CAR_Public/120704.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 4, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 131

                             Headlines

A123 SYSTEMS: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Massachusetts
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued For Aggressive Debt Collection Practices
ALGO CENTRE: Faces Class Action Over Damaged Shopping Center
AT&T MOBILITY: Loses Bid to Strike iPad Owners' Class Claims
AVX CORP: Factory-Related Class Suit Pending in South Carolina

BENIHANA INC: Wage and Hour Suits Pending in N.Y. and Calif.
BENIHANA INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Proposed Merger With Safflower
BLYTHEVILLE, MS: Class Action Over Water Fees Certified
BRISTOW GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Superior" Suit Pending
C.H. ROBINSON: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik Files Class Action

CANADIAN TELCOS: Face Class Action Over "System Access Fees"
CENTENE CORPORATION: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
CHERRY HILL TOWNSHIP, NJ: Sued Over Red-Light Cameras
CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Wage and Hour Suit Settlement Paid in December

FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Hicks" Suit From State to District Court
FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend "McGinnis" Suit in California
FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend "Perez" Suit in California
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
GHILOTTI BROS: Two San Francisco Law Firms File Class Action

HOME DEPOT: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
IG MANAGEMENT: Supreme Court Grants Leave in Class Action
ISTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Agreed to Settle Merger-Related Suits
KAISER FOUNDATION: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
LEBANON SCHOOL DISTRICT, PA: Sued Over Excessive Truancy Fines

LOUISIANA: Sued Over "Crimes Against Nature by Solicitation" Law
M&T BANK: Faces Class Action Over Secretive "Pay to Play" Scheme
METLIFE INC: MLIC Indemnification Dispute Still Pending
MICHAELS STORES: Payment Card Terminal Tampering Suits Pending
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Suit Over Discounts on Framing Products

MICHAELS STORES: Hearing in "Tyler" Suit Set for October 19
NVIDIA CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
NVIDIA CORP: Appeals in Weak Die/Packaging Material Suit Pending
NVIDIA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Granfield" Suit
NVIDIA CORP: "Van der Maas" Class Suit Dismissed in March

PEOPLES BANCORP: Faces "Surgeon" Class Suit in North Carolina
RAYMOND JAMES: Morgan Keegan Faces Investors' Class Action Suits
ROSS DRESS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Ongoing in "EEOC" Suit vs. Sterling
SIGNET JEWELERS: Arbitration in Suit vs. Sterling Ongoing

SMITHFIELD FOODS: Trial in One "Herrold" Suit Set for Oct. 9
SYNGENTA CROP: Stephen Tillery Seeks $18,000 in Litigation Fees
TAYLOR BEAN: Court Dismisses Molina Suit for Lack of Standing
UNGAR'S FOOD: Veggie Burger Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay
VERIZON: Class Action Settlement Obtains Initial Court Approval

VITACOST.COM INC: Florida Court Dismisses Class Action
YRC FREIGHT: Voluntarily Settles Two Class Actions


                          *********

A123 SYSTEMS: Faces Two Securities Class Suits in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A123 Systems, Inc. is facing two securities class action lawsuits
in Massachusetts, according to the Company's May 24, 2012, Form 8-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 2, 2012, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Scott Heiss,
purportedly acting individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, against the Company and its CEO, David Vieau,
the Company's CFO, David Prystash, and the Company's former
Interim CFO, John Granara.  The complaint followed the Company's
disclosure in March 2012 of potentially defective prismatic cells
used in battery packs and a replacement program for such cells.
The complaint attempts to allege that certain disclosures the
Company has made were inaccurate because the potentially defective
cells and their replacement were not disclosed earlier.  The
complaint asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of that statute against the individuals.  It
asserts a purported class period from
February 28, 2011, through March 23, 2012.

On April 12, 2012, a similar complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Terry
Leon Fike, purportedly acting individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, against the same defendants.  The
complaint makes similar allegations and also asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and a purported class period from February 28, 2011, through March
23, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend the litigation vigorously.
Currently, the Company is unable to determine the outcome of this
case and the effect, if any, it may have on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.  The outcome of this
matter is inherently uncertain and may be affected by future
events.  Accordingly, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate
effect of this matter.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Sued For Aggressive Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that business
titan Edgar Bronfman is lead defendant in a shareholder derivative
complaint against Accretive Health and 10 of its directors, who
are accused of concealing the company's "deplorable" debt
collection practices, which allegedly discouraged patients from
seeking life-saving treatments and violated medical privacy laws.

Lead plaintiff Jeffrey Goodwin sued Edgar Bronfman, Accretive
Health, nine other corporate officers in Cook County Court.  One
of the director defendants is former Secretary of State George
Shultz, a director emeritus of Accretive.

Mr. Bronfman, the CEO of Warner Music Group, is a director of
Accretive Health, which "provides revenue cycle management
services for hospitals and healthcare providers in the United
States," according to the complaint.

Mr. Goodwin claims that in January this year, "Minnesota's
Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Accretive Health alleging
that the company had violated health privacy laws, state debt-
collection laws and state consumer protection laws.  The lawsuit
centers on a medical privacy security breach that occurred in July
2011 when an employee of Accretive Health had a laptop stolen out
of a rental car.  The laptop contained unencrypted medical records
of 23,500 patients."

The complaint continues: "The Attorney General's office was not
only concerned with the theft itself and how the company
subsequently handled it but also with the extent of the
confidential medial information Accretive Health had within its
possession and the use of that information."

The defendants then announced that "in response to the lawsuit
filed by Minnesota's Attorney General, the company had agreed to
no longer collect debt on behalf of Fairview [Health Services] . .
. and that they expected this change to negatively impact the
company's fiscal year 2012 revenue by $62 million to $68 million,"
according to the complaint.

Accretive's stock price then fell $4.46 per share to $19.60, a
decline of almost 19 percent, the complaint states.

"Then, on April 24, 2012, the Minnesota Attorney General released
a report which detailed Accretive Health's aggressive practices,
which included demanding payments from people seeing care in
emergency rooms, cancer wards and delivery rooms.  The report
raised concerns about these deplorable practices," according to
the complaint.

Mr. Goodwin cites a New York Times article that reported:
"Hospital patients waiting in an emergency room or convalescing
after surgery are being confronted by an unexpected visitor: a
debt collector at bedside.

"This and other aggressive tactics by one of the nation's largest
collectors of medical debts, Accretive Health, were revealed on
Tuesday by the Minnesota attorney general, raising concerns that
such practices have become common at hospitals across the country.
. . .

"In March 2011, doctors at Fairview complained that such strong-
arm tactics were discouraging patients from seeking lifesaving
treatments but Accretive officials dismissed the complaints as
'country club talks,' the documents show."

After this report, Accretive stock "sank $7.63 per share to close
at $10.86 per share on April 25, 2012, a one-day decline of 41
percent," Mr. Goodwin claims.

He claims that Accretive's directors and CEO knew the company was
violating patient privacy law by making private health information
available to its debt collectors, and concealed from shareholders
the effect the company's violations would have on earnings.

"As a result of the individual defendants' illegal actions and
course of conduct, the company is now the subject of a class
action lawsuit that alleges violations of federal securities laws.
As a result, Accretive Health has expended, and will continue to
expend, significant sums of money," the complaint states.

Mr. Goodwin seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty and
proposes new procedures to improve internal oversight of
Accretive's corporate officers.  He also seeks restitution of all
profits and benefits obtained by the individual defendants.

Also named as defendants are Accretive directors Michael Cline,
Steven Kaplan, Stanley Logan, Denis Nayden, George Shultz, Arthur
Spiegel, and Mark Wolfson, and CEO Mary Tolan and CFO John Staton.

A copy of the Complaint in Goodwin v. Bronfman, et al., Case No.
12CH23754 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/29/Bronfman.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward T. Joyce, Esq.
          Rowena T. Parma, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          135 South La Salle Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-2600

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Keith M. Cochran, Esq.
          CHAPIN FITZGERALD SULLIVAN & BOTTINI LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 241-4810
          E-mail: fbottini@cfsblaw.com
                  kcochran@cfsblaw.com


ALGO CENTRE: Faces Class Action Over Damaged Shopping Center
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Quesnel, writing for QMI Agency, reports that death
threats kept Algo Centre Mall owner Bob Nazarian away from an
afternoon press conference held near the damaged shopping center.

Mr. Nazarian's lawyer, Rene Fabris, issued a statement and
answered questions from the media and members of the public, and
when asked about the mall owner's being a no-show, he told the
crowd there have been threats made against Mr. Nazarian's life.
Mr. Fabris also said a class-action lawsuit against the owner has
been launched.

"It has been very difficult for all involved," he said, including
the Nazarians.  "Eventually, one day this mall will be up again.
Eastwood Mall is here to stay."

Inspections and questions whether there were early warning signs
of a potential collapse were brought up by those in attendance.

Mr. Fabris said the inspections were public and close to $1
million in repairs were done since the Nazarians bought the mall.

Elliot Laker Valerie Clarke yelled out at Mr. Fabris about the
state of the mall, which suffered a partial roof collapse on
June 23.

"I don't know how anyone in Elliot Lake would allow people to go
in that mall," an angry Clarke said.  "We all had bets on when
this mall would fall and we were hoping it would be nighttime so
no one would get hurt."

But Mr. Fabris countered that the mall was inspected on a regular
basis.

"I was born in and raised here and I've been in that mall since
day one," he said, adding he wouldn't allow his family to enter
the mall if he thought it was unsafe.

"My family was in the mall when it collapsed.  They were in, they
were around.  If I had thought there was any danger I would not
have put my family in harm's way."

Mr. Fabris defended himself further by saying "I'm a member of
this community as well.

"When all this media circus leaves . . . what's left is the Elliot
Lakers.  And I have to work to rebuild that.  Do not point your
finger at me."

Gary Gendron, who's fiance, Lucie Aylwin, 37, was one of the two
women killed in the mall, tearfully thanked the rescue crews.  The
second woman killed was Doloris Perizzolo, 70.

"They spent endless hours hopefully trying to find survivors,"
Mr. Gendron said of the rescue crew. "The City of Elliot Lake
stepped up and the leaders took charge.

"Frankly, I myself have a lot of unanswered questions.  Now is not
the time to be asking those questions.  We need to be focused on
grieving with our loved ones and saying thank you."

As for the mall itself, Mr. Gendron had stronger words.

"Guaranteed there was nothing safe there at all.  I think myself
that mall should have been closed a long time ago."


