CAR_Public/120711.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 11, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 136

                             Headlines

ALGO CENTRE: Launches $30-Mil. Class Action Over Mall Collapse
AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS: Still Defends Employee Class Action Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Hagens Berman Files Euribor Class Action
BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Parker" Suit

BARNES & NOBLE: Filed Initial Response in "Nguyen" Suit in May
BARNES & NOBLE: Has Yet to Receive "Torrez" Class Complaint
BARNES & NOBLE: "Minor" Suit Deal Got Final Approval in April
BARNES & NOBLE: Ninth Cir. Affirms Remand Order in "Lina" Suit
BNY MELLON: Still Defends Suits Over Securities Lending Program

BNY MELLON: Unit Still Defends Suits Over Madoff Investment
BNY MELLON: Has Conditional Deal in Medical Capital-Related Suits
BNY MELLON: Still Defends Suits Over Foreign Exchange Matters
BNY MELLON: Settles Sigma Class Action Litigation
BURGER KING: Still Finalizing Terms of 86-Restaurant Class Deal

CANADA: OHHA Mulls Suit vs. Ontario Over Slots-at-Racetracks Deal
CANADA: ACP-ITCCS Sue Over Crimes Against Humanity
CENTENE CORPORATION: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action
CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Face Employment Suits in Calif.
COMMAND SECURITY: Proceedings in Security Guards' Suit Stayed

CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: No Class Cert. Hearing in Bartlett Case Yet
FOREST LABORATORIES: Sanford Wittels Files Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action in New York Over IPO
INDYMAC BANCORP: Officers Settle Class Suit for $6.5 Million
LANDAMERICA 1031: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit v. SunTrust

METLIFE INC: Faces Class Action Over March 2011 Public Offering
MMODAL INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Delaware Suit Claims
NETFLIX INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Appeal from Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
NORTH AMERICAN: Judge to Rule on Overtime Class Action by July 19

OVERHILL FARMS: Class Cert. Motion in "Agustiana" Suit Denied
PANASONIC CORP: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Class Suits
PATRIOT COAL: Still Defends Suit Over Employee Safety Violations
ROSETTA STONE: Still Awaits Court OK of Wages Suit Settlement
SAFEWAY: Harasses Employees Who Join Class Action, Suit Claims

SONY CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Action Suits
SONY CORP: Faces Suits Over 2011 Cyber-Attack on Units' Sites
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: GlobeOp Continues to Defend Class Suits
SUPERMEDIA INC: Securities Suit vs. Officers Still Pending
SUPERMEDIA INC: Still Defends Suit v. Employee Benefits Committee

SUPERMEDIA INC: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit
TIM HORTONS: Appeal From Class Claims Dismissal Still Pending
US RAILROAD COMPANIES: Appeals Class Cert. in Price-Fixing Suit


                          *********

ALGO CENTRE: Launches $30-Mil. Class Action Over Mall Collapse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle McQuigge, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
number of residents of a northern Ontario community still reeling
from a deadly roof collapse at a local commercial hub have
launched a $30-million class-action lawsuit against those they
allege could have prevented the accident.

The suit has been spearheaded by the owners of a restaurant
shuttered by the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall and was filed on
behalf of those plaintiffs who claim they suffered physical,
emotional or financial harm in the tragedy that killed two local
women.

The suit's notice of action names the owner of the Algo Centre
Mall, Eastwood Mall Inc. and its controller Robert Nazarian, the
city of Elliot Lake, the provincial government, and an unnamed
engineer "who approved the structure of the mall a short time
prior to this incident."

The notice alleges the defendants ignored warnings of dangerous
safety conditions in the city's commercial hub and failed to
conduct adequate inspections that may have prevented the deadly
collapse.  The allegations have not been proven in court.

Doloris Perizzolo, 74, and 37-year-old Lucie Aylwin were killed
after a section of the roof came crashing through the two-story
building on June 23.

The plaintiffs said the incident not only wiped out many of the
town's economic resources, but created a scene of terror that left
lasting emotional scars.

"I heard a terrible rumbling sound and saw the debris falling into
the escalator area.  I began to be struck by falling debris myself
as my employee and I raced to get out of the area, terrified that
we were going to be killed," read a statement from Elaine Quinte,
owner of Hungry Jack's restaurant and one of the suit's lead
plaintiffs.

"It was a horrifying experience and I still suffer loss of sleep
and I get overcome with emotion whenever I think of the events of
the day," she said.

Lawyer Doug Elliott said he expects several hundred plaintiffs to
join in the suit, adding the Aylwin and Perizzolo families have
already signed on.  He said the bereaved community deserves
compensation for the loss of lives and businesses.

Elaine Quinte's husband, Jack, said the mall had been in a poor
state of repair for years.  He said his wife had reported at least
one incident involving a chunk of concrete crashing through the
ceiling into the restaurant, adding management ignored her
concerns.

"There were many warnings that the roof was in a bad state of
repair and something should have been done to prevent this
terrible situation, which has been devastating to our family and
to many others," he said in a statement.

A lawyer representing the mall's owner was not immediately
available to comment on the class-action suit, but has previously
said the shopping centre had received $1 million worth of
renovations and had been inspected on a regular basis.  A source
with the owner's company has said the two-storey centre underwent
a structural study in May and received a passing grade.

Elaine Flis, a spokeswoman with the Ontario office of the Attorney
General, said the province would defend the claim if an action is
commenced.

The City of Elliot Lake did not respond to a request for comment.

The collapse has also taken a toll on the city's economy.

Todd Stencill, the general manager of the local chamber of
commerce, said the mall was home to at least 10 per cent of the
city's retail space.

The building had also housed the library, one of the city's two
hotels and grocery stores, the health unit office, a gym and
several government service offices.

The collapse is thought to have wiped out an estimated six per
cent of the wages in the entire community, Mr. Stencill said.

The Ministry of Labour had paid six visits to the mall over the
past three years in response to complaints about unsafe
conditions.  The suit alleges the ministry's inspections were
inadequate and the city did not heed those long-standing
complaints.

Safety concerns also played a roll in the abortive efforts to
rescue Ms. Perizzolo and Ms. Aylwin from the wreckage of the mall
after the roof caved in.

Teams armed with heavy equipment were forced to call off their
search two days after the collapse, saying the structure was too
fragile for a traditional rescue effort.

The operation resumed hours later after residents took to the
streets in protest and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty intervened.
Search crews were forced to dismantle a section of the building
from the outside in order to retrieve the bodies trapped inside.

Mr. McGuinty has ordered a public inquiry into the collapse, and
the provincial police force has launched a criminal investigation.


AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action 12-cv-05789-JAK-RZx in United States
District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. securities between November 9, 2009 and June
15, 2012, inclusive.  This securities class action seeks to
recover damages caused by the Company's violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Secs. 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AOBI securities during the
Class Period, you have until Wednesday, August 22, 2012 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.co

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

AOBI is a pharmaceutical company dedicated to improving health
through the development, manufacture and commercialization of a
broad range of pharmaceutical and healthcare products.  The
Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose that: (1) certain of the Company's capsule products
maintained chrome levels far exceeding humanly tolerable limits;
(2) the Company's financial statements contained material
inconsistencies; (3) the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting were deficient; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 16, 2012, the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm, Ernst & Young Hua Ming ("E&Y") informed the
Company's Audit Committee of certain inconsistencies in the
Company's financial statements during its audit for the fiscal
year 2011.

On April 19, 2012, the Company disclosed that four of its five
manufacturing subsidiaries were undergoing "onsite short notice
inspections" by the Chinese State Food and Drug Administration
after discovering thirteen types of capsule products with chrome
levels far exceeding humanly tolerable limits.

After being delisted by the New York Stock Exchange on May 25,
2012, the Company's common stock plummeted $0.94 or nearly 62%, to
close at $0.58 when it resumed trading over the counter on May 29,
2012.

On June 15, 2012, the Company disclosed that it had dismissed E&Y
as its independent registered public accounting firm.  In
addition, the Company announced that E&Y had withdrawn its audit
reports for the Company's financial statements for the years ended
2009 and 2010, after E&Y concluded that it could no longer rely on
management's representations in connection with (a) its audits of
the financial statements for years ended December 2009 and 2010;
(b) its audit of the effectiveness of the Company's internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009 and 2010;
and (c) its review of the Company's unaudited interim financial
statements for the quarters from September 30, 2009 through
September 30, 2011.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  It has offices in New York and Chicago.


AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS: Still Defends Employee Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, LLC and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through October 21, 2010, filed an
action against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to
(i) provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu
thereof, (ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that
those practices also violate the California Business and
Professions Code. The relief sought includes damages, restitution,
penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other
relief as the court deems proper.  The Company has not included
any liability in its Consolidated Financial Statements in
connection with the matter. The Company relates that it cannot
reasonably estimate the amount or range of possible loss, if any,
at this time.

