of their sex, and to add allegations that the Company's
compensation practices disparately impact females.  Under the
amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under
the Equal Pay Act and as a class under Title VII, and request back
wages, injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated damages,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion in which they asked
the court to approve the issuance of notice to a class of current
and former female store managers under the Equal Pay Act.  The
Company opposed plaintiffs' motion.  On November 30, 2007, the
court conditionally certified a nationwide class of females under
the Equal Pay Act who worked for Dollar General as store managers
between November 30, 2004, and November 30, 2007.  The notice was
issued on January 11, 2008, and persons to whom the notice was
sent were required to opt into the lawsuit by
March 11, 2008.  Approximately 2,100 individuals opted into the
lawsuit.

On April 19, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for class certification
relating to their Title VII claims.  The Company filed its
response to the certification motion in June 2010.  Briefing has
closed, and the motion remains pending.  The Company's motion to
decertify the Equal Pay Act class was denied as premature.  If the
case proceeds, the Company expects to file a similar motion in due
course.

The parties agreed to mediate this action, and the court stayed
the action pending the results of the mediation.  The mediation
occurred in March and April 2011, at which time the Company
reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on behalf
of the entire putative class.  The proposed settlement, which has
received preliminary approval from the court, provides for both
monetary and equitable relief.  Under the preliminarily approved
terms, $15.5 million will be paid into a fund for the class
members that will be apportioned and paid out to individual
members (less any additional attorneys' fees or litigation costs
approved by the court), upon submission of a valid claim.  An
additional $3.25 million will be paid for plaintiffs' legal fees
and costs.  Of the total $18.75 million, the Company's Employment
Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier paid approximately
$15.9 million in the first quarter of 2012 to a third party claims
administrator to disburse the funds, per the settlement terms, to
claimants and counsel pending final approval from the court, which
represented the balance remaining of the $20 million EPLI policy
covering the claims.  The Company paid approximately $2.8 million
to the third party claims administrator.  In addition, the Company
agreed to make, and, effective April 1, 2012, has made, certain
adjustments to its pay setting policies and procedures for new
store managers.

A hearing regarding final approval of the settlement is scheduled
for July 23, 2012.  Because it deemed settlement probable and
estimable, the Company accrued for the net settlement as well as
for certain additional anticipated fees related thereto during the
first quarter of 2011, and concurrently recorded a receivable of
approximately $15.9 million from its EPLI carrier.  Due to the
payments, the accrual and receivable were each relieved during the
first quarter of 2012.

At this time, although probable it is not certain that the court
will grant final approval to the settlement.  If it does not, and
the case proceeds, it is not possible at this time to predict
whether the court ultimately will permit the action to proceed
collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a class under Title
VII.  Although the Company intends to vigorously defend the
action, no assurances can be given that it would be successful in
the defense on the merits or otherwise.  At this stage in the
proceedings, the Company cannot estimate either the size of any
potential class or the value of the claims raised in this action
if it proceeds.  For these reasons, the Company is unable to
estimate any potential loss or range of loss in such a scenario;
however, if the Company is not successful in defending this
action, its resolution could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial statements as a whole.


DONALDSON CO: Still Awaits OK of Aftermarket Filters Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson Company, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of a
settlement resolving class action lawsuits filed against filter
manufacturers in 2008, according to the Company's June 5, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

The Company has reached a preliminary agreement to settle the
class action lawsuits filed in 2008 alleging that 12 filter
manufacturers, including the Company, engaged in a conspiracy to
fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. Customers for aftermarket
automotive filters.  The U.S. cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Company denies any liability and has vigorously
defended the claims raised in these lawsuits.  The settlement will
fully resolve all claims brought against the Company in the
lawsuits and the Company does not admit any liability or
wrongdoing.  The settlement is still subject to Court approval and
will not have a material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Southern Union Defends Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s subsidiary continues to defend
merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
June 6, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

ETE amended its Form 8-K originally filed on March 28, 2012, with
the SEC to report the acquisition of Southern Union Company
("Southern Union").  Southern Union will continue to operate as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE.  The Company's Current Report on
Form 8-K/A (the "Amendment") supplements the Original Report to
include the financial statements of Southern Union and unaudited
pro forma condensed consolidated financial information.

On June 21, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Jaroslawicz v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37091, was filed in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition named as defendants the members of
the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and ETE.  The
plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders or aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the then proposed
merger of Southern Union with ETE.  The petition alleged that the
Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process
and that defendants entered into the transaction to benefit
themselves personally.  The petition sought injunctive relief,
including an injunction of the Merger, attorneys' and other fees
and costs, indemnification and other relief.

Also on June 21, 2011, another putative class action lawsuit
captioned Magda v. Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-
37134, was filed in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.  The petition named as defendants the members of
the Southern Union Board, Southern Union and ETE.  The plaintiff
alleged that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the
Merger and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted those
alleged breaches.  The petition alleged that the Merger involves
an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The petition sought injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 28, 2011, and August 19, 2011, amended petitions were
filed in the Magda and Jaroslawicz actions, respectively, naming
the same defendants and alleging that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders
in connection with the Merger and that Southern Union and ETE
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
amended petitions allege that the Merger involves an unfair price
and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union's directors
entered into the Merger to benefit themselves personally,
including through consulting and noncompete agreements, and that
defendants have failed to disclose all material information
related to the Merger to Southern Union stockholders.  The amended
petitions seek injunctive relief, including an injunction of the
Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and costs, in
addition to other relief.  The two Texas cases have been
consolidated with the following style: in re:  Southern Union
Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.  On October 21, 2011, the court
denied ETE's October 13, 2011 motion to stay the Texas proceeding
in favor of cases pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 27, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, et al. v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6615-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint named as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, Southern Union and ETE.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the Southern Union directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in
connection with the Merger, and further claimed that ETE aided and
abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaint alleged that the
Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process,
that Southern Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that the directors should deem a competing
proposal made by The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams) to be
superior.  The complaint sought compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, including an injunction of the Merger, and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On June 29 and 30, 2011, putative class action lawsuits captioned
KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A.
No. 6622-CS, and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH v. Southern
Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-CS, respectively were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaints named as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, Southern
Union, ETE and Merger Sub.  The plaintiffs alleged that the
Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that ETE aided and abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaints
alleged that the Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate
sales process, that Southern Union's directors entered into the
Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through
consulting and noncompete agreements, and that the directors must
give full consideration to the Williams proposal.  The complaints
sought compensatory damages, injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On July 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Memo v.
Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS, was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  The complaint named as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, Southern Union ETE and Merger
Sub.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Southern Union directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders
in connection with the amended Merger agreement and that Southern
Union, ETE and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.  The complaint alleged that the Merger involves an
unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, and that the terms of the amended Merger agreement are
preclusive.  The complaint sought injunctive relief, including an
injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On August 25, 2011, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, KBC Asset
Management NV, Memo and LBBW Asset Management Investment GmbH
actions pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming the same
defendants as the original complaints in those actions and
alleging that the Southern Union directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Southern Union's stockholders in connection
with the Merger, that ETE aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty, and that the provisions in Section 5.4 of the
Second Amended Merger Agreement relating to Southern Union's
ability to accept a superior proposal is invalid under Delaware
law.  The amended complaint alleges that the Merger involves an
unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern
Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The consolidated amended complaint seeks injunctive
relief, including an injunction of the Merger and an award of
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On November 9, 2011, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Texas
and Delaware actions stated that they did not intend to pursue
their efforts to enjoin the Merger.  Plaintiffs have indicated
that they intend to pursue a claim for damages.  A trial has not
yet been scheduled in any of these matters.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Unit Continues to Defend "Price" Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s subsidiary continues to defend a
purported class action lawsuit filed by Will Price, according to
the Company's June 6, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

ETE amended its Form 8-K originally filed on March 28, 2012, with
the SEC to report the acquisition of Southern Union Company
("Southern Union").  Southern Union will continue to operate as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE.  The Company's Current Report on
Form 8-K/A (the "Amendment") supplements the Original Report to
include the financial statements of Southern Union and unaudited
pro forma condensed consolidated financial information.

Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of
companies, including Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP,
alleging mis-measurement of natural gas volumes and Btu content,
resulting in lower royalties to mineral interest owners.  On
September 19, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' request for class
certification.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the Court denied on March 31, 2010.

Panhandle believes that its measurement practices conformed to the
terms of its FERC natural gas tariffs, which were filed with and
approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  As a
result, Southern Union believes that it has meritorious defenses
to the Will Price lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative
defenses, such as the filed rate/tariff doctrine, the
primary/exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC, and the defense that
Panhandle complied with the terms of its tariffs).  In the event
that Plaintiffs refuse Panhandle's pending request for voluntary
dismissal, Panhandle will continue to vigorously defend the case.
Southern Union believes it has no liability associated with this
proceeding.

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company is Southern Union's natural
gas transmission unit.


EXETER HOSPITAL: 44 People to Join Hepatitis C Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Sanborn, writing for Seacostonline.com, reports that the
number of people who have tested positive for hepatitis C in
Exeter Hospital's outbreak remained at 20 on June 21, while the
group of patients who have signed on for a potential class-action
lawsuit swelled to 44.

Dr. Jose Montero, the state's public health director, could not
say on June 22 how many blood samples the state has tested since
June 13, when the six most recent confirmed cases were announced.
He said no additional samples have tested positive for the strain
of hepatitis C tied to the hospital's cardiac catheterization
laboratory.

The size of the outbreak stood at 19 patients and one hospital
employee.

Dr. Montero said a total of nine additional people tested positive
for the virus, but those cases are not related to the hospital's
outbreak.

Dr. Montero said the state has received a total 1,012 blood
samples and he expected about 200 would be tested.

Dr. Montero said the fact there haven't been any new cases gives
the state some peace of mind.

"This is a good sign," he said.  "But I still need to make sure
that everyone gets tested."

Dr. Montero said the state's investigation is ongoing.

While the testing continues, so does the legal action surrounding
the outbreak.

On June 21, Concord-based attorney Peter McGrath announced that
the group of patients with whom he is working toward a potential
class-action lawsuit against the hospital has grown to 44 people,
including five patients who have already tested positive for the
virus.  Of the remaining patients McGrath is working with, half
are still awaiting test results and half have tested negative for
the virus, he said.

Even though the investigation into the hepatitis C outbreak tied
to the hospital's cardiac catheterization laboratory is ongoing,
Mr. McGrath said the early legal action should come as a surprise
to no one.

"These patients need an advocate on their side right now,"
Mr. McGrath said of patients obtaining legal counsel.

During a news conference held by McGrath on June 21 in Concord,
the first plaintiff in his potential class-action lawsuit, John
Doe No. 1, told the media that he has tested positive for
hepatitis C and is "dumbfounded and angry" that this could have
happened to him.

The patient did not release his name, but said he was a resident
of Rockingham County.  He said he had a heart attack last summer
and sought care at Exeter Hospital.

In addition to the potential class-action lawsuit, seven
individual suits have also been filed against Exeter Hospital, six
by Manchester attorney Mark Abramson, who specializes in medical
malpractice cases.

Mr. Abramson filed four new lawsuits June 20 at Rockingham
Superior Court, alleging negligence, recklessness and emotional
distress.

The patients in the new lawsuits include David Porter of Danville,
a 69-year-ld married U.S. Air Force veteran and retired federal
employee; Doris Ayer, an 83-year-old mother and grandmother;
Donald Page, a 49-year-old father and grandfather; and Jane Doe of
Exeter, a 59-year-old single mother.

Mr. Abramson said he intends to file a seventh lawsuit in the
coming days.

Domenic Paolini, a Boston-based lawyer and former cardiac surgeon
who has been critical of the state's investigation of the Exeter
Hospital outbreak, criticized all the early legal action.

"We don't even have all the facts; we have three years to file
lawsuits," Mr. Paolini said.  "Everyone just needs to calm down
and stop running to the courthouse and filing class-action
lawsuits and papers; that's serving no purpose, except for the
lawyers."

Mr. Paolini said he is representing one of the infected patients,
but he wouldn't say how many other clients he's representing.  He
claimed he will either represent his clients pro-bono, depending
on their financial situation, or he'll donate the money he
collects to the new nonprofit group he founded, The Patients
Speak, a patient advocacy group focused on changing laws to avoid
future contagious disease outbreaks at hospitals nationwide.

The group is pushing for two pieces of legislation, one being
worked on by state Rep. Lee Quandt, R-Exeter, that would require
drug testing of hospital employees and another that would require
an immediate mandatory minimum 96-hour shutdown of the affected
area of a hospital the day any kind of contagious disease outbreak
is reported.

"I'll continue to be outspoken about the hospital, I'll continue
to be outspoken about the way the state is handling this
investigation, but I will not parade my clients in front of the
press or release statements that these clients have made that are
really privileged statements," he said.

Mr. Paolini made that statement on June 21 during a special "media
availability" session in front of Exeter Town Hall to discuss his
new group.

Mr. Paolini said what drew him to the Exeter Hospital situation
was the fact the hospital's cardiac catheterization laboratory was
open before the state announced a cause for the outbreak.

Officials at the state Department of Health and Human Services
have said drug diversion is the likely cause of the outbreak.

The most common drug diversion scenario is when a health care
employee steals a syringe containing medication -- sometimes while
a medical procedure is taking place -- injects himself or herself,
refills the syringe with saline solution or water, then puts it
back unnoticed.  The syringe is then reused on a patient.

The U.S. Attorney's Office of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire
attorney general's office are investigating the potential criminal
aspect of the outbreak.

In addition to Mr. Quandt's potential legislation on drug testing,
The Patients Speak is also working with state Rep. John Reagan, R-
Deerfield, who serves as chairman of the Health and Human Services
& Elderly Affairs Committee, on a bill.  The Patients Speak bill
would require an immediate mandatory minimum 96-hour shut down of
the affected area of a hospital the day any kind of outbreak is
reported.


FACEBOOK INC: Removes "DeMois" Securities Suit to Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vernon R. DeMois, Jr., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, David A.
Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B.
Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham, Reed Hastings, Peter A.
Thiel, and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Case No. CIV-514163 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., May 25, 2012) is brought on behalf of
persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Facebook pursuant and traceable to the Company's
initial public offering.

The claims in this action arise from the materially false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Offering, Mr. DeMois contends.  He alleges
that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained
materially false and misleading statements and omitted material
information in violation of the Securities Act.

Mr. DeMois purchased Facebook securities pursuant and traceable to
the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
IPO.

Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Menlo Park, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Morgan
Stanley served as underwriter to Facebook in connection with the
Offering.

Facebook removed the lawsuit on June 20, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of San Mateo, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the District Court has exclusive federal jurisdiction over claims
involving "Covered Class Actions."  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:12-cv-03196 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Joseph J. Braun, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          The Federal Reserve Building
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile: (513) 629-9426
          E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
                  jjbraun@strausstroy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Andrew B. Clubok, Esq.
          Brant W. Bishop, P.C., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: andrew.clubok@kirkland.com
                  brant.bishop@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
          Todd G. Cosenza, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Telephone: (212) 728-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: rbernstein@willkie.com
                  tmundiya@willkie.com
                  tcosenza@willkie.com


FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Lapin" Securities Class Suit to Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Lapin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, David A. Ebersman,
David M. Spillane, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, James W.
Breyer, Donald E. Graham, Reed Hastings, Peter A. Thiel, Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays
Capital Inc., Allen & Company LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Blaylock Robert Van LLC, BMO Capital
Markets Corp., C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Cabrera Capital
Markets, LLC, Castleoak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC,
E*Trade Securities LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., Lazard
Capital Markets LLC, Lebenthal & Co., LLC, Loop Capital Markets
LLC, M.R. Beal & Company, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Muriel
Siebert & Co., Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Pacific Crest
Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond James & Associates,
Inc., Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Incorporated, The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and
William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Case No. CIV 514240 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., May 30, 2012) is brought on behalf of
persons and entities, which purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Facebook pursuant and traceable to its initial
public offering.

