CAR_Public/120709.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 9, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 134

                             Headlines

AETNA INSURANCE: Responds to Doctors' Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Queensland Flood Victims Could Win Claims of $200,000
BLUE SHIELD: Consumer Watchdog Opposes Insurance Plan Closures
BOK FIN'L: $19-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Fully Accrued in March
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action

CIBER INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Colorado
CYTOSPORT INC: Judge Allows Muscle Milk Class Action to Proceed
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Plea to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending
GEN-PROBE INC: Sued Over Merger Deal with Hologic, Inc.
HSBC USA: Mediation Still Ongoing in N.Y. Antitrust Suit

HSBC USA: Still Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Attorney Fees in Securities Settlement Trimmed
LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal in "Molina" Suit Still Pending
LONE PINE: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Over 2011 IPO
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Illinois Court Directs Insurer to Pay Fee Award

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Orders SEC, SWAC to Produce Documents
PA CHILD CARE: Summary Judgment in Kids-for-Cash Suit Denied
PANTRY INC: Dispositive Motions in MDL Litigation Still Pending
PANTRY INC: Class Suit Over Card Information Use Still Stayed
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Stockholders Suit in N.J.

PERRIGO COMPANY: 8 Class Cert. Applications Moved to One Court
PERRIGO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in New York
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Defends Product-Related Suits in Hawaii
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Still Defends "Nishimura" Suit in Hawaii
SISTERS OF MERCY: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Forced Adoptions

STERLING FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over Overdraft Fees in Wash.
TOSHIBA CORP: Jury Awards Damages of $87 Million in TFT-LCD Suit
WALTER ENERGY: Still Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Moore" Suit
WALTER ENERGY: Faces Another Securities Class Suit in Alabama
WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Unit

YAHOO! INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in California
YAHOO! INC: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware

* Large Investors May Opt Out of Class Action Over Libor


                          *********

AETNA INSURANCE: Responds to Doctors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Stephanie O'Neill, writing for Southern California Public Radio,
reports that about 60 California doctors are suing Aetna Insurance
Company over alleged denials of medical coverage.  The doctors
have joined the California and Los Angeles County medical
associations in a class-action lawsuit against Aetna Health of
California.

The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleges
that Aetna routinely threatens patients with denial of coverage if
they see doctors out of network -- although the plan they
purchased allows them to do so.  The suit also contends that the
insurance company threatens member doctors with contract
termination if they refer patients outside its network of
providers.

"We're appalled by this," said Dr. Samuel Fink, president of the
Los Angeles County Medical Association.  "We think when patients
buy an insurance policy that the insurance company Aetna needs to
adhere to the terms of that policy, and we want doctors to make
health care decisions for their patients."

Aetna responded with an e-mailed statement that characterizes the
suit as retribution after the insurance giant recently sued
several Bay Area surgical centers for egregious billing practices.

"We have sued some of these same doctors and surgery centers named
in this suit for their egregious billing practices in February of
this year.  This is a countersuit disguised as a class-action
lawsuit.  This is clearly retaliation against Aetna for our
actions to prosecute physicians who are not looking out for our
members."

The statement goes on to say that Aetna's actions protect its
customers against a small number of doctors who emphasize profits
above patient care.

"We will continue to pursue medical providers whose charges are so
grossly out of line.  For example, we are suing facilities and
doctors who have charged:

$73,536 for a kidney stone fragmentation when an average in-
network charge would approximately be $7,612.

$37,572 for a knee arthroscopy/ligament repair when an average in-
network charge would approximately be $10,500.

$15,276 for bunion surgery when an average in-network charge would
approximately be $7,943.

These egregious business practices, if not stopped, will continue
to drive up the cost of care and health insurance for everyone."


AUSTRALIA: Queensland Flood Victims Could Win Claims of $200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Gould, writing for The Queensland Times, reports that Ipswich
flood victims could win claims of $200,000 if an expected class
action by Maurice Blackburn lawyers is successful.

Ipswich Councillor Paul Tully said the $1 billion plus class
action against the State Government would initially determine
liability.

About 3,500 people in Ipswich and Brisbane have registered an
interest in joining the action and about 2,000 have signed funding
agreements.

Cr Tully said Maurice Blackburn was "planning to commence a class
action in the next couple of months, subject to the finalization
of their hydrological advice on the modeling of the flood".

"They are confident the claims will include loss of property and
property damage as well as perhaps loss of property value.  People
who weren't insured could possibly be putting in claims of
$150,000 to $200,000.

"While money doesn't buy happiness, it will make a big difference
to a lot of people's lives and their families and their children."

Cr Tully said Maurice Blackburn was "reasonably confident the
class action will proceed and that they will win".

IMF Australia is the litigation funders who are paying for the
claim on behalf of the flood victims.

IMF Australia executive director John Walker said his organization
was looking at whether the law had been breached and to determine
"firstly, whether or not the state owed a duty of care by building
and operating the dam above Brisbane.  And secondly, if it did owe
a duty, what was the duty? That is usually defined as . . .
operating the dam to the standard of a reasonably competent dam
operator".

"There are two experts in the US who have been engaged -- one to
see whether or not the dam was operated to a standard that you
could expect from a reasonably competent dam operator.  The second
expert is giving evidence with regard to the hydrological issues."

That will enable individual home owners to understand what
flooding would have occurred in their homes and to claim
accordingly.

"Individual properties might not have been flooded at all in some
cases," Cr Tully said.

"With others in single-level properties, it might have been four
or five meters lower.  In two-storey houses, it might have just
flooded in the bottom." Commercial damage will also be claimable.
Goodna resident Oswald Van Sanden said back in March he was
"hopeful the lawyers can help us get some money".

"I never got a penny from the insurance.  I nearly had a breakdown
and had to sell my house for half price," he said.

Those that sign up for the class action have nothing to lose
because flood victims do not have to pay for the legal
proceedings.  Mr Walker said he was "confident that the project
will proceed".

"We have got to finalize the experts' reports and finalize a list
of flood victims that are part of the action," he said.

"Then we will approach the State Government to see of they are
interested in a negotiated settlement . . . and if they are not,
then file a claim."

IMF Australia is a litigation funder that is paying for a $1
billion plus class action on behalf of flood victims against the
State of Queensland.


BLUE SHIELD: Consumer Watchdog Opposes Insurance Plan Closures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Watchdog praised Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones'
announcement on July 3 opposing Blue Shield's plan to close 23
health insurance policies, and echoing concerns raised by Consumer
Watchdog in a recently-filed class action lawsuit.

Consumer Watchdog said, however, that as many as 100,000
Californians are still trapped in closed or lower-benefit health
plans following policy closures carried out by Blue Shield's
affiliate regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care in
2010.

"Blue Shield is on notice that the company's plan to close health
insurance policies fails to protect consumers as the law
requires," said Jerry Flanagan, staff attorney for Consumer
Watchdog.  "If Blue Shield decides to go forward with the policy
closures, we look forward to working with the company to implement
a consumer-friendly plan.  We also hope that Blue Shield will
ensure that consumers affected by the 2010 policy closures will
finally benefit from the protections mandated by law."

The lawsuit filed by Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLC
alleges that Blue Shield is illegally gaming the health insurance
system by alternately closing older policies and opening new ones
in order to push older, sicker consumers who are more expensive to
insure into lower benefit, higher deductible coverage that
requires consumers to pay more out of pocket.  The lawsuit seeks
to stop Blue Shield from shoving its policyholders into what is
known as a "Death Spiral"-the industry term for what happens when
a health insurer "closes" certain insurance policies to new
customers, and later raises rates to those remaining in the closed
policy until those enrollees can no longer afford coverage.  Since
consumers with preexisting conditions cannot switch to a
comparable or better policy, consumers trapped in the closed
policies must either accept greatly inferior coverage or face
bigger and bigger premium increases.

According to legislative records, it was Blue Shield's own past
business practices, resulting in Death Spirals for consumers, that
spurred the Legislature to adopt the same 1993 law that Consumer
Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLC now allege the company has
violated.  The policy closures are taking place among certain
insurance plans in the individual market.  California law requires
that when health insurers close a policy the insurer must either
offer consumers new comparable coverage, or minimize rate
increases on the closed policies.  Two regulatory agencies -- the
California Department of Managed Health Care ("DMHC") and the
California Department of Insurance ("CDI") - oversee different
segments of Blue Shield's insurance business.

In the lawsuit, Blue Shield is accused of illegally closing eight
policies regulated by the DMHC in 2010, and announcing it would
close 23 policies regulated by the CDI on July 2, 2012 without
offering consumers comparable policies or limiting rate increases
as required by law. Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLC
settled a similar class action lawsuit last year targeting Blue
Cross of California's illegal Death Spiral practices.