No further updates were reported in 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.

American Reprographics Company -- http://www.e-arc.com/-- a
reprographics company, provides specialized document solutions to
various businesses.  The Company provides reprographics services,
which include operational activities, such as document management
services, document logistics, large- and small-format print-on-
demand services, and digital document management services.  It
operates 220 reprographics service centers, including 199 in the
United States, 7 in Canada, 11 in China, 2 in India, and 1 in
London, the United Kingdom.  The Company was founded in 1960 and
is headquartered in Walnut Creek, California.


BARCLAYS PLC: Hagens Berman Files Euribor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP disclosed that on July 6, 2012, an
American investor filed a class-action lawsuit against British
banking giant Barclays PLC, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and a group
of other banking defendants claiming the banks' alleged
manipulation of the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) cost
investors millions of dollars in a practice that began as early as
2005.

Barclays, along with other defendant banks routinely attempted to
manipulate the Euribor by making false reports to the European
Banking Federation, a non-profit organization charged with setting
the daily Euribor rate, which is in turn used to set interest
rates for trillions of dollars of transactions each year.

Euribor rates were used to set prices in a wide range of financial
instruments including futures contracts, options, credit default
swaps, and collateral debt obligation among others.

According to the complaint, the manipulation negatively impacted
any institutional investor group that participated in any
transaction tied to Euribor while the defendants were manipulating
the rates.

The named plaintiff in the suit is a principal of an Illinois
trading company involved in the purchase and sale of futures
contracts, including Euribor futures contracts and was financial
harmed by the alleged conspiracy to fix the Euribor rates.

If approved by the court as a class action, the suit would
represent all U.S.-based investors who purchased or sold Euribor-
related financial instruments from January 1, 2005 through
December 31, 2009.

Last month, The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
announced that the London-based financial giant and its subsidiary
will pay more than $200 million, the largest civil fine in the
commission's history, to settle the allegations.

In addition, Barclays has agreed to pay the United States
Department of Justice a $160 million criminal fine as a result of
its conduct.  However, that settlement and criminal fines will not
compensate consumers or institutional investors who may have
overpaid for a wide range of financial transactions related to
Euribor.

"While the settlement with the CFTC does punish Barclays and the
other banks, it does little to address the losses of perhaps
thousands of investors who were financially harmed by the
conspiracy," said Steve Berman, managing partner for Hagens Berman
and attorney for the plaintiff.  "Our suit seeks to make sure
American-based investors have the opportunity to recoup losses as
a result of the banks' illegal behavior."  "Based on what we've
seen so far, the rate-fixing scheme was apparently an open secret
within Barclays, leaving a broad trail of evidence of the banks'
compliticy," Mr. Berman added.

The other defendants named in the complaint include Citigroup,
Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, HSBC Holdings; HSBC Holding PLC;
HSBC Bank PLC, Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, BA;
USS, A.G., and USB (Luxembourg) S.A.

The suit, filed July 6, 2012 in United States District Court of
the Southern District of New York, accuses the defendants of the
violation of The Sherman Act, violations of the Commodities
Exchange Act among other charges, and seeks compensatory and
recessionary damages for the plaintiffs.

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is an investor-rights class-action
law firm with offices in 10 cities. The firm represents investors,
whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation.


BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Parker" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit captioned Whitney Parker v. Leonard
Riggio, et al. (formerly Stephen Strugala v. Leonard Riggio, et
al.), according to the Company's June 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended April 28, 2012.

On December 21, 2010, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Stephen
Strugala against the Company's current directors and former
directors Lawrence Zilavy and Michael Del Giudice.  The complaint
is purportedly brought both directly, on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders, and derivatively, on behalf of the Company.
The complaint generally alleges breaches of fiduciary duties,
waste and unjust enrichment in connection with the Company's
acquisition of Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, the adoption of
the Shareholder Rights Plan, and other unspecified instances of
alleged mismanagement and alleged wrongful conduct.  The complaint
also generally alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act
in connection with the issuance of various proxy statements by the
Company.  The complaint generally seeks declaratory and equitable
relief, including injunctive relief, and costs and fees.  On
January 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties' Stipulation and
Order.  On February 18, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal of Claim, dismissing without prejudice his
putative class claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934
Act.  On March 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the litigation.  On October 4, 2011, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, but also granted plaintiff leave to
replead within 30 days.  On November 3, 2011, plaintiff requested
a pre-motion conference with the Court to discuss an anticipated
motion to substitute a new plaintiff, Ms. Whitney Parker, for Mr.
Strugala, and simultaneously filed an amended complaint on behalf
of Ms. Parker containing substantially the same claims asserted in
Mr. Strugala's original complaint.  The Court held a pre-motion
conference on December 9, 2011, at which the parties agreed that
Ms. Parker could be substituted for Mr. Strugala without prejudice
to any of defendants' rights.

On January 20, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  Briefing on that motion was completed on May 4, 2012.


BARNES & NOBLE: Filed Initial Response in "Nguyen" Suit in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit in
California and submitted its initial response to the suit in May,
according to the Company's June 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
April 28, 2012.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California, County of Orange, against the Company
captioned Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.  The
complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes a
California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of
orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's Web site in
August 2011.  The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business
practices and false advertising under both New York and California
state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under
California law, and breach of contract.  The complaint demands
specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad
Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary
relief, but does not specify an amount.  The Company submitted its
initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012.


BARNES & NOBLE: Has Yet to Receive "Torrez" Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. disclosed in its June 27, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended April 28, 2012, that it has yet to receive the class
action lawsuit commenced by Dustin Torrez.

On October 11, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco, against the
Company.  The complaint is styled as a California state-wide class
action, captioned Dustin Torrez, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
It alleges violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08
(the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971) due to the Company's
alleged improper requesting and recording of zip codes from
California customers who used credit cards as payment.  The
Summons and Complaint have not been served on the Company.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Minor" Suit Deal Got Final Approval in April
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s settlement of the class action lawsuit
captioned Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.
received final approval in April 2012, according to the Company's
June 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended April 28, 2012.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against B&N Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State
of California alleging wage payments by instruments in a form that
did not comply with the requirements of the California Labor Code,
allegedly resulting in impermissible wage payment reductions and
calling for imposition of statutory penalties.  The complaint also
alleges a violation of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act and seeks restitution of such allegedly
unpaid wages under California's unfair competition law, and an
injunction compelling compliance with the California Labor Code.
The complaint alleges two subclasses of 500 and 200 employees,
respectively (there may be overlap among the subclasses), but
contains no allegations concerning the number of alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the
purported class.  The Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on November 22, 2011, and granted final approval of the
settlement on April 6, 2012.


BARNES & NOBLE: Ninth Cir. Affirms Remand Order in "Lina" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in May a
district court order remanding a wage and hour class action
lawsuit back to state court, according to Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s
June 27, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended April 28, 2012.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint, captioned
Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
et al., was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of
California making the following allegations against defendants
with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores
located in the State of California from the period of August 5,
2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2)
failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting
time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to
provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to
provide itemized wage statements.  The claims are generally
derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were
improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour
laws.  The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number
of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf the purported class.  The Company was served with the
complaint on August 11, 2011.  On August 30, 2011, the Company
filed an answer in state court, and on August 31, 2011, it removed
the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).  On October 28, 2011, the
district court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the action
back to state court, over the Company's opposition.  On November
7, 2011, the Company petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of
the district court's remand order.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's remand order on May 18, 2012.


BNY MELLON: Still Defends Suits Over Securities Lending Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation or its affiliates have
been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits initiated by
participants in BNY Mellon's securities lending program, which is
a part of BNY Mellon's Investment Services business. The lawsuits
were filed on various dates from December 2008 to 2012, and are
currently pending in courts in Oklahoma, New York, Washington,
California, South Carolina and North Carolina and in commercial
court in London. The complaints assert contractual, statutory, and
common law claims, including claims for negligence and breach of
fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs allege losses in connection with
the investment of securities lending collateral, including losses
related to investments in Sigma Finance Inc., Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. and certain asset-backed securities, and seek
damages as to those losses. Three of the pending cases seek to
proceed as class actions.

No further updates are reported in BNY Mellon's May 9, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


BNY MELLON: Unit Still Defends Suits Over Madoff Investment
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues
to defend lawsuits over investment losses related to Bernard L.
Madoff, 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 May 11, 2010, the New York State Attorney General commenced a
civil lawsuit against Ivy Asset Management LLC, a subsidiary of
BNY Mellon that manages primarily funds-of-hedge-funds, and two of
its former officers in New York state court. The lawsuit alleges
that Ivy, in connection with its role as sub-advisor to investment
managers whose clients invested with Madoff, did not disclose
certain material facts about Madoff. The complaint seeks an
accounting of compensation received from January 1997 to the
present by the Ivy defendants in connection with the Madoff
investments, and unspecified damages, including restitution,
disgorgement, costs and attorneys' fees.

