CAR_Public/120716.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 16, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 139

                             Headlines

A123 SYSTEMS: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sued Over State-Subsidized Reinsurance
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Gets Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Continues to Defend "Baker" & "Collier" Suits
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of "Finder's Fees" Class Action

BARCLAYS PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in New York
BNY MELLON: Settles "CompSource" Class Suit for $280 Million
CARMAX INC: Appeal in Consolidated Suit vs. Units Remain Pending
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Adelphia-Related Suit Deal Pending Appeal
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Awaits Class Certification Ruling

COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Awaits Ruling on Claims Dismissal Bid
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Continues to Defend ARS-Related Suits
COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits
COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Defends Repurchase Transactions Suits
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Two Discrimination Suits

COMMODITY ADVISORS: Discovery in Securities Suit v. Citi Underway
COOPER INDUSTRIES: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action in Ohio
DAVITA INC: Appeal in Wage and Hour Class Suit Remains Pending
DIGI INT'L: Insurer Pays Portion in IPO Suit Settlement
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Appeal From "Gaer" Suit Dismissal Withdrawn

EXPERIAN: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Florida
FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
FIRESTONE POLYMERS: Employees File Racial Bias Class Action
GENERAL MILLS: YoPlus Yogurt-Related Suit Set for Trial in 2013
HCA HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suit in Tenn.

HEARST CORP: Woman Files Class Action Over Alleged Defamation
IDAHO: National Law Group Joins Mental Health Care Suit
ILLINOIS: Ex-Judge Says Insurance Bill Unconstitutional
INTEGRATED SECURITY: "Grube" hCG-Related Suit Remains Stayed
INTEGRATED SECURITY: iSatori Faces Class Suit Over PWR Product

INTEGRATED SECURITY: Prelim. Discovery Started in "Aviles" Suit
KADANT INC: Accrued Payment of Unit's Settlement Still at $2.5MM
MALIBU MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Extortion Scheme
NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Still Defends 3 Product Liability Suits
NIKON INC: Recalls 201,200 SLR Camera Rechargeable Battery Packs

PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Remains a Co-Conspirator in Class Suits
RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California
RITE AID: Discovery Proceeding in One of Store Managers' Suits
RITE AID: Final Hearing on Wage and Hour Suits Deal on Oct. 24
SCRANTON, PA: Faces Class Action Over Salary Cuts

STATER BROS: Still Awaits Court OK of "Lunsford" Suit Settlement
STATER BROS: Still Awaits Court OK of "Martinez" Suit Settlement
SUNPOWER CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit
TICKETMASTER: Ontario Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
TICKETMASTER: Proposed Class Action Settlement Challenged

TROXEL CO: Recalls 105,400 Flexible Flyer Swing Sets
VIBRAM INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on FiveFingers
XL GROUP: Got N.J. Court's Nod on Antitrust Suit Settlement

* LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Settles Price Fixing Case for $571MM


                          *********

A123 SYSTEMS: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit against A123 Systems, Inc.,
according to the Company's July 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a party to securities class action and other
litigations which may be costly to defend and the outcome of which
is uncertain.

On April 2, 2012, and April 12, 2012, respectively, complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by individuals, purportedly acting individually and
on behalf of other similarly situated persons, against the company
and the Company's CEO, David Vieau, CFO, David Prystash, and
former Interim CFO, John Granara.  The complaints followed the
Company's disclosure in March 2012 of potentially defective
prismatic cells used in battery packs and a replacement program
for such cells.  The complaints attempt to allege that certain of
the Company's disclosures were inaccurate because the potentially
defective cells and their replacement were not disclosed earlier.
The complaints assert a claim under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of that statute against the
individuals.  The complaints assert a purported class period from
February 28, 2011, through March 23, 2012.  On June 7, 2012, the
Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff,
Suk Cheung, and lead counsel for the asserted class, the law firm
of Berman DeValerio.  No substantive response to the complaints
has been required at this time.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sued Over State-Subsidized Reinsurance
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Allstate
Insurance persuaded the Florida Legislature to pass a law allowing
insurers to buy discounted reinsurance from the state, then had
the brass to ask for a 42 percent rate hike, using "falsely skewed
hurricane models . . . in a wrongful attempt to claim that [it]
did not realize any savings," homeowners say in a class action.

Lead plaintiffs David and Theresa Sapuppo claim that "following a
number of hurricane events that occurred in 2004 and 2005 in
Florida, the Allstate Companies, including the defendant [Allstate
Floridian Insurance Company], and other insurance company
interests used their marketing strategies and their sizeable legal
and lobbying resources to lobby the Florida Legislature in 2007 to
consider and pass a law known as 'House Bill 1-A.'

"Among other things, House Bill 1-A allowed the Allstate Companies
to purchase 're-insurance' from the State at a much lower price
than it could be purchased in the private market.  The State of
Florida assumed risk for certain amounts of storm damage that
previously had been assumed by the private marketplace.  This risk
assumption resulted in lower risk and a reduction in costs to
defendant."

According to the complaint in Leon County Court: "The Allstate
Companies represented to the Legislature that House Bill 1-A would
save the insurance companies a substantial amount of money, and
that this savings would be passed on to Florida policyholders in
the form of lower premiums.  Thus, when enacting House Bill 1-A .
. . the Legislature required the defendant to make a rate filing
which reflected the savings or reduction in loss exposure to the
insurer," so the savings could be passed on to consumers as
quickly as possible.

However, the class of policyholders claims that "despite the
Allstate Companies recording rising profits . . . the defendant
made a rate filing . . . to increase the premiums it charged
plaintiff, in direct contradiction of the law and the
representations the Allstate Companies made to the Florida
legislature."

The class claims: "The Florida Legislature and the Governor of
Florida enacted the legislation to bolster Florida's economy by
having the State of Florida assume billions of dollars of risk
that otherwise would have been a cost of business paid by
defendants and the insurance industry.  In exchange, defendant and
the insurance industry represented that they would pass the
savings along to Florida policyholders in lower premiums, rather
than increase their own profits and seek additional rate
increases.

"The named defendant knowingly used lobbyists, public relations
firms and other personnel to have the legislation adopted that
would allow them to obtain state-subsidized reinsurance, creating
billions of dollars in risk for Florida, without lowering property
and casualty insurance premiums for the plaintiff and those
similarly situated to the extent and within the timeframe called
for by the legislation."

The complaint states: "The Allstate Companies made
misrepresentations that induced their procurement of state-
subsidized, low-cost reinsurance;

"The Allstate Companies retained the benefit conferred upon them
by the reinsurance cost savings and failed to timely pass along
the savings resulting from their purchase of state-subsidized
reinsurance to their ratepayers . . . in the form of lower
premiums, despite being legally required to do so;

"Upon information and belief, the Allstate Companies have
attempted to avoid their obligations to reduce premiums by using
inaccurate and misleading data, including falsely skewed hurricane
models and unjustifiable hurricane risk loads, in a wrongful
attempt to claim that they did not realize any savings to pass
along to the people of Florida in the form of lower premiums."

Most notably, "While most insurance companies timely submitted
filings which reflected a decrease in premium rates following
'presumed factor' filings, the defendants submitted a filing which
sought a 41.9 percent increase in rates.  Only after being sued by
the Office of Insurance Regulation did the defendant agree, more
than a year later, to a further reduction of 5.4 percent in
residential property insurance premiums for plaintiff and other
similarly situated policyholders."

The policyholders seek recovery of the 5.4 percent premium hike
they paid before September 2008, and damages for unjust enrichment
and breach of contract.

A copy of the Complaint in Sapuppo, et ux. v. Allstate Floridian
Insurance Company, Case No. 2012CA2059 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/11/HurricaneInsure.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon C. Moyle, Jr., Esq.
          MOYLE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          The Perkins House
          118 North Gadsden Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 681-3828
          E-mail: jmoyle@moylelaw.com


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Gets Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
entered a final order on June 28, 2012, approving Ambassadors
Group, Inc.'s settlement of a securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against
Ambassadors Group, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its
executive officers on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 8, 2007, and
October 23, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington (the "Court").  On April 14, 2011,
an agreement was reached to settle the action following a
mediation before a retired federal judge.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company's insurance carriers agreed to pay the
settlement amount of $7.5 million, in complete settlement of all
claims, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability by the
Company or any party in the action.  Throughout the litigation,
the Company and the individual defendants have denied, and
continue to deny, the allegations made against them.  The Company
agreed with the insurance carriers to settle the action because it
was in the best interests of the Company to avoid the burdens,
risk, uncertainties and expense that would be inherent in
continued litigation.

The settlement agreement, which includes a release for all
defendants and other provisions common in such agreements, was
preliminarily approved by the Court on September 6, 2011, and
notice was provided to all class members.  The Court held a
hearing to consider final approval of the settlement, the plan of
allocation, and the motion for the award of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees on November 30, 2011, but delayed ruling on these matters
pending submission of additional materials by the lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff submitted the requested additional materials on
December 30, 2011, January 17, 2012, and March 19, 2012.

On June 28, 2012, the Court entered a final order approving the
settlement and related matters.  As the settlement is covered and
was funded by the Company's insurance carrier, the settlement is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition or results of operations.