Under the terms of that settlement, Blue Cross must both offer
consumers in the closed policies access to comparable coverage and
limit rate increases in the closed policies if consumers choose to
remain enrolled in the older, closed policy.

Consumer Watchdog is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization
with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA.


BOK FIN'L: $19-Mil. Class Suit Settlement Fully Accrued in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of Bok Financial Corporation's $19 million settlement
to resolve class action complaints relating to its overdraft
policies has been fully accrued at March 31, 2012, 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 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in three putative class
actions alleging that the manner in which the bank posted charges
to its consumer deposit accounts was improper. The three actions
have been consolidated for settlement purposes in Multi-District
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. On November 23, 2011, the Company settled the
class action lawsuits for $19 million, subject to court approval
for which application has been made. Management was advised by
counsel that, in its opinion, the Company's overdraft policies
meet all requirements of law and the Bank has not agreed to change
its overdraft practices. The Company settled the litigation to
avoid further expense and distraction. The amount of the
settlement was fully accrued at March 31, 2012.

BOK Financial Corporation -- http://www.bokf.com/-- a financial
holding company, offers a range of financial products and services
to commercial and industrial customers, and other financial
institutions and consumers. It operates in three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. The
Company was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that Justice
George Strathy of the Ontario Superior Court has dismissed a
secondary market securities class action against Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce alleging that the bank misrepresented its
exposure to the U.S. residential mortgage market.

In Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Justice Strathy
ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to obtain the required leave
to proceed with the action within the three-year period mandated
by the Ontario Securities Act.  He did, however, state that had he
not found that the limitation period had expired, he would have
certified the action and allowed it to proceed to trial.

Joel Rochon -- jrochon@rochongenova.com -- Peter Jervis, John
Archibald -- jarchibald@rochongenova.com -- and Sakie Tambakos --
stambakos@rochongenova.com -- of Rochon Genova represented the
plaintiffs.  James C. Tory -- jctory@torys.com -- Sheila Block --
sblock@torys.com -- Crawford Smith -- csmith@torys.com -- and
Andrew Gray -- agray@torys.com -- of Torys represented the CIBC,
and Benjamin Zarnett & David Conklin of Goodmans represented the
four individual defendants.


CIBER INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
CIBER Inc. continues to defend itself against a securities class
action complaint in Colorado, 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 October 28, 2011, a putative securities class action lawsuit,
Weston v. CIBER, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado against CIBER, its current Chief
Executive Officer David C. Peterschmidt, current Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer Claude J. Pumilia and former
CFO Peter H. Cheesbrough.  The Class Action purports to have been
filed on behalf of all holders of CIBER common stock between
December 15, 2010 and August 3, 2011 by alleged stockholder and
plaintiff, Burt Weston.  The Class Action generally alleges that
defendants CIBER, Mr. Peterschmidt, Mr. Pumilia and Mr.
Cheesbrough violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Action
Defendants disseminated or approved alleged false statements
concerning the Company's outlook and forecast for fiscal year 2011
in: (1) the Company's 8-K filed with the SEC and press conference
held with investors on December 15, 2010; (2) the Company's press
release and earnings conference call on February 22, 2011; (3) the
Company's 10-K for fiscal year 2010 filed with the SEC on February
25, 2011; and (4) the Company's press release, earnings conference
call, and Form 10-Q for first quarter 2011 filed with the SEC on
May 3, 2011.  The complaint also generally alleges that the Class
Action Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Action
Defendants acted as controlling persons of CIBER within the
meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by reason of their
positions with the Company.  The Class Action seeks, among other
things: (1) an order from the Court declaring the complaint to be
a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and certifying plaintiff as a representative of
the purported class; (2) awarding plaintiff and the members of the
class damages, including interest; (3) awarding plaintiff
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and (4) awarding such other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  The Court appointed
Mr. Weston and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System as
lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Robbins, Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP and Robbins Umeda LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel on January
31, 2012.  Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in early
April 2012.  The Class Action Defendants expected to respond to
the consolidated complaint in early May.  The Company believes
that the Class Action is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.  There can, however, be no assurance of the
outcome of these actions.

CIBER, Inc. -- http://www.ciber.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, provides information technology (IT), business
consulting, and outsourcing services in North America, Europe, and
the Asia/Pacific. It offers its solutions to energy and utilities,
telecommunications, retail, healthcare, financial services,
entertainment, and manufacturing industries.  The Company was
founded in 1974 and is headquartered in Greenwood Village,
Colorado.


CYTOSPORT INC: Judge Allows Muscle Milk Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baron and Budd disclosed that on June 28, 2012 a federal judge in
California ruled that a false advertising class action challenging
the statements "Healthy, Sustained Energy" and "healthy fats," as
made on the popular Muscle Milk(R) line of products, can proceed.
The lawsuit alleges that these advertising representations, which
are prominently featured on packaging for the products, are false
and misleading because the products contain unhealthy ingredients,
including fat, saturated fat and added sugars.  Baron and Budd
attorneys Roland Tellis and Mark Pifko in the firm's Los Angeles
office serve as counsel in the lawsuit.  (Delacruz v. CytoSport,
Inc., United States District Court, Northern District of
California, case no. 4:11-cv-03532-CW)

According to the lawsuit, the central message of the Muscle
Milk(R) advertising campaign is that the products are not loaded
with unhealthy fats and added sugars, and that consuming Muscle
Milk(R) provides a wide range of significant nutritional benefits.
This message, however, is false and misleading, the lawsuit
alleges.

Last summer, CytoSport, Inc., the maker of Muscle Milk(R)
products, received a warning letter from the FDA, asserting that
the company violated a number of FDA regulations.  Among other
things, the FDA's letter said that the labels made unauthorized
claims that Muscle Milk(R) products were "healthy."  Specifically,
Muscle Milk(R) products violated FDA regulations because products
cannot be labeled "healthy" unless they are low-fat and low in
saturated fat.  According to the FDA's letter, Muscle Milk(R)
products exceeded permissible levels of fat and saturated fat.

In finding that the "Healthy, Sustained Energy" representation on
Muscle Milk(R) products was an actionable misrepresentation, the
Court explained that the statement conveys that the products are a
"healthy source of energy and thus, may imply that they do not
contain an unhealthy amount of fat and saturated fat."

Additionally, in an order issued back in April, the Court found
that CytoSport's "healthy fats" representation on the bottle of
its Ready-to-Drink Muscle Milk(R) product could be false and
misleading to consumers because a "reasonable consumer would be
likely to believe that the drink contains unsaturated, not
saturated fats.  The drink container also states that it is a
'nutritional shake.'"  The Court explained that this
representation "contributes to a sufficient claim of deceptive
product labeling," and "the injury to the consumer class as a
whole could be substantial, even if the injury to individual
consumers is minimal.  No benefit is served by false and
misleading advertising."

"We are pleased with the Court's ruling," said attorney
Mark Pifko.  "It is an important step towards our client's goal of
holding CytoSport accountable for its false and misleading
representations.  CytoSport is capitalizing on a health and
wellness trend among consumers who are prepared to pay more for
products offering a wide range of nutritional benefits.  But, you
can't just whip-up a blend of saturated fat, fractionated oil and
added sugars, and slap a 'healthy' label on it."

In the past few years, other false advertising challenges have
been asserted against CytoSport, including a case alleging that
the company materially misrepresented the amount of cholesterol
and carbohydrates in the products, and a challenge arguing that
Muscle Milk(R) was falsely and deceptively marketed because,
despite the name, the product does not contain milk, but this is
the first such case to move past the company's legal challenges.

To learn more about the Muscle Milk(R) lawsuit, contact Baron and
Budd at 1.866.844.4556 or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.baronandbudd.com


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Plea to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Falconstor Software, Inc., continues to await a court order on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated stockholder 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.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought by
Company shareholders.  The other defendants are James Weber, our
former CFO and Vice President for Operations, and the estate of
ReiJane Huai.  Mr. Huai was the Company's former Chairman,
President and CEO.

The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants defrauded
shareholders by falsely certifying in the Company's SEC filings
that they had disclosed any fraud, whether or not material, that
involved management or other employees who had a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
The Class Action complaint alleges that the defendants were in
fact aware of fraud.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Certain of the defendants may be entitled to indemnification by
the Company under the laws of Delaware and/or the Company by-laws.