On Oct. 21, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor commenced a civil
lawsuit against Ivy, two of its former officers, and others in
federal court in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit
alleges that Ivy violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) by failing to disclose certain material facts about
Madoff to investment managers subadvised by Ivy whose clients
included employee benefit plan investors. The complaint seeks
disgorgement and damages. On Dec. 8, 2010, the Trustee overseeing
the Madoff liquidation sued many of the same defendants in
bankruptcy court in New York, seeking to avoid withdrawals from
Madoff investments made by various funds-of-funds (including six
funds-of-funds managed by Ivy).

Ivy or its affiliates have been named in a number of civil
lawsuits filed beginning Jan. 27, 2009 relating to certain
investment funds that allege losses due to the Madoff investments.
Ivy acted as a sub-advisor to the investment managers of some of
those funds. Plaintiffs assert various causes of action including
securities and common-law fraud. Certain of the cases have been
certified as class actions and/or assert derivative claims on
behalf of the funds. Most of the cases have been consolidated in
two actions in federal court in the Southern District of New York,
with certain cases filed in New York State Supreme Court for New
York and Nassau counties.

No further updates were reported in BNY Mellon's latest Form 10-Q
Filing.


BNY MELLON: Has Conditional Deal in Medical Capital-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon has been named as a defendant in a
number of class actions and non-class actions brought by numerous
plaintiffs in connection with its role as indenture trustee for
debt issued by affiliates of Medical Capital Corporation. The
actions, filed in late 2009 and currently pending in federal court
in the Central District of California, allege that BNY Mellon
breached its fiduciary and contractual obligations to the holders
of the underlying securities, and seek unspecified damages.

BNY Mellon disclosed in its May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012, that it has reached a conditional settlement in
principle with the Federal Equity Receiver for Medical Capital
Corporation and its affiliates.


BNY MELLON: Still Defends Suits Over Foreign Exchange Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation continues to defend class
action lawsuits over foreign exchange matters, 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 December 2009, government authorities have been conducting
inquiries seeking information relating primarily to standing
instruction foreign exchange transactions in connection with
custody services BNY Mellon provides to public pension plans and
certain other custody clients. BNY Mellon is cooperating with
these inquiries.

In addition, in early 2011, the Virginia Attorney General's Office
and the Florida Attorney General's Office each filed a Notice of
Intervention in a qui tam lawsuit pending in its jurisdiction.
These offices filed complaints superseding the qui tam lawsuits on
Aug. 11, 2011. On May 1, 2012, the Virginia court dismissed the
lawsuit in its entirety. On Oct. 4, 2011, the New York Attorney
General's Office, the New York City Comptroller and various city
pension and benefit funds filed a lawsuit whereby, among other
things, the plaintiffs assert claims under the Martin Act and
state and city false claims acts. Also, on Oct. 4, 2011, the
United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a civil lawsuit
seeking civil penalties under 12 U.S.C. Section 1833a and
injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. Section 1345 based on alleged
ongoing violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341 and 1343 (mail and
wire fraud). On Jan. 17, 2012, the court approved a partial
settlement resolving the DOJ's claim for injunctive relief. In
October 2011, several political subdivisions of the state of
California intervened in a qui tam lawsuit pending in California
state court, previously under seal, and, on Nov. 28, 2011, BNY
Mellon removed the lawsuit to federal district court in
California. On March 30, 2012, the court dismissed certain of
plaintiffs' claims, including all claims under the California
False Claims Act, and provided plaintiffs an opportunity to file a
motion seeking leave to replead. On Oct. 26, 2011, the
Massachusetts Securities Division filed an Administrative
Complaint against BNY Mellon.

BNY Mellon has also been named as a defendant in several putative
class action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in 2011. The
complaints, which assert varying claims, including breach of
contract, and violations of ERISA, state and federal law, all
allege that the prices BNY Mellon charged and reported for
standing instruction foreign exchange transactions executed in
connection with custody services provided by BNY Mellon were
improper. In addition, BNY Mellon has been named as a nominal
defendant in several derivative lawsuits filed on various dates in
2011 and 2012 in state and federal court in New York. BNY Mellon
has also been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed on March 12,
2012 in Ohio state court, and subsequently removed to federal
district court in Ohio, asserting claims including breach of
contract and fraud, as well as a qui tam lawsuit originally filed
under seal in October 2009 in Massachusetts state court. To the
extent these lawsuits are pending in federal court, they have been
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in federal court in New York.


BNY MELLON: Settles Sigma Class Action Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
BNY Mellon announced that on July 5, 2012 it entered into a
settlement agreement related to a previously disclosed class
action lawsuit pending in federal court in Oklahoma and initiated
by CompSource Oklahoma concerning losses in connection with the
investment of securities lending collateral in Sigma Finance Inc.
The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.

The company recorded an after-tax charge in the second quarter of
2012 of approximately $210 million ($350 million pre-tax)
primarily related to claims involving Sigma investments.  This
charge includes in part the expected payment of $280 million
settling the Sigma-related class action.

"The Sigma settlement agreement reflects the meaningful progress
we are making in navigating the litigation environment that
affects our company and the industry overall.  We are putting this
litigation behind us, with no significant impact on our capital
position, while continuing to make headway on other matters," said
Gerald L. Hassell, chairman, president and chief executive officer
of BNY Mellon.

Separately, the company noted that, after a preliminary review of
the recently released Basel III rulemaking, it estimates that the
impact of the new rules will be to increase its Basel III Tier 1
common equity ratio by over 100 basis points.  The Basel III Tier
1 common equity ratio as of March 31, 2012 was 7.6%.  The expected
increase is primarily due to the estimated reduction in risk-
weighted assets related to the company's securities portfolio.

BNY Mellon is a global financial services company focused on
helping clients manage and service their financial assets,
operating in 36 countries and serving more than 100 markets.


BURGER KING: Still Finalizing Terms of 86-Restaurant Class Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012, that it continues to finalize terms
of a negotiated settlement resolving a class action involving 86
of the Company's restaurants.

On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger
King restaurants in California leased by the Company and operated
by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal
and state law. In September 2009, the court issued a decision on
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In its decision,
the court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited
by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for
each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials. In March 2010,
our Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10
restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to
the settlement. In February 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed
with respect to the other 86 restaurants. In January 2012, the
Company agreed to settle the lawsuit. The parties are finalizing
the terms of the proposed settlement which will be submitted to
the court for approval.

Burger King Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation formed on
July 23, 2002.  The Company is the parent of Burger King
Corporation, a Florida corporation that franchises and operates
fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger
King(R) brand.


CANADA: OHHA Mulls Suit vs. Ontario Over Slots-at-Racetracks Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standardbred Canada reports that Ontario Harness Horse Association
General Manager Brian Tropea has gone on the record as saying that
OHHA lawyers have looked into and are considering a class-action
lawsuit in relation to the Ontario Liberal Government pulling out
of the slots-at-racetracks agreement.

"The OHHA is looking at all legal options," Mr. Tropea was quoted
as saying on July 4 in an article by the Barrie Examiner.  "A
class-action lawsuit is definitely something our lawyers are
looking at."

The report has also quoted veteran racehorse owner Tony Tangereda
of Kettleby, Ont. as saying that the situation has been "terrible"
and that the Ontario government "should be happy with the money
they've had.  Now they're putting 50,000 people out of work who
will have to collect welfare.  They (horsepeople) don't know
anything but horse racing."

Mr. Tangreda continued, stating, "Without the slot machines there
will be no way (for racing) to survive.  There will be no money
coming in.  I normally keep 15 horses and now I'm down to seven.
I'll decide where to go from there if there is no slot money
coming in.  I'm not going to keep horses if there's no money to
race."

The article also features a rare comment from a member of the
province's upper-echelon driving colony, Mike Saftic.

"If the purses get cut and the horses go away, the race tracks are
going to close down," Mr. Saftic was quoted as saying.  "There'll
be no place to make a living.  There's no way we're going to
survive."


CANADA: ACP-ITCCS Sue Over Crimes Against Humanity
--------------------------------------------------
Salem-News.com reports that history was made on July 4 when the
Association of Citizen prosecutors (ACP) headed by Jason Bowman,
took the first step towards exposing Vatican, Crown of England and
other parties, and in holding these cartels to account in the
Federal Court of Canada.

A Federal Court in Toronto examined Mr. Bowman's materials and
essentially outlined the framework by which this unprecedented
undertaking shall now proceed in Federal Court.