Ambassadors Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: EPAX) --
http://www.ambassadorsgroup.com/-- is an education company
located in Spokane, Washington.  Ambassadors Group is the parent
company of People to People Ambassador Programs, new subsidiary
World Adventures Unlimited, Inc., and BookRags, an educational
research Web site.  The Company also oversees the Washington
School of World Studies, an accredited travel study and distance
learning school.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Continues to Defend "Baker" & "Collier" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits filed in Ohio and Oklahoma, according to the
Company's July 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 25, 2012.

American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative
class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance
policies (the "Insurance Policies"): one filed in the Northern
District of Ohio on January 11, 2012, by Theresa Baker as the
personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe
(the "Baker Litigation"); and the other filed in the Northern
District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010, by Keith Collier as the
personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the
"Collier Litigation").

In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees' names and
identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by
using its employees' identities and personal information to
benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt
of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and
investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy
benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe's life.  The
plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits
associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including
investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits
that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of
the former employees whose estates form the putative class.  The
plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorney's fees.  American Greetings
Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 30, 2012, which is
pending with the court.

In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American
Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it
obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received
the benefits from those policies.  The plaintiff seeks damages in
the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings
Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as
attorney's fees and costs and interest.  On April 2, 2012,
Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding
misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary
duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages.  On April 20,
2012, American Greetings Corporation moved to transfer the Collier
Litigation to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker
Litigation is pending.  On June 19, 2012, the magistrate issued
his Report and Recommendation that American Greetings' Motion to
Transfer the case to the Northern District of Ohio be granted.

Class certification has not been decided in either of these cases.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations in these lawsuits
are without merit and intends to continue to defend the actions
vigorously.  The Company currently does not believe that the
impact of the lawsuit, if any, will have a material adverse effect
on its financial position, liquidity or results of operations.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of "Finder's Fees" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Goodman, writing for Law360, reports that Bank of America
NA on July 9 asked a Maryland federal judge to dismiss a putative
class action alleging it engaged in a collaborative scheme with
Academy Mortgage LLC to charge unlawful "finder's fees" to
borrowers in connection with their mortgage transactions.

The lawsuit accuses the bank of violating Maryland's Finder's Fee
Act, a 1979 law that makes it illegal for a mortgage broker that
also acts as a mortgage lender to collect a finder's fee.


BARCLAYS PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 10 filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
sponsored American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Barclays PLC
between July 10, 2007 and June 27, 2012, inclusive, against
Barclays, two subsidiaries and the Company's former Chairman and
Chief Executive, alleging securities fraud pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)]
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R.
240.10b-5].

The case name is Vladimir Gusinsky, Trustee, for the Vladimir
Gusinsky Living Trust v. Barclays PLC, et al., Civil Action No.
12-cv-5329.  A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com

During the Class Period, Barclays issued materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that
rendered their affirmative statements misleading as they related
to the Company's financial performance, financial condition and
internal operational controls.  As a result of these materially
false and misleading statements, the price of the Company's
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period.  As
the truth of the Company's materially false and misleading
statements entered the market, the Company's stock plummeted.

The London Inter-Bank Offered Rate ("Libor") is a tool to measure
risk within the banking system as a whole and it may be more
surgically applied to test a particular bank's creditworthiness.
When a bank lends to a customer (in this case another bank), it
fixes the interest rate and other terms premised on an assessment
of the borrower's ability to repay the loan. The greater the risk,
the higher the rate the bank will charge to assume the risk. The
opposite is true: the lower the credit risk, the lower the rate
the bank will charge to take on the risk.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants did not act fairly,
transparently, and try in good faith to fix Libor rates at levels
that accurately reflected the inherent and actual risk in the
market place. Defendants, instead, admittedly participated in an
illegal scheme to manipulate the Libor interest rates for the
benefit of Barclays' traders and to make Barclays appear
financially healthier than it was during the Class Period.

The Complaint further alleges that apart from participating in an
illegal scheme to manipulate Libor rates in a way that would allow
Defendants and other bankers to exploit borrowers and make even
more money, the Defendants made material misstatements to the
Company's shareholders about the Company's purported compliance
with their principles and operational risk management processes
and repeatedly told shareholders that Barclays was a model
corporate citizen even though at all relevant times it was
flouting the law.

On June 27, 2012, Barclays was found by US and UK regulators to
have manipulated or "fixed" its Libor rate submissions.  Barclays'
top management essentially admitted to the Bank's malfeasance.  In
an open letter to the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee,
Defendant Bob Diamond, chief executive of Barclays, explained that
the authorities had highlighted two issues: First, a number of
individual traders had attempted to influence the bank's interest
rate submissions in order to boost their own trading desk's
profits -- operating purely for their own benefit; Diamond said
this conduct was wholly inappropriate. Second, during the recent
credit crisis, Barclays reduced its Libor submissions to protect
the reputation of the bank from negative speculation, which arose
as a result of Barclays' higher rate submissions in comparison to
other banks -- i.e. the bank wanted to make itself look
financially stronger relative to other banks in order to keep its
borrowing costs down and market reputation up.

These revelations caused the Company's ADRs initially to fall by
12%, from $12.33 per share to $10.84 per share on over 22 million
shares traded and then an additional 5% on over 14 million shares
traded.

If you purchased Barclays ADRs during the Class Period, you may
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by September
10, 2012.  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 Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.  The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities, multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Robert B. Weintraub, Esq., Martin E.
Restituyo, Esq., or Derek Behnke), via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Barclays.


BNY MELLON: Settles "CompSource" Class Suit for $280 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation settled for $280 million
the class action lawsuit initiated by CompSource Oklahoma,
according to the Company's July 6, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 5, 2012, BNY Mellon, N.A. and The Bank of New York Mellon,
affiliates of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
(collectively "BNY Mellon") entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") related to a previously
disclosed putative 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. ("Sigma").  The Settlement Agreement is
subject to court approval.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, BNY Mellon will make
a payment of $280 million for a full and complete release of all
Sigma-related claims that were made or could have been brought
against it or its affiliates by members of the alleged class (the
"Class").  BNY Mellon may enter into additional settlements
relating to losses in connection with Sigma investments incurred
by securities lending clients not included in the Class or who opt
out of the Settlement Agreement.

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.


CARMAX INC: Appeal in Consolidated Suit vs. Units Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the consolidated class action lawsuit against CarMax,
Inc.'s subsidiaries remain pending, according to the Company's
July 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2012.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; and (5) unfair competition/California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted of
sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who
worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the
present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class
claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.  On June
16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to
comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions.  The
court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with
regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales
consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's
ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim.  On May 20,
2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's ruling
in favor of CarMax.  The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review
with the California Supreme Court, which was denied.  As a result,
the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer part of the case.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act.  On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay
of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court
case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues.
Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the
plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individualized
basis, which the court granted on
November 21, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the California
Court of Appeal.  The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and
special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties,
restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys'
fees.

The Company says it is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome in these matters.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Adelphia-Related Suit Deal Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements of class action lawsuits under IN RE ADELPHIA
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
are pending appeal, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s
June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which is indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On July 6, 2003, an adversary proceeding was filed by the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of Adelphia
Communications Corporation against certain lenders and investment
banks, including CGM, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp USA, Inc., and
Citigroup Financial Products, Inc. (together, the "Citigroup
Parties").  The complaint alleged that the Citigroup Parties and
numerous other defendants committed acts in violation of the Bank
Holding Company Act, the Bankruptcy Code, and common law.  It
sought an unspecified amount of damages.  In November 2003, a
similar adversary proceeding was filed by the Equity Holders
Committee of Adelphia, asserting additional statutory and common
law claims.  In June 2004, motions to dismiss were filed with
respect to the complaints of the two committees.  Those motions
were decided by the bankruptcy court, and were granted in part and
denied in part.  The district court affirmed in part and reversed
in part the bankruptcy court's decision.  The Adelphia Recovery
Trust ("ART"), which replaced the committees as the plaintiff in
the action, filed an amended complaint on behalf of the Adelphia
Estate, consolidating the two prior complaints; motions to dismiss
the amended complaint and answers were filed.  The district court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The ART's appeal to the
Second Circuit from that partial dismissal is pending.  Before the
district court, the parties are briefing summary judgment.  On
September 22, 2010, the ART agreed in principle to settle its
claims against numerous prepetition lenders and investment banks,
including Citigroup, in the action entitled ADELPHIA RECOVERY
TRUST v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., 05 Civ. 9050 (S.D.N.Y.).
The agreement in principle is subject to execution of a final
settlement agreement and court approval.

In addition, CGM is among the underwriters named in numerous civil
actions brought to date by investors in Adelphia debt securities
in connection with Adelphia securities offerings between September
1997 and October 2001.  Three of the complaints also assert claims
against Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. All of the complaints
allege violations of federal securities laws, and certain of the
complaints also allege violations of state securities laws and the
common law.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.  In December
2003, a second amended complaint was filed and consolidated before
the same judge of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In February 2004, motions to dismiss the class and individual
actions pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York were filed.  In May and July of
2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted motions to dismiss several claims, based on
the running of applicable statute of limitations, asserted in the
alleged class and individual actions being coordinated under IN RE
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION.  With the exception of one individual action that was
dismissed with prejudice, the court granted the alleged class and
individual plaintiffs leave to re-plead certain of those claims
the court found to be time-barred.  Without admitting any
liability, CGM and numerous other financial institution defendants
settled IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION for a total of $250 million, and the
settlement was approved in November 2006.  Two of the additional
remaining individual complaints have been settled.  Following
settlements of the class action, which is pending appeal, and
other individual actions, two cases remain outstanding.  The
Second Circuit is considering whether the plaintiff in one has
proper standing to sue.  In September 2007, motions to dismiss in
the other case were granted in part and denied in part.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Awaits Class Certification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent are
awaiting a court decision on a motion seeking class certification
in the consolidated bond litigation against them, according to the
Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

On September 30 and October 28, 2008, Citigroup, certain Citigroup
entities, certain current and former directors and officers of
Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain underwriters of
Citigroup notes (including CGM) were named as defendants in two
alleged class actions filed in New York state court but since
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  These actions allege violations of Sections
11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising
out of forty-eight corporate debt securities, preferred stock, and
interests in preferred stock issued by Citigroup and related
issuers over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008.  On December 10,
2008, these two actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, and lead plaintiff and counsel
were appointed. On January 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint.