The Company cannot predict when the Class Action will be resolved
or its outcome.  While the Company has insurance policies that it
believes covers the Company for the allegations of the Class
Action, there can be no assurance that the amount of insurance
will be adequate to cover the costs of its defense of the Class
Action or any damages that might be awarded against the Company or
any defendant(s) to whom the Company owes indemnification.  The
Company's insurers may deny coverage under the policies.  If the
plaintiffs are awarded damages and the Company's insurance is not
adequate to cover the amounts, or its insurers deny coverage, the
amounts to be paid by the Company could have a significant
negative impact on the Company's financial results, its cash flow
and its cash reserves.

Headquartered in Melville, New York, FalconStor Software, Inc. --
http://www.falconstor.com/-- develops, manufactures, and sells
network storage software solutions; and provides the related
maintenance, implementation, and engineering services worldwide.
The Company was founded in 1989.


GEN-PROBE INC: Sued Over Merger Deal with Hologic, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action complaints, one in California and the
other in Delaware, have been commenced against Gen-Probe
Incorporated relating to its merger agreement with Hologic, Inc.,
the Company disclosed in its May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On April 29, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Hologic, Inc. and Gold Acquisition Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hologic, pursuant to which Merger Sub will
merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as
the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hologic.  Upon the effective time of the Merger, each outstanding
share of the Company's common stock (other than shares held by any
stockholders who are entitled to and who properly exercise
appraisal rights under Delaware law, treasury shares, and shares
held by the Company, Hologic, Merger Sub or any of their
respective subsidiaries) will be canceled and converted into the
right to receive $82.75 in cash, without interest, on the terms
and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement.
Consummation of the Merger is subject to various conditions.  The
Company expects the Merger to close in the second half of 2012.

In the days following the announcement that the Company had
entered into the Merger Agreement with Hologic and Merger Sub,
purported stockholders of the company filed two lawsuits in
connection with the proposed transaction, the first lawsuit,
captioned Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund v. Gen-Probe
Incorporated, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Diego against the Company, its
directors and Hologic, and the second lawsuit, captioned Timothy
Coyne v. Gen-Probe Incorporated, et al., or the Delaware Action,
was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company,
its directors, Hologic and Merger Sub.  Both actions were brought
as putative class actions and allege that the Company's directors
breached certain alleged fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders by approving the Merger Agreement, and that Hologic
and/or Merger Sub aided and abetted those breaches. The complaints
request an injunction of the transaction. The Delaware Action also
seeks damages in the event the transaction is completed. The
Company believes that each of these actions is without merit.

Gen-Probe Incorporated is involved in the development, manufacture
and marketing of rapid, accurate and cost-effective molecular
diagnostic products and services that are used primarily to
diagnose human diseases, screen donated human blood, and ensure
transplant compatibility.  Its leading clinical diagnostics
products include our APTIMA family of assays that are used to
detect the common STDs chlamydia and gonorrhea, certain high-risk
strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, and Trichomonas
vaginalis, the parasite that causes trichomoniasis.


HSBC USA: Mediation Still Ongoing in N.Y. Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mediation is still ongoing in the consolidated class action
lawsuit filed against banks, including, HSBC USA Inc., and Visa
Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated in connection with
supracompetitive levels of merchant discount fees paid by
retailers currently pending in a New York federal court, according
to HSBC's May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC
North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and
MasterCard Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four
class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New
York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(D.
Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.(E.D.N.Y.
No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American
Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-
5391 (JG)). Numerous other complaints containing similar
allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across
the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other
banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a
no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of
the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes
the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust
laws. These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the
Eastern District of New York. The consolidated case is: In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. A consolidated, amended complaint
was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second
consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009. On
February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other
defendants, including HSBC Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the
defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements
(the Agreements) that provide for the apportionment of certain
defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC
Bank USA and its affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally,
in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or
all of these actions.  The Agreements also cover any other
potential or future actions that are transferred for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings with MDL 1720. While the Company continues
to believe that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims in this action, the parties are engaged in a mediation
process at the direction of the District Court. Based on progress
to date in mediation, the Company increased its litigation
reserves in the fourth quarter of 2011 to an amount equal to its
estimated portion of a potential settlement of this matter.


HSBC USA: Still Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss "Levin" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA, Inc., continues to await a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a putative 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.

In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the
Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and
HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and
New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft
fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit
accounts in high-to-low order.  Levin asserts claims for breach of
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York
deceptive acts and practices statute.  The plaintiffs dismissed
the Federal court action after the case was transferred to the
multi-district litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed
the case in New York state court on March 1, 2011.  The action,
captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
650562/11), alleges a variety of common law claims and violations
on behalf of a New York class, including breach of contract and
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion,
unjust enrichment and a violation of the New York deceptive acts
and practices statute.  HSBC filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in May 2011, oral argument was held in November 2011,
and the Company is currently awaiting the court's decision.  At
this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
liability, if any, that might arise as a result of this action and
will defend the claims vigorously.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Attorney Fees in Securities Settlement Trimmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in
Manhattan has cut 31% from the fees sought by two law firms that
won $516 million in securities settlements for Lehman Brothers
investors last year.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check were awarded $56.7 million in fees, down from the $82.6
million they had claimed.  U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan cited
the work of a bankruptcy examiner who unearthed the bank's alleged
use of an accounting gimmick among reasons for reducing the award.

"We live in hard times," Judge Kaplan wrote in an order on
June 29.  "A fee in excess of $82 million, reflecting about 2.18
times the notional reasonable value of the services rendered, even
granting that some premium over the lodestar is appropriate,
simply seems too much."

Lodestar is a court term for an attorney's hours multiplied by
their hourly rate.  In a successful class action, lawyers
routinely seek a contingency fee that is more than what they would
have billed for their work.

Max Berger -- mwb@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein Litowitz and David
Kessler -- dkessler@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz, did not respond
to requests for comment on July 2.

The plaintiffs recovered $426 million in a settlement last year
with Lehman underwriters, which included Bank of America, Wells
Fargo, and Morgan Stanley.  Another $90 million came from a
settlement with former Lehman executives, including former CEO
Richard Fuld, that was funded through insurance.

In a three-page order, Judge Kaplan said the lawyers did a "great
deal of work."  But he said they benefited from a "quite
extraordinary" March 2010 report by Lehman Brothers bankruptcy
examiner and Jenner & Block partner Anton Valukas.

After that report, Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz added
allegations to their own lawsuit.  Judge Kaplan, who last year
largely denied a motion to dismiss the suit because of those
allegations, said the lawyers were right to add that new material.

"But the fact remains that this very significant factor in the
denial of much of the motions to dismiss and, doubtless, on the
price defendants eventually paid to settle, was the product of the
examiner's efforts."

Bernstein Litowitz and Kessler Topaz had also said in their fee
request the $516 million represented 13 percent of the $3.3
billion in statutory damages, according to the decision.

But Judge Kaplan said there was no hint investors would recover
even a third of what could reasonably be recovered had the lawsuit
moved forward.  And he said the he was "bound in good conscience"
to question a fee resulting in a rate of more than $900 an hour.

The case is In re: Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 08-05523.


LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal in "Molina" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International Inc.'s appeal from a $7.8 million award to
class members and a $5.7 million award in attorneys' fees in the
lawsuit captioned Molina v. Lexmark, remains pending, according to
the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2012.

On August 31, 2005, former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect
prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This statute
has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose"
vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200 current
and former California employees of the Company. The trial was
bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On
May 1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to
a conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and
personal choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated
California law. In a Statement of Decision, received by the
Company on August 27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the
class members approximately $8.3 million in damages which included
waiting time penalties and interest but did not include post
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On November 17,
2010, the trial court Judge partially granted the Company's motion
for a new trial solely as to the argument that current employees
are not entitled to any damages. On March 7, 2011, the trial court
Judge reduced the original award to $7.8 million. On October 28,
2011, the trial court Judge awarded the class members $5.7 million
in attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees. The appeal is pending.

The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable. The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation. In accordance with the
accounting guidance for contingencies, if the reasonable estimate
of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a
better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued.
Because no amount within the range of potential loss is a better
estimate than any other amount, the Company has accrued $1.8
million for the Molina matter, which represents the low-end of the
range. At the high-end of the range, the class has sought $16.7
million in damages along with $5.7 million in attorneys' fees,
plus post judgment interest. Thus, it is reasonably possible that
a loss exceeding the $1.8 million already accrued may be incurred
in this matter, ranging from $0 to $22.4 million, excluding post
judgment interest, costs and any additional attorneys' fees which
may be assessed against the Company.

Established in 1991, Lexmark International, Inc. --
http://www.lexmark.com/-- is a developer, manufacturer and
supplier of printing, imaging and document workflow solutions for
the office.  The Company also operates in the office imaging and
ECM markets.  Lexmark's products include laser printers, inkjet
printers, multifunction devices, dot matrix printers and
associated supplies, solutions and services and ECM software
solutions and services.