The result granted leave for a full application to be filed, and
still provides the applicants with the opportunity to file
additional motions for directions if, and as required.

According to Mr. Bowman, who acted on behalf of both the ACP and
ITCCS, "We expected to simply file a motion . . . Instead, the
Court directed that we file not only the ex-parte motion
materials, but also our entire Application a full week earlier
than we were expecting.  Naturally, I was elated."

A crowd of supporters accompanied Mr. Bowman to the Federal Court
and were present as the Court's outline was explained in great
detail.

Afterwards, the group held a press conference nearby and was
harassed at least one agent provocateur -- a 'blogger' known as
"Greg Renouf", who tried to incite violence and discredit both Mr.
Bowman and ITCCS founder and co-applicant Kevin Annett.
Mr. Renouf has since then posted a derogatory and untruthful
youtube posting about the event.

An attempted live stream broadcast of the event was inexplicably
disrupted, although blog media activists who were present reported
the news extensively on the Internet.

None of the "mainstream" media in Toronto attended the press
conference.

The ACP-ITCCS lawsuit is the first of its kind: a class action
aimed at so-called heads of state, including the Pope and the
Queen of England, on behalf of victims of alleged crimes against
humanity committed by churches, governments and corporations.

Also named in this suit as defendants are the government of
Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Church of England, and
pharmaceutical companies, all of which are charged with crimes
against humanity and criminally conspiring to obstruct justice.

Kevin Annett, who is named in the court application as a plaintiff
against the Crown, Pope and other defendants, commented, "As
usual, the corporate media ignored us and paid operatives tried to
discredit and stop us, but this time, we got our foot in the door
of the court system.  Wherever that leads us, we've taken another
step towards forcing criminals in power to do time for their
crimes.  Whether it's in this court or in a common law de jure
one, the tables will be turned."


CENTENE CORPORATION: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
on behalf of all investors who purchased Centene Corporation
common stock during the period from February 7, 2012 through
June 8, 2012.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) toll-free
at (877) 316-3218 or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/cnc

Centene operates as a multiline healthcare company in the United
States.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that
Centene misrepresented its financial condition and failed to
inform investors that the Company's 2012 outlook, provided at the
start of the Class Period, lacked a reasonable basis when made due
to already existing and understood competitive pressures.

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

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August
28, 2012, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

For more information about the case or to participate online,
please visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/cncor contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by
e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm.


CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Face Employment Suits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc. continues to face potential class action
lawsuits in California alleging violations of wage and hour laws,
according to the Company's June 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 21, 2012.

The Company is currently involved in legal disputes related to
employment claims, real estate claims and other business disputes.
As of May 21, 2012, the Company's accrued liability for litigation
contingencies with a probable likelihood of loss was $2,395,000,
with an expected range of losses from $2,395,000 to $5,530,000.
With respect to employment matters, the Company's most significant
legal disputes relate to employee meal and rest break disputes,
and wage and hour disputes.  Several potential class action
lawsuits have been filed in the State of California, regarding
such employment matters, each of which is seeking injunctive
relief and monetary compensation on behalf of current and former
employees.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in these lawsuits; however, the Company is presently unable
to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions.

As of May 21, 2012, the Company estimated the contingent liability
of those losses related to litigation claims that are not accrued,
but that the Company believes are reasonably possible to result in
an adverse outcome and for which a range of loss can be reasonably
estimated, to be in the range of $2,135,000 to $10,425,000.  In
addition, the Company is involved in legal matters where the
likelihood of loss has been judged to be reasonably possible, but
for which a range of the potential loss cannot be reasonably
estimated based on current facts and circumstances.


COMMAND SECURITY: Proceedings in Security Guards' Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its June 28, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2012, that all proceedings in the class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of security guards were stayed
until at least July 10, 2012.

On May 3, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed in
Orange County, California, Superior Court against the Company
seeking to represent a class of past and present employees of the
Company employed as security guards in the State of California
since May 2, 2007.  The complaint alleges meal and rest period and
paycheck information violations, but does not raise any overtime
claims.  The Company says it intends to conduct a vigorous defense
of this case.

On April 10, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to
compel the single named plaintiff to arbitrate all her claims
against the Company, and stayed all proceedings in this case until
at least July 10, 2012.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: No Class Cert. Hearing in Bartlett Case Yet
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Arkansas court has yet to convene a hearing for the motion to
certify the class in a lawsuit commenced by George Bartlett
against a subsidiary of Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, 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.

In May 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, Ginardi v. Frontier
Gas Services, LLC, et al No 4:11-cv-0420 BRW, was filed in the
U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas against
Frontier Gas Services, LLC, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, BHP
Billiton Petroleum (BHP), Kinder Morgan Treating, LP, and
Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC (which was served in August 2011).
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' operations pollute the
atmosphere, groundwater, and soil with allegedly harmful gases,
chemicals, and compounds and the facilities create excessive noise
levels constituting trespass, nuisance and annoyance (the "Ginardi
case").  In March 2011, a putative class action lawsuit, George
Bartlett, et al, v. Frontier Gas Services, LLC, et al including
Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline, LLC, Chesapeake Energy Corporation,
and Kinder Morgan Treating LP, was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Eastern District of Arkansas (No 4 11-cv-0910 BSM)
alleging the same causes as in the Ginardi case (the "Bartlett
case").  In each of the Ginardi and the Bartlett case, the
plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages of loss of use
and enjoyment of property, contamination of soil and ground water,
air and atmosphere and seek future monitoring.  The Company has
filed answers in the Ginardi and Bartlett cases denying any
liability.  On April 19, 2012, the court denied the certification
of the class action in the Ginardi case.  The court has not
certified or conducted a hearing on class action status in the
Bartlett lawsuit.

While the Company cannot reasonably quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, for the payment of any damages or other
remedial actions, neither the Ginardi nor the Bartlett cases have
had, nor are they expected to have, a material impact on the
Company's results of operation or financial condition.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend against both claims and to
mitigate any claims by pursuing any and all indemnification
obligations to which it may be entitled with respect to the
properties as well as any coverage from its insurance.

Crestwood Midstream Partners LP -- http://www.crestwoodlp.com--
engages in gathering, compressing, treating, processing, and
transporting natural gas primarily on the Barnett Shale formation
of the Fort Worth Basin in north Texas. The Company conducts its
operations through its Cowtown System, Lake Arlington Dry System,
and Alliance Midstream Assets, as well as the Fayetteville Shale
and the Granite Wash plays.  The Company was formerly known as
Quicksilver Gas Services LP and changed its name to Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP in October 2010.  It was founded in 2004 and
is based in Houston, Texas. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP is a
subsidiary of Crestwood Gas Services Holdings LLC.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Sanford Wittels Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP on July 5 filed a $100 million
gender discrimination lawsuit against New York-based Forest
Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Forest
Pharmaceuticals is a wholly owned subsidiary of Forest
Laboratories.

"Forest has engaged in systematic, company-wide discriminatory
treatment of female employees based on their gender and
pregnancy," said David Sanford -- dsanford@swhlegal.com -- a
partner at Sanford Wittels & Heisler and lead attorney for the
plaintiffs.  "Forest discriminates against women -- particularly
those who are pregnant or have family responsibilities -- by
paying them less than their male counterparts, denying them
promotions and limiting their employment opportunities."

The named plaintiffs in the matter are former Forest sales
representatives Megan Barrett, Lindsey Houser, Jennifer Jones and
Jennifer Seard.  The women filed individually and on behalf of the
class of similarly situated female employees.

Ms. Barrett and Ms. Houser experienced gender discrimination
related to their pregnancies, maternity leaves and caregiving
responsibilities as working mothers.  Ms. Seard experienced
similar discrimination and verbal harassment as a result of her
gender and her responsibilities caring for a young son who has
epilepsy.

Ms. Jones was subjected to offensive sexist and blatant sexual
remarks by Forest's male management, who then threatened to
jeopardize her career if she told anyone or raised a complaint
with the human resources department.

"To make matters worse, when women raise these concerns with
Forest management and Human Resources, Forest completely
disregards their concerns and instead blames the women themselves
for the discrimination they suffer," said Mr. Sanford.  "The
discrimination is deeply ingrained in Forest's culture.  A class
action is the only recourse women have to address these grievous
wrongs and to restore female employees' rights."

Moreover, the plaintiffs were paid less than similarly situated
male employees at Forest, despite their exemplary performance, and
were denied bonuses, promotions, and other employment incentives
as a result of their gender and their taking maternity leave.

"Forest either does not have or does not follow policies that
reduce or eliminate disparate impact on women and gender bias,"
said Mr. Sanford.  "Instead, the company permits the gender
stereotypes of Forest's predominately male managerial and
supervisory staff to influence the company's personnel decisions.
These practices are clearly illegal and must be stopped before
other female employees' lives and livelihoods are affected."