On March 13, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On July 12, 2010, the district court issued an order
and opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The court's order, among other things,
dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, but denied defendants' motion to dismiss
certain claims under Section 11 of that Act.  A motion for partial
reconsideration of the latter ruling is pending.  On September 30,
2010, the district court entered a scheduling order in IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION.  Fact discovery has commenced.  On
March 11, 2011, lead plaintiffs in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND
LITIGATION filed a motion seeking class certification.  Plaintiffs
have not yet quantified the alleged class's alleged damages.

Because of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, Citigroup
cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss,
if any, for this action or predict the timing of its eventual
resolution.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Awaits Ruling on Claims Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent is
awaiting a court decision on their motion to dismiss certain
claims in a multidistrict litigation pending in New York,
according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Citigroup and CGM have been named as defendants in two alleged
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, but since transferred by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  In the
consolidated action, lead plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of an
alleged class of participants in Citigroup's Voluntary Financial
Advisor Capital Accumulation Plan from November 2006 through
January 2009.  On June 7, 2011, the district court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and subsequently
entered judgment.  On November 14, 2011, the district court
granted in part plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment
and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.  On November
23, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims
on December 21, 2011.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Broker Continues to Defend ARS-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent
continues to defend class action lawsuits related to auction-rate
securities, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup, CGM and their affiliates and
certain current and former officers, directors, and employees,
have been named as defendants in several individual and alleged
class action lawsuits related to auction-rate securities ("ARS").
These have included, among others: (i) numerous lawsuits and
arbitrations filed by customers of Citigroup and its affiliates
seeking damages in connection with investments in ARS; (ii) a
consolidated alleged class action asserting claims for federal
securities violations, which has been dismissed and is now pending
on appeal; (iii) two alleged class actions asserting violations of
Section I of the Sherman Act, which have been dismissed and are
now pending on appeal; and (iv) a derivative action filed against
certain Citigroup officers and directors, which has been
dismissed.  In addition, based on an investigation, report and
recommendation from a committee of Citigroup's Board of Directors,
the Board refused a shareholder demand that was made after
dismissal of the derivative action.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker continues to
defend class action lawsuits alleging violations of wage and hour
laws, according to the Company's June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Numerous financial services firms, including Citigroup and its
affiliates, were named in alleged class actions alleging that
certain present and former employees in California were entitled
to overtime pay under state and federal laws; were subject to
certain allegedly unlawful deductions under state law; or were
entitled to reimbursement for employment related expenses incurred
by them.  The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of
2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, BAHRAMIPOUR v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of an alleged class
of California employees.  Similar complaints have been
subsequently filed against CGM on behalf of certain statewide or
nationwide alleged classes in (i) the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New
Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the District of
Massachusetts, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and (ii)
the New Jersey Superior Court. Without admitting any liability,
CGM reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to court
approval, to a nationwide settlement for up to approximately $98
million of various class actions asserting violations of state and
federal laws relating to overtime and violations of various state
laws relating to alleged unlawful payroll deductions.  Additional
alleged class action lawsuits alleging a variety of violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws have been filed against
various other Citigroup businesses.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Defends Repurchase Transactions Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s commodity broker and its parent are
defending a consolidated class action lawsuit over certain
repurchase transactions, according to the Company's June 29, 2012,
Form 10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Beginning in March 2010, various regulators have made inquiries
regarding the accounting treatment of certain repurchase
transactions.  Citigroup is cooperating fully with these
inquiries.

Additionally, beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class
actions and other private civil lawsuits were filed in various
courts against banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their
affiliates, including certain Citigroup subsidiaries.  The
actions, which assert various federal and state law claims
relating to the setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the
Southern District of New York.

The Partnership says additional lawsuits containing similar claims
may be filed in the future.  The Partnership, the General Partner
and its principals, directors and executive officers are not a
party to, nor are any of their assets subject to, any of the
actions and proceedings.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Defends Two Discrimination Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend two class action lawsuits
alleging claims of racial discrimination in mortgage lending,
according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s June 29, 2012, Form
10-12G filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Two alleged class actions have been filed alleging claims of
racial discrimination in mortgage lending under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and/or the Civil Rights
Act.  The first action, PUELLO, ET AL. v. CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., ET AL., was filed against Citigroup and its affiliates in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  The second action, NAACP v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE
CO., ET AL., was filed against one of Citigroup's affiliates in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  In each action, defendants' motions to dismiss have
been denied.  On September 21, 2009, the United States District
Court for the Central District of California denied defendant
CitiMortgage's motion for summary judgment and granted its motion
to strike the jury demand.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Discovery in Securities Suit v. Citi Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery is underway in the consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against Citigroup Inc., according to Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s June 29, 2012, Form 10-12G filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The general partner and commodity pool operator of Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P., formerly known as "Energy Advisors Portfolio
L.P., (the "Partnership") is Ceres Managed Futures LLC, which is
formerly known as Citigroup Managed Futures LLC.  The commodity
broker of the Partnership is Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("CGM"), which indirectly own by Citigroup Inc.  The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney Holdings LLC.  Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various
subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings,
and Citigroup indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB
Holdings.

Citigroup has been named as a defendant in four alleged class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On August 19, 2008, these actions were
consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION.  The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of
Citigroup common stock from January 1, 2004, through January 15,
2009.  On November 9, 2010, the district court issued an opinion
and order dismissing all claims except those arising out of
Citigroup's exposure to collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs")
for the time period February 1, 2007, through April 18, 2008.
Fact discovery is underway.  Plaintiffs have not yet quantified
the alleged class' alleged damages.  During the alleged class
period, as narrowed by the district court, the price of
Citigroup's common stock declined from $54.73 at the beginning of
the period to $25.11 at the end of the period.  (These share
prices represent Citigroup's common stock prices prior to its 1-
for-10 reverse stock split, effective
May 6, 2011.)


COOPER INDUSTRIES: Robbins Umeda Files Class Action in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights firm Robbins Umeda LLP on July 10 disclosed
that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on July 9, 2012, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, on behalf of all persons who hold common stock of Cooper
Industries plc against Cooper Industries and its board of
directors for, among other things, violations of sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Cooper Industries by Eaton
Corporation.

The complaint arises out of a May 21, 2012 press release
announcing that Cooper Industries had entered into a definitive
merger agreement with Eaton, pursuant to which Cooper Industries
shareholders would receive cash and shares valued at $72.00 for
each share of Cooper Industries they own.

The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in an
attempt to secure shareholder approval of the Proposed
Acquisition, filed a materially misleading Preliminary Proxy on
Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The omitted and/or misrepresented information is
believed to be material in assisting Cooper Industries
shareholders in making an informed decision about whether or not
to vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all Cooper
Industries shareholders as of May 21, 2012.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Umeda LLP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 10, 2012.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. of
Robbins Umeda LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder information
form on our Web site or by e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com--- is a
California-based law firm that represents investors in securities
fraud class actions, merger-related shareholder class actions, and
shareholder derivative actions.


DAVITA INC: Appeal in Wage and Hour Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against DaVita Inc. in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time.  The lawsuit, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements.  In September 2011, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs have appealed that decision.  The Company says it
intends to continue to vigorously defend against these claims.
Any potential settlement of these claims is not anticipated to be
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 6, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


DIGI INT'L: Insurer Pays Portion in IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Digi International Inc. related 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 its insurers paid its portion
of a settlement resolving a consolidated shareholder lawsuit
involving one of its subsidiary.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York asserting claims relating to the initial public offering
(IPO) of Digi International's subsidiary, NetSilicon, Inc. and
approximately 300 other public companies.  Digi International
acquired NetSilicon on February 13, 2002.  The complaint named
Digi International as a defendant along with NetSilicon, certain
of its officers and certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's
IPO, among numerous others, and asserted, among other things, that
NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated
federal securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of
NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in NetSilicon's
IPO to the underwriters' customers. We believed that the claims
against the NetSilicon defendants were without merit and we
defended the litigation vigorously. Pursuant to a stipulation
between the parties, the two named officers were dismissed from
the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were filed
objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness
of the settlement. Five of those appeals were dismissed with
prejudice on October 6, 2010. On May 17, 2011, the Court of
Appeals dismissed four of the remaining appeals. On January 10,
2012, the last remaining appeal was dismissed with prejudice, as a
result of which the settlement became final, by its terms.

