CAR_Public/120705.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 5, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 132

                             Headlines

AETNA: Sued for Coercing Doctors to Use In-Network Providers
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Suit in Calif.
ASSURED GUARANTY: AGM Continues to Defend Sewer Debt Suit in Ala.
AVIAT NETWORKS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
BEST BUY: Settles Class Action Over Price Match Policy

BOND LABORATORIES: Methylhexanamine Distributor Faces Class Suit
BRAZILIAN ELECTRIC: Cabeco Associations' Suits Remain Pending
CARLYLE GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Shareholders Suit
CARLYLE GROUP: Sherman Act-Violation Suit Pending in Mass.
CHAMPION LABORATORIES: Settles Automotive Filter Class Action

CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend "Schlim" Suit in California
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Faces "Nakash" Securities Suit in Calif.
COMPANY STORE: Sued for Sharing Customer Data to Third Party
CROWN CRAFTS: Faces Class Suit Over CCIP Crib Bumper Products
DALLAS COWBOYS: Superbowl XLV Ticket Holders To Proceed With Suit

DOMINION EAST: Property Owners Sue Over Mineral Rights
EMPIRE STATE: Faces Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit in N.Y.
ENDOGASTRIC SOLUTIONS: Judge Denies Class Cert. in EsophyX Suit
FORENSIC DNA: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend "McGinnis" Class Suit vs. Unit

FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend "Perez" Class Suit vs. Unit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Awards NIS12.1 Million to Diabetes Patient
GREAT WOLF: Reaches Tentative Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suits
GUAM: Judge Manibusan Wants Political Status Suit Nixed
HALCON RESOURCES: Defends Merger-Related Class Action Suits

HJ HEINZ: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
HSBC BANK: Judge Allows Overdraft Class Action to Proceed
INTEGRATED DEVICE: Faces Class Suit Over Acquisition of PLX
INTERLINE BRANDS: Still Defends TCPA Suit in Illinois
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Still Defends "Rosen" Securities Suit

LEBANON SCHOOL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Truancy Fines
LINKEDIN CORP: Sued Over Alleged Wholesale Security Failures
NAT'L FOOTBALL: McKool Settles Malpractice Suit with Ex-Players
PAREXEL INT'L: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
PENGUIN GROUP: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in E-Book Suit

PUBLICIS GROUPE: Female Employees' Class Action Certified
RF MONOLITHICS: Signs MOU to Resolve Two Merger-Related Suits
SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From IPO Suit Deal Approval Pending
SKECHERS USA: Settles Class Suits Over Toning Shoes for $50MM
SOUTHERN STAR: "Price Litigation I" Still Pending in Kansas

SPRINT: Judge Rejects $17.5-Million Class Action Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Settles Investor Class Action for $25 Million
ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Ruling on "Ricker" Suit Dismissal Bid


                          *********

AETNA: Sued for Coercing Doctors to Use In-Network Providers
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that in a class
action, a doctor claims that Aetna kicks physicians out of its
plans if they refer patients to out-of-network providers for
necessary medical treatment.

Plaintiff Dr. Marc Kerner claims that Aetna "coerce(s)" doctors to
use only in-network providers, even if in his "medical judgment"
his patients need an out-of-network doctor to get proper care.

He sued Aetna Health Plans of California and affiliates for the
class of health-care providers, in Superior Court.

Health insurers typically offer coverage for treatment from their
network providers at a discount, while out-of-network providers
charge patients their usual rate.

Dr. Kerner claims that Aetna threatened him with termination for
making the referrals, then kicked him off its provider network
altogether.

He claims that other providers have received similar treatment for
making out-of-network referrals.

"Defendants engage in the aforementioned conduct because their
profit margins are higher for care provided in network and
defendants hope to coerce their providers to refer patients in
network rather than based on what care would be best for the
patient," the complaint states.  "In that regard, when such
approval was sought for out-of-network treatment, defendants would
send a letter to the member advising them of such a request and
that increased charges to the member would result."

Dr. Kerner claims that Aetna "directly affects the health and
well-being of the public at large" by putting profits before the
health-care needs of its customers.

"Rather, defendants are engaging in a scheme whereby they seek to
limit use of out-of-network providers by terminating those
providers who refer patients out-of-network without regard to the
sound medical judgment that was used to make such a referral," the
complaint states.

Dr. Kerner seeks an injunction, restitution and damages for unfair
competition and unreasonable restraint of commerce in violation of
California's Cartwright Act.

He is represented by Raymond Boucher with Kiesel Boucher Larson of
Beverly Hills.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc. continues to defend itself against an
amended securities lawsuit in California, according to the
Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5, 2010 against
the Company and certain of its directors and executives alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  On February 17, 2011, an amended complaint
was filed against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers adding alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
HealthpointCapital, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams,
Inc., Cowen and Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are
also defendants in the action.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants made false or misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material facts, about the Company's business,
financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly
relating to the Scient'x transaction and the Company's financial
guidance following the closing of the acquisition.  The complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other
unspecified relief.  On March 21, 2012, the Court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint against
all defendants and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint.  On April 19, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.  The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against this complaint;
however no assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of
the lawsuit.

Alphatec Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.alphatecspine.com/-- a
medical technology company, designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets products for the surgical treatment of spine disorders,
primarily focusing on the aging spine in the United States and
internationally.  The Company was incorporated in 2005 and is
headquartered in Carlsbad, California.


ASSURED GUARANTY: AGM Continues to Defend Sewer Debt Suit in Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2008, a number of financial institutions and other
parties, including Assured Guaranty Ltd.'s subsidiary, Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corp. ("AGM"), and other bond insurers, were
named as defendants in a civil action brought in the circuit court
of Jefferson County, Alabama, relating to the County's problems
meeting its debt obligations on its $3.2 billion sewer debt:
Charles E. Wilson vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al (filed the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama), Case No. 01-CV-2008-
901907.00, a putative class action.  The action was brought on
behalf of rate payers, tax payers and citizens residing in
Jefferson County, and alleges conspiracy and fraud in connection
with the issuance of the County's debt.  The complaint in this
lawsuit seeks equitable relief, unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.  On January, 13, 2011,
the circuit court issued an order denying a motion by the bond
insurers and other defendants to dismiss the action.  Defendants,
including the bond insurers, have petitioned the Alabama Supreme
Court for a writ of mandamus to the circuit court vacating such
order and directing the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs'
claims for lack of standing.  The Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from this lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 19, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


AVIAT NETWORKS: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aviat Networks is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss
a securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's May
8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Certain of the Company's former executive officers and directors
were named in a complaint filed on July 18, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Howard
Taylor.  Plaintiff purports to bring the action derivatively on
behalf of Aviat Networks, which is named as a nominal defendant.
Plaintiff brings a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
officer and director defendants based on the allegations of
securities law violations alleged in the class action described
above and also alleges that the defendants caused the Company to
acquire MCD at an inflated price.  Plaintiff seeks to recover
unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of Aviat Networks,
as well as payment of costs and attorneys fees.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2011 with oral arguments
scheduled for May 29, 2012.  The Company intends to defend its
interests in the litigation vigorously.  Currently, it is not able
to determine whether a loss is probable or to reasonably estimate
the loss amount related to the matter.

Aviat Networks, Inc. -- http://www.aviatnetworks.com/-- engages
in the design, manufacture, and sale of a range of wireless
networking products, solutions, and services worldwide.  The
Company was formerly known as Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. and
changed its name to Aviat Networks, Inc. in January 2010.  The
Company is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


BEST BUY: Settles Class Action Over Price Match Policy
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge signed off on a settlement on June 27 between Best Buy
Stores LP and a class of consumers that had accused the retail
giant of consistently failing to honor its guarantee to match
competitors' prices.

The nationwide deal comes after Best Buy failed on several
occasions to evade the suit.


BOND LABORATORIES: Methylhexanamine Distributor Faces Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bond Laboratories, Inc. disclosed in its May 21, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012, that one distributor of
methylhexanamine has been named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit.

Several of the Company's products contain methylhexanamine
("DMAA"), which has been extensively marketed as a pre-workout
sports supplement.  It has been reported that DMAA has potential
side effects, including headache, nausea, and stroke.  At least
one distributor of DMAA has been named in a class action lawsuit
over DMAA's safety.  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
recently sent warning letters to ten manufacturers and
distributors of DMAA challenging the marketing of products
containing DMAA for lack of evidence of safety, and stating that
DMAA was not a dietary ingredient and is not, therefore, eligible
to be used as an active ingredient in dietary supplements.  While
the Company believes there is no basis for the FDA's action, and
that DMAA is safe in the quantities included in the Company's
products, until further studies are conducted or further action is
taken by the FDA, no assurances can be given.  The Company has
nevertheless recently reformulated its products containing DMAA,
which it intends to introduce in the quarter ended June 30, 2012.
Although the Company maintains product liability insurance, it may
not be sufficient to cover any product liability claims that may
arise from the use of its products containing DMAA, if such claims
are successfully asserted.