LONE PINE: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Over 2011 IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on July 3 disclosed that it has filed the
first federal class action against Lone Pine Resources, Inc.
alleging that Lone Pine made false statements of material facts in
its prospectus issued in connection with the Company's May 26,
2011 initial public offering.  If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 4,
2012.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

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

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

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose in its
IPO documents that the Company was facing significantly increased
costs and disruption in production volumes attributed to a major
oil sales pipeline rupture in late April 2011 and a large forest
fire in the same area in Mid-May.  When the market learned of this
adverse information, the price of Lone Pine dropped damaging
investors.

If you purchased Lone Pine stock on or after May 26, 2011, you may
join the class action to recover your investment losses.  To join
the class action, please visit the Web site at
http://rosenlegal.com

You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of
The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com--
represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its
practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative
litigation.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Illinois Court Directs Insurer to Pay Fee Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois federal court ordered insurers of Merge Healthcare
Incorporated to pay for the Company's portion of a fee award
judgment in a stockholder class action complaint related to the
acquisition of AMICAS Inc., according to Merge Healthcare's May 8,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In January 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts
in connection with AMICAS' proposed acquisition by Thoma Bravo,
LLC.  A second similar action was filed in the same court in
February 2010 and consolidated with the first action.  In March
2010, because AMICAS had terminated the Thoma Bravo Merger and
agreed to be acquired by Merge Healthcare, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims as moot.  Subsequently, counsel for the
plaintiffs filed an application for approximately $5,000 of
attorneys' fees for its work on this case, which fee petition
AMICAS opposed.  Merge Healthcare retained litigation counsel to
defend against the fee petition.  On December 23, 2010, the court
awarded plaintiffs approximately $3,200 in attorneys' fees and
costs.  AMICAS has appealed this judgment.  Merge Healthcare
previously tendered the defense in this matter to its appropriate
insurers, which provided coverage against the claims asserted
against AMICAS.  After receipt of the court's attorneys' fee award
decision, the insurer denied policy coverage for approximately
$2,500 of the fee award.  Merge Healthcare does not believe that
the insurer's denial has merit and have retained counsel to
contest it.  On June 6, 2011, the insurer filed an action against
AMICAS and Merge Healthcare in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaration that it is not
responsible for the $2,500 portion of the judgment rendered on
December 4, 2010 by the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts.  Merge Healthcare filed a counterclaim seeking a
declaration that the insurer must pay the full amount of the
Superior Court's fee award, plus additional damages.

On April 30, 2012, the Northern District of Illinois federal court
ruled in favor of Merge Healthcare's Motion for Summary Judgment
in the insurer's underlying declaratory judgment action.  The
court ordered the insurer to pay the Massachusetts court judgment
plus interest.  The insurer had until May 30, 2012 to appeal that
court's ruling.

Merge Healthcare asserts that it continues to vigorously assert
all of its rights under its applicable insurance policies, which
it believes cover the claims and expenses incurred by AMICAS or
Merge Healthcare in connection with the fee award.  The Company,
however, acknowledges that an adverse outcome could negatively
impact its financial condition and cash flow.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Merge Healthcare Incorporated
-- http://www.merge.com/-- provides healthcare information
technology solutions in the United States and internationally. Its
software solutions automate healthcare data and diagnostic
workflow to create an electronic record of the patient experience.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Judge Orders SEC, SWAC to Produce Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Solomon, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that an
Alabama federal judge recently ordered the SEC and SWAC to produce
excerpts of their television and licensing contracts to ex-college
athletes in a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA.  But the
ruling fell short of what the players sought.

For months, lawyers representing players such as Ed O'Bannon, Bill
Russell, Oscar Robertson, Tyrone Prothro and others have wrestled
with conferences, schools and TV networks to acquire discovery
against the NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Company and Electronic
Arts, Inc.  The players claim the NCAA and those companies violate
federal antitrust laws by preventing players from getting paid
based off their name and likeness even after leaving college.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins ruled June 15 in
Alabama that within 30 days the SEC and SWAC must provide excerpts
from football and men's basketball TV and licensing contracts
since 2002.  Those excerpts are limited to mentions of publicity
or image rights for athletes and must identify the parties and
sports involved in the particular agreement.

Chris Hellums, a Birmingham attorney working for the players, said
the plaintiffs believe the documents will show former and current
SEC players possess the same lack of rights to their own images as
those in other major conferences.

"That is a very important concept for the next major battle in the
case, demonstrating that players and former players have enough in
common so that it makes sense for the trial to occur on behalf of
all players, not just a few individuals," Mr. Hellums said via
e-mail.

The players had also sought SEC documents for two other categories
-- a summary of TV distribution rights and non-privileged
documents concerning negotiations of contract provisions.  The Big
Ten Network and Fox agreed in California court to provide a
summary of distribution rights without compromising confidential
terms.

That won't be the case for the SEC.  Judge Hopkins ruled in
Alabama that those Big Ten documents were voluntarily offered in
the compromise and not required by the court.

Mr. Hellums said the players were interested in those SEC
documents to see if the filing of the O'Bannon lawsuit in 2009
affected any subsequent negotiations of media contracts.

Previously-obtained information from SEC schools via other
subpoenas have helped explain how the contracts operate,
Mr. Hellums said.

"It would have been nice to see those (SEC) documents,"
Mr. Hellums said.  "But we are quite clear on all that matters,
the end result -- players and former players do not share in the
ever-increasing tremendous value that they generate for their
schools, conferences, as well as television networks and numerous
other entities."

Prior to the court order, the SEC had produced over 1,000 pages of
documents to the players, such as consent forms athletes must sign
for use of their image and likeness, Mr. Hellums said.  An
attorney representing the SEC declined to comment.

It's estimated the college licensing business takes in $4.5
billion annually.  The NCAA has said it is "pure fiction" to claim
the NCAA profits from athletes' likeness, arguing it does not
license the likeness of athletes or prevent ex-athletes from
attempting to do so.

The SEC claimed in court documents that broadcasts of games are
not "products" and don't violate any name and likeness rights of
current or former college athletes.  For instance, SEC lawyers
wrote that if Gatorade wanted to use video of Peyton Manning in
college to promote its product, Gatorade would have to license
rights through Mr. Manning and license the copyright to the video
from the copyright holder.

Mr. Hellums said the players' lawyers are analyzing approximately
1 million pages of documents, including more than 600,000 pages
from the NCAA.  NCAA personnel are currently being deposed.
Mr. Hellums anticipates the same for SEC officials after obtaining
the remaining SEC documents by July 15.  Judge Hopkins denied the
SWAC's motion to quash the subpoena and provide no documents.

Because of the breadth of information obtained through rulings and
negotiations, Mr. Hellums said the O'Bannon trial date has been
moved from March 2013 to February 2014.  That will allow time to
review the evidence and for the court to make several key rulings,
including class certification, Mr. Hellums said.

Electronic Arts, the video-game maker of college football and
basketball games, unsuccessfully tried to get out of the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken recently ruled in California
that EA's licensing agreement with the NCAA doesn't refute the
players' allegations.

Part of EA's licensing agreement agrees that it will "not
encourage or participate in any activity that would cause an
athlete or an institution to violate" the NCAA's rules.  Judge
Wilken concluded that doesn't distinguish between former and
current athletes and "can be fairly read" as evidence of a
"meeting of the minds" between the defendants to not compensate
ex-college athletes.


PA CHILD CARE: Summary Judgment in Kids-for-Cash Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens Voice reports that a federal judge denied motions for
summary judgment in the class-action civil-rights actions filed in
the kids-for-cash scandal on July 3.

The 1,050 plaintiffs in the case, former juvenile offenders who
claim they were illegally incarcerated and/or denied their right
to counsel, sought summary judgment without trial against
companies and individuals connected to two for-profit juvenile
detention centers at the heart of the scandal.  Those defendants
also sought summary judgment in a counter-motion.

Both requests were denied on July 3 by U.S. District Judge A.
Richard Caputo.

Two former Luzerne County judges are serving lengthy prison terms
for accepting payments for placing juveniles in the centers.

The builder of the centers, Robert K. Mericle, has already agreed
to a $17.75 million settlement stemming from his role in the
payments.  The agreement is awaiting approval from Mr. Caputo.

Mr. Caputo ruled the case against the other defendants should
proceed because questions remain about the roles played by the
companies that own the centers, PA Child Care LLC and Western PA
Child LLC, the firm that operates them, Mid-Atlantic Youth
Services Corp., and the former partners in all three companies,
Robert J. Powell and Gregory Zappala.