In March 2012, the Company's insurers paid to the plaintiffs on
its behalf the full amount of the settlement share allocated to it
of $337,838.  The Company has no financial liability under the
terms of the settlement agreement.  As a result, during the second
fiscal quarter of 2012, the Company reversed its accrued liability
of $300,000 and the related receivable of $50,000. These accruals
represented the estimated settlement of $300,000 less its $250,000
deductible.

Based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, Digi International Inc. --
http://www.dgii.com/-- engages in the provision of machine-to-
machine networking products and solutions to connect, monitor, and
control of local or remote physical assets by electronic means.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Appeal From "Gaer" Suit Dismissal Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal challenging the dismissal of a securities class action
complaint against Education Management Corporation was voluntarily
withdrawn and thus, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit dismissed the appeal with prejudice, 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 August 11, 2010, a securities class action complaint captioned
Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et. Al, was filed against the
Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and the Company's subsequent press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On September 29,
2011, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's dismissal of the lawsuit to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, but on April 17, 2012, voluntarily withdrew their appeal.
As a result, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered an Order
dismissing the appeal with prejudice on April 18, 2012.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Education Management
Corporation -- http://www.edmc.com/-- provides post-secondary
education in North America. The Company provides education through
four education systems comprising The Art Institutes, Argosy
University, Brown Mackie Colleges, and South University.  It
operates 105 schools in 32 states of the United States and Canada.


EXPERIAN: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
Experian, the national consumer credit data repository, and
CoreLogic, Inc., the nation's largest credit report reseller, were
named in a suit filed on July 10 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida for alleged violations of the
antitrust laws.

The suit, filed by a Florida-based mortgage credit reporting
agency, claims that Experian and CoreLogic sought to deny smaller
credit agencies access to Experian's mortgage credit information
for "tri-merged" mortgage credit reports.  Banks and investors
require tri-merged reports to extend credit for home mortgages.
The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.

According to the suit, Experian and CoreLogic were partners in the
Credco mortgage credit reporting business in early 2008 when
Experian "agreed to eliminate up to 87% of CoreLogic's rivals" is
exchange for CoreLogic's help to "maintain Experian's monopoly in
mortgage credit information . . ." The suit claims that the number
of qualified mortgage credit reporting agencies has declined
nationwide from over 1,500 at the beginning of the century to
fewer than 100 today.

Jonathan Rubin of Washington, D.C.-based Rubin PLLC who represents
the plaintiff said, "Independent credit reporting agencies like my
client can no longer compete, not because they are not efficient,
but because Experian and CoreLogic conspired to drive them out of
the market.  This is an astonishing violation of the antitrust
laws."

The plaintiff, Credit Bureau Services, Inc. of Oakland Park,
Florida, has also asked the court to certify the case as a class
action on behalf of "all mortgage credit report resellers
separated from Experian" as a result of the violation.

The case is Credit Bureau Services, Inc. v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 12-cv-61360 (S. D. Fla., filed July
10, 2012).

                         About Rubin PLLC

Rubin PLLC -- http://www.RubinPLLC.com-- is a Washington, D.C.--
based antitrust and competition law firm founded in January 2011.


FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit
against Facebook, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased shares
of Facebook common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's
initial public offering ("IPO").  The deadline for Facebook
shareholders to seek a lead plaintiff position in the lawsuit is
July 23, 2012.  Facebook investors who would like to learn more
about their legal rights can contact Girard Gibbs at (866) 981-
4800 or visit our Web site: Girard Gibbs Facebook Lawsuit
Investigation.

The Facebook lawsuit charges the company, its officers and
directors, and underwriters with violations of federal securities
laws for false and misleading statements made in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO.  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that Facebook failed to
disclose to the investing public the material information that the
company was experiencing, and anticipating, a significant drop in
revenue due to an increase of users accessing Facebook through
mobile devices.  According to news reports, this lower revenue
projection was selectively released by underwriter banks to only
certain large investor clients and not included in the
Registration Statement.

Facebook debuted at a highly-anticipated initial public offering
last week, selling 421 million shares for $38 per share.  However,
in the days following the IPO, the company's stock price dropped
by nearly 18% to about $31, well below its initial offering price.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Facebook
common stock traceable to the IPO and who have suffered
substantial financial losses are encouraged to contact Girard
Gibbs attorney Jonathan Levine by calling (866) 981-4800 or
visiting our Web site: Girard Gibbs Facebook Legal Investigation
(http://www.girardgibbs.com/case/105/facebook-securities-
lawsuit/).  Any member of the putative class may seek a lead
plaintiff position through counsel of his or her choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you
would like to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must
move the Court no later than July 23, 2012.  A copy of the
complaint is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Girard
Gibbs LLP's Web site: http://www.GirardGibbs.com

Girard Gibbs LLP represents investors, employees, consumers and
small businesses in cases involving consumer protection, personal
injury, securities, antitrust, and employment laws.

Contact: Girard Gibbs LLP
         Jonathan Levine, Esq.
         Telephone: (415) 981-4800
         E-mail: jkl@girardgibbs.com


FIRESTONE POLYMERS: Employees File Racial Bias Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
that several Firestone Polymers employees have filed a lawsuit
that claims that they were subjected to racial discrimination in
the form of racial slurs and supervisors who promoted workers
based on the color of their skin.

Paul D. Brooks, Ellis E. Byrd, Jonathan E. Greenaway, Erick
Guillory, Samuel W. Johnson, Wayne E. Johnson, Michael Spencer and
Ricky Ruffin filed suit against Firestone Polymers, also known as
Firestone and Bridgestone Americas Inc., on June 29 in the Eastern
District of Texas, Beaumont Division.

The employees, who are black, claim that they were not promoted
because of their skin color and, instead, the employer chose a
less-qualified white person.

The defendant is accused of ignoring their "superior experience
and educational backgrounds and the exemplary work ability they
had already exhibited during their employment with the company, in
favor of untrained white men with no other knowledge and virtually
no experience working in the new positions for the company."

According to the lawsuit, the Orange County plant has a history of
racism, including denying training opportunities and channeling
Blacks into the manual and less desirable jobs than whites.

The defendants are accused of racial discrimination in its
employment practices of rates of pay, upgrading, promotion, and
selection for training.

The workers are seeking an award of economic and compensatory
damages, exemplary damages, interest, and court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Beaumont attorney Craig J.
Schexnaider.  A jury trial is requested.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00325


GENERAL MILLS: YoPlus Yogurt-Related Suit Set for Trial in 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging that General Mills, Inc. made
false and misleading claims about the digestive health benefits of
its YoPlus yogurt product is scheduled to go to trial in fiscal
2013, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended May 27, 2012.

The Company is a party to various pending or threatened legal
actions in the ordinary course of its business.  In the Company's
opinion, there were no claims or litigation pending as of May 27,
2012, that were reasonably likely to have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position or results of
operations.  These matters include a class action lawsuit filed on
January 14, 2010, in the United States District Court, Central
District of California, alleging that the Company made false and
misleading claims about the digestive health benefits of its
YoPlus yogurt product.  The YoPlus matter is scheduled to go to
trial in fiscal 2013.  The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses against these allegations and will vigorously
defend its position.  As of May 27, 2012, the Company has not
recorded a loss contingency for this matter.


HCA HOLDINGS: Still Defends Securities Class Action Suit in Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HCA Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action complaint in Tennessee,
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 October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case
seeks to include as a class all persons who acquired the Company's
stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the March 9,
2011 initial public offering. The lawsuit asserts a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserts a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleges deficiencies in the
Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement relating to:
(1) accounting for its 2006 recapitalization and 2010
reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective
internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's revenue growth rate.
Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants in addition to Ernst & Young,
LLP were filed in the same federal court on November 16, 2011 and
December 12, 2011, respectively. All three of the cases have been
consolidated, and the parties have agreed to initial scheduling
matters.

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

Founded in 1968, HCA Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
provides health care services in the United States. The Company
owns, manages, or operates hospitals, freestanding surgery
centers, diagnostic and imaging centers, radiation and oncology
therapy centers, rehabilitation and physical therapy centers, and
various other facilities.


HEARST CORP: Woman Files Class Action Over Alleged Defamation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greenwichtime.com reports that a Greenwich woman has filed a
proposed class-action lawsuit accusing area news outlets of
defamation for failing to remove from the Internet accounts that
she was arrested on marijuana charges in 2010.

Her attorneys say a state law allows her to testify the arrest
never occurred.

The lawsuit, filed June 18 at state Superior Court in Stamford,
alleges Hearst Corp., News 12 and Main Street Connect, made "false
and defamatory" statements as of Jan. 11, 2012, by not removing
from the Internet statements that Lorraine Martin was charged with
drug violations in August 2010.

Hearst is the parent company of Greenwich Time and The Advocate.

State law allows people who have had their criminal cases erased
from court and police records after dismissals or acquittals to
say under oath that the charge never occurred.  The outcome of Ms.
Martin's case is unclear since records of it have been wiped from
online court records, and her attorneys, Mark Sherman and co-
counsel Stephan Seeger, would not discuss some details of her
case.

"We maintain the erasure statute can wipe an arrest history
clean," Mr. Sherman said.  "We want accountability on the Internet
and this lawsuit is our first step toward that goal."

The attorneys want to include people in similar situations as a
class of plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Margot Kaminsky, executive director of the Information Society
Project at Yale Law School in New Haven, said courts in the United
States have favored free expression over privacy interests, even
in cases involving rape victims.