BRAZILIAN ELECTRIC: Cabeco Associations' Suits Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras is required to
comply with strict environmental laws and regulations that subject
it to numerous environmental legal and administrative proceedings
filed against it.  In 2002 and 2003, two associations of the
community of Cabeco brought independent class actions regarding
environmental damages caused by the Company's subsidiary,
Companhia Hidro Eletrica do Sao Francisco (Eletrobras Chesf or
Chesf).  The Cabeco community is located in a river island in the
estuary of the Sao Francisco River.  Both associations alleged
that the hydroelectric plants disturbed the normal flow of the
river and resulted in a decline in fishing activity and the
gradual disappearance of the river island.  The court held that
any motion filed for an interlocutory appeal must be postponed
until a final judgment is delivered.  On August 9, 2010, the
Company lodged a motion requesting the clarification of this
decision.  This motion was rejected in September 2010.  The
Company subsequently filed a request for reconsideration of the
decision that the interlocutory appeal be postponed, which was
also rejected by the judge on October 18, 2010.  The monetary
compensation requested is R$100 million in each case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 22, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company says it has not made any provision in respect of this
litigation as it considers the risk of an unfavorable decision on
this lawsuit to be possible.


CARLYLE GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Shareholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group L.P. is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's May 22, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In June 2011, August 2011, and September 2011, three putative
shareholder class actions were filed against Carlyle, certain of
its affiliates and former directors of Carlyle Capital Corporation
Limited (CCC) alleging that the fund offering materials and
various public disclosures were materially misleading or omitted
material information.  Two of the shareholder class actions,
(Phelps v. Stomber, et al.) and (Glaubach v. Carlyle Capital
Corporation Limited, et al.), were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The most recent
shareholder class action (Phelps v. Stomber, et al.) was filed in
the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, was subsequently
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The two original D.C. cases were
consolidated into one case, under the caption of Phelps v.
Stomber, and the Phelps named plaintiffs have been designated
"lead plaintiffs" by the Court.  The New York case has been
transferred to the D.C. federal court and the plaintiffs have
requested that it be consolidated with the other two D.C. actions.
The defendants have opposed and have moved to dismiss the case as
duplicative.  The plaintiffs in all three cases seek all
compensatory damages sustained as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations, costs and expenses, as well as reasonable
attorney fees.  The defendants have filed a comprehensive motion
to dismiss.  The Company believes the claims are without merit and
will vigorously contest all claims.


CARLYLE GROUP: Sherman Act-Violation Suit Pending in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit commenced by the Police and Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit remains pending in Massachusetts,
according to The Carlyle Group L.P.'s May 22, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging
"club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC).  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that certain global alternative asset firms,
including the Company, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
forming multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose of bidding
collectively in company buyout actions in certain going private
transactions, which the plaintiffs allege constitutes a
"conspiracy in restraint of trade."  The plaintiffs seek damages
as provided for in Section 4 of the Clayton Act and injunction
against such conduct in restraint of trade in the future.  The
Company believes the claims are without merit and will vigorously
contest all claims and is currently unable to anticipate what
impact it may have on the Company.


CHAMPION LABORATORIES: Settles Automotive Filter Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois authorized this, and other forms of notice, as part of a
notification program to inform persons and entities that purchased
automotive filters from a retailer about their legal rights in a
class action settlement.

                          Legal Notice

If You Purchased Automotive Filters From a Retailer, Your Rights
Could Be Affected By a Class Action Settlement

Settlements have been reached with Champion Laboratories, Inc.
("Champion"), Purolator Products NA, LLC, Purolator Products
Company, LLC, ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("Purolator"), Honeywell
International ("Honeywell"), Wix Filtration Corp. LLC ("Wix"),
Affinia Group Inc. ("Affinia"), Cummins Filtration Inc.
("Cummins"), Donaldson Company, Inc. ("Donaldson"), and Baldwin
Filters, Inc. ("Baldwin") ("Defendants") about the prices of
automotive and light truck oil, air, and fuel filters ("Filters").
The value of the Indirect Purchaser Class Settlement is $6,018,750
("Settlement Fund").

What Are The Settlements About?

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws and
the laws of AZ, AR, CA, DC, FL, HI, IL, IA, KS, ME, MI, MN, MS,
MA, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, PR, RI, SD, TN, UT, VT, WV, WI,
and WY (the "states"), by conspiring to fix Filter prices.
Defendants deny liability but settled to avoid litigation burdens.

Who Is A Class Member?

You are a class member if, while residing in one of the states,
you, between January 1, 1999 and March 8, 2012 ("Class Period"),
purchased Defendants' Filters for your own use from: Advance Auto
Parts Inc., Ashland, Inc., Autozone, Inc., Bridgestone Retail
Operations, LLC d/b/a Firestone Complete Auto, General Parts,
Inc., Genuine Parts Company, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company d/b/a
Goodyear Gemini Automotive Care, Jiffy Lube International, Inc.,
Midas, Inc., O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., Pennzoil-Quaker State
Company, The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
Texaco, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., or their parents,
affiliates, subsidiaries, d/b/a's, predecessors or successors in
interest.

Plaintiffs do not allege that these retailers engaged in any
misconduct.

Plaintiffs in certain states have a shorter Class Period than
indicated above.  Those states include: NE (January 1, 2002 to
March 8, 2012), NH (January 1, 2008 to March 8, 2012), UT (January
1, 2006 to March 8, 2012) and WY (January 1, 2006 to March 8,
2012).

Will I Get A Payment?

No.  Payment to individual class members is not practical because
of the associated costs.  The Settlement Fund will be distributed
to charities or other beneficiaries approved by the court that
best represent the Class' interests.  Further information
regarding these charities and other beneficiaries will be
available on the settlement Web site.

What Are My Rights?

If you do not want to take part in the Settlements, you have the
right to opt out. To opt out, you must do so by 9/3/2012.  If you
do not opt out, you will release certain legal rights against
Defendants, as described in the settlement agreements.  Class
members have the right to object to the Settlements.  If you
object to any of the Settlements, you must do so by 9/3/2012.  You
may speak to your own attorney at your own expense.

A Final Approval Hearing to consider Settlement approval and a
request for litigation expenses incurred, attorneys' fees of up to
one-third of the Settlement Fund, and an incentive award of up to
$500 for each class representative is at 10:00 a.m. on 10/4/2012,
at the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in Courtroom 1703.  The date, courtroom, time and
location may change.

Where Can I Get More Information?

This Legal Notice is not a complete description of the case,
Settlement terms, approval process, or your rights.  For more
information, please visit
http://www.IndirectPurchasersFilterSettlement.comor contact:
Indirect Purchasers Filter MDL, PO Box 2009, Chanhassen, MN 55317-
2009, 1-866-224-5376


CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend "Schlim" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
commenced by Eileen Schlim in California, according to the
Company's May 22, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Eileen Schlim v. Chico's
FAS, Inc.  The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of
California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, and
vacation pay, among other things.  The Company denies the material
allegations of the Complaint.  The Company believes that its
policies and procedures for paying its associates comply with all
applicable California laws.  As a result, the Company does not
believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Faces "Nakash" Securities Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ChinaCast Education Corporation is facing a securities class
action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's June 19,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On June 12, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against ChinaCast Education Corporation (the "Company"), former
chairman and chief executive officer Ron Chan Tze Ngon and former
chief financial officer Antonio Sena (Nakash v. Chinacast
Education Corp., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-05107).

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects during the
period from February 14, 2011, to April 2, 2012, in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company made false and
misleading statements regarding and/or failed to disclose (i)
transfers from the bank accounts of two of its subsidiaries, (ii)
transfers of private colleges and other assets, (ii) related party
transactions, (iv) loans secured to third parties, and (v)
deficiencies in its internal controls.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees and
other costs.


COMPANY STORE: Sued for Sharing Customer Data to Third Party
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, irate customers claim The Company Store
sends confidential financial information to a marketing group that
charges them $99 a year for a "Buyers Edge" program the customers
don't want and didn't even know exists.

Lead plaintiff Alexandra Kondracke sued The Company Store Factory,
its corporate parent Hanover Direct, and United Marketing Group
for consumer law violations, unfair competition and breach of
contract.

She claims the defendants "automatically enroll and charge each
consumer for membership in Buyers Edge at the recurring yearly
rate of $99" though the customers "are entirely unaware they have
been made part of the program or what the program even provides."

Ms. Kondracke claims she "contacted the Company Store by telephone
to place an order for consumer merchandise.  In doing so,
plaintiff provided her credit card and other confidential
information to a representative of the Company Store for the sole
purpose of charging her credit card for the merchandise and
delivery of same.  However, unknown to plaintiff, after submitting
this highly sensitive information, the Company Store and its
parent corporation, Hanover Direct, transmitted her name, address
and other confidential information to defendant UMG.  Thereafter,
the Company Store and Hanover Direct caused a $99 charge to be
applied to plaintiff's credit card account on two separate
occasions."

"The $99 was a yearly "membership fee" in Buyers Edge, a "rewards"
program that "purports to provide various discounts and benefits
applicable to a variety of companies with which UMG contracts.
However, the overwhelming majority of consumers 'enrolled' by
defendants in Buyers Edge are entirely unaware they have been made
part of the program or what the program even provides.  These
consumers are repeatedly charged for Buyers Edge and get nothing
in return," according to the complaint.

Ms. Kondracke claims that when she "stated she did not want Buyers
Edge, the Company Store representative stated that the purchase
could not be completed until [she] accepted the free trial.  The
Company Store representative stated that Buyers Edge could be
canceled without charge by calling the toll free number, which
would be listed on the materials shipped with plaintiff's
merchandise."

But upon receiving her order, "plaintiff discovered that the
package did not contain any information about Buyers Edge or how
to cancel the free trial.  Plaintiff recalls receiving no other
material from any of the defendants describing what Buyers Edge is
or how to use it," Ms. Kondracke says in the complaint.