Forest Laboratories is a global company that develops and markets
prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical products across
the United States.  The company's revenue in the twelve months
that ended March 31, 2011 was $4.4 billion.  Forest
Pharmaceuticals is one of the 15 largest U.S. pharmaceutical
companies and has more than 5,000 employees.

The Complaint is not the first time women have filed Complaints
alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination at Forest.  In the
past year, Forest has been named as a defendant in gender and
pregnancy discrimination cases filed in Alabama and Ohio.

The filing seeks certification of a class as the most efficient
and economical means of addressing the questions of law common to
the plaintiffs' claims of a systematic pattern and practice of
gender discrimination by Forest against its female employees.  The
Complaint also seeks injunctive relief that includes a
restructuring of many of Forest's personnel policies and
procedures so that female employees can enjoy the same conditions
of employment as Forest's male employees.

The suit also requests back pay, front pay and other equitable
remedies that will redress the past discrimination, as well as
compensatory damages, punitive damages and court and legal fees as
well as a jury trial.

               About Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam and consumer
actions and complex corporate class action litigation and has
represented thousands of individuals in major class action cases
in the United States.  The firm also represents individual clients
in employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action in New York Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
General Motors unlawfully included false and misleading statements
of material fact in the company's initial public offering, which
was done as part of a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate
the value of its common stock, according to the plaintiffs in this
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit is George Scott v. General Motors Co. Morgan Stanley &
Co. Inc.


INDYMAC BANCORP: Officers Settle Class Suit for $6.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires' Patrick Fitzgerald reports that the former
leaders of failed IndyMac Bancorp, including ex-Chief Executive
Michael Perry and former finance chief Scott Keys, have agreed to
settle a class-action securities lawsuit stemming from the bank-
holding company's collapse in 2008.  In a settlement outlined in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, IndyMac's insurers will pay
$6.5 million in cash to investors who had sued the company's
leaders for securities fraud.  Under the deal, Messrs. Perry and
Keys didn't admit wrongdoing.  The $6.5 million will come from
IndyMac's directors' and officers' liability insurance, which
recently was estimated to have $80 million left untapped.

IndyMac shareholders sued Messrs. Perry and Keys in June 2008 over
allegations they had misled investors about the failed mortgage
lender's deteriorating financial condition.  The following month
federal bank regulators seized and closed IndyMac's thrift,
IndyMac Bank.

Mr. Perry is represented by D. Jean Veta, Esq., a partner at
Covington & Burling.

Mr. Perry is also facing a lawsuit by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. for $600 million.

                       About IndyMac Bancorp

Based in Pasadena, California, IndyMac Bancorp Inc. (NYSE:IMB) --
http://www.indymacbank.com/-- was the holding company for IndyMac
Bank FSB, a hybrid thrift/mortgage bank that originated mortgages
in all 50 states of the United States.  Through its hybrid thrift-
mortgage bank business model, IndyMac designed, manufactured, and
distributing cost-efficient financing for the acquisition,
development, and improvement of single-family homes.  IndyMac also
provided financing secured by single-family homes to facilitate
consumers' personal financial goals and strategically invests in
single-family mortgage-related assets.

On July 11, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision closed IndyMac
Bank and appointed FDIC as the bank's receiver.  Thacher Proffitt
& Wood LLP was engaged as counsel to the FDIC.  Indymac Bancorp
filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. C.D.Calif., Case
No. 08-21752) on July 31, 2008.

At the time of the FDIC takeover, IndyMac was the third-largest
bank failure in U.S. history.  Indymac had about $32.01 billion in
assets as of July 11, 2008.  In court documents, IndyMac disclosed
estimated assets of $50 million to $100 million and estimated
debts of  $100 million to $500 million.

Representing the Debtor are Dean G. Rallis, Jr., Esq., and John C.
Weitnauer, Esq.

IndyMac's banking operations, now known as OneWest Bank FSB, are
under the control of a new ownership group that includes hedge-
fund managers John Paulson and George Soros.


LANDAMERICA 1031: 4th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit v. SunTrust
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a ruling
by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
dismissing with prejudice all claims against SunTrust Banks, Inc.,
in diversity actions, which have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the District Court by the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation.  The plaintiff-appellants are the named
representatives of putative classes consisting of approximately
400 members that engaged LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, Inc.,
as "qualified intermediary" between February and November 2008.
LES acted as QI in the exchange of investment properties pursuant
to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 1031(a)(1).  The District Court ruled LES did
not assume fiduciary duties with respect to the proceeds of the
sale of relinquished properties.  Accordingly, SunTrust -- which
had held LES's general operating account, sold LES certain
securities, and extended LES a line of credit -- could not be
liable for aiding and abetting the breach of a fiduciary duty by
LES.  The District Court also dismissed the Exchangers' claim of
civil conspiracy.

The cases are:

GERALD R. TERRY; ANN T. ROBBINS; JANE T. EVANS, on their own
behalf and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, and THEODORE L. CHANDLER, JR.; CHRISTINE R. VLAHCEVIC;
G. WILLIAM EVANS; RONALD B. RAMOS; DEVON M. JONES; STEPHEN CONNER,
Defendants.

ANGELA M. ARTHUR, as Trustee of the Arthur Declaration of Trust,
dated December 29, 1988, and all similarly situated; VIVIAN R.
HAYS, an individual, and all others similarly situated; LEAPIN
EAGLE LLC, a limited liability company, and all others similarly
situated; DENISE J. WILSON, an individual, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUNTRUST BANKS,
INC., a Georgia corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and G. WILLIAM
EVANS, an individual; STEPHEN CONNOR, an individual, Defendants.

Nos. 11-1704, 11-1707 (4th Cir.).

A copy of the Fourth Circuit's July 2, 2012 decision is available
at http://is.gd/G9GBkDfrom Leagle.com.

                    About LandAmerica Financial

LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc., provided real estate
transaction services with offices nationwide and a vast network of
active agents.  LandAmerica Financial Group and its affiliate
LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services Inc. filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. E.D. Va. Lead Case No. 08-35994) on Nov. 26,
2008.  Attorneys at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and McGuireWoods
LLP served as co-counsel.  Zolfo Cooper served as restructuring
advisor.  Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions served as claims and notice
agent.

Attorneys at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and Tavenner &
Beran PLC served as counsel to the Creditors Committee of 1031
Exchange.  Bingham McCutchen LLP and LeClair Ryan served as
counsel to the Creditors Committee of LFG.

In its bankruptcy petition, LFG reported total assets of
$3.325 billion and total debts of $2.839 billion as of Sept. 30,
2008.

Between March 6 and Nov. 4, 2009, various LFG affiliates --
LandAmerica Assessment Corporation, LandAmerica Title Company,
Southland Title Corporation, Southland Title of Orange County,
Southland Title of San Diego, LandAmerica Credit Services, Inc.,
Capital Title Group, Inc., and LandAmerica OneStop Inc. -- also
commenced voluntary Chapter 11 cases.  The Chapter 11 cases of
LFG, LES, and the LFG Affiliates were jointly administered under
case number 08-35994.

LandAmerica filed a Joint Plan of Liquidation on Sept. 9, 2009.
The Court on Nov. 23, 2009, entered an order confirming a Nov. 16
version of the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of LFG and its Affiliated
Debtors, as to all Debtors other than OneStop.  The effective date
with respect to the Plan was Dec. 7, 2009.  Plan trustees were
appointed for LFG and LES.

The Plan as to OneStop was confirmed on Feb. 16, 2010, and
declared effective as of March 1, 2010.


METLIFE INC: Faces Class Action Over March 2011 Public Offering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that MetLife and its directors
made false and misleading statements in its March 2011 public
offering of $300 billion common equity units, the City of
Birmingham Retirement System claims in a class action in Jefferson
County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System in MetLife, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-2012-902101.00
(Ala. Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/06/SueMetLife.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg L. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GREG L. DAVIS
          7031 Halcyon Park Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 832-9080
          E-mail: gdavieslaw@gregorydavieslaw.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, LLP
          12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
          Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
          Telephone: (216) 229-6088
          E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com

                - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-3818

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444


MMODAL INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Delaware Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Kahn v. Roger L. Davenport, V. Raman Kumar, Frank Baker,
Peter Berger, Robert J. Greczyn, Jeffrey Hendren, Kenneth J.
McLachlan, James P. Nolan, Colin J. O'Brien, Andrew E. Vogel,
Henry C. Wolf, MModal Inc., One Equity Partners, Legend Parent,
Inc. and Legend Acquisition Sub, Inc., arises from the Agreement
and Plan of Merger between the Company, Legend Parent, Inc.
("Parent") and Legend Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") dated
as of July 2, 2012 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which
Parent will commence a tender offer to acquire all outstanding
shares of MModal for $14 cash per share (the "Buyout").