The claims in this action arise from the materially false and
misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Offering, Mr. Lapin contends.  He alleges that
the Registration Statement failed to disclose that during the IPO
roadshow, the lead underwriters, including Morgan Stanley, J.P.
Morgan and Goldman Sachs, all cut their earnings forecasts and
that news of the estimate cut was passed on only to a handful of
large investor clients, not to the public.

Mr. Lapin purchased Facebook securities pursuant and traceable to
the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
IPO.

Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
office located in Menlo Park, California.  Facebook operates as a
social networking company worldwide.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of Facebook.  The other defendants
served as underwriters to Facebook in connection with the
Offering.

Facebook removed the lawsuit on June 20, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of San Mateo, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the District Court has exclusive federal jurisdiction over claims
involving "Covered Class Actions."  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:12-cv-03195 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Andrew B. Clubok, Esq.
          Brant W. Bishop, P.C., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: andrew.clubok@kirkland.com
                  brant.bishop@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
          Todd G. Cosenza, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Telephone: (212) 728-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: rbernstein@willkie.com
                  tmundiya@willkie.com
                  tcosenza@willkie.com


FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Pilgram" Securities Suit to Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Pilgram, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, David E.
Ebersman, David M. Spillane, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B.
Bowles, James W. Breyer, Donald E. Graham, Reed Hastings, Peter A.
Thiel, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Barclays
Capital Inc., Allen & Company LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Blaylock Robert Van LLC, BMO Capital
Markets Corp., C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Cabrera Capital
Markets , LLC, Castleoak Securities, L.P., Cowen and Company, LLC,
E*Trade Securities, LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., Lazard
Capital Markets LLC, Lebenthal & Co., LLC, Loop Capital Markets
LLC, M.R. Beal & Company, Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc., Muriel
Siebert & Co., Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Pacific Crest
Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Raymond James & Associates,
Inc., Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc., Stifel, Nicholaus &
Company, Incorporated, The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and
William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Case No. CIV 514111 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., May 23, 2012) arises from the alleged
materially false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with Facebook's initial public
offering.

The Registration Statement and Prospectus contained materially
false and misleading statements and omitted material information
in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
Mr. Pilgram alleges.

Mr. Pilgram purchased Facebook securities pursuant to and
traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with
the Company's IPO.

Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
office located in Menlo Park, California.  Facebook operates as a
social networking company worldwide.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of Facebook.  The other defendants
served as underwriters to Facebook in connection with the
Offering.

Facebook removed the lawsuit on June 20, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of San Mateo, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the District Court has exclusive federal jurisdiction over claims
involving "Covered Class Actions."  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-03197 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          David Elliot, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: contactus@johnsonandweaver.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Andrew B. Clubok, Esq.
          Brant W. Bishop, P.C., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: andrew.clubok@kirkland.com
                  brant.bishop@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
          Todd G. Cosenza, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Telephone: (212) 728-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 728-8111
          E-mail: rbernstein@willkie.com
                  tmundiya@willkie.com
                  tcosenza@willkie.com


FACEBOOK INC: To Implement Changes on "Sponsored Story" Feature
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that Facebook Inc. has
agreed to allow users more control over how their personal
information is used in its "Sponsored Stories" ad feature, part of
a deal to resolve litigation against the social networking
company.

The value to Facebook members resulting from the changes is about
$103 million, in the opinion of one economist hired by the
plaintiffs.  But the amount Facebook will actually pay to settle
the case is just over $20 million, according to court documents
filed on June 20.

A "Sponsored Story" is an advertisement that appears on a member's
Facebook page and generally consists of another friend's name,
profile picture and an assertion that the person "likes" the
advertiser.

Five Facebook members filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status
against the social networking site, saying it violated California
law by publicizing users' "likes" of certain advertisers without
paying them or giving them a way to opt out.

The case involved over 100 million potential class members.

Under the terms of a settlement agreement filed on June 20,
Facebook members will be able to control which content can be used
for Sponsored Stories.  Facebook agreed to maintain these changes
and other new disclosures for at least two years, according to
court documents.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs say the changes to "Sponsored
Stories" are worth $103.2 million, based on an economist's
analysis of the revenue each ad brings to Facebook.  Those figures
were redacted in the court documents.

A Facebook representative declined to comment, and an attorney for
the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached.

Facebook has agreed to pay $10 million to organizations devoted to
educating people about how to use social networking technology
safely.  Groups set to receive money include the Electronic
Frontier Foundation and the Center for Internet and Society at
Stanford Law School, according to the court documents.

Facebook will also pay an additional $10 million for plaintiff
attorneys' fees.

The settlement agreement must be approved by U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh in San Jose, California.  She must weigh whether the
deal's terms adequately benefit class members.

In the lawsuit, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg was
quoted as saying that a trusted referral was the "Holy Grail" of
advertising.

In addition, the lawsuit cited comments from Facebook chief
operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, saying that the value of a
"Sponsored Story" advertisement was at least twice and up to three
times the value of a standard Facebook.com ad without a friend
endorsement.

Judge Koh said the plaintiffs had shown economic injury could
occur through Facebook's use of their names, photographs and
likenesses.

Plaintiff attorneys argued in court filings on June 20 that the
policy changes and charitable awards will constitute "significant
benefits" for the class members.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
is Angel Fraley et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. Facebook Inc., 11-cv-1726.


FOOT LOCKER: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, according to the Company's June 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 28, 2012.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a purported class action in which the plaintiff alleges that,
in connection with the 1996 conversion of the retirement plan to a
defined benefit plan with a cash balance formula, the Company and
the retirement plan failed to properly advise plan participants of
the "wear-away" effect of the conversion.  Plaintiff asserts
claims for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and violation of the statutory
provisions governing the content of the Summary Plan Description.
Claims for alleged violations of the notice provision of Section
204(h) of ERISA and ERISA's age discrimination provisions were
dismissed by the court.  The case is currently in the discovery
stage.  Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters, and
because discovery has not been completed, the Company is currently
unable to make an estimate of loss or range of loss for this case.
Management does not believe that the outcome of this legal
proceeding would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, liquidity, or results of
operations, taken as a whole.


FOOT LOCKER: Still in Mediation to Resolve Wage and Hour Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Foot Locker, Inc.'s subsidiaries are defendants in a
number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing
various class action allegations under federal or state wage and
hour laws, including allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal,
and rest breaks, and uniforms.

The Company is a defendant in one such case in which plaintiff
alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.
The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007.  In his
complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations,
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  In 2009, the Court
conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.  During
the course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately 81,888
current and former employees of the Company offering them the
opportunity to participate in the class action, and approximately
5,027 have opted in.

The Company is a defendant in additional purported wage and hour
class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in
Pereira and seek similar remedies.  With the exception of Hill v.
Foot Locker filed in state court in Illinois in 2011, and Cortes
v. Foot Locker filed in federal court of New York, all of these
actions were consolidated by the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation with Pereira.  The consolidated cases are
in the discovery stages of proceedings.  In Hill v. Foot Locker,
in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
certification of an opt-out class covering certain Illinois
employees only.  The Company's motion for leave to appeal was
denied.