The complaint cites 10 other complaints that angry customers have
posted on the Internet, which "detail defendants' modus operandi
with respect to Buyers Edge.  With easy access to consumers'
confidential information, including their name, address, telephone
number, and credit card or debit card account data, with little or
no disclosure of the terms of the program, and with no
authorization, defendants cram charges onto the consumers' credit
card or debit card accounts for Buyers Edge.  While some of these
consumers received (or were promised) refunds or partial refunds
for Buyers Edge, thousands of other consumers have not."
(Parentheses in complaint.)

The complaint claims the scam works like this: After buying
something from Hanover Direct and/or The Company Store,
"confidential information regarding plaintiff and the classes [was
sent] to UMG, which enrolled them in a 'trial' membership program.
After an approximately thirty-day waiting period, during which
plaintiff and the classes were unaware they were enrolled in
Buyers Edge, defendants charged plaintiff and the classes' credit
cards or debit cards $99, on one or more occasions.

"In all instances, Buyers Edge is wholly unrelated to the retail
transaction contemplated by plaintiff and the classes.  Yet, for
each person enrolled in Buyers Edge, each receives a share of the
charge and thereby profits from each unauthorized charge.

"Because consumers are unaware that they are being enrolled in
Buyers Edge, are unaware that their credit card or debit card will
be automatically charged for Buyers Edge in perpetuity, and
because the description and amount charged to the accounts by
defendants are deceptive, consumers often do not discover theses
charges on their credit card or debit card statements."

Ms. Kondracke seeks punitive damages for the class.

A copy of the Complaint in Kondracke v. Hanover Direct, Inc., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-05630 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/02/UMG.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
          ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
          16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436-2152
          Telephone: (818) 788-0877
          E-mail: r&g@lalawyer.com

               - and -

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com


CROWN CRAFTS: Faces Class Suit Over CCIP Crib Bumper Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Crafts, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit over its
subsidiary's crib bumper products, according to the Company's June
20, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 1, 2012.

On or about May 17, 2012, an alleged Maryland purchaser of a Crown
Crafts Infant Products, Inc. ("CCIP") bedding set filed a
complaint against the Company and CCIP in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, purportedly
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.  The
complaint generally alleges that CCIP's crib bumper products put
children at risk of suffocation or crib death and that the Company
and CCIP concealed and failed to disclose these purported risks
through allegedly false and misleading advertising and product
packaging.  The complaint does not allege that any child has
actually been harmed by these products.  The complaint alleges
violations of various consumer protection laws in California,
Maryland and numerous other states.  The purported class is
defined in the complaint as "All consumers who, within the
applicable statute of limitations, purchased defendants' crib
bumper products or bedding sets that include a crib bumper."  The
complaint alleges an alternative class that would be limited to
residents of Maryland.  The complaint seeks damages for the
purported class in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief,
"restitution and disgorgement of all monies acquired by the
defendants by means of any act or practice" the Court finds to be
unlawful, a Court-ordered "corrective advertising campaign", and
an award of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted in the complaint, and the Company intends to
defend itself vigorously against all such claims.


DALLAS COWBOYS: Superbowl XLV Ticket Holders To Proceed With Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Schrock, writing for The Star-Telegram, reports that Super
Bowl XLV ticket holders affected by the temporary-seating debacle
at Cowboys Stadium in 2011 notified a federal court last week of
plans to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the Dallas
Cowboys, owner Jerry Jones, and the National Football League after
mediation failed.

Attorneys for the ticket holders also filed a motion with the
court on June 26 seeking a status conference to begin the case and
seeking attorney fees from the NFL and other costs associated with
the months-long attempt to reach a settlement outside court.

Ticket holders in the lawsuit were denied their seats, delayed
from getting to them or assigned seats with obstructed views.  The
lawsuit says that the NFL breached its contract with ticket
holders and that the settlement offers made by the league after
the game failed to fully compensate them.

The plaintiffs seek more than $5 million, not counting costs and
interest, according to court documents.

Based on discussions with the NFL this year, the ticket holders'
lawyers say they believed at first that the league was "truly
interested in resolving the case and engaging in good faith
negotiations," according to documents filed last week.  The
attorneys said, however, that they later came to believe that the
league delayed discovery and taking depositions for months so as
to settle out of court.

"The defendants purposefully delayed these proceedings for months
in bad faith while falsely claiming to be truly interested in
resolving the case," the latest motion says.

The NFL denied the bad-conduct allegations.

"This motion is frivolous," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in
an e-mail to the Star-Telegram.  "The overwhelming majority of the
claims were resolved more than a year ago.  At the plaintiffs'
counsel's request, we agreed to participate in a mediation to
determine whether there was a reasonable basis to resolve what
remains of the suit following our successful voluntary
reimbursement program with fans.  The mediation regrettably was
not successful, but we acted with good faith in the process.  We
are disappointed the plaintiffs' attorneys would resort to filing
a baseless motion."

Hours before kickoff, Arlington fire officials and building
inspectors declared 1,250 of the 13,000 temporary bleacher-style
seats unsafe because of numerous code violations, including
missing handrails and guardrails.

The city had told the Cowboys for weeks that the seat construction
contractor, Seating Solutions, was behind schedule and had not
provided adequate documentation in areas such as structural
engineering.  The league, which the Cowboys had notified about the
situation days before the game, did not inform ticket holders
until they had cleared security and their tickets were scanned at
the stadium.

About 3,200 fans were affected. Most were accommodated, but at
least 400 didn't get seats at all.

The NFL has said it satisfied its obligations to the displaced
fans by offering them the prices they paid for their tickets plus
all documented travel, lodging and meal expenses.  About 2,800
people who were delayed getting to their seats or were relocated
could receive the face value of their tickets or a ticket to a
future Super Bowl.

About 475 people who did not have a seat had more options: $2,400
plus a ticket to the 2012 Super Bowl, a trip to a future Super
Bowl with airfare and a four-night hotel stay, a check for $5,000
or a check for more than $5,000 with documented expenses.


DOMINION EAST: Property Owners Sue Over Mineral Rights
------------------------------------------------------
CantonRep.com reports that two property owners in Jackson Township
have launched a class-action lawsuit aimed at reclaiming the
mineral rights to their land.

They hope to lease those mineral rights to companies trying to
pull oil and natural gas out of the Utica shale, which lies about
7,500 feet below the surface.

But right now the mineral rights appear to be controlled by
Dominion East Ohio, which operates the North Canton Gas Storage
Field that lies under parts of Jackson, Lake, Lawrence and Plain
townships, and Green and New Franklin in Summit County.

If the land owners can claim the mineral rights, they would have a
chance to lease the rights to the highest bidder.

BK Builders Ltd., on Higbee Avenue NW, and Terry R. Renner, of
Lutz Avenue NW, recently filed the lawsuit in Stark County Common
Pleas Court against Dominion, Pennsylvania based CNX Gas Co., and
several unknown parties and entities with interest in the gas
storage field.  Lawyers hope the case will become a class-action
suit for everyone who owns land above Dominion's gas storage
field.

The lawsuit is similar to complaints filed earlier this year in
Columbiana County where Columbia Gas Transmission has the Brinker
Storage Field.  While property owners above the storage field want
to lease their mineral rights, NiSource -- Columbia Gas' parent
company -- has transferred mineral rights to another of its
subsidiaries.

The North Canton Gas Storage Field dates to drilling in the
Clinton sandstone early in the 20th century.  East Ohio Gas and
associated companies bought rights and drilled wells that
eventually ran dry.  During the 1940s, East Ohio Gas began using
the dry wells to store natural gas for use during winter months.

East Ohio Gas, which was part of Consolidated Natural Gas, stopped
drilling wells and focused on selling natural gas to customers
around the state.  Virginia-based Dominion bought Consolidated
Natural Gas in 2000, giving Dominion ownership of the storage
field.

The end of drilling on land within the gas storage field is at
center of the dispute over mineral rights.

A company leasing mineral rights has an obligation to develop and
exploit those rights, said Robert J. Tscholl, lawyer for the
property owners.  "If you don't do that, it's our opinion that the
lease terminates," he said.

Additionally, Mr. Tscholl said he believes that leases for storage
fields don't lock down the mineral rights and block drilling.


EMPIRE STATE: Faces Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. is facing a consolidated
class action lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's May
21, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. was originally organized
on July 11, 1961, as a general partnership.  On October 1, 2001,
the Company converted to a limited liability company under New
York law.  The conversion did not change any aspect of the assets
and operations of the Company other than to protect its investors
from any future liability to a third party.  Through April 16,
2002, the Company owned the tenant's interest in a master
operating leasehold (the "Master Lease") of the Empire State
Building (the "Building"), located at 350 Fifth Avenue, in New
York.  On April 17, 2002, the Company acquired, through a wholly-
owned limited liability company (Empire State Land Associates
L.L.C.), the fee title to the Building, and the land thereunder
(the "Land") (together, the "Real Estate" or "Property"), at a
price of $57,500,000, and obtained a $60,500,000 first mortgage
with Capital One Bank to finance the acquisition and certain
related costs.

The Company does not operate the Building, and subleases the
Building to Empire State Building Company L.L.C. (the "Sublessee")
pursuant to a net operating sublease (the "Sublease") which
included an initial term which expired on January 4, 1992.  The
Company's members are Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and
Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. (collectively, the "Agents"), each of whom
also acts as an agent for holders of participations in his
respective member interest in the Company (the "Participants").
Sublessee is a New York limited liability company in which Peter
L. Malkin is a member and entities for Peter L. Malkin's family
members are beneficial owners.  All of the Members in the Company
hold senior positions at Malkin Holdings LLC ("Malkin Holdings" or
the "Supervisor") (formerly Wien & Malkin LLC), which provides
supervisory and other services to the Company and to Sublessee.