The Individual Defendants agreed to the Buyout at an inadequate
price for MModal shareholders, Mr. Kahn contends.  He adds that
the inadequate price was further produced through a flawed process
in which MModal's financial advisor, RBC Capital Markets, LLC
("RBC"), switched sides and is now providing committed financing
to One Equity Partners LLC ("OEP") and its affiliates, Parent and
Merger Sub, to complete the Buyout.

Mr. Kahn is a shareholder of MModal.  He owns 24,820 MModal
shares, valued at $347,480 at the Buyout price.

MModal is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices
located in Franklin, Tennessee.  MModal is a provider of medical
document processing technology, including clinical transcription
services, cloud-based speech understanding technology and
unstructured data analytics.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.  OEP is a Delaware limited
liability company and is the private investment arm of JP Morgan
Chase & Co.  OEP was established in 2001 and manages $10 billion
of investments and commitments from JPMorgan.  Parent is a
Delaware corporation and is an affiliate of OEP.  Merger Sub is a
Delaware company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent formed
solely to effectuate the Buyout.

The Parent is represented by:

          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kira German, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          501 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  kgerman@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Harold B. Obstfeld, Esq.
          HAROLD B. OBSTFELD, P.C.
          100 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 696-1212


NETFLIX INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge has granted preliminary approval to Netflix Inc.'s $9
million settlement of class-action litigation accusing the video
rental company of violating consumer privacy laws.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, said
the accord reached in February "compares favorably" to recent
settlements of other consumer privacy cases, including with Google
Inc and Facebook Inc.

The judge also certified a nationwide class of current and former
Netflix subscribers estimated in the tens of millions, according
to his order issued late Thursday.

Subscribers accused Netflix of violating the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act of 1988 by keeping records of DVD and Internet
videos they watched for at least two years after they canceled
service, and also keeping credit card information.

They said Netflix used the data in marketing and advertising
without consent, violating a legal requirement that it purge
"personally identifiable information" within one year after it was
no longer needed for the purpose for which it was collected.

Most people would feel "extremely uncomfortable" that the Los
Gatos, California-based company could keep their viewing histories
and credit card data for so long, the complaint said.

The settlement calls for Netflix to "decouple" subscribers' rental
histories from other identification data once a year has passed
since service was canceled.  Money will also be used to educate
consumers and regulators on privacy protection.

The case had been brought by former Netflix subscribers and
Virginia residents Jeff Milans and Peter Comstock.

Netflix did not admit wrongdoing, and accounted for the settlement
in its results for the fourth quarter of 2011.

A hearing to consider final approval is set for December 5.

The video privacy law was passed after Supreme Court nominee
Robert Bork's video rental history was leaked in the press during
his 1987 confirmation proceedings.

The case is In re: Netflix Privacy Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-00379.


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Appeal from Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit filed against NextWave Wireless Inc. and certain of
its officers remains pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, 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, 2011.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,
Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. The suit alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit seeks unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive, equitable or
other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from March 30, 2007 to
August 7, 2008.

A second putative class action lawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al.
v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al." was filed on October 21, 2008
alleging the same claims on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock during an extended class period, from November 27, 2006
through August 7, 2008.  On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an
Order consolidating the two cases and appointing a lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  On May
15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on
June 29, 2009, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss that Amended
Complaint.

On March 5, 2010, the Court granted the Company's Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the lead plaintiff to file
an Amended Complaint. On March 26, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed
a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Company
subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss. On March 16, 2011, the
Court granted the Company's Motion and dismissed the complaint
without prejudice. On May 5, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
Third Amended Complaint, and the Company again filed a Motion to
Dismiss. On November 21, 2011, the Court granted the Company's
Motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

On December 19, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal
with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court had scheduled a
mediation assessment conference for June 4, 2012 and postponed the
previously-set briefing schedule pending that conference.

The Company has not recorded any significant accruals for
contingent liabilities associated with this matter based on its
belief that a liability, while possible, is not probable.

NextWave Wireless Inc. -- http://www.nextwave.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, manages and maintains its wireless spectrum
interests in United States and Canada. Its wireless spectrum
portfolio covers approximately 218.6 million total POPs. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


NORTH AMERICAN: Judge to Rule on Overtime Class Action by July 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ezra Romero, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a Fresno
County judge will rule by July 19 whether claims that hundreds of
escrow and title officers weren't paid overtime due them from
North American Title Co. can move forward as a class-action
lawsuit.

Judge Jeffrey Hamilton said in Fresno County Superior Court that
he was leaning toward class-action status because North American's
own documents show that there was a policy to forbid overtime.

In a tentative ruling, Judge Hamilton said that company documents
show that the defendants made it difficult for employees to take
meal breaks or rest periods and "mandated, or at least encouraged,
uncompensated overtime work."

"This case is the biggest one I have taken, in terms of money -- a
value in excess of $40 million," Fresno attorney Nicholas "Butch"
Wagner said outside court on July 5.

Since 2006, Mr. Wagner has settled six class-action lawsuits
against title companies claiming nearly $70 million in damages for
unpaid overtime.

But North American is fighting back.

In court papers, the title company is seeking to decertify the
class-action status, which would force each plaintiff to sue the
title company individually -- a costly endeavor.

For the past five years, North American has assembled a team of
attorneys and challenged the class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Wagner has countered with his own team of heavy-hitters,
including former federal Judge Oliver W. Wanger.

According to California laws, employees must be paid for all hours
worked and receive overtime pay if they work more than eight hours
in a workday or 40 in a workweek, unless they are classified as
exempt.

In general, people who produce a product are eligible for overtime
pay, while executives who regularly supervise other employees
typically are exempt.  Mr. Wagner said escrow and title officers
are entitled to overtime because they produce paperwork for title
companies by working with homeowners and ensuring the transactions
are executed legally.

Mr. Wagner sued North American Title Co. in April 2007.  Since
then, he has amended the lawsuit to add North American Services as
a defendant.  North American Services hires escrow officers and
leases their services to the title company, Mr. Wagner said.

On Aug. 4, 2010, Fresno County Judge Adolfo Corona certified the
case as a class-action lawsuit, which allowed the plaintiffs to
collectively sue the two defendants.

But in court papers, North American Title Co. and North American
Services contend the class-action suit violates their due process
rights.


OVERHILL FARMS: Class Cert. Motion in "Agustiana" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Overhill Farms, Inc. issued a press release on June 28, 2012,
announcing a court ruling in its favor, denying class action
status to a lawsuit filed by several former employees in
Agustiana, et al. v. Overhill Farms, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC416954, according to the Company's June 28, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

                        Company Statement

James Rudis, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Overhill Farms, Inc. (NYSE-AMEX: OFI) (NYSE MKT: OFI) announced a
court ruling in the Company's favor, denying class action status
to a lawsuit filed by several former employees.

Judge David L. Minning of the Los Angeles Superior Court issued
the ruling in the lawsuit filed July 1, 2009, by employees who had
been terminated by the Company a month earlier for using invalid
Social Security numbers in connection with their employment.

The lawsuit claimed that the Company had required employees to put
on and remove protective clothing and wash their hands before and
after working without paying employees for that time, along with
other alleged violations of labor regulations.  The Company denied
the allegations.

Judge Minning ruled that the plaintiffs named in the purported
class action could not adequately represent the interests of other
employees, in part because they "lied to their employer" about
certain facts.  "This is a serious charge against their
credibility," the judge ruled, which "raises serious doubts that
they should stand in a position of fiduciary responsibility to the
class members."

The judge also noted that some sworn statements from members of
the purported class of employees "lack credibility," while other
statements they made contradict the claims in their lawsuit.

Judge Minning ruled that "evidence demonstrates that this class
does not meet certain requirements for certification" as a class
action lawsuit.

The denial of class action certification is subject to appeal, and
plaintiffs can pursue their claims individually.  The Company said
that, based on the strength of the court's ruling and on the
Company's employment practices, it was confident it would prevail
in any further litigation.

Mr. Rudis said, "We have stated from the outset that we believe
these claims were completely without merit, and are pleased by the
court's ruling.  This ruling vindicates our decision to vigorously
oppose any attempt to exploit the unfortunate circumstances of our
former employees to damage the Company and its shareholders."

                      About Overhill Farms

Overhill Farms, Inc. (http://www.OverhillFarms.com/)is a value-
added supplier of custom high quality prepared frozen foods for
branded retail, private label foodservice and airline customers.
Its product line includes entrees, plated meals, bulk-packed meal
components, pastas, soups, sauces, poultry, meat and fish
specialties, as well as organic and vegetarian offerings.  The
Company's capabilities give its customers a one-stop solution for
new product development, precise replication of existing recipes,
product manufacturing and packaging.  Its customers include
prominent nationally recognized names such as Jenny Craig, Inc.,
Safeway Inc., Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., Pinnacle Foods Group
LLC and American Airlines, Inc.  The Company also sells frozen
foods under the Boston Market brand, under an exclusive license
from Boston Market Corporation.