Mr. Zappala, who was not charged in the case, has taken over Mr.
Powell's interest in the companies.  Mr. Powell is serving an 18-
month prison sentence.


PANTRY INC: Dispositive Motions in MDL Litigation Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., continues to await a federal court's order on
dispositive motions it filed in a consolidated class action
complaint over fuel temperature, 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 29, 2012.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  Initially, the Company was
named as a defendant in eight of these cases, three of which have
been dismissed without prejudice.  The Company remains as a
defendant in five cases: one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v.
Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-
00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); one in Alabama  (Cook,et al. v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 2:07-cv-750-WKW-CSC, filed
8/22/07); one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07); one in
Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al.,
No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed 7/13/07); and one in South Carolina
(Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C.,
No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed 9/24/07).  Pursuant to an Order
entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all of
the cases, including those in which the Company is named, have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings.  The
plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail
purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants agreed
to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of motor
fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons which, at
higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These cases seek, among
other relief, an order requiring the defendants to install
temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel
dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases, including some of
the cases in which the Company is named, plaintiffs also have
alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.  The plaintiffs in these
cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and
punitive damages. Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment
interest.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to
state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21,
2008.  A number of the defendants, including the Company,
subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable
"political questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and
defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31,
2010.

In May 2010, in a lawsuit (Kansas case) in which the Company is
not a party, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel
purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature
controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any
class for damages. Defendants sought permission to appeal that
decision to the Tenth Circuit in June 2010, and that request was
denied on August 31, 2010.  On November 12, 2011, Defendants in
the Kansas case filed a motion to decertify the Kansas classes in
light of a new favorable U.S. Supreme Court decision.  On January
19, 2012, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion to decertify and
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class as to liability
and injunctive relief aspects of Plaintiffs' claims.  The court
has continued to deny certification of a damages class. The Kansas
case is set for trial in August 2012.

The Company has filed dispositive motions in each of the cases in
which it has been sued.  At this stage of proceedings, the Company
cannot estimate its ultimate loss or liability, if any, related to
these lawsuits because there are a number of unknown facts and
unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of any
potential liability, including, without limitation: (i) whether
defendants are required, or even permitted under state law, to
sell temperature adjusted gallons of motor fuel and/or disclose
the temperature of the fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual
temperature of fuel purchased by plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or
not class certification is proper in cases to which the Company is
a party.  An unfavorable outcome in this litigation could have a
material effect on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations, and cash flows.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of
convenience stores in the southeastern United States.  The
Company's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, and
ancillary products and services.  Its merchandise products include
cigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packaged
beverages, beer, and wine.  The Company operates stores under
various selected banners, which primarily include Kangaroo
Express.  The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Cary, North Carolina.


PANTRY INC: Class Suit Over Card Information Use Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry Inc. disclosed in its May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2012, that a class action complaint against it
over the use of information on debit and credit card receipts
remains stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's action in a
standing case vs. First American Financial Corp.

On October 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit
against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v. Kangaroo
Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).  On September 9,
2010, a first amended complaint was filed adding Enger McConnell
on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated
individuals.  The plaintiffs seek class action status and allege
that The Pantry included more information than is permitted on
electronically printed credit and debit card receipts in willful
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
codified at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g).  The amended complaint
alleges that: (i) plaintiff Patrick Amason seeks to represent a
subclass of those class members as to whom the Company printed
receipts containing the first four and last four digits of their
credit and/or debit card numbers; and (ii) Plaintiff Enger
McConnell seeks to represent a subclass of those class members as
to whom the Company printed receipts containing all digits of
their credit and/or debit card numbers.  The plaintiffs seek an
award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged
willful violation of the statute, as well as attorneys' fees,
costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction against the
alleged unlawful practice.  On July 25, 2011, the court denied
plaintiffs' initial motion for class certification but granted the
plaintiffs the right to file an amended motion.  On October 3,
2011, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification
seeking to certify two classes. The first purported  class,
represented by Mr. Amason, consists of (A) all natural persons
whose credit and/or debit card was used at an in-store point of
sale owned or operated by the Company from June 4, 2009 through
the date of the final judgment in the action, (B) where the
transaction was in a Company store located in the State of
Alabama; and (C) in connection with the transaction, a receipt was
printed by Retalix software containing the first four and last
four digits of the credit/debit card number on the receipt
provided to the customer. The second purported class, represented
by Ms. McConnell, consists of (A) all natural persons whose credit
and/or debit card was used at an in-store point of sale owned or
operated by the Company from June 1, 2009 through the date of the
final judgment in the action, and (B) in connection with the
transaction, a receipt was printed containing all of the digits of
the credit/debit card numbers on the receipt provided to the
customer. The Company opposed  the motion for class certification,
and also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the
basis that the plaintiffs lack standing or alternatively to stay
the case until the Supreme Court of the United States rules in
First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards (the "Edwards case"),
another case involving a standing issue. On January 19, 2012, the
Court issued an order staying the case until a decision is issued
in the Edwards case, and subsequently administratively terminated
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, subject to plaintiffs'
right to refile the motion after the stay is removed.

The Company says that at this stage of the proceedings, it cannot
reasonably estimate its ultimate loss or liability, if any,
related to this lawsuit because there are a number of unknown
facts and unresolved legal issues that will impact the amount of
our potential liability, including, without limitation: (i)
whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert their claims; (ii)
whether a class or classes will be certified; (iii) if a class or
classes are certified, the identity and number of the putative
class members; and (iv) if a class or classes are certified, the
resolution of certain unresolved statutory interpretation issues
that may impact the size of the putative class(es) and whether or
not the plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages.  An
unfavorable outcome in this litigation could have a material
effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of
convenience stores in the southeastern United States.  The
Company's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, and
ancillary products and services.  Its merchandise products include
cigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packaged
beverages, beer, and wine.  The Company operates stores under
various selected banners, which primarily include Kangaroo
Express.  The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in
Cary, North Carolina.


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Stockholders Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. continues to defend itself
against a second amended complaint over the restatement of its
financial statements, 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 and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
23, 2001 and July 5, 2006.  The lawsuits followed the Company's
July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of certain of
the Company's financial statements and allege that certain members
of the Company's then management engaged in violations of the
Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial condition and results of
operations.  The consolidated class actions are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  On July 23,
2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to
dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion
as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff.  The co-
lead plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.  After class
discovery, both co-lead plaintiffs withdrew and a new lead
plaintiff, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement fund
(LAMPERS) and its counsel, Berman DeValerio, were substituted in
as lead plaintiff and new lead counsel.  LAMPERS have filed a
motion for class certification which, after additional class
discovery, has been fully briefed, but no argument date has been
set.  The Company and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered
the amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the
consolidated class action.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. operates primarily through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., in two business
segments.  Its generic products division, Par Pharmaceutical,
develops (including through third party development arrangements
and product acquisitions), manufactures and distributes generic
pharmaceuticals in the United States.  Its branded products
division, Strativa Pharmaceuticals, manufactures and distributes
branded pharmaceuticals in the United States.


PERRIGO COMPANY: 8 Class Cert. Applications Moved to One Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eight applications to certify a class action lawsuit in Israel
against Perrigo Company relating to the thyroid drug, Eltroxin,
have been transferred to one presiding court, 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.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by Aspen and distributed by the Company in Israel.
The respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline (Israel) Ltd, and
health care providers who provide health care services as part of
the compulsory health care system in Israel. There is also a
motion to approve a service to Aspen Bad Oldesloe GMBH, Germany,
of one of the applications.

The applications arise from the launch of a reformulated version
of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally allege that
patients were not notified in a timely manner about the change in
the formulation, about the potential for adverse events while
transferring to the new formulation of Eltroxin and the need to
perform blood tests after changing to the new formulation. The
applications also generally allege that the failure to timely
provide such notifications resulted in: (a) purchases of product
that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been
aware of the reformulation; (b) injuries to some patients
resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have
been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patient's lack of
informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation.

Eight applications were transferred to one court which will decide
whether to consolidate the applications and/or dismiss some of the
applications.

As the matter is in its early stages, the Company cannot
reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if
any, associated with these claims.

Perrigo Company is a healthcare supplier that develops,
manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and generic
prescription (Rx) pharmaceuticals, infant formulas, nutritional
products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).  The
Company's primary markets and locations of manufacturing and
logistics operations are the United States, Israel, Mexico, the
United Kingdom and Australia.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company continues to defend a shareholder class action
lawsuit pending in New York, 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, 2011.