IDAHO: National Law Group Joins Mental Health Care Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
national group focused on children's legal issues is stepping up
to represent roughly 18,000 poor and mentally ill Idaho children
in a long-running federal lawsuit against state leaders.

Attorneys with the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Youth
Law are joining with Idaho lawyer Howard Belodoff in the class-
action lawsuit known as the Jeff D. case.  It's named after the
little boy who first brought the lawsuit against Idaho in 1980,
contending the state institutionalized mentally ill children
instead of providing them with medical care.

Jeff D. and the rest of the plaintiffs technically won the lawsuit
three decades ago, with the court ordering Idaho to improve mental
health care for indigent children.  Still, both sides continue to
fight over how that ruling should be carried out.

It's no easy task: Over the years, the federal court has issued
multiple consent decrees and even a 250-item "to do" list of steps
the state must take to make it easier for children with severe
emotional disturbances and other problems to get the care they
need before they end up in juvenile detention.

In 2007, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill decided that Idaho
officials had "substantially complied" with the list, and he
closed the case.  But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned Judge Winmill's decision last year, finding that
setting a "to do" list wasn't enough.  Instead, the appeals court
said, the state must prove it is meeting the broader goals of the
court's ruling, creating community-based care for mentally ill
kids.

The National Center for Youth Law has been involved in similar
lawsuits in other states, said center attorney Leecia Welch, and
has been able to reach settlements in class-action children's
mental health cases in California and Washington.

"Our goal all along is to try to provide access to services as
quickly as possible," Mr. Welch said.


ILLINOIS: Ex-Judge Says Insurance Bill Unconstitutional
-------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that if a Sangamon County circuit judge agrees with him,
Gordon Maag could find himself before the court he unsuccessfully
sought election to in the nation's most expensive judicial race in
history.

Mr. Maag, a former Fifth District Appellate Court justice who lost
his bid for the Illinois Supreme Court in 2004, filed a lawsuit
late last month in Sangamon County Circuit Court challenging a new
law that will start charging state retirees premiums for their
health insurance.

Gov. Patrick J. Quinn signed the measure, Senate Bill 1313, into
law on June 21 and Mr. Maag filed his suit four days later.  He
wants the circuit court to deem the law unconstitutional, a ruling
that would hand him an automatic and immediate appeal to the state
high court.

Mr. Maag also seeks class action status for his suit on behalf of
all state retirees affected by the law, which took effect July 1.
If approved, the class would include at least 80,000 members,
according to Mr. Maag's suit.

Under the new law, retired state employees, as well as former
judges, lawmakers and university workers, will have to pay
premiums for their state health insurance.  These premium payments
have not yet been set or approved, but will likely leave those
with large state pensions paying more for health insurance than
those with smaller pensions.

Previously, retired judges were entitled to free health insurance
after six years of service, according to Mr. Maag's suit.  It also
notes that retired lawmakers didn't have to pay premiums after
four years, as well as employees who worked for the state for 20
years.

Mr. Maag contends that the new law changes benefits for members of
the state's pension and retirement systems in violation of the
Illinois Constitution, a clause of which dubs membership in these
systems as an "enforceable, contractual relationship, the benefits
of which shall not be diminished or impaired."

This same argument was used during past legislative debates over
proposals to change pension benefits for current employees.  Based
on those debates, lawmakers discussed changing future benefits for
current employees, a move some believe would be legal as long as
employees would be able to keep the benefits they already earned.

Though the controversial issue garnered much debate in the past
two legislative sessions, lawmakers have yet to come to an
agreement on how to reform the pension systems in an attempt to
reduce the state's pension obligation, which carries a multi-
billion price tag.

Mr. Maag's lawsuit names Gov. Quinn and Treasurer Dan Rutherford
as defendants.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa M. Madigan's office, which
typically defends constitutional challenges against state laws,
will likely represent Gov. Quinn and Mr. Rutherford in their
official capacities as governor and treasurer.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Maag asks the Sangamon County Circuit Court to
enjoin enforcement of the new law, declare it unconstitutional and
order the defendants to pay members of the proposed class the sums
they were charged under the new law, "which is believed to be well
in the excess of $50,000," as well as court costs and attorneys'
fees.

Mr. Maag's son, Peter Maag of the Maag Law Firm LLC in Wood River,
submitted the suit on his father's behalf.  According to the
Sangamon County Circuit Court Web site, no hearing dates have been
set and the case, 2012 L162, has been assigned to Circuit Judge
John Schmidt.

Mr. Maag joined the Illinois judiciary in 1989, when he was
appointed to an associate judgeship in the Third Circuit.  He was
appointed to fill a vacancy on the Fifth District Appellate Court
in 1992 and was elected to a 10-year term two years later.

He has been out of the media spotlight since about 2007, when he
dropped a $110 million defamation suit against a handful of
business groups over campaign flyers and information used in the
2004 Supreme Court race that he lost to Republican Lloyd Karmeier.

The two candidates put more than $9 million into their campaigns,
giving it the distinction of being the most expensive judicial
race of its kind in the nation's history.  In that same election,
Mr. Maag also lost his bid to stay on the appellate court.


INTEGRATED SECURITY: "Grube" hCG-Related Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated")
and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a
merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado
corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as
of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and
iSatori (the "Merger Agreement").  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with
iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated.

Paul Jeffrey Grube brought a class action lawsuit against three
companies, including iSatori, based on the defendants' alleged
marketing, distribution, or sales of products purporting to
contain human chorionic gonadotropin ("hCG") or a natural hCG
alternative.  This case is referred to as Colonel Paul Jeffrey
Grube v. GNC, iSatori Technologies, LLC and HCG Platinum, LLC,
Case No. 11-1005, filed August 4, 2011, in United States District
Court, for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  Grube claims
that the defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices in
violation of numerous state consumer protection laws, breached
express warranties, and were unjustly enriched.  iSatori has
received a letter from GNC Corp., demanding iSatori indemnify GNC
Corp. pursuant to a written agreement between iSatori and GNC
Corp.  In addition to possible breach of contract claims, failure
to indemnify GNC Corp. could result in GNC Corp. discontinuing as
a distributor of iSatori products.  In 2011, distributions through
GNC Corp. represented 25.8 % of iSatori's revenues.  The action
was stayed pending possible consolidation with other hCG
litigation.

Because it is not probable or remote, the Company believes that
there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB ASC 450-20,
of an unfavorable outcome.  The range of any possible loss cannot
be reasonably estimated as of the date of the financial
statements.

No further updates were reported in Integrated's July 3, 2012,
Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


INTEGRATED SECURITY: iSatori Faces Class Suit Over PWR Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Security Systems, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a class
action lawsuit over its pre-workout performance enhancer (PWR)
product, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 8-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated")
and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a
merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado
corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as
of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and
iSatori (the "Merger Agreement").  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with
iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated.

iSatori has become aware of a class action lawsuit filed on
April 30, 2012, in the Southern District of California alleging
violations of the Federal False Advertising Act and violations of
the Federal and Consumer Legal Remedies Act resulting from the
issuance of a Food and Drug Administration warning letter
regarding iSatori's PWR product and the DMAA contained in the
formula.  iSatori's counsel has been notified, but no formal
action has been taken as iSatori has not been served.


INTEGRATED SECURITY: Prelim. Discovery Started in "Aviles" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary evidentiary discovery has been initiated in the class
action lawsuit commenced by Jerry Aviles against a subsidiary of
Integrated Security Systems, Inc., according to the Company's July
3, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 5, 2012, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. ("Integrated")
and iSatori Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Integrated ("Merger Sub"), consummated a
merger (the "Merger") with iSatori Technologies, Inc., a Colorado
corporation ("iSatori"), pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated as
of February 17, 2012, by and among Integrated, Merger Sub and
iSatori (the "Merger Agreement").  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, iSatori was merged with and into Merger Sub with
iSatori surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integrated.

Jerry Aviles has brought a class action complaint against iSatori
relating to its product ISA-TEST.  The case is referred to as
Jerry Aviles v. iSatori Technologies, LLC, Case No. CIV DS
1111487, filed October 4, 2011, in United Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Bernardino.  Aviles alleges
iSatori violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
engaged in unfair or deceptive business practice and false
advertising in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.  Preliminary evidentiary discovery has been
initiated in this action.

Because it is not probable or remote, the Company believes that
there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB ASC 450-20,
of an unfavorable outcome.  The range of any possible loss cannot
be reasonably estimated at this time.


KADANT INC: Accrued Payment of Unit's Settlement Still at $2.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2012, Kadant Inc. has accrued $2.5 million for the
payment of claims under a settlement of a class action lawsuit
against one of its subsidiary, 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.

The amount accrued has not increased as of last reported at year
end 2011.

In 2005, the Company's Kadant Composites LLC subsidiary
(Composites LLC) sold substantially all of its assets to a third
party.  Under the terms of the asset purchase agreement,
Composites LLC retained certain liabilities associated with the
operation of the business prior to the sale, including the
warranty obligations associated with products manufactured prior
to the sale date.  Composites LLC retained all of the cash
proceeds received from the asset sale and continued to administer
and pay warranty claims from the sale proceeds into the third
quarter of 2007.  On September 30, 2007, Composites LLC announced
that it no longer had sufficient funds to honor warranty claims,
was unable to pay or process warranty claims, and ceased doing
business.  All activity related to this business is classified in
the results of the discontinued operation in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements.