AT&T MOBILITY: Loses Bid to Strike iPad Owners' Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that iPad owners
who dodged arbitration over claims related to their 3G-outfitted
devices still have a shot at a false-advertising class action
against AT&T and Apple, a federal judge ruled.

Apple launched the 3G-enabled iPad on April 30, 2010, with AT&T
Mobility as exclusive provider of 3G data service.  Though they
pushed unlimited 3G data plans to prospective buyers, the
companies announced weeks after the launch that they would
discontinue the unlimited data plan.

Consumers then filed a class action for fraud, false advertising
and other claims, saying the promise of an unlimited 3G data plan
induced them into buying the more expensive, 3G-enabled iPads,
which cost $130 more than iPads without 3G.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte forced most of the
plaintiffs into arbitration.  One plaintiff, Joe Hanna, who never
accepted AT&T's arbitration agreement because he never bought an
iPad data plan, was allowed to proceed.

After Mr. Hanna filed a First Amended Master Consolidated
Complaint, AT&T moved to strike the class allegations or deny
class certification.  The wireless provider claims that class
certification is improper since the court has allowed Mr. Hanna
alone to proceed.

Judge Whyte refused on June 26, agreeing that the case should
proceed to discovery.

AT&T argued "that certification of fraud claims is improper where
the class includes those who may never have been exposed to the
allegedly false statements or when there are multiple reasons a
consumer might buy a product, implying that materiality would vary
from consumer to consumer," the 14-page ruling states.

Noting the availability of various data plans, however, Judge
Whyte said that "there is no basis to assume that the availability
of the unlimited data plan in particular would have been material
to all class members."

"Here, plaintiff has alleged that the key misrepresentation --
that purchasers of a 3G-capable iPad could later upgrade to the
unlimited data plan and switch in and out of the plan -- was made
on a consistent basis by defendants to the entire class," he
added.

AT&T can fight class certification again at a later date, the
court said.

"In light of plaintiffs' representation that Hanna is seeking
relief from ATTM only on behalf of the non-subscriber class, the
court understands the prayer to mean that plaintiffs seek an order
requiring ATTM to restore the unlimited data plan to the non-
subscriber class and requiring Apple to restore the unlimited data
plan to the Apple class," Judge Whyte wrote, abbreviating AT&T
Mobility.  "That does not conflict with the court's order
compelling arbitration of the other plaintiffs' claims against
ATTM.  Thus, the motion to strike the prayer for relief is
denied."

Judge Whyte ordered a case management conference for July 13, and
said the parties must file an agreed-upon discovery plan or any
revised proposals by July 6.

A copy of the Order Denying Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC's Motion
to Strike in In Re Apple and AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan
Litigation, Case No. 10-cv-02553 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/29/att.pdf


AVX CORP: Factory-Related Class Suit Pending in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit over
pollutants from its Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory,
according to the Company's May 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March
31, 2012.

There are two lawsuits pending with respect to property adjacent
to the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values have been negatively impacted by alleged migration
of certain pollutants from the Company's property.  On November
27, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the South Carolina State Court by
certain individuals as a class action.  Another lawsuit is a
commercial lawsuit filed on January 16, 2008, in South Carolina
State Court.  Both of these lawsuits are pending.  The Company
says it intends to defend vigorously the claims that have been
asserted in these two lawsuits.  At this stage of the litigation,
there has not been a determination as to responsible parties or
the amount, if any, of damages.  In light of this, the Company is
not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss.  No
accrual for costs has been recorded and the potential impact of
these cases on the Company's financial position, results of
operations, and cash flows cannot be determined at this time.


BENIHANA INC: Wage and Hour Suits Pending in N.Y. and Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Benihana Inc. continues to defend lawsuits over wage and hour laws
pending in California and New York, according to the Company's
June 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended April 1, 2012.

The Company has been named in certain litigation involving wage
and hour laws in both California and New York.  The current
exposure related to the California wage and hour claims is not
considered significant because the class was not certified as to
the wage and hour claims.  The New York cases are currently under
review to determine if they will be certified as class actions,
and it is not possible to determine a probable outcome at this
time.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these
claims.  Another claim in the California wage and hour case was
granted class certification, and the Company has agreed to a
tentative settlement amount of $660,000 based on recent
negotiations.  This tentative settlement amount and agreed upon
insurance recoveries have been recorded as of April 1, 2012, in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these
matters will have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.  However, the
results of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty, and
an unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


BENIHANA INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Proposed Merger With Safflower
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benihana Inc. is facing three class action lawsuits arising from
its proposed merger with Safflower Holdings Corp., according to
the Company's June 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 1,
2012.

Subsequent to the May 22, 2012 announcement of the Company
entering into a definitive merger agreement with Safflower
Holdings Corp. and Safflower Acquisition Corp., three lawsuits
have been filed against the Company, its directors and the
acquiring party on behalf of the public stockholders of Benihana
Inc. as a class, challenging the proposed merger.  The lawsuits
allege, among other things, that the acquisition price of $16.30
per common share is inadequate.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend these claims.

The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of the
matter will have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.  However, the
results of the matter cannot be predicted with certainty, and an
unfavorable resolution of one or more of these matters could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


BLYTHEVILLE, MS: Class Action Over Water Fees Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Brasfield, writing for Courier News, reports that Mississippi
County Circuit Court Judge Pam Honeycutt recently certified a
class action lawsuit against the city of Blytheville that claims
the city and its water department charged late penalties that were
excessive and not consistent with state law.

Brought by Blytheville resident Kenyghatta Davis through her
attorney, Hoskins and Harris P.A., the suit seeks to recoup some
of the late fees for those who have paid them.  That could add up
to between $1.5 million and $2 million, plus interest, by attorney
Jim Harris' estimation.

According to the June 18 order that found the matter should
proceed as a class action, the class includes all persons or
entities who presently or have since Aug. 5, 2005, obtained water,
sewer and other services from the city of Blytheville or the water
department, and who have been required to pay late penalties.

"The primary issue of law is whether the city had the power, under
Arkansas law, to adopt ordinances which imposed late penalties if
statements for services provided were not paid by a certain date,"
the order reads.  "If not, then all such late penalties were
illegal and ultra vires (beyond the legal power) acts of the city.
If the court upholds the ordinances there remain other issues of
law for the court to consider, including whether the amount of the
penalty is usurious under the Arkansas Constitution or is
otherwise an unreasonable penalty."

The judge wrote, secondary to the issues, will be the issue of the
appropriate measure of damages and whether to award pre-judgment
interest.

"If the court should ultimately conclude the late penalties are
usurious, the court will be required to award damages based upon
the Arkansas Constitution," the order reads.  "If the court should
ultimately conclude the penalties are not usurious, then the court
will be required to determine the appropriate measure of damages
based upon the evidence presented, which may include an analysis
of the costs of collection, if the ordinances are not illegal."

The court found the city currently has approximately 7,000
customers and has had more than that in the past, noting some have
moved from the area and are no longer customers and others have
moved into the area and become customers since Aug. 5, 2005.  All
of those customers would be potential members of the proposed
class.

The court will look at whether a member has been required to pay a
late penalty, how their late payments were, the costs incurred by
the city in collecting late payments and the total of all late
penalties collected by the city from and after Aug. 5, 2005.

"There may be other issues of fact which arise during this case,
but those issues will directly affect each and every member of the
class in some manner," the order reads.  "Thus, the requirement
that there be issues of fact common to the class is met."

The order says there may be minor differences between the claims
of some members of the class and others, but those differences
will primarily be with respect to the amount of possible recovery.

"The court finds, however, that the claims of the proposed
representative party are typical of the claims of the members of
the proposed class and that any defenses to the representative
party's claim would also be typical of defenses which could be
made with respect to the members of the proposed class."

Meanwhile, the original suit was three-fold.

In November, the Arkansas Court of Appeals remanded the part of
the suit that claimed "the city's late fees and penalties imposed
for overdue payments were usurious, unreasonable and
unconscionable."

It affirmed the dismissal of the counts that alleged residents
were entitled to interest on their security deposits and the
city's mosquito-control fees were illegal.


BRISTOW GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Superior" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The purported class
action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Among other things,
the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services
between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005.  The plaintiff was
seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2010, the court granted the Company and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds.  The
plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking
leave to amend its original complaint which was partially granted
to permit limited discovery.  The Company and the other defendants
again filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit which were granted.
The plaintiff has since appealed the judgment in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The Company and the other
defendants have filed a response, and will continue to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously.  The Company says it is currently
unable to determine whether it could have a material effect on its
business, financial condition or results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 23, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 31, 2012.


C.H. ROBINSON: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California employment lawyers Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
filed a class action complaint against C.H. Robinson Company on
June 13, 2012, alleging that C.H. Robinson failed to correctly
classify their employees' exempt vs non-exempt status and
consequently owes Account Managers and Transportation
Representatives overtime wages.  Poublon, et al. v. C.H. Robinson
Company, Case No. BC486482 is currently pending in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court.

According to the wage and hour class action Complaint, C.H.
Robinson schedules its Account Managers and Transportation
Representatives to work overtime hours in excess of eight (8)
hours in a workday and more than forty (40) hours in a workweek,
but allegedly fails to pay these employees overtime wages as a
result of them being misclassified as exempt.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Account Managers spend the vast
majority of their time performing non-exempt job tasks, such as
taking customer orders and locating shipping companies, but are
nevertheless classified as exempt from California overtime pay

Managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman B.
Blumenthal says, "misclassifying employees as exempt from overtime
has negative ripple effects all over the economy."  Blumenthal
further claims that "if overtime laws were enforced by the Courts,
corporations would hire more employees and this would create more
jobs in our economy."


CANADIAN TELCOS: Face Class Action Over "System Access Fees"
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Sturgeon, writing for Financial Post, reports that an old
fee that's made untold millions for the country's big cellphone
providers may now end up costing them billions, while wireless
users everywhere could find a few bucks put back in their pocket.

The Supreme Court of Canada refused on June 28 an appeal by Rogers
Communications Inc., BCE's Bell Mobility and Telus Corp. and
others, who were asking the top court to throw out a case over
controversial "system access fees."

The decision means a class-action suit originally filed in a
Saskatchewan court in 2004 can proceed -- with 30,000 people
already having joined the case, according to lawyer Tony Merchant.

"The ultimate goal is, they were overcharging people, charging
people wrongly and we want the money back," said Mr. Merchant of
Merchant Law Group and a lead lawyer in the action.

Mr. Merchant, whose firm has spearheaded high-profile cases in the
past such as the 2008 Maple Leaf Foods class action over a
Listeria outbreak, said the motion seeks C$18-billion from the
national carriers as well as regional providers SaskTel
(Saskatchewan), MTS (Manitoba) and Bell Aliant (Eastern Canada)
for "unjust enrichment" through the fees.