PANASONIC CORP: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Panasonic Corporation remains a defendant in a number of class
action lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust laws, according
to the Company's June 28, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2012.

Since November 2007, the Company and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.
(MTPD), a subsidiary of the Company, are subject to investigations
by government authorities, including the Japan Fair Trade
Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice and the European
Commission, in respect of alleged antitrust violations relating to
cathode ray tubes (CRTs).  Subsequent to these actions by the
authorities, a number of class action lawsuits have been filed in
the U.S. and Canada against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries.  In October 2009, the Japan Fair Trade Commission
issued a cease and desist order against MTPD and assessed a fine
against its three subsidiaries in South East Asia, but each named
company filed for a hearing to challenge the orders which is
currently subject to proceedings.

Since February 2009, the Company is subject to investigations by
government authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice
and the European Commission, in respect to alleged antitrust
violations relating to compressors for refrigerator use.
Subsequent to these actions by the authorities, a number of class
action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. and Canada against the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries.  The Company has paid a
fine to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Competition Bureau
Canada for the year ended March 31, 2011, to resolve alleged
antitrust violations relating to compressors for refrigerator use.
In December 2011, the Company received notification of a European
Commission Decision and paid a fine on refrigerator compressors
for the year ended March 31, 2012.  The Company has been
cooperating with various governmental investigations.

Depending upon the outcome of these different proceedings, the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries may be subject to an
uncertain amount of fines, and accordingly the Company has accrued
for certain probable and reasonable estimated amounts for the
fines.  The ability to predict the outcome of these actions and
proceedings is difficult to assess given that certain of the
investigations and legal proceedings are still at an early stage,
present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or
taking place in jurisdictions outside of Japan where the laws are
complex or unclear.  Accordingly, the Company is unable to
estimate the losses or range of losses for the actions and
proceedings where there is only a reasonable possibility that a
loss exceeding amounts already recognized may have been incurred.


PATRIOT COAL: Still Defends Suit Over Employee Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patriot Coal Corporation continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit over alleged violation of employee safety,
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.

In late January 2010, the U.S. Attorney's office and the State of
West Virginia began investigations relating to one or more of the
Company's employees making inaccurate entries in official mine
records at the Company's Federal No. 2 mine. The Company
terminated one employee and two other employees resigned after
being placed on administrative leave. The terminated employee
subsequently admitted to falsifying inspection records and has
been cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's office. In April 2010,
the Company received a federal subpoena requesting methane
detection systems equipment used at the Company's Federal No. 2
mine since July 2008 and the results of tests performed on the
equipment since that date.  The Company has provided the equipment
and information as required by the subpoena.  The Company has not
received any additional requests for information. In January 2012,
the terminated employee filed a civil lawsuit against the Company
alleging retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Additionally, in January 2012, five employees
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company and the
terminated employee seeking compensation for lost wages, emotional
distress, and punitive damages for the alleged intentional
violation of employee safety at the mine. The Company is
vigorously defending both civil lawsuits and the potential impact
of these lawsuits can not be estimated at this time.

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

Patriot Coal Corporation -- http://www.patriotcoal.com/-- engages
in the mining, production, and sale of thermal coal primarily to
electricity generators in the eastern United States. It has
operations and coal reserves in the Appalachia and the Illinois
Basin coal regions. The Company is also involved in the production
of metallurgical quality coal and sells it to steel mills and
independent coke producers. It is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


ROSETTA STONE: Still Awaits Court OK of Wages Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosetta Stone Inc. continues to await court approval of the
proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against the
Company in 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.

On or about April 28, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda for damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rosetta Stone Ltd. and DOES 1 to 50.  The complaint alleges that
plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated who are or were
employed as salaried managers by the Company in its retail
locations in California are due unpaid wages and other relief for
the Company's violations of state wage and hour laws.  Plaintiffs
moved to amend their complaint to include a nationwide class on
January 21, 2011.  In November 2011, the plaintiffs' attorneys and
the Company agreed to the mediator's proposed settlement terms,
and as a result, as of September 30, 2011, the Company reserved
$0.6 million for the proposed settlement amount. Approval of the
proposed settlement by the court is pending.  The Company disputes
the plaintiffs' claims and it has not admitted any wrongdoing with
respect to the case.

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

Rosetta Stone Inc. -- http://www.rosettastone.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, provides technology-based language-learning
solutions in the United States and internationally. The Company
develops, markets, and sells language-learning solutions, such as
software, online services, mobile applications, and audio practice
tools in approximately 30 languages primarily under the Rosetta
Stone brand.  The Company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered
in Arlington, Virginia.


SAFEWAY: Harasses Employees Who Join Class Action, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Safeway and Vons harass
employees who participated in a class action against Safeway,
according to a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court.


SONY CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's
June 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

In October 2009, Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Optiarc
America Inc., received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") seeking information about its optical disk drive
business.  Sony understands that the DOJ and agencies outside the
United States are investigating competition in optical disk
drives.  Subsequently, a number of purported class action lawsuits
were filed in certain jurisdictions, including the United States,
in which the plaintiffs allege that Sony Corporation and certain
of its subsidiaries violated antitrust laws and seek recovery of
damages and other remedies.  Based on the stage of these
proceedings, it is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or
range of possible loss, if any, that might result from adverse
judgments, settlements or other resolution of these matters.


SONY CORP: Faces Suits Over 2011 Cyber-Attack on Units' Sites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation is facing a number of lawsuits arising from a
2011 cyber-attack on its subsidiaries' Web sites, according to the
Company's June 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Beginning in early 2011, the network services of PlayStation(R)
Network, Qriocity(TM), Sony Online Entertainment LLC and Web sites
of other subsidiaries came under cyber-attack.  As of
June 27, 2012, Sony has not received any confirmed reports of
customer identity theft issues or misuse of credit cards from such
cyber-attacks.  However, in connection with certain of these
matters, Sony has received inquiries from authorities in a number
of jurisdictions, including orders for reports issued by the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan as well as the
Financial Services Agency of Japan, formal and/or informal
requests for information from Attorneys General from a number of
states in the United States and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,
various U.S. congressional inquiries and others.  Additionally,
Sony Corporation and/or certain of its subsidiaries have been
named in a number of purported class actions in certain
jurisdictions, including the United States.  Based on the stage of
these inquiries and proceedings, the Company says it is not
possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of possible loss,
if any, that might result from adverse judgments, settlements or
other resolution of all of these matters.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: GlobeOp Continues to Defend Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
GlobeOp Financial Services S.A. continues to defend class action
lawsuits and arbitration proceedings, according to SS&C
Technologies Holdings, Inc.'s June 27, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 31, 2012, SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. ("SS&C")
announced that its offer (the "Offer") to acquire all of the
issued and to be issued share capital of GlobeOp Financial
Services S.A. ("GlobeOp") had been declared wholly unconditional.
On June 27, 2012, SS&C issued a press release announcing that SS&C
had received valid acceptances of the Offer in respect of 99.95
percent of the existing issued share capital of GlobeOp, and that
SS&C had exercised its squeeze-out rights pursuant to the
Luxembourg Takeover Law, and on the same terms as the Offer, the
remaining shares of GlobeOp in respect of which the Offer has not
been accepted.

GlobeOp had revenues of $221.3 million in 2011 and has over 2,300
employees located in eleven offices in five countries.  GlobeOp
has substantial international operations, including in Europe,
India, the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.

GlobeOp is a defendant in a putative class action litigation
relating to losses incurred by investors in Greenwich Sentry L.P.
and Greenwich Sentry Partners L.P. as a result of those funds'
investments in funds managed by Bernard Madoff and has also been
named as a defendant in two related actions that are subject to
arbitration proceedings (collectively, the "Fairfield Greenwich
Actions").  The plaintiffs in the Fairfield Greenwich Actions have
also asserted claims against multiple other defendants, including
the funds' investment managers, another fund administrator, and
the funds' auditors.  These plaintiffs allege that GlobeOp failed
to perform its contractual and alleged fiduciary duties and are
seeking recovery of their losses in the funds in an indeterminate
amount.  In addition, several actions (the "Millennium Actions")
have been filed in various jurisdictions or threatened naming
GlobeOp as a defendant in respect of claims arising out of
valuation agent services performed by GlobeOp related to the
Millennium Global Emerging Credit Fund L.P. and Millennium Global
Emerging Fund Ltd. (the "Millennium Funds"), including an
arbitration proceeding in the United Kingdom on behalf of the
Millennium Funds' investment manager with a yet-to-be-determined
claimed amount, a threatened arbitration proceeding in the United
Kingdom involving the liquidator on behalf of the Millennium Funds
in an amount yet to be determined, and a putative class action in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors in the Millennium Funds asserting claims of
$844 million, which is alleged to be the full amount of assets
under management by the Millennium Funds at the funds' peak
valuation.  These actions arise out of the same set of facts and
circumstances described in the criminal and civil complaints filed
by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, respectively, against the portfolio manager of the
Millennium Funds' investment manager.