Five putative class actions have been brought by Participants in
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. and several other entities
supervised by Malkin Holdings that own fee or leasehold interests
in various properties located in New York City, the first of which
was filed March 1, 2012 (the "Class Actions").  As now pending in
New York State Supreme Court, New York County, each Class Action
challenges the proposed consolidation of those and other
properties supervised by Malkin Holdings into a real estate
investment trust (the "REIT") and the initial public offering of
shares in Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation
which intends to qualify for U.S. tax purposes as a REIT.  The
plaintiffs assert claims against Malkin Holdings, Malkin
Properties, L.L.C., Malkin Properties of New York, L.L.C., Malkin
Properties of Connecticut, Inc., Malkin Construction Corp.,
Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, Estate of Leona M. Helmsley,
Empire State Realty OP, L.P., and the REIT ("Defendants") for
breach of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, alleging, inter alia, that the terms of the
transaction are unfair to the Participants and overly favorable to
Malkin Holdings and related parties.  The complaints seek money
damages and injunctive relief preventing the proposed transaction.

On April 3, 2012, plaintiffs moved for consolidation of the
actions and for appointment of co-lead counsel.  Defendants filed
a response consenting to consolidation, and taking no position
with respect to appointment of co-lead counsel.  The motion was
scheduled to be heard by the court on June 21, 2012.

The Company says the Class Actions are in a very preliminary
stage, with no responses to the complaints having been filed to
date.  Defendants have stated they believe the Class Actions are
without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.


ENDOGASTRIC SOLUTIONS: Judge Denies Class Cert. in EsophyX Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on June 28 refused to certify a proposed class of
patients who claim they were implanted with a Endogastric
Solutions Inc. device for treating acid reflux improperly touted
as reversible, finding one of the proposed class definitions too
narrow and another too broad.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan, in denying certification,
found that plaintiff Daniel Haggart's claims that Endogastric
Solutions had misrepresented implantation of the EsophyX device --
describing it as "reversible" rather than "revisable".


FORENSIC DNA: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that a presumed
expert in alcohol, DNA and drug testing, who has testified in
hundreds of family and criminal cases, is an unqualified imposter
with no college degree, according to a class action in Dallas
County Court.

Lead plaintiff B.W.D. sued James W. Turnage, his company Forensic
DNA & Drug Testing Services, and Medtox Scientific, in Dallas
County Court.

B.W.D. claims that as a result of Mr. Turnage's flawed testimony,
thousands of parents have lost access to their children and
countless citizens are behind bars.

B.W.D. claims that Mr. Turnage, of Ovilla, wrongfully called him
an alcohol and drug user during a custody dispute.  Mr. Turnage
and his Forensic DNA & Drug Testing company claim to seal and ship
urine specimens to defendant Medtox Scientific, of St. Paul, Minn.

B.W.D. says Mr. Turnage holds himself out as an expert in drug
testing and evaluating drug test results, and that Mr. Turnage has
been appointed to do drug tests in custody disputes and criminal
matters in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin and Denton counties for years.

"Turnage, however, lacks even the minimal educational requirements
to work in any technical job in a licensed drug and alcohol
testing laboratory," the complaint states.  "Turner has no college
degree and is not a toxicologist; he is an imposter.  He has
masqueraded for years as a technical or scientific expert in the
field of toxicology or drug and alcohol testing and has presented
himself to the public and the courts as an expert witness by
disseminating non-peer review papers to the legal community that
contain false scientific information and data cut and pasted
without cited references."

The plaintiff claims that Mr. Turnage is qualified only to be a
specimen collector, and has failed to distinguish between that job
and that of a forensic toxicologist, who is a qualified expert
with years of scientific training.

"The impact of Turnage's unsupervised, unchecked, unregulated
mishandling of specimens and his unregulated and unqualified
interpretations of test results or deliberate manipulation of the
process has a far reaching effect on the citizens of Dallas,
Collin, Denton and Tarrant Counties," the complaint states.

"Literally thousands of mothers and fathers have been denied
possession of their children and countless number of citizens are
behind bars based on Turnage's handling of the specimens and his
interpretation of the test results."

B.W.D. says he submitted urine specimens to Mr. Turnage for drug
tests, for a child custody matter in March 2010.

Five months later, B.W.D. claims, Mr. Turnage testified that a
urine specimen he submitted that was analyzed by Medtox was
invalid due to dilution.

B.W.D. claims Medtox's results did not indicate dilution and that
because of Mr. Turnage's misrepresentation, he was forced to agree
to weekly random urinalysis for alcohol and drugs, installation of
a breathalyzer in his car for a year and other onerous terms, to
maintain joint custody of his daughter.

B.W.D. also claims that Mr. Turnage spoke often with his wife's
attorney about the characteristics of B.W.D.'s urine specimens,
before had returned the results.

"For example, Turnage commented to wife's attorney about the color
of plaintiff's specimen and conjectured that plaintiff used an
additive," the complaint states.  "In addition, Turnage also
contacted wife's attorney to indicate that plaintiff was not going
to pass the test before the test was ever sent to Medtox."

B.W.D. claims he has taken about 60 tests with other labs
contemporaneously with Mr. Turnage's tests and passed all of them,
yet several of Mr. Turnage's test results have come back with
false positives, have been resubmitted for retesting, have been
tainted or invalidated or were sent to Medtox well beyond 24 hours
after collection.

"Remarkably, every time defendants tested wife, Turnage was able
to have the results of her test completed within 24 hours and of
course, her results, the five times she was tested, came back
'negative,'" the complaint states.

"Not once was there a challenge or a question about my wife's
specimens.  Even more remarkable, was that the same Medtox lab
technician certified wife's specimen each time, which is more than
just a remote possibility."

The complaint continues: "Because of Turnage's fraudulent
behavior, plaintiff took his last test with Turnage in March of
2011.  Not surprisingly, since changing labs, all of plaintiff's
results have been 'negative' with no anomalies and several of
wife's results have come back 'positive' for drugs or alcohol.  It
was not, however, until plaintiff did some [additional] research
on his own that he discovered that Turnage gave wife at least 29
hours advance notice of her court-ordered 'random' drug test.
Shockingly, plaintiff later discovered that Turnage purposefully
hid one of wife's positive drug test results.  Although he shared
the positive results of wife's random drug test with wife's
attorney, he deliberately hid the results from plaintiff,
plaintiff's lawyers and the court."

B.W.D. seeks actual and punitive damages for breach of contract,
fraudulent nondisclosure, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding,
abetting, defamation, civil conspiracy, negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

A copy of the Complaint in B.W.D. v. Turnage, et al., Case No. CC-
12-04012-E (Dallas Cty. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/02/DrugTester.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence J. Friedman, Esq.
          Carlos Morales, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN & FEIGER, LLP
          5301 Spring Valley Road, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (972) 788-1400


FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend "McGinnis" Class Suit vs. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Doctor Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit initiated by Derrick McGinnis against a subsidiary,
according to the Company's May 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

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.  Even if
the Company succeeds in defending against the litigation, it is
likely to incur substantial costs and its management's attention
will be diverted from its operations.


FUEL DOCTOR: Continues to Defend "Perez" Class Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Doctor Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit commenced by Benjamin Anthony Perez against a subsidiary,
according to the Company's May 22, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

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.  Even if the Company
succeeds in defending against the litigation, it is likely to
incur substantial costs and its management's attention will be
diverted from its operations.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Awards NIS12.1 Million to Diabetes Patient
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Even, writing for Haaretz, reports that the highest-ever award
in an Israeli class-action suit against a drug manufacturer --
NIS12.1 million -- was recently made under a compromise agreement
reached between a diabetes patient and GlaxoSmithKline, the maker
of Avandia.

The suit had been filed by a diabetic who claimed that GSK had
concealed data from the public that showed the drug, which is used
to treat people with type-2 diabetes, increased the risk of dying
from a heart attack.

The award is expected to be used to fund a new treatment program
for diabetics.

Avandia was approved for treatment in 1999 and is included in the
basket of health services covered by Israel's HMOs as a pre-
treatment, to be used before insulin injections.  During the past
decade, it was one of the West's most widely used drugs in
diabetes treatment, with sales reaching $3.2 billion in 2006.

The Israel Diabetes Association estimates that some 30,000 Israeli
diabetics have been given the drug, but since the summer of 2007,
when the risks associated with it started to become known, that
number has fallen to several thousand.

In May 2007, the New England Journal of Medicine published an
article by two researchers who did a meta-analysis of 42 trials of
Avandia.  The two were able to demonstrate that the drug increased
the chance of heart attack by 43%, and the risk of dying from a
heart attack by 64%, compared to diabetics who were treated with
other drugs or were given placebos.

In February 2010, an internal report by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration determined that the drug harmed the heart, and had
been linked to 304 deaths from cardiac failure in the third
quarter of 2009 in the U.S.

Following these reports, European regulators began their own
reassessment of Avandia, and in October 2010 ordered the marketing
of the drug stopped.  But American and Israeli health officials
continued to allow its use to treat diabetics whose blood sugar
could not be stabilized by other drugs.

In July 2007, an Israeli diabetic filed a suit against
GlaxoSmithKline in Tel Aviv District Court that was later
recognized as a class-action.  His attorneys, David Or-Chen and
Tzvi Kahana, argued that the drug company had concealed the drug's
risks from the public, even though it had evidence of the risk
from at least as early as 2002, and that the drug was being
distributed with information leaflets printed in 2000, in
violation of Health Ministry requirements.