For years, mobile providers charged subscribers up to $9 a month
for "access" to their network.  The fees, sometimes labeled as
administration costs, were charged on top of monthly usage rates
and helped elevate Canadian cellphone bills to the highest per
customer in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development by 2009.

The carriers, who have defended the charges as a means to maintain
investment in their networks, moved to phase them out as new
competitors like Wind Mobile and Mobilicity prepared to enter the
market offering flat-rate plans that charged nothing for network
access.

Last November, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal struck down a
motion from the carriers to have the suit dismissed, supporting in
its decision previous rulings that said the "legitimacy" of the
fees could be questioned.  A three-member panel of justices also
said the notion of "unjust enrichment" was strong enough to carry
a class-action suit against the companies.

The Supreme Court's rejection of the carrier's latest attempt at
dismissing the case on June 28 clears the way for Merchant to
proceed to a trial at the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench.

Mr. Merchant's claim also includes complaints the fees were not
adequately disclosed to customers.

"It's about this money for consumers but it's also advertising and
communication from businesses that's fair and done properly.  It's
not supposed to misdirect people," Mr. Merchant said.

The statement of claim lists "All residents of Canada who have
purchased wireless services from any of the defendants since
April 1, 1987" as being eligible to participate.

Shawn Hall, a spokesperson for Telus said the carrier is
"confident the case is without merit and baseless, at least as it
relates to Telus."

"We're confident this claim is unfounded and now look forward to
having our day in court on the merits of this claim," Leigh-Ann
Popek, a spokeswoman for Rogers said.

Bell declined to comment on the suit.

Telus is the third-largest cellphone provider in Canada with 7.36
million customers.  Rogers is the largest with 9.3 million
followed by Bell Mobility with 7.4 million accounts.

Rogers moved to phase out its systems access fee of C$6.95-a-month
in September 2009, a move followed on by rival incumbents.  Rogers
replaced the fee with a "government regulatory recovery fee" of
between C$2.50 and C$3.50 a month.

The company said at the time that the "GRRF" was to show customers
what it was paying out to governments for items like spectrum
license fees.

In Mr. Merchant's statement of claim, lawyers said that in 2004
alone incumbent carriers collected C$863-million in system access
fees, compared with the C$126-million Mr. Merchant estimated would
be paid to governments.


CENTENE CORPORATION: 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 Missouri on
behalf of all investors who purchased Centene Corporation common
stock during the period from February 7, 2012 through June 8,
2012.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Centene operates as a multiline healthcare company in the United
States.  On June 11, 2012, the Company's stock price plunged over
22% after the Company cut its full-year profit and revenue
forecasts due to higher-than-expected medical costs.  Centene
revised its projections to earnings of $1.45 to $1.65 per share
for 2012 versus a previous forecast of $2.64 to $2.84 per share.
In addition, the Company also disclosed that expenses were above
projections for commercial polices sold by its Celtic Insurance
unit and Centene was evaluating goodwill and intangible assets at
the unit that may result in a non-cash charge of about $28
million.

The complaint alleges that Centene misrepresented its financial
condition and failed to inform investors 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 Centene stock between February 7, 2012 and
June 8, 2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc Grobler
at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Centene 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 28,
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.

Contact:

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


CHERRY HILL TOWNSHIP, NJ: Sued Over Red-Light Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------
Mike Frassinelli, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that as the
state investigates whether its red-light cameras are giving
motorists enough time to get through intersections, the first
known class action suit has been filed over the much-abhorred
devices.

Two motorists in South Jersey filed suit on June 29 against Cherry
Hill for $85 tickets they received from the township's lone red-
light camera system on Route 70 at Springdale Road.

Henry Anderson of Marlton and David Spector of Voorhees, suing
Cherry Hill "on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated," were among more than 17,000 motorists fined by the
cameras at that location.

Messrs. Anderson and Spector contend red-light camera fines for
all motorists at that location should be revoked because the
devices were not properly inspected every six months, as required
by or law, or certified to ensure the timing of the yellow light
was valid.

Their lawyer, Stephen DeNittis -- sdenittis@shabeldenittis.com --
of Marlton, said other class action suits will be filed next week
regarding red-light cameras under review in the Gloucester County
towns of Glassboro and Monroe.

"We feel strongly that people who received tickets in townships
that didn't comply with the law should get refunded," Mr. DeNittis
said.

The suits could be a logistical nightmare for New Jersey, which
has 85 cameras in 25 towns that have received millions of dollars
from thousands of motorists.

Last week, the state suspended 63 of the 85 cameras amid questions
about whether the timing of the yellow lights was done properly.
Yellow lights on those systems were timed to comply with the
posted speed limit, but should have been timed to coincide with
the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers approach the
intersections, state Department of Transportation officials said.
The discrepancy might have cost motorists precious time before
they were flagged by the cameras, officials said.

"It's kind of ironic that they are giving out tickets for not
complying with law -- and towns like Cherry Hill are not complying
with the law," Mr. DeNittis said.

Erin Gill, Cherry Hill's deputy solicitor and director of policy
and planning, said on June 29 the Camden County township had not
been served and couldn't comment on the substance of the
complaint.

But she released a statement from Cherry Hill expressing
confidence the township has satisfied all DOT requirements
regarding its red-light camera.

"The primary focus of the red light program has been ensuring not
only the safety of our residents, but all pedestrians and
motorists traveling through the township," the statement read.

In the 11 months between May 26, 2011, and April 30, 2012, 17,529
red light violations had been issued at the intersection of Route
70 and Springdale Road, township officials said.

Cherry Hill received $934,634, while the state got $170,936 and
camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems of Arizona was paid
$157,870, officials said, opening a window into the financial
breakdown of how fees are disbursed.

Towns have until Aug. 1 to certify that their yellow light timing
meets standards, and those found to be in violation will be
dropped from the pilot program, DOT officials said.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cisco Systems, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the
Company's May 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On March 31, 2011, and April 12, 2011, purported shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.  The lawsuits have been
consolidated, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
December 2, 2011.  The consolidated action is purportedly brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded
securities between February 3, 2010, and May 11, 2011.  Plaintiffs
allege that defendants made false and misleading statements,
purport to assert claims for violations of the federal securities
laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously.  While the Company believes there
is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty
surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.


DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Wage and Hour Suit Settlement Paid in December
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc. paid in December 2011 its obligations with
respect to its settlement of a consolidated wage and hour class
action lawsuit, according to the Company's May 24, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On October 20, 2010, Prince Telecom, LLC ("Prince"), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon.  The plaintiffs, three former employees of Prince, alleged
various wage and hour claims, including that employees were not
paid for all hours worked and were subject to improper wage
deductions.  Plaintiffs sought to certify as a class current and
former employees of Prince who worked in the State of Oregon.  On
October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs' attorneys and Prince entered
into a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which the parties
agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement with respect to the
lawsuit.  On May 18, 2011, the Court entered an Order approving
the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice subject to
final administration of the terms of the settlement.  During the
first quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company recorded approximately
$0.5 million in other accrued liabilities with respect to the
settlement, which was paid in June 2011.

On May 13, 2011, a proposed settlement was reached with respect to
the Company's two remaining wage and hour class action lawsuits.
In connection with an agreement to settle the two lawsuits entered
into by the Company, Prince, Cavo Broadband Communications, LLC,
Broadband Express, LLC ("BBX") and the plaintiffs' attorneys, the
Company recorded $0.6 million in other accrued liabilities during
the third quarter of fiscal 2011.  The first of the two lawsuits,
which commenced on June 17, 2010, was brought by a former employee
of Prince against Prince, the Company and certain unnamed U.S.
affiliates of Prince and the Company (the "Affiliates") in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The lawsuit alleged that Prince, the Company and the
Affiliates violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
comply with applicable overtime pay requirements.  The plaintiff
sought unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of himself
and a putative class of similarly situated current and former
employees of Prince, the Company and/or the Affiliates.  The
second of the lawsuits, which commenced on September 10, 2010, was
brought by two former employees of BBX against BBX in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
lawsuit alleged that BBX violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to comply with applicable overtime pay requirements.  The
plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated current
and former employees of BBX.  On August 12, 2011, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued
an Order approving the consolidation of the two lawsuits and
approving the terms of the settlement, which was paid in December
2011.


FACEBOOK INC: Removes "Hicks" Suit From State to District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Hicks, Linh Luu and 135 additional Plaintiffs, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Facebook, Inc.,
Morgan Stanley & Co., Case No. CIV-514772 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Mateo Cty., June 22, 2012) is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Facebook common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission and issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering on May 18, 2012.

The lawsuit is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs alleging
claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Plaintiffs accuse the Company of issuing false and misleading
statements and making material omissions in its Registration
Statement and Prospectus.

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

Facebook is a Delaware corporation and is based in Menlo Park,
California.  Facebook operates as a social networking company
worldwide.  The Company builds tools that enable users to connect,
share, discover, and communicate with each other and tools that
enable developers to build social applications on Facebook or to
integrate their Web sites with Facebook, and offers products that
allow advertisers and marketers to engage with its users.  Morgan
Stanley served as the lead underwriter to the Facebook IPO.

Facebook removed the lawsuit on Jun 28, 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
state courts do not have jurisdiction over the putative class
action.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-03353
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raj V. Abhyanker, Esq.
          Kuscha Hatami Fard, Esq.
          RAJ ABHYANKER, P.C
          1580 W. El Camino Real, Suite 13
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 965-8731
          Facsimile: (650) 989-2131
          E-mail: raj@rajpalenl.com
                  kuscha@rajpalenl.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


FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend "McGinnis" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Doctor Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiary from a class action lawsuit commenced by Derrick
McGinnis, according to the Company's June 18, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On July 26, 2011, the Company was named as a party to a Class
Action Complaint filed by Derrick McGinnis (Derrick McGinnis vs.
Fuel Doctor, LLC) in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
BC466191).  The plaintiff alleges that Fuel Doctor, LLC's product,
the FD-47, did not work as advertised.  The management of the
Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and the
Company will vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.  The
Company does not believe the plaintiff will prevail, but the range
of the loss cannot be determined should he prevail.


FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend "Perez" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Doctor Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiary from a class action lawsuit filed by Benjamin Anthony
Perez, according to the Company's June 18, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

On August 12, 2011, the Company was named as a party to a Class
Action Complaint filed by Benjamin Anthony Perez (Benjamin Anthony
Perez vs. Fuel Doctor, LLC) in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (Case No. SACV11-01204).
The plaintiff alleges that Fuel Doctor, LLC's product, the FD-47,
did not work as advertised.  The management of the Company
believes that this lawsuit is without merit and the Company will
vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.  The Company does not
believe the plaintiff will prevail, but the range of the loss
cannot be determined should he prevail.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Georgia-Pacific, a Koch
Industries company that markets paper products, does not comply
with the Fair Credit Reporting Act when using background checks to
screen prospective employees, a class claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Doe v. Georgia-Pacific LLC, Case No.
12-cv-05607 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/29/gp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devin H. Fok, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN H. FOK
          P.O. Box 7165
          Alhambra, CA 91802-7165
          Telephone: (310) 430-9933
          E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
          A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
          958 E. 108th St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90059
          Telephone: (323) 563-3575
          E-mail: joshua@anewayoflife.org


GHILOTTI BROS: Two San Francisco Law Firms File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Bernstein-Wax, writing for Marin Independent Journal,
reports that two San Francisco law firms have filed a class-action
lawsuit against Ghilotti Bros. Inc., accusing the San Rafael
construction company of failing to pay employees for all hours
worked and discouraging meal breaks.

Three Ghilotti Bros. employees are named as plaintiffs in the
complaint filed on June 27 in Alameda County Superior Court, but
the suit could affect about 100 workers, including about 25
current employees, said Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld --
ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- an attorney for the plaintiffs.

"This is a collective and class-action (suit) seeking relief on
behalf of current and former persons who have not received wages
for time spent before and after what the company calls the work
day," Ms. Grunfeld said.  "Our understanding is that there is a
practice of discouraging or not allowing breaks.  . . .  The
workers that we represent are not receiving the California-
required rest breaks."

The plaintiffs named in the lawsuit -- Jose Ramirez, Luis Gomez
and Marck Mena Ortega, all of Contra Costa County -- load and
drive construction equipment for Ghilotti Bros., according to the
complaint.

The workers must arrive at the company's 525 Jacoby St. offices an
hour to three hours before their scheduled shifts to load
equipment, a task for which they regularly do not receive
compensation, the lawsuit said.

"Plaintiffs and members of the class are forced to work without
breaks in the hot sun, moving heavy equipment while wearing safety
gear," the complaint states.  "On more than one occasion,
Plaintiffs have witnessed employees of Defendants suffer from heat
stroke or heat exhaustion as a result of these conditions."

Ghilotti Bros. also discourages the Spanish-speaking workers from
taking meal and rest breaks, while requiring them to sign weekly
documents written in English saying they have received all
mandated breaks, the lawsuit said. The workers are U.S. citizens.

Mike Ghilotti, president of Ghilotti Bros. Inc., said the company
doesn't comment on pending legal matters.

However, he noted that the company employs about 200 union
workers, all of whom receive "excellent wages and benefits,
including pension benefits and 100 percent employer paid
medical/dental insurance for the employee and his family.

"Our employees have the right to file grievances through their
union if they have any problem with their working conditions,"
Mr. Ghilotti said in an e-mail.  "The lawsuit has been filed by
three individuals.  None of them filed any complaint with their
union.  We believe any issues they may have should be handled
under the Union grievance procedure."

Although none of the allegations appeared to involve Ghilotti
Construction Co. Inc. of Santa Rosa and Maggiora & Ghilotti Inc.
of San Rafael, the lawsuit also named those companies as
defendants.


HOME DEPOT: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in May
2012 the dismissal of a consolidated class action lawsuit against
The Home Depot, Inc., according to the Company's May 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 29, 2012.

In the second and third quarters of fiscal 2006, three purported,
but uncertified, class actions were filed against the Company, The
Home Depot FutureBuilder Administrative Committee and certain of
the Company's current and former directors and employees alleging
breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 in connection with the Company's
return-to-vendor and stock option practices.  These actions were
joined into one case in 2007, and the joint amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified damages, costs,
attorney's fees and equitable and injunctive relief.  On June 7,
2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(the "District Court") in Atlanta granted with prejudice Home
Depot's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint.  On
June 28, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the "Circuit Court"),
and on May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court affirmed the District
Court's order dismissing plaintiffs' third amended complaint with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs may choose to appeal the Circuit Court's decision
either by asking for reconsideration or by applying to the Supreme
Court of the United States for review.  Although the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it does not expect the
outcome to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.


IG MANAGEMENT: Supreme Court Grants Leave in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada on June 28 granted leave in Fischer v. IG
Management Ltd., in which the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the
certification of a class action against five defendant mutual fund
managers.

The ruling, which rocked Bay Street, stems from the mutual fund
market timing debacle of 2004.  The Court of Appeal ruled that the
settlement of regulatory enforcement proceedings against the funds
in which they paid $205-million to investors did not oust class
action remedies in civil courts.

"Fischer is a very important issue involving matters of principle
to which each of the three courts that pronounced on it in this
case have taken a very different approach," said Ben Zarnett --
bzarnett@goodmans.ca -- of Goodmans, who represents the defendant
CI Mutual Funds Inc.


ISTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Agreed to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., reached an agreement in principle in
May to settle merger-related class action lawsuits, according to
the Company's May 24, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 24, 2012, ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, entered into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of
Merger ("Amendment No. 1") with Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, a New
York corporation ("Parent"), and Inga Acquisition Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub").  Pursuant to Amendment No. 1, the parties have
agreed that the amount of the termination fee payable by the
Company to Parent under certain circumstances pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
March 26, 2012, by and among the Company, Parent and Merger Sub
(the "Merger Agreement") will be reduced from $14,500,000 to
$13,750,000.

As previously disclosed, on March 26, 2012, the Company entered
into the Merger Agreement with Parent and Merger Sub.  Upon
satisfaction of specified closing conditions, including approval
by the Company's stockholders, the Merger Agreement provides for
the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"),
with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Parent.  On May 4, 2012, the Company filed a definitive proxy
statement (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") describing the Merger
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

As previously disclosed in the Company's Definitive Proxy
Statement, the Company, each member of the Board of Directors of
the Company, Parent and Merger Sub were named as defendants in
four purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged
stockholders of the Company challenging the Merger.  On March 29,
2012, the first of the actions challenging the Merger was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hutt v. ISTA
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. 7367.  The second, third, and
fourth actions, captioned Salina v. ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Hijab v. ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Kretz v.
ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., were filed on or about
April 5, 2012, April 10, 2012, and April 25, 2012, respectively,
in the Superior Court for the State of California.  On May 1,
2012, the plaintiff in the Salina action filed a request for
voluntary dismissal of that case.  On May 16, 2012, the Superior
Court for the State of California entered an Order of
Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Counsel, consolidating the
Hijab and Kretz matters.

On May 23, 2012, the defendants and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle, subject to the court's approval, providing
for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of the cases.
Pursuant to such agreement in principle, the Company agreed to
make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger and to
file a supplement to the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement (the
"supplement") and, on May 24, 2012, the Company, Parent and Merger
Sub entered into Amendment No. 1 to reduce the termination fee
payable by the Company under certain circumstances described in
the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement from $14,500,000 to
$13,750,000.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to stockholders of the Company in connection with the Merger or
the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of the Company
on June 5, 2012, held at the Company's offices located at 50
Technology Drive, Irvine, California 92618.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California overtime lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action Complaint against Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals, Inc., on June 06, 2012, alleging that the company
violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay their non-
exempt employees for all hours worked, including on-call hours.
Lemmons, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., Case No. 34-
2012-00125488 is currently pending in the Sacramento County
Superior Court.

The Kaiser employees working as "Site Support Specialists" allege
in the wage and hour class action Complaint that Kaiser required
them to remain on-call pursuant to Kaiser's on-call "rotations."
According to the Complaint, "the performance of each [on-call]
rotation lasts for an entire seven (7) day workweek."  As a
result, many employees work more than eight hours in a workday and
in excess of forty hours in a workweek, but Kaiser allegedly fails
to pay these employees overtime in violation of the California
overtime laws.

Founding partner Norman B. Blumenthal says, "When employees are
forced to remain on-call and are effectively precluded in engaging
in any activity outside of work, they are still under their
employer's control, and should be compensated for that work time."


LEBANON SCHOOL DISTRICT, PA: Sued Over Excessive Truancy Fines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for The Patriot-News, reports that a federal
judge has widened the scope of a court battle against Lebanon
School District that is being waged by parents who claim they were
slapped with excessively high truancy fines.

The fight had until now been pursued by the four parents, aided by
the NAACP, who initially filed suit against the district in
January 2011.

On June 28, however, U.S. Middle District Chief Judge Yvette Kane
certified the case as a class action.  That will add nearly 170
more plaintiffs to the contest, said Michael Churchill of the
Public Interest Law Center, which represents the parents.

Members of the class designated by Judge Kane are parents who have
paid truancy fines that exceed the $300 cap set by state law, Mr.
Churchill said on June 29.  Those people have paid a total of
roughly $108,000 in allegedly excessive fines, Mr. Churchill said.
He said the members of the newly-added class have been identified
and will be contacted to secure reimbursements if his side wins
the case.

School district lawyer John E. Freund III said he expects that the
increase in the number of plaintiffs via the class action
certification "won't have any material effect on the ultimate
outcome of this case.

"From our point of view, there really is no merit whatsoever to
this case," he said.

Mr. Freund said the lawsuit is based on a "legal impossibility," a
flawed argument that the school district is somehow liable for
actions that its officials didn't take.  The truancy fines were
set by the magisterial district judges who ruled on the individual
complaints, not by school district leaders, he said.  The school
district does receive the payments from the truancy fines.

Mr. Churchill said an even larger pool of truancy fine disputes
has been resolved since the lawsuit was filed.  Nearly 350 other
parents had faced more than $400,000 in contested truancy fines
that had not yet been paid, he said.  Mr. Churchill said those
cases were settled when the magisterial district judges who
imposed the penalties reduced them to the legal $300 limit.

The NAACP and the other original plaintiffs -- Rosa Rivera, Omary
Rodriguez-Fuentes, Madeline Echevarria and Lenora Hummel -- are
accusing the district of running an "outrageously discriminatory
truancy machine."

For example, Ms. Hummel, a single mother, said she was hit with
more than $10,000 in fines.  She has claimed that her two children
were afraid to go to school because they were attacked and taunted
and that district officials offered no help in dealing with the
problems.

Other plaintiffs in the case have said they were fined and even
jailed when their children missed school or got to class late due
to health, behavioral or work scheduling problems.