The Company is currently engaged in mediation with plaintiff's
counsel in Pereira in an attempt to determine whether it will be
possible to resolve the consolidated cases and Hill.  Meanwhile,
the Company is vigorously defending them.  Due to the inherent
uncertainties of such matters, and because fact and expert
discovery have not been completed, the Company is currently unable
to make an estimate of the range of loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

Management does not believe that the outcome of any such legal
proceedings pending against the Company or its consolidated
subsidiaries, including the Pereira consolidated cases and Hill,
would have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position, liquidity, or results of operations, taken as
a whole.


FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: "Weber" Class Suit in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. disclosed in its June 6, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that the class action lawsuit commenced by Michelle Weber is in
the discovery phase.

On February 2, 2012, a former California store employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit, captioned Michelle Weber, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Frederick's
of Hollywood, Inc., Case No. CGC-12-517909, in the California
Superior Court, County of San Francisco, naming Frederick's of
Hollywood, Inc. ("Frederick's) as a defendant.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor
Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest
periods and termination compensation and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit
(the class being defined as all California retail store hourly
employees), unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find
just and proper.  An answer to the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint was filed on April 5, 2012.  The case is in the
discovery phase.


GENZYME CORP: Sued in Mass. Over Failure to Preserve DNA Samples
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Genzyme and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
"discarded, lost, destroyed, or otherwise failed to preserve" DNA
samples entrusted for "defendants' DNA banking services."

A copy of the Complaint in Pepe v. Genzyme Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-11110 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/22/DNA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
          60 State Street, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 573-5118
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          Ilze C. Thielmann, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
          380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070
          E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com
                  ithielmann@whatleykallas.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Settles Paxil(R) False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milstein Adelman, LLP on June 21 issued a statement regarding the
Grair v. GlaxoSmithKline matter.

A class action settlement will provide money to California
residents who were 18 years old or older and who paid for any
portion of the price of the prescription antidepressant Paxil(R)
while living in California from January 14, 1999 through January
1, 2003, and who qualify under the settlement (these people are
called "Class Members").  If you're included, you may ask for a
payment, or you can exclude yourself from, or object to, the
settlement.  The Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Los Angeles will have a hearing to decide whether to
approve the settlement so that payments can be issued.  The
lawsuit claims that GlaxoSmithKline falsely advertised and
promoted Paxil(R) as being non-habit forming or non-addictive and
that GlaxoSmithKline's advertisements and promotional materials
failed to disclose the risk of symptoms from stopping or
discontinuing Paxil(R).  GlaxoSmithKline denies each of these
allegations.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

The settlement provides monetary compensation as follows: a full
refund of the actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses of claimants who
purchased Paxil(R) during the Class Period and who have valid
documentary Proof of Purchase, provided that the total amount of
payments to claimants with documented Proof of Purchase cannot
exceed $8,500,000.00.  For claimants without Proof of Purchase,
GlaxoSmithKline shall pay actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses up to
$80.00 per claimant, provided that the total amount paid to
claimants without Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $500,000.00.
GlaxoSmithKline will also: (1) make a charitable contribution of
$1,000,000.00 to be shared equally by four California mental
health charities; (2) agree to certain limits on any future
advertising for Paxil(R); and (3) include certain information
about Paxil(R) on its corporate Web site.

A detailed notice is available at
http://www.CApaxilclassaction.comor by calling 1-800-407-3459.

HOW DO YOU GET A PAYMENT?

You must complete the Claim Form, which you can obtain at
http://www.CApaxilclassaction.comor by calling 1-800-407-3459,
and mail it no later than October 10, 2012 to the address on the
form.  Whether you receive a payment and the amount you get
depends on whether you have a valid claim, how much Paxil(R) you
paid for, whether or not you have valid Proof of Purchase, and how
many valid claims are filed.

YOUR OTHER RIGHTS.

If you don't want a payment from the settlement, or if you don't
want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude
yourself by October 10, 2012, or you won't be able to sue, or
continue to sue, GlaxoSmithKline about the legal claims in this
case.  If you exclude yourself, you cannot get a payment from this
settlement.  If you stay in the settlement, you may choose to
object to it, if you do so by October 10, 2012.  You may both
object and still participate in the settlement and receive money.
The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case, called Grair, et al.
v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Case No. BC 288536, on November 13, 2012
at 9:00 a.m., to consider whether to approve the settlement and a
request by the lawyers representing the Class for fees and
expenses.  You may ask to appear and speak at the hearing, but you
don't have to.  For more information, call toll-free 1-800-407-
3459, go to http://www.CApaxilclassaction.comor write to:

         Paxil Settlement Administrator
         c/o GCG, P.O. Box 9839
         Dublin, OH 43017-5739


GREEN GENIUS: Settles Class Action Over "Biodegradable" Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement has been reached in the putative class
action entitled Rosenman v. Green Genius LLC, Mrs. Gooch's Natural
Food Markets, Inc., et al., Superior Court for the City and County
of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-10-506899.

Between 2009 and 2011, Green Genius manufactured and sold plastic
bags in California in packaging that identified the bags as
"biodegradable" and "proven to biodegrade using ASTM D5511."
Similar representations were made on Green Genius' Web site and on
Facebook.  Mrs. Gooch's Natural Foods Markets, Inc. (operating in
Southern California as Whole Foods Market), Albertson's, Erewhon
and the other stores identified on Green Genius' Web site also
sold Green Genius plastic bags between 2009 and 2011 in their
retail stores.

Although Green Genius contends that such labeling is lawful in 48
of the 50 States of the United States, California law (Cal. Pub.
Res. Code Section 43557 et seq.) prohibits labeling plastic bags
sold in California as "biodegradable."  Plaintiff contends that,
in California, use of the term "biodegradable" on plastic products
is inherently misleading, unless the claim includes a thorough
disclaimer providing necessary qualifying details, including, but
not limited to, the environments and timeframes in which the
biodegradation will take place.  Green Genius contends that, given
the complex nature of biodegradation and the inherent constraints
of marketing claims, including limited space on the plastic
product, there was no reasonable ability for Green Genius to
provide a disclaimer qualifying the use of the term
"biodegradable" without relying on an established scientific
standard specification for biodegradability.  No such standard
currently exists.  ASTM D5511, relied on by Green Genius, is a
testing methodology, not a specification.  Green Genius apologizes
for any confusion.

Green Genius ceased the manufacture and sale of its plastic bags
after this lawsuit was filed.  Green Genius no longer is doing
business in California or elsewhere.  Further, Green Genius' total
sales in California were not significant and do not justify an
extensive class notice program.

In light of all the foregoing, the parties have agreed to resolve
this matter on the following terms.  Green Genius is out of
business, and if Green Genius ever re-enters the plastic bag
market in California, Green Genius agrees to comply for California
sales with all applicable California state and federal statutes
and regulations, including statutes and regulations regarding the
labeling of plastic bags, and to periodically review its policies
and practices to ensure compliance (product sold in other states
will comply with those states' laws).  Further, Green Genius also
has agreed that all persons or entities who purchased any type of
Green Genius plastic bag in California (including Green Genius
plastic garbage, freezer, slider, sandwich and snack, and storage
bags) between 2009 and 2011 may request a refund by contacting
Green Genius directly at 1-800-515-1605.  Refunds will be for the
actual purchase price of the product without sales tax.  Proof of
purchase is required for all refunds which includes a copy of the
original receipt from the retailer showing at least the cost and
date of sale. Given Green Genius' financial condition and other
considerations, refunds are limited and not guaranteed.  The total
amount available for available refunds is $5,000, and will be
distributed on a first-come-first serve basis.  All claims for
refunds must be submitted by September 20, 2012.  After that date,
no refund applications will be accepted.


GREENBERG TRAURIG: To Settle Ponzi Fraud Class Action for $77.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that heavy-hitting law
firms Greenberg Traurig and Quarles & Brady will together pay
$77.5 million to settle a class action that accused them of aiding
a $900 million Ponzi scheme.