The Company believes that GlobeOp has strong defenses to the
Fairfield Greenwich Actions and the Millennium Actions, and the
Company is vigorously contesting these matters.  However,
litigation is subject to inherent uncertainty and these matters
could ultimately be decided against GlobeOp, and the Company could
be required to pay substantial damages, which could have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.  In addition, some of these actions are arbitration
proceedings, which may result in less predictable outcomes than
court litigation and are generally not subject to appeal.  GlobeOp
has also incurred, and the Company will continue to incur during
the pendency of these matters, significant costs, and until
resolved these matters will continue to divert the attention of
the Company's management and other resources that would otherwise
be engaged in other business activities.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Securities Suit vs. Officers Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Supermedia
Inc.'s current and former officers is pending, 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 April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain of the Company's current and former
officers (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries). The
suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan Goldberg
as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009,
inclusive.  On May 22, 2009, a putative class action
securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas against two of the Company's current
officers (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries).   The
suit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's bonds between March 27, 2008 and March 30, 2009,
inclusive.  On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones case from Arkansas
federal district court was transferred to be consolidated with the
cases filed in Texas.  The complaints are virtually identical and
generally allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and condition.  Specifically, the
complaints allege violations by the defendants of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and
Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation
expenses.  Since the filing of the complaints, all four cases have
been consolidated into one court in the Northern District of Texas
and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' attorney have been
selected (the "Buettgen" case).  On April 12, 2010, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the entire Buettgen complaint.  On
August 11, 2010, in a one line order without an opinion, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  On May 19, 2011, the
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion certifying a class.
Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification order.   Discovery has commenced.  The Company plans
to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the
lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010. SuperMedia Inc. is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Still Defends Suit v. Employee Benefits Committee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supermedia, Inc. continues to defend a class action complaint
filed against its employee benefits committee after a Texas
federal court denied a motion to dismiss the case in March,
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 November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
Verizon employee benefits committee and pension plans and the
Company employee benefits committee (the "EBC") and pension plans.
All three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to the
Company pension plans at or near the Company's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and Company
defendants failed to provide requested plan documents, which would
entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under the Employee
Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA); that both the Verizon
and Company defendants breached their fiduciary duty for refusal
to disclose pension plan information; and other class action
counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The plaintiffs seek
class action status, statutory penalties, damages and a reversal
of the employee transfers.  The Company defendants filed their
motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10, 2010.  On
October 18, 2010, the Court ruled on the pending motion dismissing
all the claims against the Company pension plans and all of the
claims against the Company's EBC relating to the production of
documents and statutory penalties for failure to produce same.
The only claims remaining against the Company are procedural ERISA
claims against the Company's EBC.  On November 1, 2010, the
Company's EBC filed its answer to the complaint.  On November 4,
2010, the Company's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one of the two
remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.  Pursuant to an
agreed order, the plaintiffs have obtained class certification
against the Verizon defendants and discovery has commenced. After
obtaining permission from the Court, the Plaintiffs filed another
amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against the
Company's EBC.  The Company's EBC filed another motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and have filed a summary judgment motion
before the deadline set by the scheduling order.  On March 26,
2012, the Court denied the Company's EBC's motion to dismiss. The
parties' summary judgments remain pending. The Company plans to
honor its indemnification obligations and defend the lawsuit on
the defendants' behalf.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010. SuperMedia Inc. is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


SUPERMEDIA INC: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have expressed intention to appeal the dismissal of
their ERISA class action complaint against Supermedia, Inc.'s
officers and Employee Benefits Committee, 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 December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against the Company filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of the Company's current
and former officers, directors and members of the Company's
Employee Benefits Committee.  The complaint attempts to recover
alleged losses to the various savings plans that were allegedly
caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by
the defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006
to March 31, 2009.  The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants
wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock,
(ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the
Company's financial performance and condition, (iii) the
defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged
the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to
monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures.  The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.  At this time, a class has
not been certified.  The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire
complaint on June 22, 2010.  On March 16, 2011, the Court granted
the Company defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint;
however, the plaintiffs have repleaded their complaint.  The
Company defendants have filed another motion to dismiss the new
complaint.  On March 15, 2012, the court granted the Company
defendants' second motion dismissing the case with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs have filed a notice of their intent to appeal the
dismissal.  The Company plans to honor its indemnification
obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants'
behalf.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, SuperMedia Inc. --
http://www.supermedia.com/-- operates as a yellow pages directory
publisher in the United States.  The Company was formerly known as
Idearc Inc. and changed its name to SuperMedia Inc. in January
2010. SuperMedia Inc. is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


TIM HORTONS: Appeal From Class Claims Dismissal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging an Ontario court's dismissal of breach of
contract claims in a putative class action complaint against Tim
Hortons Inc. remains pending, 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 June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule Foods
Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always Fresh baking
system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower
franchisee profitability.  The claim, which sought class action
certification on behalf of Canadian restaurant owners, asserted
damages of approximately $1.95 billion.  Those damages were
claimed based on breach of contract, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentations, unjust
enrichment, price maintenance and waiver of tort.  The plaintiffs
filed a motion for certification of the putative class in May
2009, and the Company filed its responding materials as well as a
motion for summary judgment in November of 2009. The two motions
were heard in August and October 2011.  On February 24, 2012, the
Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.  The Court
also found that certain aspects of the test for certification of
the action as a class proceeding had been met, but all of the
underlying claims were nonetheless dismissed as part of the
aforementioned summary judgment decision.

While the Court found in favour of the Company on all claims, the
plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the
claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing, price maintenance and waiver of tort.  If all
potential appeals were determined adversely to the Company, the
effect would be that the matters would ultimately proceed to
trial.  The Company remains of the view that it would have good
and tenable defences at any such trial, and that the plaintiffs'
claims are without merit and will not be successful.  Should the
matter proceed to trial, the Company would continue to vigorously
defend against the plaintiffs' claim.  However, if the matters
were determined adversely to the Company at trial, and that
determination was upheld by final order after all appeals, it is
possible that the claims could have a material adverse impact on
the Company's financial position or liquidity.

Tim Hortons Inc. -- http://timhortons.com/-- develops,
franchises, and operates quick service restaurants primarily in
Canada and the United States.  The Company was founded in 1964 and
is based in Oakville, Canada.


US RAILROAD COMPANIES: Appeals Class Cert. in Price-Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Schoenberg, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that four U.S.
railroad companies appealed a ruling that turned a price-fixing
lawsuit against them into a class action of as many as 30,000
shippers, arguing it could unfairly push them into settlements.

Union Pacific Corp., the largest U.S. carrier, CSX Corp.; the
third largest, Norfolk Southern Corp.; and Burlington Northern
Santa Fe, a unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
(BRK/A) (A), on July 5 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Washington to reverse the June 21 ruling, saying it exposes the
companies to $10 billion or more in potential damages.

"Such massive potential exposures create 'hydraulic' and
'unwarranted pressure' to settle non-meritorious claims," Carter
Phillips, a lawyer for the railroads, said in the 32-page filing.

The lawsuit, brought in 2007 by Olin Corp. and seven other
companies that ship goods by rail, alleges the railroad companies
colluded at an industry meeting in 2003 to impose a surcharge tied
to overall transportation costs rather than to actual fuel prices
over a 3-1/2-year period.

More than two dozen customers have filed lawsuits, which were
consolidated before U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in
Washington.  Archer Daniels Midland Co., the world's largest grain
processor, filed a separate complaint on March 26, 2008.

Lawyers for the railroad companies have argued the case should be
thrown out for lack of evidence that the railroads broke any laws
in creating a price index to pass on surging fuel costs to
customers.

Union Pacific, based in Omaha, Nebraska, and the other railroads
deny they colluded on fuel surcharges.

The filing asks the appellate court to consider the class
certification challenge before a trial is held.

The companies "have very strong defenses to plaintiffs' claims,
based on the absence of evidence of any actionable conspiracy and
railroad-specific evidentiary protections," Phillips of Sidley
Austin LLP in Washington, said in the filing.

He said waiting to review the class certification until after a
trial "may mean that this crucial ruling entirely evades appellate
review."

The case is In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, 12-08008, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
(Washington).

                           *********

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  * * *