In ruling in favor of the parents and the NAACP on the class
action issue, Judge Kane found that the school district's
arguments against certifying the class were groundless and
"quixotic."

She noted that the district has issued more than 1,200 truancy
citations per school year since 2004-05 and that in 2008-09 more
than 700 parents and students were slapped with 1,489 citations.
From 2004 to 2009, 935 fines were levied that exceeded the $300
state cap, Judge Kane observed, and at least 178 of those fines
surpassed $1,000.

The district hasn't offered to refund any of the payments already
made on allegedly excessive fines, she noted.

Judge Kane said each member of the newly-certified class can make
a common argument that district officials violated their rights by
obtaining those fines without giving notice of procedures for
contesting the penalties.

The school district, meanwhile, is waging another battle in
federal court to try to force its insurer, The Netherlands
Insurance Co., to pay its legal expenses in the truancy fine
dispute. Judge Kane also is presiding in that case.


LOUISIANA: Sued Over "Crimes Against Nature by Solicitation" Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peyton Burgess at Courthouse News Service reports that Louisiana
unconstitutionally requires some people convicted of charging for
oral or anal sex to register as sex offenders who committed
"crimes against nature," but does not require people convicted of
simple prostitution to register, four people claim in a federal
class action against the state.

People convicted of performing "unnatural acts" for money before
Aug. 15, 2011 must register as sex offenders under Louisiana's
Crimes Against Nature by Solicitation law, but people convicted of
simple prostitution, which may include anal, oral or vaginal
intercourse, are not required to register, the four Doe plaintiffs
say.

"There are approximately 484 individuals statewide who must
register as a sex offender solely because of a CANS [Crimes
Against Nature by Solicitation] conviction," according to the
complaint.

Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell is the lead defendant.
Also sued are directors of the state prisons, police, probation
and parole office, and of the Office of Motor Vehicles.

The plaintiffs claim that they and their class are identical to
the prevailing plaintiffs in Doe v. Jindal.  In that case, in the
same court, the Doe plaintiffs argued that "there was no
legislative purpose in requiring registration as a sex offender
for persons convicted under CANS as opposed to the identical
criminal provisions of Louisiana's Prostitution statute under
which no registration is required."

The court found in that case, against Gov. Bobby Jindal, that "the
State has created two classifications of similarly (in fact,
identical) situated individuals who were treated differently," and
that "there is no legitimating rationale in the record to justify
targeting only those convicted of Crime Against Nature by
Solicitation for mandatory sex offender registration."

Legislation enacted on Aug. 15, 2010 did away with the sex
offender registration requirement for first-time CANS offenders.
But the legislation was not retroactive, and repeat CANS offenders
were still required to register.

One year later, new legislation changed the law again, so that
CANS offenders were treated the same as those convicted under the
prostitution statute. But again, the amendments were not
retroactive.

All of the plaintiffs in the new case must register as sex
offenders because of CANS convictions before the Aug. 15, 2011
amendment.  They claim that they have been denied employment and
housing because of their registration status.

They ask the court to apply the Doe v. Jindal ruling to the entire
class and expunge all records regarding the sex offender registry.

A copy of the Complaint in Doe, et al. v. Caldwell, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-01670 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/29/SexLaw.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William P. Quigley, Esq.
          Davida Finger, Esq.
          Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
          Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic & Center for Social Justice
          7214 St. Charles Ave.
          Box 902 New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 861-5596
          E-mail: quigley@loyno.eduquigley@loyno.edu
                 dfinger@loyno.edudfinger@loyno.edu

               - and -

          Nikki D. Thanos, Esq.
          215 South Clark
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 616-1888
          E-mail: attorneythanos@gmail.com

                - and -

          Alexis Agathocleous, Esq.
          Sunita Patel, Esq.
          Center for Constitutional Rights
          666 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 614-6478
          E-mail: aagathocleous@ccrjustice.org
                  spatel@ccrjustice.org

                - and -

          Andrea J. Ritchie, Esq.
          995 President Street
          Brooklyn, NY
          Telephone: (646) 831-1243
          E-mail: andreajritchie@aol.com

                - and -

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          Jonathan Feinberg, Esq.
          KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING & FEINBERG, LLP
          19718 Arch Street, Suite 501 S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400
          E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com
                  jfeinberg@krlawphila.com

               - and -

          Seth Kreimer, Esq.
          University of Pennsylvania Law School
          3501 Sansom Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 898-7447
          E-mail: skreimer@law.upenn.edu


M&T BANK: Faces Class Action Over Secretive "Pay to Play" Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
M&T Bank Corp., M&T Mortgage Reinsurance Co. and others conspire
in a "secretive 'pay to play' scheme" involving self-referrals and
kickbacks for reinsurance, while assuming no real risk.

A copy of the Complaint in Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp.,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-01238 (M.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/29/PaytoPlay.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Amanda R. Trask, Esq.
          Joshua C. Schumacher, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
                  pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  tziegler@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com
                  jschumacher@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Boulevard, Ste. 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

          Andrew L. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE, BERKE & BERKE
          420 Frazier Avenue
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 266-5171


METLIFE INC: MLIC Indemnification Dispute Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada continues to pursue
indemnification for "market conduct claims" against MetLife,
Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's May 23, 2012, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's ("MLIC") Canadian operations, filed the lawsuit styled
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(Super. Ct., Ontario, October 2006), in Toronto, seeking a
declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims"
related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC
and that have been transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life had asked
that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims
pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement for the
sale of MLIC's Canadian operations entered into in June of 1998.
In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment.  Both parties appealed.  In
September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.  An amended class action
complaint in that case was served on Sun Life, again without
naming MLIC as a party.  On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified
MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun
Life in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct.,
British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claims
regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated
to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these
lawsuits.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.


MICHAELS STORES: Payment Card Terminal Tampering Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
over payment card terminal tampering, according to the Company's
May 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On May 3, 2011, the Company was advised by the U.S. Secret Service
that they were investigating certain fraudulent debit card
transactions that occurred on accounts that had been used for
legitimate purchases in selected Michaels stores.  A subsequent
internal investigation revealed that approximately 90 payment card
terminals in certain Michaels stores had been physically tampered
with, potentially resulting in customer debit and credit card
information to be compromised.  The Company has since removed and
replaced approximately 7,100 payment card terminals comparable to
the identified tampered payment card terminals from its Michaels
stores.  The Company continues to cooperate with various
governmental entities and law enforcement authorities in
investigating the payment card terminal tampering, but it does not
know the full extent of any fraudulent use of such information.

On May 18, 2011, Brandi F. Ramundo, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated U.S. consumers.  The Ramundo
lawsuit alleges that Michaels failed to take commercially
reasonable steps to protect consumer financial data, and was in
breach of contract and laws, including the Federal Stored
Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages, costs, credit card fraud monitoring services,
interest and attorneys' fees.  Subsequently two additional
purported class action lawsuits significantly mirroring the claims
in the Ramundo complaint were filed against the Company: Mary
Allen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., and Kimberly Siprut v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  On June 8, 2011, an order was entered
consolidating these matters, which also provided for consolidation
of all related actions subsequently filed in or transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois.  On July 8, 2011, a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint styled In Re Michaels Stores Pin
Pad Litigation ("In Re Michaels Stores Consolidated Complaint")
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  On August 8, 2011, the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss the In Re Michaels Stores Consolidated Complaint.  On
November 23, 2011, the Court dismissed the Stored Communications
Act and negligence claims under Illinois law, but denied the
motion as to the breach of implied contract and Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act claims.

Four other substantially similar putative class action lawsuits
have also been filed.  Jeremy Williams v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
and Fred Sherry v. Michaels Stores, Inc., were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Sara
Rosenfeld and Ilana Soffer v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and Lori
Wilson v. Michaels Stores, Inc. were both filed in New Jersey
state court, removed to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The New
Jersey cases assert negligence and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
claims.  All four cases are subject to the consolidation order.
The Court has held that Michaels is not required to respond to
those complaints.

The Company does not believe the resolution of these cases will
have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Suit Over Discounts on Framing Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit in Ohio in
connection with its discounts on framing products and services,
according to the Company's May 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

On April 30, 2012, William J. Henry, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Court
of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated Ohio consumers who purchased framing products
and/or services from Michaels during weeks where Michaels was
advertising a discount for framing products and/or services.  The
lawsuit alleges that Michaels advertised discounts on its framing
products and/or services without actually providing a discount to
its customers since Michaels has a perpetual sale on framing
products and/or services in its stores.  The plaintiff claims
violation of Ohio law ORC 1345.01 et seq., breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and fraud.  The plaintiff has alleged damages,
penalties and fees not to exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest
and costs.  The Company does not believe the resolution of this
lawsuit will have a material effect on its consolidated financial
statements.


MICHAELS STORES: Hearing in "Tyler" Suit Set for October 19
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing in the consumer class action lawsuit captioned Melissa
Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., is set for October 19, 2012,
according to the Company's May 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego ("San Diego
Superior Court"), on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
California consumers.  The Carson lawsuit alleges that Michaels
unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable
information (i.e., her zip code) as part of a credit card
transaction.  The plaintiff sought statutory penalties, costs,
interest, and attorneys' fees.  The Company contested
certification of this claim as a class action and filed a motion
to dismiss the claim.  On March 9, 2009, the Court dismissed the
case with prejudice.  The plaintiff appealed this decision to the
California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, San Diego.
On July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the
case.  The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Supreme Court
of California ("California Supreme Court").  On
September 29, 2010, the California Supreme Court granted the
plaintiff's petition for review; however, it stayed any further
proceedings in the case until another similar zip code case
pending before the court, Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, was decided.
On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled, in the
Williams-Sonoma case, that zip codes are personally identifiable
information and therefore the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of
1971, as amended ("Song Act"), prohibits businesses from
requesting or requiring zip codes in connection with a credit card
transaction.  On or about April 6, 2011, the Supreme Court
transferred the Carson case back to the Court of Appeals with
directions to the Court to reconsider its decision in light of the
Pineda decision.  Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeals
remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court on May 31,
2011.

Additionally, since the California Supreme Court decision on
February 10, 2011, three additional purported class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the Song Act have been filed
against the Company: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and
Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego
Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central Division.  The Rubinstein case was transferred to the San
Diego Superior Court.  An order coordinating the cases has been
entered and plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on
April 24, 2012.  Plaintiffs seek damages, civil penalties, common
settlement fund recovery, attorney fees, costs of suit and
prejudgment interest.