On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named
Michael L. Warner filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, including the President and Chief
Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief Financial Officer,
Judy Brown, among others. The plaintiff sought to represent a
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009. The
complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff generally alleged
that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose, prior to
February 3, 2009, that certain auction rate securities or ARS held
by the Company, totaling approximately $18,000 in par value, had
been purchased from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. The plaintiff
asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as the seller of
the ARS was material because after Lehman's bankruptcy filing, on
September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly became unable to look to
Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price near par value.  The
complaint sought unspecified damages and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief, along with costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several purported
shareholders of the Company, namely CLAL Finance Batucha
Investment Management, Ltd., The Phoenix Insurance Company, Ltd.,
Excellence Nessuah Mutual Funds Management, Ltd. and Excellence
Nessuah Gemel & Pension, Ltd., as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On July 31,
2009, these Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint dropped all claims against the individual
defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and added a
"control person" claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the members of the Company's Audit Committee. The amended
complaint asserted many of the same claims and allegations as the
original pleading. It also alleged that the Company should have
disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that Lehman had sold the ARS
to the Company and had provided the allegedly inflated valuation
of the ARS that the Company adopted in its Form 10-Q filing for
the first quarter of fiscal 2009, which was filed with the SEC on
November 6, 2008. The amended complaint also alleged that some
portion of the write-down of the value of the ARS that the Company
recognized in the second quarter of fiscal 2009 should have been
taken in the prior quarter, immediately following Lehman's
bankruptcy filing. On September 28, 2009, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants. On September
30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss. The Court dismissed the "control person" claims
against the members of the Company's Audit Committee, but denied
the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants.
On October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on the grounds that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs
(who were the only plaintiffs named in the amended complaint)
lacked standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws following a
recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act does not apply
extraterritorially to the claims of foreign investors who
purchased or sold securities on foreign stock exchanges. On
December 23, 2010, a shareholder named Harel Insurance, Ltd. filed
a motion to intervene as an additional named plaintiff. Although
Harel is a non-U.S. investor, it claims to have purchased the
Company's common stock on a U.S. exchange. On January 10, 2011,
the original plaintiff, Warner, filed a motion renewing his
previously withdrawn motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff to
replace the Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed
motion to dismiss. The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the then-
Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might
ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who
purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other
means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted
Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, subject to the
filing by Harel of an amended complaint alleging that Harel's
purchases of Perrigo stock were made in the United States; (iv)
ruled that Warner would be treated as a named plaintiff; and (v)
left for later the selection of Lead Plaintiffs. On October 7,
2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on behalf of
both Harel and Warner as named plaintiffs, alleging the same
claims as in the amended complaint but on behalf of a purported
class limited to those who purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ
market or by other means involving transactions in the United
States. The second amended complaint alleges that Harel purchased
Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market during the purported class
period. Also on October 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
stipulation seeking to appoint Harel and Warner as the new co-lead
plaintiffs, subject to approval of the Court. On October 27, 2011,
the Court approved the stipulation and issued an order appointing
Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs. On November 21, 2011, the
defendants answered the second amended complaint, denying all
allegations of wrongdoing and asserting numerous defenses.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this
lawsuit and is actively pursuing its defense. The Company believes
the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition and results of operations as
reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Perrigo Company is a healthcare supplier that develops,
manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and generic
prescription (Rx) pharmaceuticals, infant formulas, nutritional
products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).  The
Company?s primary markets and locations of manufacturing and
logistics operations are the United States, Israel, Mexico, the
United Kingdom and Australia.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Defends Product-Related Suits in Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., continues to defend itself from
lawsuits related to its strap tie holdown products, 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.

Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii
First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson
Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke Noho
Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case
2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case
4").  Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009.  The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.  Case 1 is a class action
brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses.
Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc.,
Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case
No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed
with a new representative plaintiff.  Case 2 is an action by the
builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company,
claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are
defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to
provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility
to corrosion in certain environments.  Case 3 is a subrogation
action brought by the insurance company for the builders and
developers against the Company claiming the insurance company
expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the
Company's products.  Case 4 is a putative class action brought,
like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.
In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc., the developer of the Ocean Pointe
development, has brought a third party complaint against the
Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be liable
are actually the fault of the Company.  None of the Cases alleges
a specific amount of damages sought, although each of the Cases
seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive damages.

The Company is currently investigating the facts underlying the
claims asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the
cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown
to exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the
general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction
professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of
damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed.  At this
time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any
property damage allegedly suffered and the extent of such
liability, if any, are unknown.  Management believes the Cases may
not be resolved for an extended period.  The Company intends to
defend itself vigorously in connection with the Cases.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering,
manufacture, and sale of building products.  It offers wood-to-
wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors; screw
fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel fasteners;
pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss plates; and a
range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors, carbide drill
bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete, masonry, and steel
markets, as well as a range of concrete repair products and
engineered materials for the repair, strengthening, and
restoration of asphalt and masonry construction. The company
markets its products to the residential construction, light
industrial and commercial construction, remodeling, and do-it-
yourself markets primarily in the United States, Canada, Europe,
Asia, and the South Pacific.  Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was
founded in 1956 and is based in Pleasanton, California.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Still Defends "Nishimura" Suit in Hawaii
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing, Inc. continues to defend the lawsuit
captioned Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd; Simpson Manufacturing
Co., Inc.; and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1-
1522-07, 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 lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of
Hawaii on July 20, 2011.  The case alleges premature corrosion of
the Company's strap tie holdown products in a housing development
at Ewa Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii.  The case is a putative class
action brought by owners of allegedly affected homes.  The
Complaint alleges that the Company's strap products and mudsill
anchors are insufficiently corrosion resistant and/or fail to
comply with Honolulu's building code.  The Company is currently
investigating the claims asserted in the complaint, including,
among other things: the existence and extent of the alleged
corrosion, if any; the building code provisions alleged to be
applicable and, if applicable, whether the products complied; the
buildings affected; the responsibility of the general contractor,
various subcontractors and other construction professionals for
the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and
the costs of repair, if any are needed.  At this time, the
likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any damage
allegedly suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are
unknown.  The Company denies any liability of any kind and intends
to defend itself vigorously in this case.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering,
manufacture, and sale of building products.  It offers wood-to-
wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors; screw
fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel fasteners;
pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss plates; and a
range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors, carbide drill
bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete, masonry, and steel
markets, as well as a range of concrete repair products and
engineered materials for the repair, strengthening, and
restoration of asphalt and masonry construction. The company
markets its products to the residential construction, light
industrial and commercial construction, remodeling, and do-it-
yourself markets primarily in the United States, Canada, Europe,
Asia, and the South Pacific.  Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was
founded in 1956 and is based in Pleasanton, California.


SISTERS OF MERCY: Law Firm Mulls Suit Over Forced Adoptions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Claire Moodie, writing for ABC News, reports that a law firm is
preparing a class action for about 100 women who say they were
forced to give up their babies during the 1960s and 70s.

Porters Lawyers, a Canberra-based firm, is representing the women
who claim they were forced to give up their babies at a number of
institutions and hospitals run by charities and church orders
around Australia.

They include about a dozen women in Western Australia who claim
their babies were taken away from them by the Catholic Church
order of Sisters of Mercy.

Others, including the Church of England and the Presbyterian
Church, are alleged to have been involved.

Lawyer Jason Parkinson says the legal action follows the recent
Senate inquiry into forced adoptions.

"We'd like to get a legal resolution as well as getting them some
proper psychological treatment," he said.

He says the class action hopes to secure financial compensation
for the women.

"We'd like to get some kind of symmetry and just finalize the
legal situation for them," he said.

"And, at the same time get them some proper counseling so that
they can say that there was something awful that's happened in the
past but finally there's been a resolution."

A lobby group set up to represent victims of forced adoption
predicts many more women will join the legal action.

Origins' Lily Arthur believes compensation is the logical step for
many women.

"I think it's a tangible form of contrition," she said.

"Words to a lot of people are never going to acknowledge the pain
and suffering that they've lived with for decades."

Ms. Arthur says compensation is necessary.

"A lot of them are living in very poor circumstances due to the
trauma and mental health problems that they encountered from their
experience," she said.

In a statement, the Sisters of Mercy says it is committed to
working towards a just and compassionate resolution on the matter.

The institute's sister Berneice Loch said she recognized it was
not always easy to bring about healing of past hurts when
considerable time has elapsed.

But, she said healing remains the outcome the sisters want.