As part of the compromise arrangement, the drug maker rejected the
claims, saying that "scientific information does not support a
causal connection between the drug and the risk."  The award will
not go to the claimant, but to train professionals who help treat
diabetics, and toward the purchase of relevant treatments and
drugs that are not included in the national health basket.

The compromise is being publicized to solicit comments from anyone
who took the drug between 1999-2000, who believes that he or she
suffered medical problems or financial harm from the drug.

After hearing objections, which is expected to take place later
this week, the arrangement will require the approval of the
attorney general.

GlaxoSmithKline responded by saying it "hopes the programs will
provide significant support to patients and medical staff."


GREAT WOLF: Reaches Tentative Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. negotiated a tentative agreement to
resolve lawsuits relating to its merger deal with K-9 Holdings,
Inc., according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

On March 12, 2012, Great Wolf Resorts entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with K-9 Holdings, Inc., (Parent), and K-9
Acquisition, Inc., (Merger Sub) and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub agreed to commence a tender offer to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company at a
purchase price of $5.00 per share, net to the holder in cash,
without any interest and subject to any withholding taxes, to be
followed by a merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company with
the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the
Merger).  The items of this Merger Agreement were amended on April
6, 2012, April 18, 2012 and April 20, 2012, culminating in a new
Offer Price of $7.85 per share.

The transactions described are expected to be completed during the
second quarter of 2012. The consummation of the Offer and the
Merger are subject to various closing conditions, including the
tender of at least 50% of the Common Shares and other customary
conditions.  The Offer is not subject to a financing condition.
The Merger Agreement also includes customary termination
provisions for both the Company and Parent and provides that, in
connection with the termination of the Merger Agreement under
specified circumstances, the Company will be required to pay
Parent a termination fee of up to $10,467 (including reimbursement
for certain expenses).

On March 14, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its directors,
Apollo Management VII, L.P., Parent and Merger Sub.  In that case,
the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders,
sought to enjoin the proposed transaction that was the subject of
the Merger Agreement. Seven other lawsuits followed, four of which
were filed in Delaware Chancery Court, two in the Circuit Court,
Civil Division for Dane County in the State of Wisconsin (the
"Wisconsin State-court Actions"), and one in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin
Federal-court Action").  The Delaware cases were consolidated into
a single action (the "Delaware Action").

On April 25, 2012, the parties to the Delaware Action and the
Wisconsin State-court Actions reached an agreement in principle to
settle those cases. The proposed settlement, which is subject to
court approval following notice to the class and a hearing,
provides for the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs'
complaints and of all claims asserted therein.  On April 30, 2012,
the parties to the Wisconsin Federal-court Action agreed to settle
that case, subject to court approval of the proposed class-wide
settlement in the Delaware Action and entry of a final order
dismissing the Delaware Action in its entirety. Pursuant to their
agreement, the parties to the Wisconsin Federal-court Action filed
with the court, on April 30, 2012, a stipulation providing that
the Action be voluntarily dismissed with respect to all defendants
and that such dismissal will be with prejudice as to the plaintiff
upon the consummation of the settlement of the Delaware Action.

The Company, the members of the Board of Directors, Apollo
Management VII, L.P., Parent and Merger Sub each have denied, and
continue to deny, that they committed or attempted to commit any
violation of law or breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Company
and/or its stockholders, aided or abetted any breach of fiduciary
duty, or otherwise engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in
all of these cases. All of the defendants expressly maintain that
they complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties.

However, in order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction
of further litigation, and without admitting the validity of any
allegation made in the actions or any liability with respect
thereto, the defendants have concluded that it is desirable to
settle the claims against them on the terms reflected in the
proposed settlements.

The proposed settlements are subject to customary conditions
including completion of appropriate settlement documentation and
consummation of the Offer and the Merger. In addition, the parties
to the Delaware Action and the Wisconsin State-court Actions have
acknowledged that the plaintiffs and their counsel in those cases
intend to petition the appropriate court or courts for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the cases. Any
award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel is subject to
approval by the appropriate court or courts, and the defendants
have reserved the right to oppose the amount of any petition for
fees and expenses.

Because the proposed settlements are still not final, and no fee
petition has yet been submitted or approved, the Company is unable
to predict with certainty the outcome of the litigations or to
quantify any impact they may eventually have on our Company.  An
unfavorable outcome in these cases could have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. is a family entertainment resort company.
It is an owner, licensor, operator and developer in North America
of drive-to, destination family resorts featuring indoor
waterparks and other family-oriented entertainment activities
based on the number of resorts in operation.  The Company operates
and licenses resorts under its Great Wolf Lodge(R) brand name.


GUAM: Judge Manibusan Wants Political Status Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Guam News, reports that the attorney
pursuing a class action lawsuit over a law authorizing a
plebiscite on the island's political status has filed a series of
objections to District Court Judge Joaquin Manibusan's
recommendation that the case be dismissed.

Yigo resident Dave Davis filed the complaint arguing that he, and
others, have been discriminated against because they have been
barred from registering to vote in a non-binding referendum on
Guam's political status because they are not "native inhabitants
of Guam."

His attorneys have argued that limiting registration to "native
inhabitants" is a violation of constitutional rights.

However, U.S. Magistrate's Judge Joaquin Manibusan has recommended
dismissal because "Plaintiff has no standing to bring an action .
. . Plaintiff has not alleged that he has been charged with any
crime in relation to the Political Status Plebiscite act nor has
he shown that he is subject to a genuine threat of imminent
prosecution in relation to the said act."

But Christian Adams, of the Election Law Center in Washington D.C.
filed an objection in District Court on July 2 for the following
reasons:

* "First, the Report [Magistrate Manibusan's report] was issued
without any opportunity for plaintiff to be heard and contains
other recommendations unrelated to any pending motion before this
court."

* "Second, and as a consequence, the Report ignores the
possibility that preventing a citizen from registering to
participate in the political process is an injury, and that the
"case or controversy" over the infliction of that injury is
unambiguously "ripe" because it already has occurred and is
ongoing."

* "Third, plaintiff has standing because he and those similarly
situated are excluded from full participation in the political
process."

* "Fourth, explicit statutory language makes plaintiff's claims
ripe."

* "Fifth, even if the denial of registration does not make this
claim ripe, the Report is still in error. And sixth, adopting the
Report would create impractical results in election cases."

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


HALCON RESOURCES: Defends Merger-Related Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Halcon Resources Corporation is defending itself against class
action complaints relating to its merger agreement with
GeoResources, Inc., according to the Company's May 8, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On April 25, 2012, Halcon and GeoResources, Inc. announced the
execution of an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April
24, 2012, by and among Halcon; GeoResources (Merger Sub); Leopard
Sub I, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Halcon; and Leopard Sub
II, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Halcon (Second Merger Sub),
pursuant to which Halcon has agreed to acquire all of the issued
and outstanding shares of GeoResources common stock.  Under the
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into GeoResources, with
GeoResources surviving as a direct wholly owned subsidiary of
Halcon, and shortly thereafter GeoResources will merge with and
into Second Merger Sub, with Second Merger Sub surviving as a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Halcon.

At the time of the execution of the Merger Agreement, certain
officers and directors of GeoResources and certain of their
affiliates entered into a voting agreement with Halcon and Merger
Sub providing that, among other things, unless earlier terminated,
each Holder will vote the shares of GeoResources common stock
owned by such Holder in favor of the approval and adoption of the
Merger Agreement.  As of the date of such agreement, the Holders
owned approximately 17.1% of the issued and outstanding common
stock of GeoResources.  HALRES, LLC, entered into a voting
agreement with GeoResources providing that, among other things,
unless earlier terminated, HALRES, LLC will vote the shares of
Halcon common stock owned by HALRES, LLC in favor of the issuance
of Halcon's common stock to be issued in the Merger.  As of the
date of such agreement, HALRES, LLC owned approximately 51% of the
issued and outstanding common stock of Halcon.

As of May 2, 2012, four putative class action lawsuits relating to
the transactions contemplated in the Merger Agreement had been
filed against GeoResources and its board of directors, Halcon and
certain subsidiaries of Halcon and, in one lawsuit, HALRES LLC, a
stockholder of Halcon.  Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a
purported stockholder of GeoResources and seeks certification of a
class of all stockholders of GeoResources' common stock.  The
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the members of
GeoResources' board of directors, aided and abetted by Halcon
(and, in one lawsuit, HALRES LLC), breached their fiduciary duties
to GeoResources' stockholders by entering into the Merger
Agreement for merger consideration that plaintiffs claim is
inadequate pursuant to a process the plaintiffs claim to be
flawed.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms
or to rescind the Merger to the extent already implemented.  The
Company believes the suits are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against such claims.

Halcon Resources Corporation is an independent energy company
engaged in the exploration, development and production of crude
oil and natural gas properties located in the United States.


HJ HEINZ: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses H.J. Heinz Co. of stiffing factory workers for overtime
and straight time.

A copy of the Complaint in Mendez v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., et
al., Case No. 12-cv-05652 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/02/Heinz.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Kimberly D. Neilson, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  ikhoury@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com
                  kneilson@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1070
          Irvine, CA 92618-2902
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250


HSBC BANK: Judge Allows Overdraft Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that HSBC Bank USA, NA,
must face a lawsuit accusing the bank of charging its New York
customers excessive overdraft fees, a state court judge ruled on
June 28.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten held that state
law claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing and for unfair business practices were not pre-empted by
federal banking regulations.

"Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that HSBC engaged in a business
practice that would mislead a reasonable customer," Justice
Bransten wrote.