Also, relying in part on the California Supreme Court decision, an
additional purported class action lawsuit was filed on May 20,
2011 against the Company: Melissa Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court-District of Massachusetts, alleging
violation of a similar Massachusetts statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
93, section 105(a) ("Statute"), regarding the collection of
personally identifiable information in connection with a credit
card transaction.  A hearing was held on October 20, 2011, the
Company's Motion to Dismiss the claims.  On January 6, 2012, the
Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss.  However, the Court
certified questions of law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court regarding the interpretation of the Statute.  Briefing to
the Supreme Judicial Court is underway and a hearing on the matter
is set for October 19, 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend each of these zip
code claim cases and it is unable, at this time, to estimate a
range of loss, if any.


NVIDIA CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against NVIDIA Corporation remains pending in the
Ninth Circuit, according to the Company's May 23, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 29, 2012.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the
Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California arising out of the Company's
announcements on July 2, 2008, that it would take a charge against
cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and expenses arising
from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of its
previous generation media and communications processor, or MCP,
and graphics processing unit, or GPU, products and that the
Company was revising financial guidance for its second quarter of
fiscal year 2009.  The Actions purport to be brought on behalf of
purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act.  On October 30, 2008,
the Actions were consolidated under the caption In re NVIDIA
Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW
(HRL).  Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel were
appointed on December 23, 2008.  On February 6, 2009, co-Lead
Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals challenging the designation of co-Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel.  On February 19, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed with the
District Court, a motion to stay the District Court proceedings
pending resolution of the Writ of Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.
On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware granted the stay.  On November 5,
2009, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the
District Court's appointment of one of the lead plaintiffs'
counsel, and remanding the matter for further proceedings.  On
December 8, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP and
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The consolidated
complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010
and a hearing was held on June 24, 2010, before Judge Seeborg.  On
October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  On December 2, 2010, co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The
Company moved to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
on February 14, 2011.  Following oral argument, on October 12,
2011, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to dismiss
without leave to amend, and on November 8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed
a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit.


NVIDIA CORP: Appeals in Weak Die/Packaging Material Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from final approval of NVIDIA Corporation's settlement of
a consolidated class action lawsuit arising from weak
die/packaging material remain pending in the Ninth Circuit,
according to the Company's May 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 29, 2012.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of the Company's previous generation products
used in notebook configurations.   On February 26, 2009, the
various lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation."  On March 2, 2009,
several of the parties filed motions for appointment of lead
counsel and briefs addressing certain related issues.  On April
10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg LLP lead counsel.
On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint, alleging claims for violations of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of Implied Warranty
under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach of the Implied
Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27 other states,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Unjust
Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On August 19, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on
that motion on October 19, 2009.  On November 19, 2009, the Court
issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of
action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27
other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend
plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under
California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss as to the other causes of action.  The Court gave
plaintiffs until December 14, 2009 to file an amended complaint.
On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and
Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.  On
January 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Breach
of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  In addition, on April 1, 2010,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all
people who purchased computers containing certain of the Company's
media and communications processor, or MCP, and graphics
processing unit, or GPU, products.  On May 3, 2010, the Company
filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A hearing on both motions was held on June 14, 2010.

On July 16, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the
District Court advising that, following mediation they had reached
a settlement in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The
settlement in principle was subject to certain approvals,
including final approval by the court.  As a result of the
settlement in principle, and the other estimated settlement, and
offsetting insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge
of $12.7 million to sales, general and administrative expense
during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011.  In addition, a
portion of the $181.2 million of additional charges the Company
recorded against cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging
set during the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to
estimated additional repair and replacement costs related to the
implementation of these settlements.  On August 12, 2010, the
parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and
Release.  On September 15, 2010, the Court issued an order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement and providing for
notice to the potential class members.  The Final Approval Hearing
was held on December 20, 2010, and on that same day the Court
approved the settlement and entered Final Judgment over several
objections.  In January 2011, several objectors filed Notices of
Appeal of the Final Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.


NVIDIA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Granfield" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned Granfield v. NVIDIA
Corp., according to the Company's May 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 29, 2012.

On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v.
NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting
claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak
die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers
alleged to not be covered by the settlement approved by the
California court in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  On
November 3, 2011, the action was transferred to the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, based upon
stipulation of the parties.  On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed
a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for violation of
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law.  On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint asserting claims for California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and Unfair Competition Law violations, Breach of Implied
Warranty, and violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection
statutes.  NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on April 12, 2012.


NVIDIA CORP: "Van der Maas" Class Suit Dismissed in March
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Van der Maas v. NVIDIA Corp.,
et al., was dismissed in March 2012, following the parties'
settlement of the dispute, according to the Company's May 23,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 29, 2012.

On September 27, 2011, a putative class action captioned Van der
Maas v. NVIDIA Corp., et al., was filed in the Central District of
California against NVIDIA, Asustek Computer Inc., and Asustek
Computer International on behalf of certain consumers alleged not
to be covered by the NVIDIA GPU settlement.  This action asserted
claims for violations of California's unfair competition laws,
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligence
and strict liability, and violation of the Texas Business and
Commerce Code Section 17.50.  On March 16, 2012, after Plaintiffs
reached a settlement agreement with NVIDIA, Asustek Computer, Inc.
and Asustek Computer International, Plaintiffs filed a notice of
dismissal, and the Court dismissed the action on
March 19, 2012.


PEOPLES BANCORP: Faces "Surgeon" Class Suit in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. disclosed in its June 15,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that it is facing a class action lawsuit captioned Gary
William Surgeon, et al v. Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc.
and Peoples Bank Lincoln County, Case #12 CV 00777.

On June 7, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
Peoples Bank (the "Bank") in the General Court of Justice,
Superior Court Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina.  The
complaint alleges the Bank failed to operate its overdraft program
and process customer transactions in accordance with its customer
account agreement and that the Bank has violated the North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act in its
assessment and collection of overdraft fees.  It seeks the refund
of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.  The Company and the Bank have carefully considered these
allegations, and, after investigation, find these allegations to
be without merit.  The Company and the Bank intend to vigorously
defend the lawsuit, including the request that the lawsuit be
certified as a class action.


RAYMOND JAMES: Morgan Keegan Faces Investors' Class Action Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc., a Florida corporation, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2012, a
Form 8-K/A, which amends the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by
Raymond James on April 2, 2012. The amended form disclosed that
Raymond James' newly acquired subsidiary is defending class action
lawsuits.

The Original Form 8-K disclosed information about the April 2,
2012 closing of Raymond James' acquisition of all of the issued
and outstanding shares of capital stock of Morgan Keegan &
Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, and MK Holding, Inc., an
Alabama corporation, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement,
dated January 11, 2012, between Raymond James and Regions
Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Regions").

Regions and Morgan Keegan have been named in class-action lawsuits
filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors who
purchased shares of certain mutual funds in the Regions Morgan
Keegan Fund complex (the Funds) and shareholders of Regions.  The
Funds were formerly managed by Morgan Asset Management, Inc.
(MAM), a subsidiary of MK Holding.  The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to
the activities of the Funds.  No class has been certified and, at
this stage of the lawsuits, Morgan Keegan cannot determine the
probability of a material adverse result or reasonably estimate a
range of potential exposures, if any.  However, it is possible
that an adverse resolution of these matters may be material to
Morgan Keegan's combined financial position or results of
operations.

Certain of the shareholders in the Funds and other interested
parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual
civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class action
lawsuits.

Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or
financial liability with respect to these contingencies,
management currently believes that the outcome of these
proceedings will not have a material effect on Morgan Keegan's
combined financial position or results of operations.


ROSS DRESS: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California overtime lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action Complaint against Ross Dress For
Less, Inc. on June 06, 2012, alleging that the company violated
the California Labor Code by failing to pay their non-exempt
employees for all hours worked. Veloz, et al. v. Ross Dress For
Loss, Inc., Case No. BC485949 is currently pending in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.

The Ross Dress For Less employees allege in the wage and hour
class action Complaint that they were forced to first clock out of
Ross' timekeeping system and then report to the front of the store
in order to subject themselves to security searches for stolen
goods.  According to the Complaint, "Ross failed to pay for this
work time which added 10 minutes or more of unpaid work in a day
per employee."

Founding partner Norman B. Blumenthal says, "When employees are
forced to remain on the premises for security checks, they are
still under their employer's control, and should be compensated
for that work time."


SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Ongoing in "EEOC" Suit vs. Sterling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing the lawsuit against Sterling Jewelers Inc., a
subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited, according to the Company's
May 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On September 23, 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Sterling in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's
lawsuit alleges that Sterling engaged in a pattern or practice of
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female
retail store employees from January 1, 2003, to the present.  The
EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices.  Discovery is now
ongoing in the case.

Sterling denies the allegations and intends to defend the case
vigorously.  At this point, no outcome or amount of loss is able
to be estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Arbitration in Suit vs. Sterling Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------Discovery
is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed against a subsidiary
of Signet Jewelers Limited, according to the Company's May 24,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs filed a class action
lawsuit for an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc.
("Sterling"), a subsidiary of Signet, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging that U.S. store-
level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation
and promotional activities.  In June 2008, the District Court
referred the matter to private arbitration where the plaintiffs
sought to proceed on a class-wide basis.  In June 2009, the
arbitrator ruled that the arbitration agreements allowed the
plaintiff to proceed on a class-wide basis and attempt to seek
class certification.  Sterling challenged the ruling and the
District Court vacated the arbitrator's decision in July 2010.
The plaintiffs appealed that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  In July 2011, the Second Circuit reversed
the District Court's decision and instructed the District Court to
confirm the Arbitrator's Award (i.e., to allow the private
plaintiff to move forward with a proposed class claim in
arbitration).  Sterling filed a petition for rehearing en banc of
the Second Circuit panel's decision, which was denied on September
6, 2011.  Sterling appealed the Second Circuit's decision to the
U.S. Supreme Court on December 15, 2011, which was denied on March
19, 2012.  The arbitration proceeding is in the early stages, and
discovery is ongoing.

Sterling denies the allegations and intends to defend the case
vigorously.  At this point, no outcome or amount of loss is able
to be estimated.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Trial in One "Herrold" Suit Set for Oct. 9
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for one of the "Herrold" cases pending in Harrison County,
Engel, et al. v. PSF, et al., which involves the claims of four
plaintiffs, has been scheduled to commence on October 9, 2012,
according to Smithfield Foods, Inc.'s June 18, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended April 29, 2012.