On October 24, 2011, the Company, Composites LLC, and other co-
defendants entered into an agreement to settle a nationwide class
action lawsuit related to allegedly defective composites decking
building products manufactured by Composites LLC between April
2002 and October 2003, which was filed and approved in Connecticut
state court. As of March 31, 2012, the Company has accrued
$2,577,000 for the payment of claims under the settlement. If the
actual claims submitted and approved under the settlement
agreement exceed the amount of this reserve, the Company will
reflect the amount of the additional claims in the results of the
discontinued operation in future periods, up to a maximum of
$5,000,000 as agreed in the settlement agreement.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The company's operations consist of one
operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking
Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other
Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its sale
in April 2007, Casting Products.  Its Papermaking Systems segment
develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the global
papermaking and paper recycling industries.


MALIBU MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Extortion Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
Iain Thomson, writing for The Register, reports that a Kentucky
woman has started a class action suit against five pornography
vendors after harassment over claims that she was downloading
their content over BitTorrent.

The suit, filed on behalf of Ms. Jennifer Barker, states that she
started getting phone calls claiming that she had been named in a
case regarding piracy of copyrighted content from Malibu Media,
makers of Tori The Endless Orgasm and Tiffany Teenagers In Love.

The caller offered to settle the case for a few thousand dollars,
but if she refused this offer, she was warned, she could be taken
to court and sued for $150,000, and would be publicly named for
downloading the content.

Ms. Barker informed the representative that she had never
downloaded pornography from the Internet and didn't even know what
BitTorrent was, but the calls continued, including to her work
voicemail which could be accessed by her bosses.  Her lawyer, Ken
Henry, told The Register that he'd found many similar cases after
researching the issue.

"They have no intention of going to prosecution," Mr. Henry says.
"In this case they used an arcane form of lawsuit in Florida known
as a Bill of Discovery, which actually predates civil law on the
subject -- it's a discovery lawsuit to seek only information."

He pointed out that Malibu Media had been criticized by a federal
judge in California last month for just such a case.  In that
ruling, Judge Otis Wright slammed the company for essentially
running a racket to extort money from people over fear of being
named in an embarrassing lawsuit.

"The federal courts are not cogs in a plaintiff's copyright-
enforcement business model," Judge Wright ruled.  "The Court will
not idly watch what is essentially an extortion scheme, for a case
that plaintiff has no intention of bringing to trial."

Malibu Media got Ms. Barker's details from a British firm called
Intellectual Property Protection Ltd, which scanned IP addresses
downloading illegal content.  After ISPs had identified the users,
the legal process of contacting those identified and extracting
damages began.  But Mr. Henry argues that IP spoofing and the
possibility of downloaders using hijacked networks makes such data
highly error-prone, and the courts agree.

On behalf of his client, he's now filed charges under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which
was originally introduced to combat organized crime but allows for
civil cases.  Action has also been taken over defamation of the
client's character, causing intentional emotional distress, and
misrepresenting the nature of the legal action.

RICO's a tough one to prove in court in a case like this, but the
case is not without precedent.  The RIAA was sued using the RICO
statutes by disabled single mother Tanya Andersen after she was
accused of file sharing.  The industry body backed down --
eventually paying over $100,000 to cover her legal fees.

The class action status of the lawsuit means that anyone who has
been affected by the issue can join the legal case, and under the
RICO statutes they are entitled to triple damages.  That said,
Henry suggested that the case may kick off a larger debate into
whether pornography is actually copyrightable.

"I think there's a real question that this pornography they are
saying was downloaded is even copyrightable," he said.  "According
to the constitution, copyright is to protect those works that
benefit sciences and the useful arts, and there's nothing useful
about pornography."

This may be true, but history suggests that many people do find it
handy.


NEWELL RUBBERMAID: Still Defends 3 Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. continues to defend three product liability
class action lawsuits, 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.

The Company is currently a party to two purported state class
actions and one purported national Canadian class action.  The
cases include allegations that a certain model car seat sold by an
affiliate of the Company did not satisfy all requisite government
safety standards.  The Company is vigorously defending all three
actions.

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

Founded in 1903 and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Newell
Rubbermaid Inc. -- http://www.newellrubbermaid.com-- designs,
manufactures, and markets consumer and commercial products. It
operates in three segments: Home & Family, Office Products, and
Tools, Hardware & Commercial Products.


NIKON INC: Recalls 201,200 SLR Camera Rechargeable Battery Packs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Nikon Inc., of Melville, New York, announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,100 Nikon digital SLR camera battery
packs in the United States of America, 1,100 packs in Canada and
an additional 195,000 packs worldwide.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The battery packs can short circuit, causing them to overheat and
melt, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Nikon has received seven reports of incidents outside of the U.S.
and Canada of the recalled battery packs overheating.  No
incidents have been reported in the U.S. or Canada.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves Nikon EN-EL 15 rechargeable lithium-ion
battery packs with lot numbers E and F. The battery pack was sold
with the Nikon digital SLR D800 and D7000 model cameras.  The
battery pack's model number "EN-EL15" and "7.0V 1900mAh 14Wh" are
printed on the back of the battery pack.  Only battery packs with
an "E" or "F" in ninth character of the 14-digit lot number
located on the back of the battery pack are included in this
recall.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12219.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and China and
sold at camera, office supply and mass merchandise stores, in
catalogs and on various Web sites nationwide.  They were sold with
the digital SLR camera in Canada from February 2012 through March
2012 and in the U.S. from March 2012 through April 2012 for
between $1,200 and $3,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled battery packs
immediately, remove them from the camera and contact Nikon for a
free replacement battery pack.  For additional information,
contact Nikon at (800) 645-6687 between 8:00 a.m. through 12:00
midnight Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.nikonusa.com/


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Remains a Co-Conspirator in Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, First Southwest Company (FSC), an indirect
subsidiary of PlainsCapital Corporation, received subpoenas from
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S.
Department of Justice (the DOJ) in connection with an
investigation of possible antitrust and securities law violations,
including bid-rigging, in the procurement of guaranteed investment
contracts and other investment products for the reinvestment of
bond proceeds by municipalities.  The investigation is industry-
wide and includes approximately 30 or more firms, including some
of the largest U.S. investment firms.

As a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-wide
practices, FSC was initially named as a co-defendant in cases
filed in several different federal courts by various state and
local governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities and a
similar set of lawsuits filed by various California local
governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities. All
claims asserted against FSC in these purported class actions were
subsequently dismissed. However, the plaintiffs in these purported
class actions have filed amended complaints against other
entities, and FSC is identified in these complaints not as a
defendant, but as an alleged co-conspirator with the named
defendants.

Additionally, as a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into
industry-wide practices, FSC has been named as a defendant in 20
individual lawsuits. These lawsuits have been brought by several
California public entities and two New York non-profit
corporations that do not seek to certify a class. The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred these cases to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
California plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act. The New York
plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
the New York Donnelly Act. The allegations against FSC are very
limited in scope. FSC has filed answers in each of the twenty
lawsuits denying the allegations and asserting several affirmative
defenses. FSC intends to defend itself vigorously in these
individual actions. The relief sought is unspecified monetary
damages.

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.

Dallas-based PlainsCapital Corporation --
http://plainscapital.com/-- is founded by Chairman and CEO Alan
B. White, whose family of companies includes PlainsCapital Bank,
PrimeLending and FirstSouthwest.  It offers a diverse range of
financial services.


RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, according to
the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 2,
2012.

The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class
action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations
pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed
meals and rest periods and failure to provide employee seating.
These lawsuits purport to be class actions and seek substantial
damages.  At this time, the Company is not able to either predict
the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of
loss with respect to the lawsuits.  The Company's management
believes, however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and that their claims are not appropriate for class action
treatment.  The Company is vigorously defending all of these
claims.


RITE AID: Discovery Proceeding in One of Store Managers' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in one of two class action lawsuits
brought on behalf of Rite Aid Corporation's store managers,
according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
2, 2012.

The Company has been named in two putative collective and class
action lawsuits, including Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al.
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, filed in federal and state courts in New
York and Pennsylvania purportedly on behalf of current and former
store managers working in the Company's stores at various
locations around the country outside of California.  The lawsuits
allege that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers
as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and under
certain state statutes.  The lawsuit also seeks other relief,
including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal
claims for overtime pay.  The Court in Indergit, on April 2, 2010,
conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of
individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since
March 31, 2007.  The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit
action be sent to the purported members of the collective group
(approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and
approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.  Discovery is
proceeding.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit.  The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and not appropriate
for collective or class action treatment and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


RITE AID: Final Hearing on Wage and Hour Suits Deal on Oct. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing on Rite Aid Corporation's global
settlement of wage and hour class action lawsuits is scheduled for
October 24, 2012, according to the Company's July 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 2, 2012.

Since December 2008, the Company has been named in a series of
fifteen (15) currently pending putative collective and class
action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts around the
country, purportedly on behalf of current and former assistant
store managers and co-managers working in the Company's stores at
various locations outside California, including Craig et al. v.
Rite Aid Corporation et al., pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "Court") and
Ibea et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
lawsuits allege that the Company failed to pay overtime to
salaried assistant store managers and co-managers as purportedly
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and certain
state statutes.  The lawsuits also seek other relief, including
liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief arising out of the state and federal claims for
overtime pay.  Notice was issued to over 7,500 current and former
assistant store managers and co-managers offering them the
opportunity to "opt in" to certain of the FLSA collective actions
and about 1,250 have elected to participate in these lawsuits.
The Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the
lawsuits and the allegation that the cases should be certified as
class or collective actions.  However, in light of the cost and
uncertainty involved in these lawsuits, the Company negotiated an
agreement with Plaintiffs' counsel on the key terms of a global
settlement.  Subsequent to the end of the first quarter, the
Company entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs'
counsel to resolve the series of lawsuits.