Greenberg Traurig has agreed to pay more than $61 million to
investors in the defunct real estate investment company Mortgages
Ltd., according to preliminary approval orders filed Wednesday.
Quarles & Brady will pay $26.5 million to investors in Mortgages
Ltd.'s financier, Radical Bunny.

The federal class action claimed that the firms had helped the
companies bilk about 2,000 investors out of nearly $1 billion from
2005 and 2008.

Mortgages Ltd. and Radical Bunny collapsed with the economy in
2008.  Scott Coles, who had been CEO of Mortgages, committed
suicide the same year.

The class said that Greenberg Traurig, which represented Mortgages
Ltd., and Quarles & Brady, which represented Radical Bunny,
created "a facade of legitimacy" that allowed the Ponzi scheme to
continue.

U.S. District Judge Fredrick Martone said in court papers that he
will consider objections to the proposed settlement until 21 days
before a final approval hearing, which is scheduled for Aug. 24.

"While we have always stood behind the work we did in this matter,
entering into this settlement is a sensible step for the firm," a
Greenberg Traurig spokeswoman said.

Quarles & Brady similarly defended its work in a statement.

"Although the firm believes its conduct was at all times lawful
and ethical, in order to avoid the burden, expense and uncertainty
of continued litigation Quarles & Brady agreed to settle the class
action for $26.5 million," the firm said.  The firm also said
neither the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission nor Arizona
securities regulators found any fault in the firm's representation
of Radical Bunny.

The deals were disclosed in papers filed in U.S. District Court in
Phoenix.  If they receive final approval, the agreements will end
the certified class action, Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters,
reports.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 restricted federal
securities claims for aiding and abetting by third-party advisers
such as law firms and accounting firms.  The Mortgages Ltd. and
Radical Bunny cases instead relied on Arizona's state securities
law statute, which plaintiffs lawyers in a brief on June 20
described as remedial in nature and providing broader protections
than federal law.

Prior to its collapse, the Arizona-based Mortgages Ltd made high-
interest bridge loans to real estate developers.  Radical Bunny in
turn helped raise $197 million from investors nationally to lend
to Mortgages Ltd.

But the class-action complaint claims that by 2005, Mortgages Ltd
was insolvent and had been raising money to prop up the
"extravagant" lifestyle of its CEO Scott Coles.  Amid the real
estate market's collapse, Coles committed suicide in June 2008,
and the company filed for bankruptcy weeks later.  Radical Bunny,
which investors and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
say was never registered to sell the securities, filed for
bankruptcy as well.

Investors sued Greenberg Traurig and Quarles & Brady, claiming the
law firms' actions as counsel to Mortgages Ltd and Radical Bunny
helped mask the fraud, enabled the Ponzi scheme and allowed for
the illegal sale of securities.  Both law firms continue to deny
the allegations.

Martone certified two investor classes against the firms in March.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in their settlement papers estimated
damages in the case could have reached $552 million for Quarles &
Brady and $499 million for Greenberg Traurig.

But in both cases, the plaintiffs lawyers said they factored in
the risk that verdicts of those sizes "would trigger a mass exodus
of partners (at the firms) leaving the class members with a
largely uncollectible paper judgment."

The co-lead plaintiffs firms Tiffany & Bosco and Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint plan to seek a fee of 15 percent of
the settlements, or $13.1 million.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Andrew Friedman -- afriedman@bffb.com
-- of Bonnett Fairbourn, declined to comment.

The settlements were first reported by Law 360.

The case is Facciola v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, 10-cv-01025

For the Rapid Bunny plaintiffs: Richard Himelrick --
rgh@tblaw.com -- Tiffany & Bosco

For the Mortgage Ltd. plaintiffs: Andrew Friedman, Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint

For Greenberg Traurig: Kevin Downey, Kenneth Smurzynski --
ksmurzynski@wc.com -- and Ellen Oberwetter -- eoberwetter@wc.com -
- Williams & Connolly

For Quarles & Brady: Robert Gooding -- rgooding@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

According to Journal Sentinel, Judge Martone will hold a hearing
to give final approval to the Quarles settlement in Arizona on
Sept. 14.


INDIANA: ACLU of Indiana Files Class Action v. BMV
---------------------------------------------------
Kent Erdahl, writing for Fox59 News, reports that the ACLU of
Indiana has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Indiana
Bureau of Motor Vehicles over the treatment of people previously
caught driving without insurance.

If you get caught driving without auto insurance you can expect to
pay steep fines and have the Bureau of Motor Vehicles suspend your
license, but you might not know that even after you get your
license back you spend five years on the "Previously Uninsured
Motorist Registry."

According to the BMV, drivers on that uninsured registry "are
selected at random and sent a request for proof of financial
responsibility."

If you fail to prove that you have auto insurance, your license is
suspended again.

The ACLU of Indiana believes the BMV practice violates due process
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

"The people don't have to have insurance," said Kenneth Falk,
Legal Director for the ACLU of Indiana.  "They may not be driving
anymore.  They may not own a vehicle and therefore don't have to
have insurance, but if they don't have insurance, they are then
suspended again."

That's exactly what happened to the lead plaintiff, Ms. White, in
the ACLU's new class action lawsuit.  Two years after getting her
license back, Ms. White received a letter saying she failed to
prove she had insurance.  She said she didn't have insurance
because she had to get rid of her car after it broke down.  She
said she wasn't even able to drive at the time.

"I feel what they done to me was wrong," Ms. White said.  "I
didn't have a car, and I didn't have any insurance.  Why have any
insurance if you don't have a car?"

According to the ACLU, roughly 4,000 drivers have been selected
from the uninsured registry and about 2,000 have had their
licenses suspended.

Mr. Falk said the ACLU is asking the BMV to reinstate those
suspended licenses and clear the suspension for driving records.

Ms. White said she bought a new car and purchased insurance before
being notified of her newly suspended license.  As she waits to
get it back, she is relying on friends to get herself and her four
kids around.

"I just thank God for understanding friends, friends that care
about me and my kids," Ms. White said.  "What they done was wrong,
and it's just not right.  I'm sure the 4,000 other people here in
Indiana probably feel the same way."

Fox59 News contacted the BMV, but a spokesperson said they will
not comment on pending lawsuits.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Continues to Defend Suit vs. Cell Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend
a purported class action lawsuit filed against cellular companies,
according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In May 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court,
in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class action,
against the four cellular companies (Pelephone Communications
Ltd., Partner Communications Company Ltd., Cellcom Israel Ltd. and
Mirs Communications Ltd.), where the amount of the claim against
each of Pelephone, Partner and Cellcom is NIS3.68 billion and the
total amount of the claim (against the four companies) is more
than NIS12 billion.  The plaintiffs argue that the cellular
companies are in breach of the following duties: (i) to erect
cellular antenna sites of the required scope, proportion and
deployment; (ii) to check, correct and provide information about
the non-ionizing radiation values in cellular handsets after
repair, etc.; and (iii) to warn against the risks involved in how
the cellular handset is held.  The application seeks other
declaratory relief and applications for writs of mandamus.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Class Suit Over Overseas Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending a
purported class action lawsuit over calls made overseas, according
to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

