CAR_Public/120717.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 140

                             Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: To Appeal $89-MM Damage Award in "Augustus" Suit
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Reaches $10MM Settlement to Resolve Suit
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Sued in Illinois Over TCPA Violations
ARTSANA USA: Recalls 485,690 Units of Chicco Polly High Chair
BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Class Action Over Robosigning Scandal

CARDIONET INC: Paid $1.25MM in West Palm Beach Suit Settlement
CARNIVAL CORP: Sued by Giglio Business Owners and Wage Earners
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures
ELMHURST UNIT: Has Until July 25 to Respond to Class Action
EXELON CORP: Defends Securities Lawsuit vs. Constellation

FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls 280,000 Decorative Light Sets
FISKVILLE: Firefighters Mull Class Action Over Chemical Exposure
GENERAL MOTORS: Stewarts Law Files Class Action in New York
GENON ENERGY: Sued Over Emissions from Penn. Facility
GENON ENERGY: Appeal in Gas Price Suit Pending in Nev. Sup. Ct.

GMX RESOURCES: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Still Pending
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Still Defends "Silverman" Securities Class Suit
ILLINOIS: Sued Over Disabled Children Medicaid Cuts
JTH HOLDING: Additional Complaints Filed in Consolidated RAL Suit
JTH HOLDING: Still Defends Class Action Suit in South Carolina

KOSMOS ENERGY: Securities Class Action Pending in Texas
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Price-Fixing Suits Still Pending
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $45-Mil. as of May 3 Under Suits Deal
MOLENAAR LLLC: Recalls 3,700 Folding Step Stools Due to Fall Risk
MOUNTAIN STATE: Two Charleston Law Firms File Class Action

MR WRIGHT: Named in Class Action Over Elliot Lake Mall Collapse
NETWORK ENGINES: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Consummated
OCLARO INC: Settles Opnext Merger-Related Suit in California
OCLARO INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Westley" Suit
OLD NAVY: Recalls 37,800 Toddler Girl Aqua Socks Due to Slip Risk

OPNEXT INC: Settles Merger-Related Suits in Calif. and Delaware
WILLIS GROUP: Compensation Class Suit Settlement Approved in Mar.
WILLIS GROUP: Discrimination Suit Deal Payments Distributed
WILLIS GROUP: 5th Cir. Rejects Rehearing Pleas for Remand Orders
ZAYO GROUP: Defends Class Suits Over AboveNet Acquisition

* Hunstville Man Files Class Action Over Fuel Gel Fire Injuries
* MINK FARMS: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Pollution
* ONLINE TRAVEL COS: City of Hiram to Join Tax Class Action
* W.T. Johnson Team Settles Class Actions v. Two Insurance Firms


                          *********

ABM INDUSTRIES: To Appeal $89-MM Damage Award in "Augustus" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated intends to take an appeal from the
Superior Court of California's award of damages, anticipated to be
in excess of $89 million, to the plaintiffs of the consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis, according to the Company's July
9, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services filed on July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case").  The
Augustus case is a class action involving allegations that the
Company violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest
breaks.  As previously disclosed, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for summary judgment on the rest break claim seeking damages in
the amount of $103.0 million.

On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
County (the "Superior Court"), heard plaintiffs' motion for
damages on the rest break claim and the Company's motion to
decertify the class.  The Superior Court denied the Company's
motion and awarded plaintiffs damages.  The Company anticipates
that the amount of the award will be in excess of $89 million.
This amount does not include plaintiffs' counsel's fees.  The
Company strongly disagrees with the decisions of the Superior
Court, firmly believes that it has complied with applicable law,
and intends to vigorously appeal these decisions.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Reaches $10MM Settlement to Resolve Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. has negotiated a $10 million
settlement to resolve a stockholder class action complaint in
Illinois, according to the Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, Glen
Tullman, and William Davis by the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local
Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of a purported
class consisting of stockholders who purchased Allscripts common
stock between May 8, 2007 and February 13, 2008.  On October 13,
2009, David Robb was appointed lead plaintiff, and on November 25,
2009, an amended complaint was filed containing allegations that
the Company, Tullman, and Davis made materially false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with the
release of TouchWorks EHR, Version 11. On January 11, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On April 13, 2010,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on the grounds
that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently describe the confidential
sources upon which the allegations in the amended complaint were
based. On May 12, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to
replead. On May 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, which attributed certain allegations to four different
confidential witnesses, but made no other substantive changes. On
June 11, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On March 10, 2011, the motion was granted in
substantial part. However, the Court denied the motion with
respect to two alleged false statements. On September 19, 2011,
the Court entered an order certifying a class.