The judge, however, dismissed claims for unjust enrichment and
conversion without prejudice.

Neil Brazil, a spokesman for HSBC, declined comment.

The ruling leaves HSBC, a subsidiary of London-based HSBC Holdings
plc, in the company of other banks nationwide fending off class
actions for charging debit card customers fees when they overdraw
from checking accounts.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc agreed on June 26 to a $90
million settlement of similar claims in a federal multidistrict
litigation proceeding in Miami.  At least 13 other banks,
including Bank of America Corp and JPMorgan Chase & Co, have
agreed to settlements in the federal litigation.

In the case before Justice Bransten, customers challenged HSBC's
practice of posting debit transactions from high to low rather
than in the order purchases were made.  The practice meant
customers' funds were recorded as being depleted more quickly,
which led $35 overdraft fees to accumulate sooner.

A customer with $100 in her account who made a $5 purchase the
first day, $15 the second and $115 the third would be assessed
$105 in fees despite having enough money for the first two days'
purchases, Justice Bransten said.

                            NO CONFLICT

HSBC argued that the customers' claims were trumped by the
National Bank Act and regulations set forth by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency.  Since OCC regulations allowed HSBC
to post checks in high-to-low order, the bank said it was allowed
to do the same thing with debit purchases.

But Justice Bransten held that the customers' "state law claims do
not conflict with or significantly impair HSBC's rights" under the
federal banking laws.

The judge also disagreed that claims brought by two commercial
plaintiffs in the case were barred by the New York Uniform
Commercial Code, which HSBC said allowed it to post electronic
fund transfers from high to low.

Timothy MacFall -- tjm@rigrodskylong.com -- of Rigrodsky & Long, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for
comment.

The case is Levin, et al v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, et al, New York
State Supreme Court, No. 650562/2011

For the plaintiffs: Seth Rigrodsky -- sdr@rigrodskylong.com -- and
Timothy MacFall, Rigrodsky & Long; Brian Cohen, Cohen Law Group --
bcohenlaw@cohenadvisory.com

For HSBC: Joseph Strauss, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan.


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Faces Class Suit Over Acquisition of PLX
-----------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit over its proposed acquisition of PLX Technology, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 21, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April
1, 2012.

On April 30, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (Merger Agreement) with PLX Technology, Inc. (PLX),
pursuant to which the Company will commence an exchange offer
(offer) to purchase all of the outstanding shares of PLX common
stock, $0.001 par value, in exchange for consideration, per share
of PLX common stock, comprised of (i) $3.50 in cash plus (ii)
0.525 of a share of IDT common stock, without interest and less

merging PLX with and into one of the Company's wholly owned
subsidiaries (merger).

On May 14, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Cox v.
Guzy, et al., C.A. No. 7529, was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the Cox Complaint).  The Cox Complaint names as
defendants the members of the PLX Board of Directors, as well as
PLX, IDT, Pinewood Acquisition Corp. (Pinewood) and Pinewood
Merger Sub, LLC (Pinewood LLC), both of which are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of IDT.  The plaintiff alleges that PLX's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to PLX stockholders in connection
with the Offer and the Merger, and were aided and abetted by PLX,
IDT, Pinewood and Pinewood LLC.  The Cox Complaint alleges that
the Offer and the Merger involve an unfair price and an inadequate
sales process, unreasonable deal protection devices, and that
defendants entered into the Offer and the Merger to benefit
themselves personally.  The Cox Complaint seeks injunctive relief,
including to enjoin the Offer and the Merger, an award of damages,
attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Still Defends TCPA Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands, Inc. continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit in Illinois alleging violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, according to the
Company's May 8, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in an action filed
before the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Lake County,
Illinois, which was subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint
alleges that the Company sent thousands of unsolicited fax
advertisements to businesses nationwide in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (TCPA).   At the time of filing the
complaint, the plaintiff also filed a motion asking the Court to
certify a class of plaintiffs comprised of businesses who
allegedly received unsolicited fax advertisements from the
Company.  Other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad
range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own
unique set of facts and circumstances.  Accordingly, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising
from this matter.  The Company is vigorously contesting class
action certification and liability, and will continue to evaluate
its defenses based upon its internal review and investigation of
prior events, new information, and future circumstances.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing.

Interline Brands, Inc., and its subsidiaries, is a national
distributor and direct marketer of broad-line maintenance, repair
and operations (MRO) products.  The Company sells plumbing,
electrical, hardware, security, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC), janitorial and sanitation (JanSan) supplies
and other MRO products.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Still Defends "Rosen" Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2011, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. filed a class
action lawsuit, alleging Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. had violated
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and omitting material facts with regard to disclosure
of related party transactions and the effectiveness of internal
controls in past public filings.  The case is currently at the
discovery stage.  The Company believes there is no basis to the
lawsuit filed by the Rosen Law Firm and intends to contest the
case vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 21, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


LEBANON SCHOOL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Truancy Fines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge certified a
class of parents who claim that the Lebanon School District
grossly overfined them for their children's truancy.

A copy of the Memorandum in Rivera, et al. v. Lebanon School
District, Case No. 11-cv-00147 (M.D. Penn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/02/TruancyFines.pdf


LINKEDIN CORP: Sued Over Alleged Wholesale Security Failures
------------------------------------------------------------
Candyce Paraggua, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LinkedIn Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-03430 (N.D. Calif., June 29, 2012)
is brought as a result of LinkedIn's wholesale security failures,
which lead to the compromise and disclosure of the digitally-
stored, personally identifiable information ("PII"), including e-
mail addresses, passwords, and login credentials, of millions of
LinkedIn users.

By failing to utilize long-standing industry standard protocols
and technology to protect its users' PII, LinkedIn violated its
own User Agreement and Privacy Policy, and put its 120 million
registered users at risk, Ms. Paraggua contends.  She asserts that
instead of implementing basic industry-wide standards, LinkedIn
maintained millions of users' PII on servers in a weak encryption
format, without additional, crucial security measures.

Ms. Paraggua is a citizen of Illinois.  She has been a registered
user of LinkedIn's services since approximately 2006.

LinkedIn is incorporated and exists under the laws of the state of
Delaware, with its principal place of business in Mountain View,
California.  LinkedIn operates a large professional network on the
Internet with more than 120 million members in over 200 countries
and territories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  avold@siprut.com

               - and -

          Todd C. Atkins, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          701 B Street, Suite 1170
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 255-2380
          Facsimile: (619) 231-4984
          E-mail: tatkins@siprut.com

               - and -

          Dan Marovitch, Esq.
          MAROVITCH LAW FIRM, LLC
          233 S. Wacker Dr., 84th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 533-1605
          Facsimile: (312) 488-4206
          E-mail: dmarovitch@marovitchlaw.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: McKool Settles Malpractice Suit with Ex-Players
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that former NFL players are settling a
malpractice action against class counsel at McKool Smith,
according to court papers.  The players had sued McKool and
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips claiming the firms blew the chance to
win greater damages in a $28 million settlement over licensing and
marketing revenue.


PAREXEL INT'L: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The California Labor Code attorneys Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Parexel
International, LLC on June 6, 2012, alleging that the company
failed to pay their salaried clinical researchers overtime pay
even though these employees worked in excess of 8 hours in a
workday and more than 40 hours in a workweek.  Hughes, et al. v.
Parexel International, LLC Case No. BC485950 is currently pending
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

According to the wage and hour class action Complaint filed
against the pharmaceutical services provider, Parexel allegedly
violated California state labor laws by failing to pay their
clinical research coordinators for the overtime hours they worked.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the clinical research
coordinators regularly worked in excess of eight (8) hours in a
workday and forty (40) hours in a workweek primarily performing
non-exempt job tasks such as checking vital signs, drawing blood,
and administering the proper dosing of drugs.  Under California
law, companies are required to pay all non-exempt employees
overtime compensation whenever the employees work more than eight
hours in a workday or forty hours in a workweek.

In the opinion of the managing partner of the law firm, Norman B.
Blumenthal, "by misclassifying their employees as exempt from
overtime pay, employers not only hurt their employees, but they
cheat taxpayers in the State of California."


PENGUIN GROUP: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in E-Book Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Rosen, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that a motion
filed by Penguin to force consumers who bought e-books from Amazon
or BN.com to settle any harm caused by Penguin's alleged price-
fixing of e-books through arbitration has been denied by Judge
Denise Cote.  The ruling pertains to the class action lawsuit
brought against Penguin, four other publishers and Apple. Penguin
argued that clauses in terms of use agreements at Amazon and
BN.com call for any dispute of e-book purchases to be settled by
arbitration.

Among the findings in her 12-page order is that plaintiffs'
lawyers have already spent $45,000 evaluating the claims and
drafting the complaint.  It would be "economically irrational" for
a plaintiff to pursue individual arbitration since, Judge Cote
noted, he or she could expect at most a median recovery of $540 in
treble damages, yet face several hundred thousand dollars to
millions of dollars in expert expenses alone.

In other news, the Attorney General offices of Texas and
Connecticut submitted a letter to Judge Cote that they request an
order for a bench trial for their case, the State of Texas et al.
v. Penguin Group Inc. et al. to run concurrently with United
States v. Apple et al.  However, the plaintiff states it reserves
the right to a jury trial on damages.