In August 2011, a motion was filed with the District Court for the
Central District against Pelephone Communications Ltd., Cellcom
Israel Ltd. and Partner Communications Company Ltd., together with
an application for its certification as a class action.  The
amount of the claim against the respondents is not specified.  The
action alleges that the carriers round up to a whole minute the
call time of calls made overseas, which is alleged to be contrary
to the provisions of the license and in contravention of
applicable law.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Class Suit Over Network Malfunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. continues to
defend a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from a
malfunction in its network, according to Internet Gold - Golden
Lines Ltd.'s April 30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In January 2011, the following four claims arising from a
malfunction in Bezeq's network on January 25, 2011, together with
applications for their certification as class actions were filed
against Bezeq: (i) a claim estimated at NIS104 million in the
Nazareth District Court; (ii) a claim estimated at NIS135 million
in the District Court for the Central District; (iii) a claim
estimated at NIS84 million in the Haifa District Court, in Israel;
and (iv) a claim estimated at NIS217 million in the Tel Aviv
District Court, in Israel.  Subsequently, all four claims were
transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court and on November 27,
2011, the court decided to consolidate the hearing of the last two
claims and to dismiss the first two claims.  The plaintiffs allege
that Bezeq's customers were disconnected from Bezeq's services and
were unable to make proper use of their telephone lines, resulting
in losses.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Subscribers' Suit Seeking Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary is defending a
purported class action lawsuit seeking refund of amounts allegedly
over-collected from subscribers, according to the Company's April
30, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In July 2008, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court,
in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class action,
against Pelephone Communications Ltd. for a total amount of NIS240
million.  The claim is for the refund of amounts which the
plaintiffs allege were over-collected from Pelephone's subscribers
and is divided into three causes and separate groups of
plaintiffs: (i) an allegation that when making a "dial-on" call
from the 144 information service (i.e. continuation of the call to
the subscriber whose number was requested, without disconnecting
the call) Pelephone charges for the airtime until the called party
answers in violation of Pelephone's license.  The amount claimed
is approximately NIS24 million; (ii) an allegation that Pelephone
collects interest in arrears from subscribers who are late in
paying Pelephone, as well as "rescheduling" interest where
payments are rescheduled, in violation of Pelephone's license.
The amount claimed is approximately NIS48 million; and (iii) an
allegation that Pelephone collects payments in respect of a
standing order, handling fees for the voucher and commission for
payment of a voucher at a service center, in contravention of its
license.  The amount claimed is approximately NIS168 million.

On October 5, 2011, the Court gave the plaintiffs an option to
abandon the claim without ordering expenses against them.  On
October 18, 2011, the plaintiffs notified the Court that they
insist on proceeding with the claim and the parties agreed to
submit written closing arguments.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Suit Over Continuing Transactions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq International Ltd., a subsidiary of Internet Gold - Golden
Lines Ltd., continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit
related to agreements to change or add to a continuing
transaction, according to the Company's April 30, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In October 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District
Court, in Israel, together with a motion to certify it as a class
action, against Bezeq International Ltd. in the amount of NIS39
million.  The claim alleges that Bezeq International does not
provide its customers with a written document as required under
the Consumer Protection Law, when entering into an agreement to
change or add to a continuing transaction.  Similar claims by
other plaintiffs were also filed against Bezeq - The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., Pelephone Communications Ltd. and
DBS Satellite Service (1998) Ltd.


INTERNET GOLD: Unit Defends Suit Over Malfunction of Phone Lines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.'s subsidiary continues to defend
a purported class action lawsuit arising from the malfunction of
its telephone lines, according to the Company's April 30, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In July 2010, a claim was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court,
in Israel, together with an application for its certification as a
class action, against Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunications Corp.,
Ltd. ("Bezeq").  The plaintiff alleges that due to a malfunction
of telephone lines (which allegedly was not repaired by Bezeq for
34 hours), Bezeq's subscribers were unable to make calls to HOT
Telecom telephony subscribers.  According to the plaintiff, Bezeq
caused its subscribers various wrongs in respect of which the
plaintiff demands compensation in the amount of NIS100 per
subscriber.  The plaintiff estimates the total amount of the claim
at NIS250 million.

In 2006, an application was submitted to approve a class action
for the same event in the name of HOT Telecom subscribers.  The
claim was settled with a compromise in 2009.  On April 13, 2011,
the court approved the plaintiff's abandonment of the motion.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Judge Approves $40-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on June 21 approved a $40 million settlement in a
mortgage-backed securities class action lawsuit against
individuals previously affiliated with Lehman Brothers Holding,
Inc., which in September 2008 filed the largest bankruptcy in US
history.  Led by Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of
Operating Engineers -- Employers Construction Trust Fund, New
Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, and Boilermakers-Blacksmith
National Pension Trust, the plaintiffs are represented by Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

The final approval by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, ends four years of
litigation against individuals previously affiliated with Lehman
Brothers, who were charged with filing misleading Offering
Documents regarding the credit quality of billions of dollars
worth of mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2006 and
2007.

"While this settlement by no means compensates investors for the
full amount of their damages, we believe it is an excellent result
given the bankruptcy and limited insurance funds available," said
plaintiffs' lead counsel Steven J. Toll, of Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Lehman Brothers Estate will
pay $8.3 million and insurers for the firm's officers and
directors will pay the remaining $31.7 million.

Class members have until Aug. 20, 2012, to file their settlement
claims.  In addition to the lead and named plaintiffs, the Iowa
Public Employees' Retirement System and Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi intervened in the action on
behalf of additional investors.  The case is In re Lehman Brothers
Mortgage-based Securities Litigation, No. 08-CV-6762.

For more information about the settlement, visit
http://www.lehmanmbssettlement.com/


MACY'S INC: Continues to Defend "Shanehchian" Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
On October 3, 2007, Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in
the Macy's, Inc. Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan (now known
as the Macy's, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Investment Plan) (the
"401(k) Plan"), filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who
participated in the 401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores
Company Profit Sharing Plan (the "May Plan") between February 27,
2005, and the present.  The lawsuit has been conditionally
certified as a class action.  The complaint alleges that the
Company, as well as members of the Company's board of directors
and certain members of senior management, breached various
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the
May Plan, by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the
integration of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed
"artificial inflation" of the Company's stock price and "imprudent
investment" by the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan in Macy's stock.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and costs.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 4, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
contest it vigorously.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against Neiman Marcus, Inc., Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC.  On July 12, 2010,
all defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.  This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company
has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation 1)
asking employees to work "off the clock," 2) failing to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employees, 3) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and 4) failing
to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts.  On
October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to compel
Ms. Monjazeb and a co-plaintiff to participate in the Company's
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing a class action in
that case.  The court then determined that Ms. Tanguilig could not
represent employees who are subject to the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative class action
to those associates who were employed between December 2004 and
July 15, 2007 (the effective date of the Company's Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement).  Ms. Monjazeb filed a demand for
arbitration as a class action, which is prohibited under the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.  In response to Ms. Monjazeb's
demand for arbitration as a class action, the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) referred the resolution of such request back to
the arbitrator.

The Company says it is in the process of filing a motion to stay
the decision of the AAA pending a ruling by the trial court.  The
Company intends to continue vigorously defending its interests in
these matters.  Currently, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
the amount of loss, if any, arising from these matters.  The
Company will continue to evaluate these matters based on
subsequent events, new information and future circumstances.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Beeney" Suit Currently in Discovery Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Tamara Beeney is currently in
the discovery phase, Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. disclosed
in its June 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior
Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-
CU-OE-CXC, was filed on March 18, 2011, alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things.  The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.  The Company has filed an answer denying all
allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various
defenses.  The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this
case.

As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts
have been accrued by the Company as of June 6, 2012.  Depending on
the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in
the future which may have a material adverse effect on the
Company's operating results.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Suit Currently in Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Charles Pfeiffer is
currently in the discovery phase, according to Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc.'s June 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific
Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California, County of
Riverside, Case No. 1100527, was filed on January 13, 2011,
alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal
break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.  The Company has filed an answer denying all
allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various
defenses.  The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this
case.

As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain no amounts
have been accrued by the Company as of June 6, 2012.  Depending on
the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in
the future which may have a material adverse effect on the
Company's operating results.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Gleason" Class Action Suit Settled Last Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. settled in May 2012 the class
action lawsuit initiated by Phillip Gleason, according to the
Company's June 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

Phillip Gleason, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 457654, was filed
on March 21, 2011, alleging violations of California's wage and
hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations,
among other things.  The complaint seeks class certification, the
appointment of the plaintiff as class representative, and an
unspecified amount of damages and penalties.

On May 25, 2012, the Company settled Mr. Gleason's claims for a
nominal sum and the complaint will be dismissed.