On February 7, 2012, the parties agreed, subject to execution of
settlement documents and Court approval, to settle this matter on
a class-wide basis. The settlement amount totaling approximately
$10 million will be funded by the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance carrier and therefore have no
material impact on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  Its
businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide physicians
and other healthcare professionals with just-right, just-in-time
information, connect them to each other and to the entire
community of care, and transform healthcare by improving the
quality and efficiency of patient care.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Sued in Illinois Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was commenced against Allscripts Healthcare Solutions,
Inc. over alleged violations of telephone consumer laws, according
to the Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a
class action Complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions
Inc., Allscripts, LLC and Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.
The Complaint alleges that on multiple occasions between July 2008
and December 2011, Allscripts or its agent sent advertisements by
fax to the Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated persons,
without first receiving the recipients' express permission or
invitation in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA").  The Complaint seeks $500 for each
alleged violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds
the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional, and
injunctive and other relief.  Allscripts was served with the
Complaint and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on May 7,
2012 and a response was due May 28, 2012. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  Its
businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide physicians
and other healthcare professionals with just-right, just-in-time
information, connect them to each other and to the entire
community of care, and transform healthcare by improving the
quality and efficiency of patient care.


ARTSANA USA: Recalls 485,690 Units of Chicco Polly High Chair
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Artsana USA Inc., of Lancaster, Pennsylvania,
announced a voluntary recall of about 455,000 units of Chicco
Polly High Chair in the United States of America and 30,690 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.

Children can fall on or against the pegs on the rear legs of the
high chair, resulting in a bruising or laceration injury.

The firm is aware of 21 reports of incidents in which a child fell
against the peg and received injuries, including four laceration
injuries requiring medical closure (stitches, tape or glue) and
one scratched cornea.

This recall involves a range of Chicco Polly high chairs with pegs
on the back legs intended for tray storage.  The high chairs have
a folding metal frame for storage and a reclining seat.  The
recalled high chairs can be identified by the model number and
date code printed on a label on the underside of the seat, close
to the footrest.  The date code is in the format DDMMYYYY or YYYY-
MM-DD.  High chairs included in this recall were manufactured
prior to October 13, 2010, and have one of the following model
numbers on the label:

                Model Numbers
      --------------------------------
      00063803430070    05063803260070
      00063803480070    05063803270070
      00063803490070    05063803570070
      00063803580070    05063803660070
      04063765000070    05063803970070
      04063765540070    06063765650070
      04063765760070    06063765970070
      04063803630070    06063803650070
      04063803860070    06063803770070
      04063803900070    06063803820070
      05063765020070    06063803960070
      05063803020070    06063803970070
      05063803220070    07063803780070

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12221.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
retail stores including Babies R Us, Burlington Coat Factory, Buy
Buy Baby, Shopko and Toys R Us, as well as online outlets
including Albeebaby.com, Amazon.com, Babyage.com,
Babysupermart.com, Diapers.com and Target.com from January 2005
through July 2012 for between $100 and $150.

Consumers should contact Chicco for a free peg cover kit which
will be mailed to them.  To help prevent injuries before repair,
consumers should store the tray on the pegs when the high chair is
not in use.  For additional information, contact Chicco toll-free
at (800) 807-8817 between 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.chiccousa.com/pollykit/


BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Class Action Over Robosigning Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of
America, but not its executives, must face a class action claiming
it concealed its use of an electronic registry system in the
mortgage fraud and robosigning scandals, a federal judge ruled.

The Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System sued
Bank of America and its executives in September 2011, claiming
they hid their reliance on the Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems (MERS), which has been criticized for allegedly helping
banks avoid fees or publicly recording mortgage transfers.

New York Attorney General Schneiderman claimed in a February
lawsuit that MERS deprived homeowners and the general public of
the ability to track the purchase and sale of properties through
the public records system.

Shielded from public scrutiny, unaccountable MERS officials
rubber-stamped thousands of invalid foreclosures, in what came to
be known as the robosigning scandal, Mr. Schneiderman said.

Bank of America claimed that it disclosed its ties to MERS in
documents that its subsidiaries filed with the SEC.

But in his ruling on July 11, U.S. District Judge William H.
Pauley III wrote that the parent company made no such efforts
toward disclosure.

"The SEC filings that the BoA defendants cite to show that BoA
disclosed its reliance on MERS are insufficient," Judge Pauley
wrote.  "Indeed, BoA did not even file those documents.  One was
filed by a Countrywide subsidiary prior to BoA's acquisition of
Countrywide, and the other was issued by a BoA subsidiary.  And
both prospectuses were intended for private investors, rather than
BoA shareholders.  The BoA defendants offer no convincing
explanation why BoA shareholders should have been reasonably aware
of those prospectuses."

But Judge Pauley dismissed the claims against the executives,
saying the plaintiffs did not claim they "were even aware of the
practice."

"Plaintiff's allegation that the executive defendants tolerated
robosigning is conclusory because plaintiff does not plead that
any of the executive defendants were even aware of the practice,"
Judge Pauley wrote in his Memorandum and Order.