The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement with the Court which was granted on June 18, 2012.  Any
final resolution of these matters will be subject to final court
approval.  A final approval hearing has been scheduled on October
24, 2012.  During the period ended June 2, 2012, the Company
recorded legal reserves of $20,900,000 related to the estimated
settlement payments for these matters.


SCRANTON, PA: Faces Class Action Over Salary Cuts
-------------------------------------------------
Perry Chiaramonte, writing for FoxNews.com, reports that civil
service workers in Scranton, Pa., still reeling from having their
pay slashed en masse to the minimum wage, have filed a class
action lawsuit against the beleaguered city and its mayor, who
defied a judge's order not to cut salaries.

The suit was filed by six Scranton police officers and
firefighters in a Pennsylvania federal court on July 10, but it
covers them and "all other persons similarly situated," saying
that the collective action was against a violation from the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

"The law is clear.  You cannot violate a workers contract," Thomas
Jennings, an attorney who is representing three Scranton civil
service unions, told FoxNews.com as he was preparing on July 9 to
file multiple suits against the city and its Mayor Christopher
Doherty.

Mayor Doherty cut everyone's pay -- including his own -- on July 6
down to the state minimum of $7.25 per hour, saying the state's
sixth-largest city is broke because the City Council blocked his
proposed tax increase in a 2012 budget proposal.

The salary cuts are the latest in a long-standing stalemate
between the mayor and the City Council, with the town's employees
stuck in the middle.

"This is a case where our local politicians can't get it
together," Mr. Jennings said.  "It's not that they don't have the
money.  It's that he [Doherty] doesn't want to get the money
needed."

Mayor Doherty has not responded to numerous requests from
FoxNews.com for comment.

Also filed in federal court on July 10 was a lawsuit on behalf of
10 retired Scranton cops and firefighters out on disability leave
who had their benefits reduced.

A complaint petition was also filed in Lackawanna County Court
arguing that Mayor Doherty had violated a judge's order barring
the Mayor from cutting wages.

The city of Scranton has battled budget woes for the past two
decades, registering under the Distressed Municipalities Act, but
the problems reached a boiling point after the City Council
blocked Mayor Doherty's plan to raise taxes to cover a $16.8
million shortfall, opting instead to borrow money to cover the
budget gap.

"Scranton is infamous as being economically depressed," Anthony
Figliola, vice president of Empire Government Strategies and
former deputy supervisor for Brookhaven, N.Y., where he oversaw
500 employees and a $200 million budget, told FoxNews.com.

"The mayor is calling them [city council] on their bluff, but at
the expense of the taxpayers.  There's a lot of things that could
be done that they just aren't doing," Mayor Figliola said.


STATER BROS: Still Awaits Court OK of "Lunsford" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. continues to await court approval of a
settlement resolving a class action lawsuit filed against its
subsidiary, 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 25, 2011.

In May 2011, Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.'s wholly owned
subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets, was served with an action filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside ("Harold F. Lunsford et al. v. Stater Bros. Markets")
seeking individual and potential class action damages including
associated penalties for Markets' alleged failure to provide meal
periods, rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof and alleged
failure to pay certain wages for terminated employees.  On January
26, 2012, following a mediation, this case was settled subject to
final court approval of the settlement and the full settlement
amount has been recorded in the Company's consolidated financial
statements for fiscal 2012.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets,
operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout
Southern California.


STATER BROS: Still Awaits Court OK of "Martinez" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 5, 2010, an action by Diego De Jesus Martinez was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles against Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.'s wholly
owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets Markets, seeking individual
and potential class action monetary damages for alleged
discrepancies between the actual time worked by certain employees
and the amounts recorded on Markets' time clock reports. On
October 26, 2011, following a mediation, the Martinez Case was
settled subject to final court approval of the settlement and the
full settlement amount was recorded in the Company's consolidated
financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 25, 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Stater Bros.'s May 9,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 25, 2012.

Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. -- http://www.staterbros.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Stater Bros. Markets,
operates a supermarket chain of 167 stores located throughout
Southern California.


SUNPOWER CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation continues to defend itself against remaining
claims in a consolidated securities class action after a
California court dismissed some of the other claims, according to
the Company's May 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 1,
2012.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired
the Company's securities from April 17, 2008 through November 16,
2009.  The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.  Lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010. The
actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009 regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010.  The court dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on
March 1, 2011.  An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011.
The amended complaint added two former employees as defendants.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
May 23, 2011. The motions to dismiss the amended complaint were
heard by the court on August 11, 2011. On December 19, 2011, the
court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss,
dismissing the claims brought pursuant to sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the claims brought against the two
newly added former employees.

The Company is currently unable to determine if the resolution of
these matters will have an adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

Based in San Jose, California, SunPower Corporation --
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/ -- an integrated solar products and
services company, designs, manufactures, and delivers solar
electric systems for residential, commercial, and utility-scale
power plant customers worldwide. It operates in two segments,
Utility and Power Plants, and Residential and Commercial.
SunPower Corporation is a subsidiary of Total Gas & Power USA,
SAS.


TICKETMASTER: Ontario Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Humphreys, writing for National Post, reports that ticket
resellers are colloquially called "scalpers" for profiting from
the desperate, but in the case against Ticketmaster and its resale
company, it is the lawyers getting the best seats in the house: An
Ontario court has approved a class-action settlement giving each
victim $36 per ticket and $1,258,632 to their lawyers.

An Ontario Superior Court judge approved the settlement offer in a
large class-action suit last week, including fees for the law
firms pressing the case.  The suit must still be approved by
judges in Alberta, Quebec and Manitoba before the ticket agency
pays the projected $5-million.

"We have shut down the scalping aspect of their business," said
Ward Branch, a Vancouver-based class-action specialist.  "We want
Ticketmaster to feel the sting" and send a warning to other ticket
profiteers: "they'll be next."

The settlement calls for the company to pay $36 for each of the
139,848 tickets bought through the company's resale wing,
TicketsNow, in the four provinces where there are anti-scalping
laws.

The payout is expected to total $5,034,528 if every check is
cashed.  Lawyers at two firms specializing in class-action suits
who worked on the case since 2009 will get 25% of each check, for
a projected $1,258,632.

"Fair and reasonable compensation must be sufficient to provide a
real economic incentive to lawyers to take on a class proceeding
and to do it well," said Justice Paul Perell in his ruling.

"Counsel are entitled to a fair fee, which may include a premium
for the risk undertaken and the result achieved, but the fees must
not bring about a settlement that is in the interests of the
lawyers but not in the best interests of the class members as a
whole," he said.

The plaintiffs told court they were satisfied with the
arrangement.

Mr. Branch defended the lawyers' cut, saying it is becoming a
standard in class-action cases.

"The adage that 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing
really applies in class-action lawsuits," Mr. Branch said.  "We
agree to work for free and if we lose, we get nothing -- less than
nothing because we would be out of pocket."

An unusual clause in this settlement has the company proactively
mailing checks to those who bought inflated resale tickets without
having to fill out forms and file a claim.

Mr. Branch hopes the simplified process is copied in future class-
action suits.  The money from any checks not cashed will be pooled
and donated to charity.

The settlement is scheduled to be heard soon in Alberta, followed
by Quebec and finally, on Aug. 15, in Manitoba.

"Then we want people to start looking in the mail for a check and
let us know if it hasn't arrived," said Mr. Branch.

The other claim in the suit -- complaints over service charges
added by Ticketmaster in the primary ticket market -- continues in
court.

"Our argument there is, if the 'convenience fees' aren't anything
to do with actual costs but just a way of charging more, then it
is offside," said Mr. Branch.

Wendy Matheson, a lawyer representing Ticketmaster, declined to
comment on the settlement ruling.

In 2008, Toronto consultant Henryk Krajewski tried to buy tickets
online through Ticketmaster to a Smashing Pumpkins concert.  The
tickets had a face value of $66.50 each.  The show was deemed sold
out, and he was directed to the TicketsNow Web site where he paid
$533.65, including service charges and shipping costs.

He later learned TicketsNow is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Ticketmaster and his distaste with the transaction prompted him to
file a class-action suit against the companies in 2009.

Days later, Edmonton draftsman Norman Brandsma also started an
action against Ticketmaster after buying tickets to shows by David
Byrne and Jay Leno.  A third Ticketmaster suit, by Jeffrey
Dunbrack, was also brought to court and all three were
consolidated into one action.

"While each of the actions is based on a different statute, the
theory of the plaintiffs is the same; namely, the sale of primary
and secondary market tickets to the plaintiffs and to the members
of the proposed classes was contrary to the various statutes,"
said Judge Perell.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction stopping the companies from
resale markups and damages for unjust enrichment and conspiracy.

In April 2011, the parties began settlement discussions.  By
January, an agreement was reached regarding the secondary market
complaints over resale by TicketsNow.