Porters Lawyers say they have already had fruitful discussions
with the Sisters of Mercy.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over Overdraft Fees in Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 2012, Sterling Financial Corporation and its
subsidiary, Sterling Savings Bank, were named as defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by two Washington customers
of Sterling Savings Bank in King County, Washington, Superior
Court, the Company disclosed in its May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

The suit challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were
charged and the disclosures related to posting order of debit card
and ATM transactions, and alleges claims for breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment, and a violation
of state consumer protection laws. No class has been certified and
there are significant uncertainties involved in any purported
class action litigation.

Sterling intends to vigorously defend the case. The Company says
its failure to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set
forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on its
business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered
probable or reasonably estimable in amount.

Spokane, Wash.-based Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a
bank holding company, organized under the laws of Washington State
in 1992.  The principal subsidiaries of Sterling are Sterling
Savings Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  Subsequent to June 30, 2010,
Golf Savings Bank was merged with and into Sterling Savings Bank,
with the mortgage banking operations of Golf Savings Bank
continuing to operate as a division of Sterling Savings Bank.


TOSHIBA CORP: Jury Awards Damages of $87 Million in TFT-LCD Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Pearson, Simon,
Warshaw & Penny, LLP on July 3 disclosed that a federal court jury
on July 3 found that Toshiba Corporation and its subsidiaries
conspired with the world's other leading manufacturers of Thin
Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Displays ("TFT-LCDs") to raise and
fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and certain products.  The jury
awarded damages of $87 million.  Federal antitrust law requires
the trebling of these damages, resulting in a $261 million award
against Toshiba.

Richard M. Heimann, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, stated, "We
are very pleased the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and
found that Toshiba violated the law, particularly in light of the
government's decision not to criminally prosecute Toshiba for its
misconduct.  The case demonstrates once again the critical role
our civil justice system plays in holding corporations, no matter
how powerful or where they are based in the world, accountable for
violating U.S. antitrust laws."

"There was strong evidence that Toshiba participated in the price-
fixing conspiracy through communications with other TFT-LCD
manufacturers, and that it received future pricing information
from its competitors, shared its own future information, and was
aware of its wrongdoing," stated Bruce L. Simon, co-lead counsel
for plaintiffs.  "We are grateful for the jury's service.  The
jury rejected Toshiba's claim that it had done nothing wrong, and
this is one of the few antitrust class actions ever tried to a
successful verdict."

               About the LCDs Antitrust Litigation

TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer
monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital
assistants, and other devices.  Plaintiffs charge that defendants
conspired to raise and fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels and
certain products containing those panels for over a decade.

Previously in the class action litigation, entitled In re TFT-LCD
(Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.), the
Court certified two nationwide classes of persons and entities
that directly purchased TFT-LCDs from January 1, 1999 through
December 31, 2006, one class of panel purchasers, and one class of
class of buyers of laptop computers, computer monitors, and
televisions that contained TFT-LCDs.

The classes reached settlements with ten other defendant
manufacturers for a combined value of $430 million.  Toshiba was
the only defendant to proceed to trial.  Lieff Cabraser serves as
court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for direct purchasers in the
litigation.

Contacts:

          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Richard Heimann, Esq.
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com

                 or

          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
          Eric Fastiff, Esq.
          Telephone:(415)-956-1000
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com

                 or

          Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP
          Bruce Simon, Esq.
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000

                        Toshiba's Response

Toshiba Corporation (Toshiba) and its subsidiary, Toshiba America
Electronic Components, Inc. (TAEC), on July 3 disclosed that a
jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) has issued a verdict against Toshiba
in the amount of US$87 million due to alleged antitrust practices
in the LCD business.  Given credits for settlements by other
defendants, Toshiba expects that it will not have to pay any
damages as a result of this verdict, even after trebling under
U.S. antitrust laws.

This class action was filed in 2007 by direct purchasers of LCD
panels and related products in the United States.

Toshiba has consistently maintained that there was no illegal
activity on its part in the LCD business in the United States, and
Toshiba continues to hold that view.  While Toshiba appreciates
the jury's time and effort, Toshiba believes that the jury's
verdict is in error as to the finding of wrongdoing on Toshiba's
part.  Toshiba plans to pursue all available legal avenues to
correct that finding.

At this time, Toshiba does not plan to revise projections for
fiscal 2012 business performance due to this matter.


WALTER ENERGY: Still Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss "Moore" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to await a court order
on its motion to dismiss a class action complaint over the
presence of hazardous substances related to its operations,
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 and Walter Coke, Inc. were named in a suit filed by
Louise Moore on April 26, 2011 (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy,
Inc. and Walter Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. This is a
putative civil class action alleging state law tort claims arising
from the alleged presence on properties of substances, including
arsenic, BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a
result of current and/or historic operations in the area conducted
by the companies and/or their predecessors. The action is still in
the earliest stages of litigation. On June 6, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a
defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to
relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing
after March 2, 1995. Based on initial evaluation, management
believes that both procedural and substantive defenses are
available to the Company and Walter Coke expects to vigorously
defend this matter. No specific dollar value has been claimed in
the suit's demand for monetary damages. On June 20, 2011, Walter
Coke filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was heard on October 28,
2011.  As of May 8, 2012, a ruling has not been received.

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


WALTER ENERGY: Faces Another Securities Class Suit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Another securities class action complaint against Walter Energy,
Inc. was filed on March 15, 2012, 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.  A previous
similar complaint was filed in January 2012.

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter's
Canadian and European Operations (collectively the "Individual
Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael
Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to
represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased
common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011.

The complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further allege that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claim violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The
Court has not yet appointed lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's
counsel.  Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe
that there is no merit to the claims alleged.

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc. is awaiting results of a plaintiff's motions
to proceed with securities claims and to certify securities and
oppression claims as class actions, the Company disclosed in its
May 8, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In November 2009, the Company's subsidiary, Western Coal Corp.,
was named as a defendant in a statement of claim issued by a
plaintiff who seeks leave of the Ontario Courts to proceed with a
securities class action. The claim also named Western Coal's
former President and director, John Hogg, and two of its non-
executive directors, John Brodie and Robert Chase, as defendants.

The plaintiff subsequently delivered an amended claim that added
new allegations that seeks to have the amended claim certified as
a class action separately from the proposed securities class
action allegations. The new allegations focused on certain
transactions the plaintiff claims were oppressive and unfair to
the interests of shareholders. The amended claim included
additional defendants of Western Coal's former Chairman, John
Byrne, its remaining non-executive directors John Conlon and
Charles Pitcher, Audley European Opportunities Master Fund
Limited, Audley Capital Management Limited, and Audley Advisors
LLP.

The proposed securities claims allege that those persons who
acquired or disposed of Western Coal shares between November 14,
2007 and December 10, 2007 should be entitled to recover $200
million for general damages and $20 million in punitive damages.
The plaintiff alleges that Western Coal's consolidated financial
statements for the second quarter of fiscal 2008 and the
accompanying news release issued on November 14, 2007
misrepresented Western Coal's financial condition and that Western
Coal failed to make full, plain and true disclosure of all
material facts and changes.

The plaintiff's oppression claims are advanced in respect of
security holders in the period between April 26, 2007 and July 13,
2009. The claims are that the defendants caused Western Coal to
enter into transactions that had a dilutive effect on the
interests of shareholders. The damages associated with these
alleged dilutive effects have not been developed or quantified.

The plaintiff's motions to proceed with securities claims and also
to certify the securities and oppression claims as class actions
were rescheduled to allow the plaintiff additional time to answer
the Company's position. The hearing dates were set for June 2012.

Western Coal and the other named defendants continue to, and will
vigorously defend the allegations. They maintain that there is no
merit to the claims and that the damages are without foundation
and excessive. Accordingly, the Company has made no provision for
the claims in its financial statements.

Walter Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces
and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in
the United States.  The Company also produces thermal and
industrial coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane
gas, and other related products.  It principally serves electric
utility and industrial customers.  It was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.


YAHOO! INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action complaint in Northern California, according to the
Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Since June 6, 2011, two purported stockholder class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain officers and directors
by plaintiffs Bonato and the Twin Cities Pipe Trades Pension
Trust.  In October 2011, the District Court consolidated the two
actions under the caption In re Yahoo! Inc. Securities Litigation
and appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as
lead plaintiff.  In a consolidated amended complaint filed
December 15, 2011, the lead plaintiff purports to represent a
class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock
between April 19, 2011 and July 29, 2011, and alleges that during
that class period, defendants issued statements that were
materially false or misleading because they did not disclose
information relating to the restructuring of Alipay.com Co., Ltd.
The complaint purports to assert claims for relief for violation
of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and for
violation of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages,
injunctive and equitable relief, fees and costs. Defendants have
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

Alibaba Group restructured the ownership of Alipay and
deconsolidated Alipay in the first quarter 2011.  The Company
related that the impact of the deconsolidation of Alipay was not
material to its financial statements.  On July 29, 2011, the
Company entered into a Framework Agreement with Alibaba Group,
Softbank Corp., a Japanese corporation, Alipay, APN Ltd., a
company organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands ("IPCo"),
Zhejiang Alibaba E-Commerce Co., Ltd., a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China
("HoldCo"), Jack Ma Yun, Joseph C. Tsai and certain security
holders of Alipay or HoldCo as joinder parties.  The Framework
Agreement establishes the ongoing financial and other arrangements
between Alibaba Group and Alipay.  The transactions under the
Framework Agreement closed on December 14, 2011.