PANDORA MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss PII-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging that it unlawfully
accessed and transmitted personally identifiable information,
according to the Company's June 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012.

In June 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Pandora in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging that it unlawfully accessed and
transmitted personally identifiable information of the plaintiffs
in connection with their use of the Company's Android mobile
application.  In addition to civil liability, the amended
complaint includes allegations of violations of statutes under
which criminal penalties could be imposed if the Company were
found liable.  Pandora's motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint was filed on March 23, 2012.  No hearing date is
currently set.

The Company currently believes that it has substantial and
meritorious defenses to the claims in the lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend its position.


PANDORA MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Video Rental Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
alleging it violated video rental privacy law remains pending,
according to the Company's June 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2012.

In September 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Pandora in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that it violated
Michigan's video rental privacy law and consumer protection
statute by allowing Pandora listeners' listening history to be
visible to the public.  Pandora's motion to dismiss the complaint
was filed on November 28, 2011.  No hearing date is currently set.

The Company currently believes that it has substantial and
meritorious defenses to the claims in the lawsuit and intends to
vigorously defend its position.


PANDORA MEDIA: Settled "Hartford Casualty" Suit in May 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. settled in May 2012 a lawsuit filed by
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, according to the Company's
June 4, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

On December 29, 2011, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no
obligation to defend or indemnify Pandora in relation to certain
pending and formerly pending privacy class actions.  Pandora and
Hartford entered into a settlement agreement with respect to
Hartford's claims on May 18, 2012.

The outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain.  Based on
the Company's current knowledge it believes that the final outcome
of the matter will not likely, individually or in the aggregate,
have a material adverse effect on its business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows; however, in light
of the uncertainties involved in such matters, there can be no
assurance that the outcome of each case or the costs of
litigation, regardless of outcome, will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business.


PLAINS MIDSTREAM: Tony Merchant Files Oil Spill Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a prominent Regina-based lawyer is
pursuing a class-action lawsuit over a recent oil spill in central
Alberta.

The claim being organized by Tony Merchant is seeking more than
C$75 million from Plains Midstream Canada, owners of the pipeline
that leaked up to 475,000 liters of light sour crude into the Red
Deer River earlier this month.

High river levels flushed most of the oil downstream into
Gleniffer Lake, a man-made reservoir and popular recreational
area.

The suit lists Airdrie, Alta., couple Suzanne and Darin Rieger as
the plaintiffs.  It says the Riegers were trying to sell their two
lots at the Carefree RV resort on the reservoir.  The couple was
hoping to get between C$119,000 and C$169,000 before the leak
happened.

"As a result of the incident, the value that the Riegers can hope
to achieve for those properties has been diminished," claims the
lawsuit, without mentioning a specific amount.

The claim alleges negligence on the part of Plains Midstream
Canada for allowing the leak to happen.  It says the company
should have known pipelines in the area were vulnerable during
periods of heavy rain.

It cites a report into a spill of 28,140 liters of crude from a
Pembina pipeline in 2008.  The report into that leak found the
break occurred after heavy rains eroded the soil around the
pipeline, the statement of claim says.

Plains Midstream has not disclosed what happened to its pipeline.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

It's believed a section of the 46-year-old Plains Midstream
pipeline that runs under the river near Sundre, Alta., leaked
June 7.

The company says that, with the exception of the first day after
the leak, all water samples from the river and reservoir have been
well within Alberta guidelines for drinking water.  Plains
Midstream has also been monitoring air quality and there have been
no reported samples above acceptable levels.

But fishing guides and residents have already said they fear the
leak could do long-term damage.

When it comes to compensating people affected by the spill,
spokesman Stephen Bart has said the company will "make it right."

There was a second major pipeline leak in Alberta earlier this
week.

On June 18, an Enbridge pipeline leaked 230,000 liters of heavy
crude oil at a pumping station site about 25 kilometers southeast
of Elk Point.


REGENECA INC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Diet Supplement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in
Superior Court claims that Regeneca and Ethos Environmental sold a
mislabeled "drug-free" "natural" diet supplement, "RegenErect,"
that contained Sulfoaildenafil, an analog of Sildenafil, the
active ingredient in Viagra.

A copy of the Complaint in Hanfling v. Regenica, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 30-2012-00577998 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/22/BonerPill.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Moore, Esq.
          Ronald T. Labriola, Esq.
          THE SENATORS (Ret.) FIRM, LLP
          4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 370
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 209-9820
          E-mail: tmoore@thesenatorsfirm.com
                  rlabriola@thesenatorsfirm.com


REVLON INC: Settles Dispute with Fidelity Over Exchange Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Cosmetics maker Revlon Inc. settled its
dispute with shareholder Fidelity Management & Research Co.
regarding a class action lawsuit related to a share exchange offer
from 2009.

Fidelity Management, which owns about 2.06 percent of the company
according to Thomson Reuters data, will be paid $19.9 million and
will drop all related claims in return.

The investment adviser and its subsidiaries controlled almost 90
percent of Revlon shares that were traded in the offer that sought
to issue preferred shares in lieu of Class A common shares.

The lawsuits alleged, among other things, that the defendants
should have disclosed along with the offer information regarding
the company's results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2009.

The lawsuits were brought against Revlon, its then directors and
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. -- the holding company of its
chairman and largest shareholder Ronald Perelman.

Revlon, which competes with L'Oreal, Estee Lauder Cos Inc and
Elizabeth Arden Inc, said it recorded a charge related to the
settlement, which will be paid from insurance proceeds.

The lawsuits are pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The company said this settlement has no effect on the pending
actions other than to eliminate Fidelity from any future certified
class actions.

Revlon has recorded an additional charge of $6.7 million with
respect to estimated costs of resolving the pending litigations
with the other plaintiffs, including the company's estimate of any
additional payment to Fidelity.


ROSS STORES: Still Defends Wage and Hour Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Like many California retailers, Ross Stores, Inc. has been named
in class action lawsuits alleging violation of wage and hour
matters and other employment laws.  Class action litigation
remains pending as of April 28, 2012.

In the opinion of management, the resolution of pending class
action litigation and other currently pending legal proceedings is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.


SHELL OIL: Faces Privacy Invasion Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Shell records calls made to
its 888-GO-SHELL customer service number without the callers'
consent or notice, in violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act, a
class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Nguyen v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
Case No. RG12635378 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/22/shell.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Carey G. Been, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                  cbeen@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


SYNOPSYS INC: Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Synopsys, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle acquisition-related lawsuits pending in California and
Delaware, according to the Company's June 4, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2012.

On February 22, 2012, the Company acquired all outstanding shares
of Magma Design Automation, Inc., a chip design software provider,
at a per-share price of $7.35.  Additionally, the Company assumed
unvested restricted stock units (RSUs) and stock options,
collectively called "equity awards."  The aggregate purchase price
was approximately $550.2 million.  This acquisition will enable
the Company to more rapidly meet the needs of leading-edge
semiconductor designers for more sophisticated design tools.

In connection with the Company's agreement to acquire Magma, four
putative stockholder class actions were filed against Magma,
Magma's board of directors, the Company and its merger subsidiary
on December 5, 2011, December 9, 2011, December 13, 2011, and
December 19, 2011, in state court in California and Delaware
(collectively, the Magma Lawsuits).  The Magma Lawsuits allege,
among other things, that Magma and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Magma's stockholders in negotiating and
entering into the definitive merger agreement and by agreeing to
sell Magma at an unfair price, and that Magma and the Company
aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On February 10, 2012, the parties to the Magma Lawsuits entered
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which they agreed on
the terms of a proposed settlement of the lawsuits, which would
include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of
the defendants.  Pursuant to the MOU, Magma agreed to make certain
additional disclosures concerning Magma's acquisition by the
Company, which supplemented the information provided in Magma's
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 10, 2012, and to pay certain legal fees and expenses of
plaintiffs' counsel, which would be immaterial to Synopsys'
financials.  The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into
a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will
be subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Magma's stockholders.


TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on
behalf of all investors who purchased Tempur-Pedic International,
Inc. common stock during the period from January 25, 2012 through
June 5, 2012.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tempur-Pedic manufactures and markets high-end mattresses, pillows
and other sleeping related products.  On June 6, 2012, the
Company's stock price plunged nearly 50% after the luxury mattress
maker cut its full-year profit and revenue forecasts amid lower-
than-expected second quarter sales in North America.  Tempur-Pedic
is now predicting earnings of $2.70 per share for 2012 versus a
previous forecast of as much as $3.95 per share.

The complaint alleges that Tempur-Pedic misrepresented its
financial condition.  Specifically, that the Company's 2012
outlook, provided at the start of the Class Period, lacked a
reasonable basis when made due to already existing and understood
competitive pressures.

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

If you purchased Tempur-Pedic stock between January 25, 2012 and
June 5, 2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc Grobler
at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Tempur-Pedic common stock during the Class Period
and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a
motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than
August 20, 2012.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss
your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your
interest in the class action.  Please note that you may also
retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this
time to be a class member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.

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


ULTA SALON: Faces Employment Class Action Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. is facing an employment
class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's
June 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and certain unnamed defendants in state
court in Los Angeles County, California.  On April 12, 2012, the
Company removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.  The plaintiff and members of
the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt
hourly employees.  The lawsuit alleges that Ulta violated various
provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide
plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages and
penalties as a result of these alleged practices.  The Company
denies plaintiff's allegations and intends to vigorously defend
the matter.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Awaits Rulings on "Deutsch" Plaintiffs' Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. is awaiting court decisions on Orit Deutsch,
et al.'s motion to consolidate its claim with another Israeli
plaintiff, and to lift the stay on their proceedings before the
District Court in Tel Aviv, according to the Company's June 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

On March 26, 2009, a motion to approve a class action lawsuit (the
"Labor Motion"), and the class action lawsuit itself (the "Labor
Class Action") (Labor Case No. 4186/09), were filed against the
Company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), by a former
employee of VSL, Orit Deutsch, in the Tel Aviv Labor Court.  Ms.
Deutsch purports to represent a class of the Company's employees
and ex-employees who were granted options to buy shares of Verint
and to whom allegedly damages were caused as a result of the
blocking of the ability to exercise Verint options by the
Company's employees or ex-employees during its previous extended
filing delay period.

The Labor Class Action seeks compensatory damages for the entire
class in an unspecified amount.  On July 9, 2009, the Company
filed a motion for summary dismissal and alternatively for the
stay of the Labor Motion.  On February 8, 2010, the Tel Aviv Labor
Court dismissed the case for lack of material jurisdiction and
ruled that it would be transferred to the District Court in Tel
Aviv.  On October 11, 2011, the District Court in Tel Aviv ordered
a stay of proceedings until legal proceedings in the United States
brought by stockholders of Comverse Technology Inc. who have
opted-out of Comverse's recent class action settlement are
concluded.  On December 7, 2011, Ms. Deutsch sought,
unsuccessfully, to consolidate her action with a related action
against Comverse filed by another plaintiff in Israel.

In light of recent developments in the Comverse opt-out proceeding
in the United States, Ms. Deutsch and the other Israeli plaintiff
filed motions on March 23, 2012, and April 4, 2012, respectively,
to (a) consolidate and amend their claims and (b) lift the stay on
their proceedings before the District Court in Tel Aviv.

The Company says it does not expect to contest this latest motion
on procedural grounds and plan to continue to vigorously defend
the action after the District Court in Tel Aviv rules on the
motion.


WYETH CANADA: Judge Tosses Class Action Certification Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Wood, writing for Coast Reporter, reports that the class
action lawsuit launched from Sechelt that alleges Wyeth Canada
Inc. knowingly supplied hormone replacement therapies linked to
breast cancer between 1977 and 2003 has just passed another hurdle
on its way to the Supreme Court.

A judge denied Wyeth's appeal of the class action certification on
June 15.

"I think it's just great.  It will be nine years since I first
filed the lawsuit when this gets to court next September," said
Sechelt's Dianna Stanway, who launched the suit after being
diagnosed with breast cancer allegedly linked to a hormone
replacement drug called Premarin, sold by Wyeth.

"I had no idea it would take so long to get to court with all the
appeals and whatnot from [Wyeth Canada Inc.]," she said.

Ms. Stanway's lawyers believe Madam Justice Kirkpatrick's ruling
on June 15 is meant to send a message.

"The defendants' appeal was dismissed in its entirety," said
Toronto lawyer Doug Lennox.  "The court ordered the defendants to
pay the legal cost of the appeal -- the first time that has
happened in a class action in 17 years.  This shows just how
lacking in merit the appeal was."

Class action lawsuits are meant to help make the cost of
prosecution affordable and the process accessible, which Justice
Kirkpatrick addressed in her ruling.

"There can be no doubt that the individual claims will face
significant challenges of proof.  The multiplicity of causative
factors in the development of breast cancer and the role of
learned intermediaries will certainly complicate the trial of
individual claims.  However, there can also be no doubt that the
determination of the common issues will move the litigation
forward, serve judicial economy and improve access to justice,"
she said.

The class action lawsuit, which now has more than 100 Canadian
women involved, is set to be heard in Supreme Court on Sept. 9,
2013, and Ms. Stanway notes more can sign on.

"Until the day before we go to court, people can still sign up for
it," she said.


* US RAILROAD FREIGHT HAULERS: Price-Fixing Class Action Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a major victory for fair competition in the railroad freight
industry, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman granted class
certification to a lawsuit alleging that four major U.S.-based
railroad freight haulers conspired to fix the prices of rail fuel
surcharges.

Judge Friedman, of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, on June 21 certified a class in an ongoing Multi
District Litigation (MDL) that includes all direct purchasers of
rate-unregulated rail freight transport services and addresses
fuel surcharges that were applied nationally from mid-2003 until
2008.

Stephen Neuwirth, Esq. -- stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- of
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, one of the co-lead counsels for
the eight shipping companies that are named plaintiffs in the MDL,
said: "Judge Friedman's ruling is a strong validation for our
thoroughly researched case.  From mid-2003 to 2008, railroad
freight shippers across the nation were subjected to an endless
string of rate increases by railroads made possible by a
concentrated market structure, tight capacity, and coordinated
pricing.  This harmed both the shippers and American consumers,
who had to foot the bill for these excessive fuel surcharges.
Furthermore, we are pleased that lawmakers and regulators in the
federal government are now considering taking concrete steps to
curb the monopoly that was created in the railroad freight
industry after deregulation more than 30 years ago.  This
litigation is an essential component of that public policy effort
to rein in these abuses."

Plaintiffs allege that the railroads conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices of rail freight transportation
services sold in the United States through use of rail fuel
surcharges added to customers' bills.  The plaintiffs also contend
that the railroads moved in uniform lockstep to fix prices for the
fuel surcharges, which bore no direct relationship to their actual
fuel cost increases.  Because of this practice, the plaintiffs
say, the railroads restrained competition in the market for
unregulated rail freight transportation services and realized
billions of dollars in excess revenues.  Shippers include many of
America's largest corporations, most notably in the automotive,
chemicals, agriculture and public utility industries.

The defendants are BNSF Railway, Union Pacific Railroad, Norfolk
Southern Railway and CSX Transportation.  Together, these four
railroads control nearly 90 percent of railroad freight traffic in
the U.S.

The original lawsuits in this MDL were filed in 2007. In that
year, 18 similar lawsuits were combined into the consolidated MDL
now being overseen by Judge Friedman.

Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. of Hausfeld LLP, also represented
plaintiffs as co-lead counsel.


                           *********

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  * * *