TICKETMASTER: Proposed Class Action Settlement Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that some 80 objectors have
raised concerns about a proposed class action settlement with
Ticketmaster in which attorneys have asked for $16.5 million in
fees and costs while consumers would get no cash and instead
receive a discount code worth $1.50 off future purchases and a $5
discount code for UPS delivery fees -- both capped at 17
transactions.


TROXEL CO: Recalls 105,400 Flexible Flyer Swing Sets
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with The Troxel Company, of Moscow, Tennessee,
announced a voluntary recall of about 100,500 Flexible Flyer Swing
Sets in the United States of America and 4,900 units in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The see saw seats can break away from the bolt fasteners during
use, posing a fall hazard.

The firm received 1,232 reports of see saw seats breaking
resulting in thirteen injuries to young children that included
bumps, bruises and lacerations.

The Flexible Flyer swing sets come in 11 different models each
with a see saw attachment along with swings, bars or a slide.  The
model number can be found on a sticker located underneath the
center of the top bar of each swing set unit.  Model numbers and
names are:

      Model #       Model Name
      -------       ----------
       41575        BIG ADVENTURE
       41577        FUN FANTASTIC
       41578        FUN FANTASTIC II
       42003        BACKYARD FLYER
       42013        BACKYARD FUN
       42023        BACKYARD SWINGIN' FUN
       42030        WINDSOR II
       42124        FUN TIME
       42126        FANTASTIC PLAYGROUND
       42544        TRIPLE FUN
       42560        TRIPLE FUN II

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12220.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold by Walmart, Toys R Us, Academy and at other
specialty stores, and online retailers from December 2011 through
May 2012 for between $130 and $280.

Consumers should stop using the see saws immediately and contact
Troxel to receive a free repair kit.  For additional information,
contact Troxel at (888) 770-7060 between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or visit the
company's Web site at http://www.regcen.com/flexibleflyer/


VIBRAM INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on FiveFingers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Vibram
FiveFingers makes unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits
of its "barefoot" running shoes, which may actually increase the
risk of injury, consumers say in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Ali Savafi sued Concord, Mass.-based Vibram Inc.
and Vibram FiveFingers.  Mr. Savafi says Vibram's claims that its
shoes improve posture, prevent injury and promote spine alignment
are false and deceptive.

Vibram FiveFingers claims its "minimalist shoes," which cost $80
to $125, replicate the benefits of barefoot running.

The shoes, contoured to fit the shape of the foot, fitting
glovelike over the toes, are made with a thin Vibram patented
sole.  But the class says the shoes do not perform as advertised.

"Unbeknownst to consumers, defendants' health benefit claims are
false and deceptive because FiveFingers are not proven to provide
any of the health benefits beyond what conventional running shoes
provide," according to the 31-page federal complaint.

No scientific evidence supports FiveFingers' advertising claims,
and compared to other running shoes -- or actual barefoot running
-- the company's products may increase the risk of injury, the
class claims.

"With conventional running shoes, the runner runs with a heel-
strike manner.  But with FiveFingers, a runner must run with a
forefoot strike pattern," the complaint states.  "This process,
necessary with FiveFingers, can be long and painful, and can even
lead to injuries."

A University of Wisconsin study found that runners often have to
change their gait when switching to FiveFingers running shoes, the
class claims.  It says that adapting to the shoes may involve an
"injury-fraught regimen."

"Defendants conveyed and continue to convey their deceptive claims
about FiveFingers in a variety of ways that repeat and reinforce
the deceptive message, including at the point of sale, with in-
store displays, with packaging that typically includes booklets
and hang tags, and on the Internet," the complaint states.

It seeks a jury trial, restitution, an injunction and damages for
unfair competition, violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and breach of express warranty.

Vibram did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Safavi v. Vibram USA Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-05900 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/11/FiveFingers.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          Nicole M. Duckett, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          E-mail: nduckett@milberg.com

               - and -

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: jpollack@milberg.com


XL GROUP: Got N.J. Court's Nod on Antitrust Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey federal court approved in March 2012 a class
settlement negotiated by subsidiaries of XL Group to resolve a
brokerage antitrust litigation, and appeals have been filed
challenging the court approval, XL Group 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.

In August 2005, plaintiffs in a proposed class action that was
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned In re Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, Civil Action No. 04-5184,
filed a consolidated amended complaint, which named as new
defendants approximately 30 entities, including Greenwich
Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company and XLIT Ltd
("XL-Cayman"), collectively referred to as the "XL Defendants." In
the MDL, the Class Action plaintiffs asserted various claims
purportedly on behalf of a class of commercial insureds against
approximately 113 insurance companies and insurance brokers
through which the named plaintiffs allegedly purchased insurance.
The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendant insurance
companies and insurance brokers conspired to manipulate bidding
practices for insurance policies in certain insurance lines and
failed to disclose certain commission arrangements and asserted
statutory claims under the Sherman Act, various state antitrust
laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), as well as common law claims alleging breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment.  By Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2007,
the District Court dismissed the Sherman Act claims with prejudice
and, by Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2007, the District
Court dismissed the RICO claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs
then appealed both Orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in
large part the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit
reversed the dismissal of certain Sherman Act and RICO claims
alleged against several defendants including the XL Defendants but
remanded those claims to the District Court for further
consideration of their adequacy. In light of its reversal and
remand of certain of the federal claims, the Third Circuit also
reversed the District Court's dismissal (based on the District
Court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction) of the
state-law claims against all defendants. On October 1, 2010, the
remaining defendants, including the XL Defendants, filed motions
to dismiss the remanded federal claims and the state-law claims.
The motions were fully briefed in November 2010. In May 2011, a
majority of the remaining defendants, including the XL Defendants,
executed a formal Settlement Agreement with the Class Action
plaintiffs to settle the Class Action and dismiss all claims with
prejudice. The settlement was approved by the District Court by
Order dated March 30, 2012. The XL Defendants' portion of the
defendants' aggregate settlement payment is $6.75 million. Certain
objectors have filed appeals from the District Court's March 30,
2012 Order approving the settlement.

XL Group plc -- http://www.xlgroup.com/-- through its
subsidiaries, provides insurance and reinsurance coverages to
industrial, commercial, and professional firms, as well as
insurance companies and other enterprises worldwide. The Company
operates in three segments: Insurance, Reinsurance, and Life
Operations.


* LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Settles Price Fixing Case for $571MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced on July 12, 2012,
a $571 million multi-state settlement with three major technology
corporations charged with illegally conspiring to boost prices for
liquid crystal display (LCD) screens used in televisions, computer
monitors, and laptops.  As part of the agreement reached with AU
Optronics Corporation, LG Display Co., Ltd., Toshiba Corporation,
and affiliated entities of each corporation, New York State
taxpayers are expected to receive upwards of $10 million through
recovery for government purchases and penalties, in addition to
restitution to compensate consumers affected by the scheme.

The corporate defendants in the latest round of settlements agreed
to pay $543.5 million to settle antitrust claims brought on behalf
of consumers, government entities, and other public entities by a
multistate group of eight Attorneys General and private class
action attorneys.  Separately, two of the defendants agreed to pay
$27.5 million in fines and penalties to the States.  The
defendants also agreed to engage in antitrust compliance programs.

Together with seven earlier settlements with other defendants
reached by Attorney General Schneiderman in December 2011, total
settlement payments will top $1.1 billion dollars.

"This price-fixing scheme created an unlevel playing field for
businesses that abide by the rules, and left consumers paying
artificially higher costs for televisions, computers and other
electronics," said Attorney General Schneiderman.  "Protecting the
integrity of the marketplace is the only way to ensure the best
outcome for New York's consumers. That is why my office will
aggressively police anti-competitive practices and hold
accountable corporations that violate the law."

New York's complaint alleged that from 1999 to 2006 Japanese,
Korean, and Taiwanese manufacturers of thin film transistor
("TFT") LCD panels, together with their U.S. affiliates,
engineered a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels, and sold
into New York millions of TFT-LCD panels at prices fixed by the
cartel. TFT-LCD screens are essential components of televisions,
computer monitors, and laptop screens. Substantially all TFT-LCD
products sold in New York during the conspiracy period were sold
at high prices illegally fixed by the conspiracy.

Following court approval of the settlements, at least $692 million
will be available for partial refunds to compensate consumers
residing in New York and 23 other States and the District of
Columbia who purchased products containing TFT-LCD panels during
the period beginning January 1, 1999 and continuing through
December 31, 2006. Information on how consumers can claim partial
refunds, once the Court has approved the settlements, as well as
other information about the settlements and the court approval
process, is available at http://www.lcdclass.com

In addition to the consumer recoveries, defendants in the case
will pay $8 million in penalties to New York State's treasury. New
York State and other New York public entities that purchased the
price-fixed products will receive at least $8 million in partial
refunds. Other States and public entities will receive an
additional $34 million in penalties, and an additional $24 million
in partial refunds.

These settlements conclude Attorney General Schneiderman's lawsuit
against alleged LCD cartel participants. Attorney General
Schneiderman expressed his gratitude to the New York State Office
of General Services, New York's public procurement agency, for its
important assistance in the case.

The case was handled for New York by Assistant Attorneys General
Richard L. Schwartz and Amy McFarlane of the Antitrust Bureau,
with oversight by Bureau Chief Scott Hemphill and Executive Deputy
Attorney General Karla G. Sanchez.


                           *********

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  * * *