In May 2004, the same lead lawyer who filed nuisance lawsuits
against the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Daniel Herrold, et al. and Others Similarly Situated v. ContiGroup
Companies, Inc., Premium Standard Farm, Inc. (PSF), and PSF Group
Holdings, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.
This action originally sought to create a class of plaintiffs
living within ten miles of PSF's farms in northern Missouri,
including contract grower farms, who were alleged to have suffered
interference with their right to use and enjoy their respective
properties.  On January 22, 2007, plaintiffs in the Herrold case
filed a Second Amended Petition in which they abandoned all class
action allegations and efforts to certify the action as a class
action and added an additional 193 named plaintiffs to join the
seven prior class representatives to pursue a one count claim to
recover monetary damages, both actual and punitive, for temporary
nuisance.  On June 28, 2007, the court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to transfer venue to the northern Missouri
counties in which the alleged injuries occurred.  As a result of
those rulings, the claims of all but seven of the plaintiffs have
been transferred to the appropriate venues in northern Missouri.

Following the initial transfers, plaintiffs filed motions to
transfer each of the cases back to Jackson County.  Those motions
were denied in all nine cases, but seven cases were transferred to
neighboring counties pursuant to Missouri's venue rules.
Following all transfers, Herrold cases were pending in Chariton,
Clark, DeKalb, Harrison, Jackson, Linn, and Nodaway counties.
Pursuant to notices of dismissal filed by plaintiffs on
January 27, February 23 and April 10, 2009, all cases in Nodaway
County have been dismissed.  In Amended Petitions filed in
Chariton, Linn and DeKalb counties, plaintiffs added claims of
negligence and also claim that defendants are liable for the
alleged negligence of several contract grower farms.  Trial for
one of the Herrold cases pending in Harrison County, Engel, et al.
v. PSF, et al., which involves the claims of four plaintiffs, has
been scheduled to commence on October 9, 2012, and discovery is
now proceeding in the Engel case as well as several other Herrold
cases.


SYNGENTA CROP: Stephen Tillery Seeks $18,000 in Litigation Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
an attorney who will share close to $35 million in fees by way of
a recent class action settlement in federal court, is seeking at
least $18,000 in fees from the University of Chicago in related
state court litigation.

Stephen Tillery filed a motion for reimbursement of costs and
attorneys fees in an eight-year-old Madison County class action
case against Syngenta Crop Protection involving the weed killer
atrazine.

In the filing, Mr. Tillery also responded to the University which
has a pending motion seeking in excess of $5,700 for the costs it
claims it incurred for searching, compiling and producing
documents to plaintiffs.

The University of Chicago and its scientist Don Coursey, who was
hired as an expert by Syngenta, were brought into the litigation
as third parties.  For years, they fought Mr. Tillery's discovery
requests.

In a motion filed June 21, Mr. Tillery chided the University for
being "uncooperative" by delaying production of subpoenaed
documents.

He seeks reimbursement on grounds that the University repeatedly
filed motions without substantial justification and for its
"significant" delay in conducting a search and compiling
responsive documents.

"But for the University's lack of cooperation and unjustified
habitual defiance, it would not have undertaken seven months to
compile 952 documents," Mr. Tillery's motion states.

"[P]laintiffs should not be forced to pay thousands of dollars to
cover the University's irresponsible inaction and delay,"
Mr. Tillery wrote.  "The University created their own
circumstances and now must be held accountable, not plaintiffs."

On May 24, Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta AG, leading
producers of atrazine, agreed to a $105 million settlement to
resolve claims of water providers in a federal class action that
arose from the Madison County cases.  The plaintiffs alleged that
atrazine continuously entered their water supplies and that they
have had to test and monitor their water supplies for atrazine, as
well as to install, operate, and maintain systems to filter
atrazine.

Mr. Tillery and attorneys from Baron and Budd in Dallas will share
$34.9 million in fees as a result of that proposed settlement.

A footnote to the $18,050 in fees Mr. Tillery seeks from the
University, states that the figure does not include "Mr. Steve
Tillery's time, nor does it include paralegal time."

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge presides over six
separate proposed atrazine class actions filed by Mr. Tillery in
2004 on behalf of Holiday Shores Sanitary District and against
various manufacturers of atrazine.

Judge Mudge has scheduled a hearing on July 26 on both the
University's and Mr. Tillery's motions.


TAYLOR BEAN: Court Dismisses Molina Suit for Lack of Standing
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. dismissed for
lack of standing an action filed by Samuel Molina against Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and
Shapiro & Burson, LLP.

Mr. Molina on Oct. 3, 2011, brought the action on behalf of
himself and a putative class of Latino subprime mortgage
borrowers, alleging that Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Company,
Ocwen; and Shapiro & Burson engaged in discriminatory lending,
servicing, and foreclosure practices that disparately impacted
minority borrowers.  Mr. Molina alleges that their involvement in
the acquisition, servicing, and foreclosure of his subprime
mortgage violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair
Housing Act, section 1982 of the Civil Rights Act, and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.  TBW was a mortgage company that
allegedly originated a loan on the plaintiff's home, but has since
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Mr. Molina alleges that FDIC is
receiver for the now-defunct TBW and thus liable for its debts.

All three defendants move the Court to dismiss the action for lack
of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  FDIC also moves to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  According to Judge
Jackson, the plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that he
suffered any injury in fact fairly traceable to the defendants.

The case is, SAMUEL MOLINA, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
11-1759 (D. D.C.).  A copy of the Court's June 28, 2012 Memorandum
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/C8bwkufrom Leagle.com.

                         About Taylor Bean

Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. grew from a small Ocala-
based mortgage broker to become one of the largest mortgage
bankers in the United States.  In 2009, Taylor Bean was the
country's third largest direct-endorsement lender of FHA-insured
loans of the largest wholesale mortgage lenders and issuer of
mortgage backed securities.  It also managed a combined mortgage
servicing portfolio of approximately $80 billion.  The company
employed more that 2,000 people in offices located throughout the
United States.

Taylor Bean sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case
No. 09-07047) on Aug. 24, 2009.  Taylor Bean filed the Chapter 11
petition three weeks after federal investigators searched its
offices.  The day following the search, the Federal Housing
Administration, Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac prohibited the company
from issuing new mortgages and terminated servicing rights.
Taylor Bean estimated more than $1 billion in both assets and
liabilities in its bankruptcy petition

Lee Farkas, the former chairman, was sentenced in June to 30 years
in federal prison after being convicted on 14 counts of conspiracy
and bank, wire and securities fraud in what prosecutors said was a
$3 billion scheme involving fake mortgage assets.

Jeffrey W. Kelly, Esq., and J. David Dantzler, Jr., Esq., at
Troutman Sanders LLP, in Atlanta, Ga., and Russel M. Blain, Esq.,
and Edward J. Peterson, III, Esq., at Stichter, Riedel, Blain &
Prosser, PA, in Tampa, Fla., represent the Debtors.  Paul Steven
Singerman, Esq., and Arthur J. Spector, Esq., at Berger Singerman
PA, in Miami, Fla., represent the Committee.  BMC Group, Inc.,
serves as the claims and noticing agent.

Unsecured creditors were expected to receive 3.3% to 4.4% under a
Chapter 11 plan approved in July 2011.


UNGAR'S FOOD: Veggie Burger Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ungar's Food Products on June 29 issued a statement regarding the
Elias v. Ungar's Food Products case:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Elias, et.
al. v. Ungar's Food Products, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-cv-2448

1. WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? The Court has approved this Notice
to tell you about a settlement in the class action lawsuit
entitled Elias, et. al. v. Ungar's Food Products, Inc., et. al.,
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case
No. 06-cv-2448.  This Notice is to inform you about (a) the
lawsuit; (b) the Settlement of the lawsuit; (c) your rights with
respect to the proposed Settlement.  Those rights include the
right to get a payment, to "opt out" from the Class, and object to
the Settlement. If you are a Class Member and do not "opt out" by
the deadline below, you will be bound by the terms of the
Settlement.

2. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? This lawsuit asserts class action
claims against Ungar's Food Products, Inc., and Sensible Foods LLC
(collectively, "Defendants").  Among other things, the lawsuit
claims that Defendants misrepresented the amount of fat and
calories represented on the packages of Dr. Praeger's California
and Tex-Mex Veggie Burgers and Dr. Praeger's Spinach, Broccoli,
and Potato Pancakes.  In a class action, one or more people,
called Class Representatives, sue for all people who have similar
claims.  The people included in the class action are called a
Class or Class Members.  One court resolves the issues for all
Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the
Class.  Here, the Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs
or the Defendants.  Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement.
Defendants deny any wrongdoing, but have agreed with class
representatives and Class Counsel that a settlement is
appropriate.  Both sides agree that because of the risks and
expenses of continuing this lawsuit, this Settlement is fair.

3. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?
Persons residing in the United States who purchased Dr. Praeger's
Frozen California Veggie Burgers, Tex-Mex Veggie Burgers, Broccoli
Pancakes, Potato Pancakes, and Spinach Pancakes from May 30, 2000
through August 31, 2007 under certain circumstances, may be
entitled to benefit from the Settlement.  If you still are not
sure whether you are a Class Member, you can call (212) 704-6000
or you can visit http://www.drpraegersclassaction.comto see if
you qualify.

4. WHAT DOES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? The Proposed
Settlement has three main parts: (1) Direct Compensation for Class
Members Who File a Valid and Timely Claim Form; (2) a Settlement
Discount; and (3) a Charitable Donation.  The Proposed Settlement
has a total fund of One Million Three Hundred Fifty Two Thousand
Five Hundred Dollars ($1,352,500) ("Total Settlement Benefits").

5. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS AS A CLASS MEMBER? You have four (4)
options as a Class Member: (1) you may remain a Class Member and
claim a payment; (2) you may remain a Class Member and not submit
a claim; (3) you may file comments in support of or in opposition
to the Proposed Settlement; and (4) you may request exclusion from
the Settlement (which is known as "Opting-Out").