With respect to the legal proceedings and claims described, the
Company has determined, based on current knowledge, that the
amount or range of reasonably possible losses, including
reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued,
is not reasonably estimable with respect to certain matters and
that the aggregate amount or range of such losses that are
estimable would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows. Amounts accrued as of December 31, 2011 and March
31, 2012 were not material. The ultimate outcome of legal
proceedings involves judgments, estimates and inherent
uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty.  In the
event of a determination adverse to Yahoo!, its subsidiaries,
directors, or officers in these matters, however, the Company may
incur substantial monetary liability, and be required to change
its business practices. Either of these events could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows. The Company may also incur
substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in
defending against these claims.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a digital media company that delivers
personalized digital content and experiences through various
devices worldwide. It offers online properties and services to
users; and a range of marketing services to businesses. The
Company's communications and communities offerings include Yahoo!
Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Groups, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, and
Connected TV.  The Company was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


YAHOO! INC: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated
shareholder class action lawsuit in Delaware, according to the
Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On December 1, 2011 and December 7, 2011, purported class action
complaints were filed in the Delaware Chancery Court by M & C
Partners, III and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System, respectively, against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors at that time. On December 14, 2011,
the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two actions under the
caption In re Yahoo! Shareholders Litigation and appointed lead
plaintiffs. On December 29, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint purportedly on behalf
of all of the Company's stockholders alleging that the Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the
Company's value in connection with the strategic review process.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, rescission, fees and costs.

With respect to the legal proceedings and claims described, the
Company has determined, based on current knowledge, that the
amount or range of reasonably possible losses, including
reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts already accrued,
is not reasonably estimable with respect to certain matters and
that the aggregate amount or range of such losses that are
estimable would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows. Amounts accrued as of December 31, 2011 and March
31, 2012 were not material. The ultimate outcome of legal
proceedings involves judgments, estimates and inherent
uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty. In the
event of a determination adverse to Yahoo!, its subsidiaries,
directors, or officers in these matters, however, the Company may
incur substantial monetary liability, and be required to change
its business practices. Either of these events could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows. The Company may also incur
substantial legal fees, which are expensed as incurred, in
defending against these claims.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a digital media company that delivers
personalized digital content and experiences through various
devices worldwide. It offers online properties and services to
users; and a range of marketing services to businesses. The
Company's communications and communities offerings include Yahoo!
Mail, Yahoo! Messenger, Yahoo! Groups, Yahoo! Answers, Flickr, and
Connected TV.  The Company was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.


* Large Investors May Opt Out of Class Action Over Libor
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals at Reuters reports that the stakes are rising in lawsuits
against big banks over allegations they rigged benchmark interest
rates, as some large investors may opt out of a massive class
action and strike out on their own.

Competing lawsuits could drive up the legal costs for the banks,
which are accused of colluding to manipulate the global benchmark
Libor rate that sets prices on $350 trillion of derivatives and
other financial products.

Barclays PLC agreed on June 27 to pay $453 million to U.S. and
British authorities to resolve the rate manipulation allegations,
becoming the first bank to settle the investigation.  The scandal
led to resignation of Barclay's chairman, chief executive officer
and chief operating officer in the past week.

Some investors are discussing "opting out" of several pending
class-action lawsuits against a group of bank defendants as a way
to remain in control of their cases, plaintiffs' lawyers say.
Doing so could give them more power in directing the course of the
litigation, or negotiating a potential settlement with the bank
defendants on their terms.

Already, Charles Schwab Corp has filed its own lawsuit against the
banks stemming from the Libor allegations rather than join one of
the proposed class actions, which allow plaintiffs to pool
resources, sue collectively and then divide jury awards or
settlements among the group.  All of the pending cases have been
consolidated before a federal judge in New York.

More than a dozen banks, including Citigroup, HSBC and UBS, have
been caught up in the probe and have been sued in proposed class-
actions by plaintiffs including the city of Baltimore and
Frankfurt-based Metzler Investment GmbH, which manages EUR47
billion ($59 billion) in assets.  The plaintiffs brought antitrust
claims against the banks, saying they were bilked of potentially
billions of dollars.

The lawsuits have been organized into classes of investors, which
would include those harmed by the alleged collusion even if they
did not sue.  The classes, which would need to be approved by U.S.
District Judge Naomi Buchwald, cover plaintiffs who purchased
Libor-linked securities from the banks, those who traded through
exchanges securities tied to Libor and those who invested in
securities that paid interest based on Libor.

The litigation has several procedural hurdles to clear over the
next year to 18 months, beginning with motions to dismiss that the
defendant banks filed on June 29.  The banks argued the cases
should be thrown out because they failed to show the defendants
acted jointly to restrain competition.

"Their only complaint is that the reported rates were allegedly
inaccurate, causing (U.S. dollar) Libor to be lower than it
otherwise would have been," the banks said in court papers.
"Whether that is true or not, it has nothing to do with
competition, among defendants or anyone else."

Several attorneys not involved in the litigation said the alleged
manipulation did not easily lend itself to forming classes,
because many plaintiffs would have been affected differently at
different times.

"You don't really need a class here," said Daniel Brockett of law
firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in New York, who has
represented large institutional investors in litigation. "Most
investors are huge institutions that can bring their own claims."

Mr. Brockett's firm could stand to gain if it lands an opt-out
plaintiff as a client.

"I can tell you a lot of major investors are looking at this
because the facts that came to light because of Barclays are
pretty damning," he said.

Thomas Hatch, who represents institutional investors at the law
firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, said investors were
examining the possibility of opting out as a way to direct their
own cases, rather than ride along with a class action.

Multiple lawsuits would likely cost the banks more to fight, and
their legal headaches could be prolonged if they end up resolving
some lawsuits but fighting others.

Barclays, Citigroup, HSBC and UBS declined to comment on the
litigation.  Lawyers for plaintiffs in the proposed class-action
cases did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment.

Opting out of class actions can bring huge rewards for plaintiffs.
For instance, the state of Alaska said in 2007 that its $60
million securities fraud settlement with Time Warner Inc was 50
times what it would have recovered as part of a class action
against the company.  The case involved allegations that the media
company misled investors about AOL, with which it merged in 2001.

Under a class-action settlement, Time Warner agreed to pay $2.65
billion.  Opt-out settlements cost it at least an additional $795
million, according to Oakbridge Insurance Services, which provides
executives with liability coverage.

Still, going it alone can be risky -- there is no guarantee that a
plaintiff will be more successful alone than suing as part of a
class.  The Libor-rigging case also could drag on for years, and
opting out could be prohibitively expensive for all but the
wealthiest investors, such as insurance companies and large
pension funds.

Attorneys who represent a class work on a contingency basis.
Plaintiffs who opt out would need large potential claims to
attract their own contingency-fee lawyer.  If not, they'd need the
money to pay for legal counsel.

"You have to have huge damages and huge liability and huge
settlements to even think about opting out," said Adam Savett,
founder of TXT Capital, a firm that advises plaintiffs on whether
to remain in class actions.

The Libor litigation involves claims that trillions of dollars of
securities were potentially affected.  In addition, the cases are
brought under antitrust laws, allowing courts to award treble
damages.

Charles Schwab claims it bought about $660 billion of fixed-rate
and floating-rate securities affected by the alleged Libor
manipulation.  The financial services company does not put an
exact figure on damages, but says in court documents that Libor-
rigging banks reaped "hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars in ill-gotten gains" at Mr. Schwab's expense.

One critic of the banks' practices said the litigation could come
to rival the billions of dollars that banks have spent to resolve
mortgage-related lawsuits.

"This is the dark horse candidate to become the next big capital
issue for the banks, at least for the banks involved in the Libor
manipulation scandal," said Manal Mehta, a partner at Sunesis
Capital, a hedge fund following litigation against the large
banks.  "It has potential to be astronomical."


                           *********

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  * * *