PUBLICIS GROUPE: Female Employees' Class Action Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2012, in da Silva Moore, et al. v. Publicis Groupe, et
al., Civ. No. 11-CV-1279 (S.D.N.Y.), U.S. District Judge Andrew L.
Carter, Jr. granted collective action certification to a class of
female public relations professionals currently and formerly
employed by Publicis Groupe, a French multinational and the
world's third largest advertising agency.  Judge Carter concluded
that plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to show that female
PR professionals were paid less than their male counterparts for
the same work and that defendants "pay decisions were made
centrally."  He consequently ruled that female employees could
proceed as a class against Publicis Groupe and its PR network,
MSLGroup.

"We are delighted by the Court's certification decision because it
will provide female Publicis Groupe professionals an opportunity
to participate directly in this suit," said Janette Wipper, a
partner at Sanford Wittels & Heisler, and the plaintiffs' lead
counsel.  "And even more importantly, it brings women one step
closer to making equal pay for equal work a reality in the PR
industry."

The plaintiffs and the class are represented by Janette Wipper,
Steven Wittels, Siham Nurhussein, and Deepika Bains of Sanford
Wittels & Heisler, LLP.  In 2010, Sanford Wittels & Heisler
settled the nation's largest gender discrimination class action,
after winning a $253 million verdict from a federal jury in New
York.

In certifying the Publicis' class, Judge Carter relied upon
evidence submitted by plaintiffs, including: (a) documents which
showed that Publicis Groupe used centralized compensation
policies; (b) a report by Dr. Janice Madden, a professor at the
University of Pennsylvania, who found statistically significant
evidence that female VPs and SVPs at Publicis Groupe were paid
8.5% to 11.2% less annually than male VPs and SVPs; and (c) pay
comparison charts, which showed that Plaintiff Ms. da Silva Moore,
a former SVP and Director for Publicis Groupe's MSLGroup Americas,
and Plaintiff Maryellen O'Donohue, also a former SVP and Director,
earned over $100,000 less annually than men in the same position.

This victory for the plaintiffs means that former and current
female VP and SVP employees who worked at Publicis Groupe's PR
network, MSLGroup, in the U.S. will receive notice of the class
action and will have the opportunity to join the case.  The Court
called for nationwide notice because defendants' "compensation
policies require that pay decisions were made centrally."

In addition to challenging unequal, centralized pay decisions in
their suit, Plaintiff da Silva Moore and her five co-plaintiffs
have also challenged other discriminatory employment decisions
made by the same centralized male leadership team at Publicis
Groupe. The all-male team, for example, has hired, promoted and
paid men at an increasingly higher rate, widening the gap between
women and men even further, after Publicis Groupe reorganized its
PR practice under the MSLGroup network.  The same all-male team
has also terminated women at a higher rate.  Publicis Groupe, for
example, terminated Plaintiff da Silva Moore after thirteen years
with the company, without justification, immediately when she
returned from maternity leave. Publicis Groupe also fired a VP
just one day before she returned from maternity leave and another
VP three weeks after her return from maternity leave.  Plaintiff
da Silva Moore and her co-plaintiffs will also seek class
certification of these systemic gender discrimination claims from
Judge Carter later in the case.

Steven Wittels, counsel for the plaintiffs and the class stated:
"We hope that the Court's recognition of the pay disparities
between men and women at Publicis Groupe will encourage other
women.  Because of Judge Carter's ruling, these women know that
they are not alone, and that they can fight together for their
rights to be paid and promoted equally to men and to have careers
while being mothers."

Paris, France-based Publicis Groupe is the world's third largest
advertising company, employing 45,000 professionals around the
world.  Its 2011 revenue was more than EUR5.8 billion ($7.7
billion USD), with its profit for the year reaching $795 million
USD.


RF MONOLITHICS: Signs MOU to Resolve Two Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
RF Monolithics, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle two merger-related class action lawsuits filed in Texas and
Delaware, according to the Company's June 20, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 20, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow its stockholders
to vote on the proposals required in connection with the proposed
merger with Murata Electronics North America, Inc. ("MENA") at the
special meeting of its stockholders, RF Monolithics, Inc. ("RFM"
or the "Company") entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs and other named defendants, including MENA and Ryder
Acquisition Company, Limited ("Merger Sub"), to tentatively
settle, subject to formal stipulation of settlement and court
approval, two putative class action lawsuits captioned Ron Anshel,
et al. v. RF Monolithics, Inc., et al., Cause No. DC-12-04250-G,
pending in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"), and Robert E. Stigall, et al. v.
Farlin A. Halsey, et al., Civil Action No. 7468-VCG, pending in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Lawsuit").  Those class action lawsuits were filed purportedly on
behalf of RFM stockholders following the public announcement of
the execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated April 12,
2012, among RFM, MENA and Merger Sub (as it may be amended from
time to time, the "Merger Agreement").

As described in the definitive proxy statement (the "Definitive
Proxy Statement") filed by RFM with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on May 30, 2012, RFM, its directors, MENA
and Merger Sub were named as defendants in the Texas Lawsuit and
the Delaware Lawsuit, each in connection with the proposed merger.
On May 31, 2012, the plaintiff in the Texas Lawsuit filed an
amended class action complaint.  The complaints in the class
action lawsuits, as amended, allege, among other things, that the
members of the board of directors of RFM violated their fiduciary
duties by engaging in an unfair process, approving the Merger
Agreement and recommending the Merger Agreement for approval by
RFM stockholders; that the Merger Agreement does not maximize
value for RFM stockholders; that the Merger Agreement contains
coercive deal protection measures; and that the Definitive Proxy
Statement omits material facts and/or contains materially
misleading statements.  The complaints in the class action
lawsuits also allege that RFM, MENA and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.  The class action lawsuits seek to, among other things,
enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding.

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, RFM, the other
named defendants, including MENA and Merger Sub, and the
plaintiffs in the Texas Lawsuit and the Delaware Lawsuit have
agreed to settle both lawsuits and all related claims subject to
court approval.  The memorandum of understanding requires that the
plaintiffs submit a stipulation of settlement to the court in the
Texas Lawsuit.  If the court approves the settlement contemplated
in the memorandum of understanding, the claims of plaintiffs in
both cases and all class members will be released and both
lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms
of the memorandum of understanding, RFM has agreed to make
available additional information to its stockholders in advance of
the special meeting of stockholders of RFM held at 10:00 a.m.,
local time, on June 29, 2012, at RFM's principal executive
offices, at which meeting RFM stockholders voted upon the proposal
to adopt and approve the Merger Agreement.

In connection with the settlement, lawyers for plaintiffs in the
lawsuits intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses,
which will be subject to court approval.  RFM has agreed to pay
the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel, in an amount
to be determined by the court.  If the settlement is finally
approved by the court, it is anticipated that the settlement will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger,
the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith.  The Company says there can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.  The details of the settlement will be set forth in
a notice to be sent to RFM stockholders prior to a final hearing
before the court to consider both the settlement and plaintiffs'
application to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to RFM stockholders in connection with the proposed merger.

RFM and the other defendants, including MENA and Merger Sub, have
vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to deny, that they have
committed or aided and abetted the commission of any violation of
law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have
been alleged in the lawsuits, and expressly maintain that, to the
extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with
their fiduciary and other legal duties and are entering into the
contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense
of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have
been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the
completion of the merger that might arise from further litigation.
Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K, the memorandum of
understanding or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein.


SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From IPO Suit Deal Approval Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Sify
Technologies Limited remain pending, according to the Company's
June 19, 2012, Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Sify Technologies Limited and its subsidiaries (the "Group") and
certain of its officers and directors are named as defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  This
action, which is captioned In re Satyam Infoway Ltd. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, also names several of the
underwriters involved in the Sify's initial public offering of
American Depositary Shares as defendants.  This class action is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Sify's
ADSs from the time of the Sify's Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
in October 1999 through December 2000.  The central allegation in
this action is that the underwriters in the Sify's IPO solicited
and received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into
undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who purchased the
Sify's ADSs in the IPO and the aftermarket.  The complaint also
alleges that Sify violated the United States Federal Securities
laws by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the
underwriters had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed
arrangements.  More than 300 issuers have been named in similar
lawsuits.

In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints against
issuers and individual defendants affiliated with issuers was
filed by the entire group of issuer defendants in these similar
actions.  In October 2002, the cases against the Sify's executive
officers who were named as defendants in this action were
dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the court in this
action issued its decision on defendants' omnibus motion to
dismiss.  This decision denied the motion to dismiss the Section
11 claim as to Sify and virtually all of the other issuer
defendants.  The decision also denied the motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claim as to numerous issuer defendants, including
Sify.  On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the consolidated IPO
class action lawsuits currently pending against the Sify and over
300 other issuers who went public between 1998 and 2000, announced
a proposed settlement with Sify and the other issuer defendants.
The proposed settlement provided that the insurers of all settling
issuers would guarantee that the plaintiffs recover $1 billion
from non-settling defendants, including the investment banks who
acted as underwriters in those offerings.  In the event that the
plaintiffs did not recover $1 billion, the insurers for the
settling issuers would make up the difference.  This proposed
settlement was terminated on June 25, 2007, following the ruling
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
December 5, 2006, reversing the District Court's granting of class
certification.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed Amended Master
Allegations.  On September 27, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Class Certification.  Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
focus cases on November 9, 2007.  On March 26, 2008, the Court
ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had
adequately pleaded their Section 10(b) claims against the Issuer
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants in the focus cases.  As
to the Section 11 claim, the Court dismissed the claims brought by
those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess
of the initial offering price, on the grounds that they could not
show cognizable damages, and by those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period, on the grounds that those
claims were time barred.  This ruling, while not binding on the
Sify's case, provides guidance to all of the parties involved in
this litigation.  On October 2, 2008, plaintiffs requested that
the class certification motion in the focus cases be withdrawn
without prejudice.  On October 10, 2008, the Court signed an order
granting that request.  On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with
the Court a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement between all parties, including Sify and its former
officers and directors.  The proposed settlement provides the
plaintiffs with $586 million in recoveries from all defendants.
Under the proposed settlement, the Issuer Defendants collectively
would be responsible for $100 million, which would be paid by the
Issuers' insurers, on behalf of the Issuer Defendants and their
officers and directors.

Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Sify's insurers.  On
June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.  On October 6, 2009, the
District Court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  Subsequent to the final approval of Settlement
agreement by the District court, there are several notices of
appeal filed.  Most were filed by the same parties that objected
to the settlement in front of the District Court.  These will
likely be consolidated into a single appeal and briefing schedule
will be provided shortly.

Sify says any direct financial impact of the preliminary approved
settlement is expected to be borne by the Sify's insurers.  Sify
believes, the maximum exposure under this settlement is
approximately $338,983, an amount which it believes is fully
recoverable from its insurers.

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


SKECHERS USA: Settles Class Suits Over Toning Shoes for $50MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. entered into multiple settlement agreements
last month that resolve the pending inquiries of the United States
Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") and various states' Attorneys
General, as well as two civil class action lawsuits relating to
allegations that the Company made unsupported advertising claims
in connection with the marketing of its toning shoes, according to
the Company's May 21, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company will pay a one-
time settlement of $45 million plus $5 million in class action
attorneys' fees to settle all domestic advertising matters and
injunctive relief.  The Company is not paying any fines or
penalties.  The Company recorded a charge of $50 million in the
fourth quarter of 2011 to reserve for costs and potential other
exposures relating to its existing litigation and regulatory
matters, and related legal and professional fees.

The settlement agreements are with: (1) the United States (with
the FTC as signatory); (2) the following states and the District
of Columbia: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia and Wisconsin; and (3) the following plaintiffs:
Tamara Grabowski (a proposed class representative) and Venus
Morga.

                       Skechers' Statement

     MANHATTAN BEACH, California -- May 16, 2012 -- Skechers USA,
Inc. (NYSE:SKX) announced that it has settled all domestic legal
proceedings relating to advertising claims made in connection with
marketing its toning shoe products, including its Shape-ups(R)
line of shoes.  As discussed in the Company's previous annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company has been involved in legal proceedings brought by the
United States Federal Trade Commission, multiple states' Attorneys
General and consumer class action lawyers, all investigating
whether or alleging that the Company made unsupported advertising
claims in connection with marketing its toning shoes.  As
previously disclosed in the Company's annual and quarterly reports
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company will pay
a one-time settlement of $45 million dollars plus $5 million in
class action attorneys' fees to settle the domestic advertising
matters and related claims on a global basis.

     Skechers denies the allegations and believes its advertising
was appropriate, but has decided to settle these claims in order
to avoid protracted legal proceedings.  The one-time settlement is
expected to result in substantial net savings for the Company
compared to the significant long-term cost of defending against
multiple regulatory and civil legal proceedings in numerous
jurisdictions.  The Company will not be paying any fines or
penalties.

     "While we vigorously deny the allegations made in these legal
proceedings and looked forward to vindicating these claims in
court, Skechers could not ignore the exorbitant cost and endless
distraction of several years spent defending multiple lawsuits in
multiple courts across the country," said David Weinberg, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer.  "This settlement will dispose
once and for all of the regulatory and class action proceedings.
While we believe we could have prevailed in each of these cases,
to do so would have imposed an unreasonable burden on the Company
regardless of the outcome."

     Mr. Weinberg continued: "Our Company's goal has always been
and will continue to be designing and selling quality, affordable
shoes for our loyal customers.  In short, we settled to avoid the
cost and distraction of protracted legal battles so we could get
back to doing what we do best."

     Shoes that employ toning technology have been sold in the
United States for more than 15 years and have been the subject of
numerous research projects with at least 19 reports published in
peer-reviewed clinical and sports medicine journals.  Researchers
from around the world have analyzed various models of toning shoes
and found demonstrable fitness benefits from walking and standing
in such shoes, as compared to flat-bottomed athletic footwear.

     The settlement strictly relates to certain advertising and
related claims and does not prevent or prohibit Skechers from
making and selling the toning shoes, which the Company will
continue to do.  "The Company fully stands behind its toning shoe
products and technology and is permitted under the settlement to
continue to advertise that wearing rocker-bottom shoes like Shape-
ups can lead to increased leg muscle activation, increased calorie
burn, improved posture and reduced back pain," said Michael
Greenberg, President of Skechers.  Mr. Greenberg continued, "The
Company has received overwhelmingly enthusiastic feedback from
literally thousands of customers who have tried our toning shoes
for themselves and have written unsolicited testimonials about
their positive experiences -- not just with our products' exercise
benefits, but also with their well known comfort and style.  We
remain committed to the continued development of our toning shoe
products, and will continue to deliver quality products that our
customers love."

                    About Skechers USA, Inc.

     SKECHERS USA, Inc., based in Manhattan Beach, California,
designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men,
women and children under the SKECHERS name.  SKECHERS footwear is
available in the United States via department and specialty
stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce
Web site, and over 100 countries and territories through the
Company's global network of distributors and subsidiaries in
Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through
joint ventures in Asia.  For more information, please visit
http://www.skechers.com/,and follow us on Facebook
(http://www.facebook.com/SKECHERS/)and Twitter
(http://twitter.com/SKECHERSUSA/).


SOUTHERN STAR: "Price Litigation I" Still Pending in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class action suits commenced by Will Price, et al., against
Southern Star Central Corp. are still pending, according to the
Company's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In the putative class action captioned Will Price, et al. v. El
Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, District Court,
Stevens County, Kansas, or Price Litigation I, filed on May 28,
1999, the named plaintiffs, or Plaintiffs, have sued over 50
defendants, including Central.  Asserting theories of civil
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment,
their Fourth Amended Class Action Petition alleges that the
defendants have under measured the volume of, and therefore have
underpaid for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured
for Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified actual damages,
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the
right to plead for punitive damages.  On August 22, 2003, an
answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.  Despite a
denial by the Court on April 10, 2003 of their original motion for
class certification, the Plaintiffs continued to seek the
certification of a class.  The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class
certification for a second time was fully briefed and the Court
heard oral argument on the motion on April 1, 2005.  On September
18, 2009, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that
ruling on October 2, 2009.  The defendants, including Central,
filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on January 18, 2010.  The Plaintiffs filed a
reply, and oral argument, which was presented before a different
judge, was heard on February 10, 2010.  By order dated March 31,
2010, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to
reconsider the earlier denial of class certification.  The
Plaintiffs did not file for interlocutory review of the March 31,
2010 order, but through their counsel they initiated certain
discovery to which Central and other defendants have objected.  In
late June 2011, certain defendants other than Central filed
motions for summary judgment seeking, among other things, a ruling
on the legal issue of whether Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim
could be based upon their underlying unjust enrichment claim.  In
January 2012, the Court issued an order concluding that under
Kansas law, a conspiracy claim could be so based.  These
Defendants petitioned for interlocutory review of that ruling, but
the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied their request on February
23, 2012.  It is unknown whether Plaintiffs will follow through on
discovery and/or otherwise proceed with the litigation on a non-
class basis.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest Form 10-Q filing.

Southern Star Central Corp. operates as a holding company for its
regulated pipeline operations and development opportunities.
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its only operating
subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the development rights for
Western Frontier, which could be developed in the future.  The
Company owns and operates an approximately 6,000 mile interstate
natural gas pipeline and associated storage facilities in the
Midwest, serving customers in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and
parts of Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Texas.


SPRINT: Judge Rejects $17.5-Million Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that the Third Circuit
on June 29 rejected a $17.5 million consumer class-action
settlement over Sprint Nextel Corp.'s allegedly unlawful flat-rate
early termination fee, demonstrating the court's increasing
resistance toward simply rubber-stamping previously approved
pacts.

A three-judge panel reversed the settlement's approval and
remanded the case to the District of New Jersey.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Investor Class Action for $25 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Evergreen Investment Management Co. LLC has reached a $25 million
class action settlement with investors who claim the firm, now
part of Wells Fargo Advantage Funds, lied about the value of a
mutual fund, according to court documents filed on June 29.

The investors filed several actions in 2008, claiming Evergreen
presented its Ultra Short Opportunities Fund as a stable
"ultrashort" bond fund with low fluctuation, when in fact it was
neither.


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Ruling on "Ricker" Suit Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoo Entertainment, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit filed by Bruce
E. Ricker, according to the Company's May 21, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On July 22, 2011, Bruce E. Ricker, individually and on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of the Company from July 7,
2010, through April 15, 2011, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  Mr. Ricker was appointed lead plaintiff on
October 19, 2011, and he filed an amended complaint on
December 12, 2011.  The amended complaint alleges that the
Company, Mark Seremet, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and
David Fremed, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, knowingly or
recklessly violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making false
material statements in connection with certain financial
statements of the Company or by failing to disclose material
information in order to make the financial statements not
misleading.  Specifically, the amended complaint relies upon the
Company's April 15, 2011 restatement of its unaudited consolidated
financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2010,
the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, and the three and
nine months ended September 30, 2010, as the basis for its
allegations that the Company's financial statements filed for
those periods contained materially false statements.  Defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and the
motion has been briefed for the court's consideration, with oral
arguments held on May 10, 2012.

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

The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate any potential loss
or exposure at this time.


                           *********

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  * * *