6. CAN I TELL THE COURT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND, IF SO, HOW DO I TELL THE COURT? If you do not
exclude yourself from the Class, you have the right to comment in
support of or in opposition to the proposed Settlement, the
proposed award of attorneys' fees and expenses, or the proposed
payment of incentive awards to the Named Representative
Plaintiffs.  To file a comment in support of or in opposition to
the Proposed Settlement, you must submit a written statement
setting forth: (i) your name, address, and telephone number; (ii)
the reference "Elias, et. al. v. Ungar's Food Products, Inc., et.
al., Case No. 06-cv-2448"; (iii) the Products you purchased and
the approximate date of purchase, together with any proofs of
purchase; (iv) a statement of the comments, objections, or
position(s) you wish to assert, including the factual and legal
grounds for your position; (v) copies of any other documents you
wish to submit in support of your position; (vi) a list of any
other class action cases in any court in the United States,
whether state, federal, or otherwise, in which you have submitted
objections within the previous five (5) years or, an affirmative
statement that you have not objected to any other class action
settlement in any court in the United States within the previous
five (5) years; and (vii) your signature, to: Clerk of the Court,
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101.  To be considered by the
Court, your objections or supporting comments must be sent to the
Clerk of the Court and Plaintiffs' Lead You must also mail copies
of your entire written submission to attorneys for the Settlement
Class and Defense Counsel at the following addresses: Class
Counsel: Charles P. Greenman, Esq. , Matthew A. Aaronson, Esq. ,
Mark I. Schlesinger, Esq., Eric L. Unis, Esq. , Troutman Sanders,
LLP, The Chrysler Building , 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, New
York 10174-0700; Counsel for Defendants: David R. Gross, Esq.,
Saiber LLC, 18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200, Florham Park, New
Jersey 07932-2266.  To be considered by the Court, your objections
or supporting comments must be sent to the Clerk of the Court and
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Defense Counsel such that they are
received no later than July 31, 2012.  If you intend to appear at
the Final Approval Hearing through your own hired counsel, your
comment must also state the identity of all attorneys representing
you who will appear at the Final Approval Hearing.  To appeal from
any provision of the order approving the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, the award of incentive awards to the
Named Representative Plaintiffs, or to the award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses paid by Defendants and awarded to
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, you must appear in person, or through
counsel, or seek leave of Court excusing such appearance prior to
the Final Approval Hearing, or as otherwise may be permitted by
the Court at the Final Approval Hearing.  If you do not submit a
written comment or objection on the Proposed Settlement or the
application of Class Counsel for incentive awards on behalf of the
Named Representative Plaintiffs, attorneys' fees and expenses in
accordance with the deadline and procedure set forth above, you
will waive your right to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing
and to appeal from any order or judgment of the Court concerning
the matter.

7. CAN I REQUEST EXCLUSION ("OPT-OUT") OF THE SETTLEMENT, AND, IF
SO, HOW DO I OPT-OUT? If you want to pursue your own case against
Defendants for damages based on the conduct Plaintiffs have
alleged in the lawsuit (except for an individual claim for
personal injury) or do not want to participate in this case for
any reason, you have the right to request exclusion from the
Class.  If you request exclusion from the Class, you will not
receive any money from the Settlement.  A Class Member may Opt Out
of the Settlement at any time during the Opt-Out Period.  Any
Class Member who submits a timely request to Opt Out of the
Settlement Class, including Class Members who have previously
submitted a written request to Opt Out of the Class, may not file
an objection to the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived
any rights or benefits under the Settlement Agreement.  Any Class
Member who does not timely Opt Out of the Settlement in accordance
with the Opt Out requirements detailed below, or who has not
previously Opted Out of the Class, shall be bound fully by the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and all subsequent proceedings,
orders and the Judgment in this Action relating to this
Settlement, even if he or she has pending, or subsequently
initiates, any action, arbitration, or any other proceeding
against Defendant related to the Released Claims.  If you wish to
Opt Out, you must mail a letter to Class Counsel that (1) lists
your name, address, and telephone number; (2) states that you wish
to be excluded from the class and settlement in the lawsuit Elias,
et. al. v. Ungar's Food Products, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-cv-
2448; and (3) is signed by you. You must submit your Request to
Opt Out letter to Class Counsel, postmarked by July 31, 2012, and
addressed to Class Counsel identified in Section 6 above.

8. DO I HAVE A LAWYER REPRESENTING MY INTERESTS IN THIS CASE? Yes.
Class Counsel identified in Section 9 above are representing the
class.  You will not be charged personally for these lawyers, but
they will ask the Court to award them fees and expenses that
Defendants have agreed to pay.  More information is provided
below. However, please note that these attorneys are not
submitting your individual Claims Forms for you; you must take
steps to submit your own Claim Form as described above in this
Notice, and you may retain your own attorney at your own expense
to do so if you wish.

9. HOW ARE CLASS COUNSEL BEING PAID? Since this case was filed,
Class Counsel has not received any payment for their services in
prosecuting the lawsuit, nor have they been reimbursed for any
out-of-pocket expenses.  If the Court approves the Proposed
Settlement, Defendants have agreed to pay Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed Six Hundred Eighty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($685,000).  Defendants have agreed not to oppose
an award that does not exceed this amount.  Any award of
attorneys' fees will be paid separately from, and will not reduce,
the amount of benefits provided to the Settlement Class Members
under the Settlement.  As a Class Member, you do not have to pay
Class Counsel for the work that they performed on behalf of the
Class.

10. WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE ON WHETHER TO GRANT FINAL
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT? The Court will hold a Final
Approval Hearing on September 13, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Katharine S. Hayden, United States District Court Judge
at the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999, to
determine: (1) whether the Proposed Settlement of the lawsuit on
the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate for the Settlement Class as a whole and
should be granted final approval; (2) whether the Court should
enter the proposed judgment dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice;
(3) whether the Court should grant the application for Class
Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, and, if so, in what
amount; and (4) whether the Court should grant the request for
incentive awards to the Representative Plaintiffs, and, if so, in
what amount.  After the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will
make the final decision on these issues. We do not know how long
it will take for the Court to make the final decision.

11. DO I HAVE TO ATTEND THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, AND, IF SO,
MAY I SPEAK? You do not have to attend the Final Approval Hearing.
If you decide to attend, you must do so at your own expense.  If
you file an objection to or comments on the Proposed Settlement,
you may appear at the Final Approval Hearing either in person or
through your own counsel.  Failure to attend shall be deemed a
waiver of any comments and/or objections. You may ask to be heard
by the Court on your comments or objections.  The Court will not
permit you to be heard unless you first submit your objections or
comments in writing in compliance with Paragraph 6 above and
include in your comments a statement that you intend to appear and
wish to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing.  If you want your
own lawyer to speak on your behalf at the Final Approval Hearing,
you must give the Court a paper that is called a "Notice of
Appearance."  The Notice of Appearance should use the following
Civil Action Number: 2:06-cv-02448, and should include the name of
the lawsuit, and state that you wish to enter an appearance at the
Final Approval Hearing.  It must also include your name, address,
telephone number, and signature.  Your Notice of Appearance must
be mailed to the Clerk of the Court at the address listed in
Section 6 for the Clerk of the Clerk such that it is actually
received no later than September 6, 2012: The Notice of Appearance
must also be sent to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel listed
in paragraph 6 so that it is actually received no later than
September 6, 2012.  Class Members who have timely requested to Opt
Out from the Class may not participate at the Final Approval
Hearing.

12. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT, WILL THAT END THE
LAWSUIT? Yes.  If the Court approves the Proposed Settlement, it
will enter a judgment that will dismiss with prejudice the claims
of the Settlement Class Members against Defendants, except those
Class Members who request to Opt Out of the Settlement.

13. WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COURT DECIDES NOT TO GRANT FINAL APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT? If the Court does not approve the
Proposed Settlement, or if the judgment does not become final, the
lawsuit will proceed as though no Proposed Settlement had been
reached.

FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING ANYTHING IN THIS NOTICE, OR TO
RECEIVE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IN THE
FORM APPROVED BY THE COURT, VISIT WWW.DRPRAEGERSCLASSACTION.COM OR
CALL (212) 704-6000.

Contact: Megan McMonagleRF|Bindermegan.mcmonagle@rfbinder.com


VERIZON: Class Action Settlement Obtains Initial Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Magazine reports that settlement of a class action
lawsuit against Verizon alleging that it billed landline phone
customers for unauthorized charges from third-party companies (a
practice known as "cramming"), in violation of federal and state
law has recently received preliminary court approval.  The charges
were for calls made between the dates April 27, 2005 and
February 28, 2012. Verizon denies any wrongdoing.  The court has
not decided in favor of either the plaintiffs or defendants, but
both sides have agreed to settle the lawsuit in order to avoid the
cost, delay, and uncertainty of litigation.  The settlement calls
for payments to class members who file approved claims, and
injunctive relief designed to prevent future cramming.

Third-party charges are for products or services provided by
third-party companies (i.e., not Verizon) and billed to your
Verizon telephone bill.  These include: voicemail, e-mail, fax,
web page services (design, hosting or marketing), yellow page
services, diet plans, identity protection and others.
"Unauthorized third-party charges" are third-party charges you did
not knowingly authorize.

Members of the settlement class are entitled to file a claim for
either: a flat payment claim for $40, or a full payment claim for
the full amount of all unauthorized third-party charges between
the specified dates.

To receive a settlement payment, you must submit a claim form by
November 15, 2012.  Forms, a free summary of all of third-party
charges that you were billed during the class period, and more
information can be obtained at
http://www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com,1-877-772-6219,
or questions@verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com


VITACOST.COM INC: Florida Court Dismisses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Vitacost.com, Inc., an online retailer of health and wellness
products, announced that on June 25, 2012, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida has entered a
final judgment in favor of Vitacost.com, Inc. in the punitive
class action complaint captioned Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.,
Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart Gitler, Allen S. Josephs,
David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran Ezra, and Robert G.
Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR.  Plaintiffs have 30 days to file an
appeal.

"We are very pleased with the court's decision," stated Jeffrey
Horowitz, Vitacost.com's Chief Executive Officer.  "The class
action lawsuit was first announced in May 2010 and we are glad to
now be putting this behind us as we continue to focus on executing
on our sales growth initiatives and managing the business for
long-term profitable growth."


YRC FREIGHT: Voluntarily Settles Two Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
YRC Freight, a part of YRC Worldwide Inc., said on June 29 it
voluntarily settled two class action lawsuits alleging racial
discrimination and harassment at its Chicago Ridge, Illinois
terminal, which closed in 2009.  The company did not divulge the
financial consideration involved in the settlement.

The lawsuits were brought by a small group of former Chicago Ridge
employees and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  The
allegations date back to 2005, and were vigorously disputed by the
company.

The settlements, which require court approval, do not constitute
an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the company or any of
its employees, the company said.

YRC Freight said it amicably settled the cases to bring the
lawsuits to an end and to avoid further legal costs.

"We take any claim of harassment or discrimination very
seriously," said Kelly Walls, senior vice president of Human
Resources for YRC Freight.

"There may be isolated instances of improper conduct in any
workplace, but the allegations in these cases did not reflect the
real working environment at Chicago Ridge."


                           *********

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  * * *