Judge Pauley found that that the pension fund hung its claims
against the executives on allegations of confidential witnesses,
including a foreclosure specialist.  But the judge found no
indication that the specialist had "any contact with" the
executives.

Judge Pauley dismissed from the complaint without prejudice Bank
of America's former CEO Ken Lewis, current CEO Brian T. Moynihan,
former president of consumer banking Joseph Lee Price, II, Chief
Accounting Officer Neil Cotty, and vice chairman Charles H. Noski.

The pension fund must file and serve an amended complaint by
July 31 if it wants to retry those claims.

A copy of the Memorandum & Order in Pennsylvania Public School
Employees' Retirement Sytem v. Bank of America Corporation, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00733 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/12/BofARuling.pdf

The Plaintiff was represented by:

          Mark Robert Rosen, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square,
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: mrosen@barrack.com


Bank of America and Defendants Moynihan, Noski, and Cotty were
represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
          Four Times Square 42nd Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com


The Defendants Boardman, Bramble, Colbert, Gifford, Holliday,
Lozano, May, Ryan, Scully were represented by:

          Charles S. Duggan, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL L.L.P.
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          E-mail: charles.duggan@davispolk.com

               - and -

          James J. Capra, Jr., Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036

               - and -

          Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr., Esq.
          WILMER, CUTLER, HALE & DORR, L.L.P.
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          E-mail: fraser.hunter@wilmerhale.com


CARDIONET INC: Paid $1.25MM in West Palm Beach Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
CardioNet, Inc. paid out $1,250,000 in accrued amounts as of the
end of March 2012 in relation to the settlement it negotiated to
resolve a securities class action complaint in California,
according to the Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On December 12, 2011, the Company announced that it has reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the West Palm Beach Police Pension
Fund putative class action litigation filed in California Superior
Court, San Diego County, which asserted claims against the Company
for violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  The preliminary agreement is subject to certain conditions,
including court approval of a final settlement agreement.  The
parties filed a stipulation of settlement and joint plaintiff
filed a motion for preliminary approval on January 6, 2012.  Under
the terms of the preliminary agreement, in consideration for the
settlement and release of all defendants, the amount of $7,250,000
will be paid by or on behalf of the defendants (of which
management expects approximately $6,000,000 will be covered by
insurance).  The court issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlement on January 13, 2012 and set June 22, 2012 as the date
for the final fairness hearing.  The Company recorded an accrual
of $1,250,000 for the settlement of this litigation as of December
31, 2011. Subsequently, as of March 31, 2012, the Company has paid
out this settlement amount.

CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation that provides continuous, real-time ambulatory
outpatient management solutions for monitoring relevant and timely
clinical information regarding an individual's health.  In
September 1999, the Company began its focus on helping physicians
more rapidly diagnose and more effectively manage therapy for
patients with cardiovascular disease.  The Company began
developing its product platform in April 2000.  The Company then
spent seven years developing a proprietary integrated patient
management platform that incorporates a wireless data transmission
network, internally developed software, Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) cleared algorithms and medical devices, and a
24-hour digital monitoring service center.  The Company is
currently focused on the diagnosis and monitoring of cardiac
arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders, through its core Mobile
Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry(TM), event and Holter services.


CARNIVAL CORP: Sued by Giglio Business Owners and Wage Earners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corporation is facing a lawsuit commenced by a purported
class of business owners and wage earners on Giglio Island in
Italy, according to the Company's July 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 31, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, Costa Concordia grounded off the coast of
Isola del Giglio, Italy, and sustained significant damage.  The
incident resulted in casualties and injuries.

On May 3, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Giglio Sub v. Carnival
Corporation, No. 12-cv-21680 (S.D. Fla.)).  The plaintiffs are a
purported class of business owners and wage earners on Giglio
Island in Italy who claim they have been injured as a result of
the ship incident.  The defendants are Carnival Corporation,
Carnival plc, Costa Crociere S.p.A. and Costa Cruise Lines, Inc.,
who have been served with the action.  The plaintiffs allege
negligence, gross negligence and nuisance against the defendants.
The complaint seeks monetary damages in the amount of $75 million,
punitive damages, interests, costs and an injunction that future
travel near Giglio Island will be conducted at safe distances.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Foreclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Deutsche Bank
and a Missouri law firm evict people from their homes illegally, a
couple claims in a class action in City Court.

Sonja Lawson and Ross Schuman sued Boyd Law Group, of St. Peters,
Mo., and Deutsche Bank National Trust. They claim the defendants
evict people in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Ms. Lawson and Mr. Schuman say they got a letter from the
defendants on March 19, threatening legal action for back rent.
They say the letter failed to disclose that it was from a debt
collector trying to collect a debt, and that though trustee's
deeds claim their home was bought at a foreclosure sale, that was
not the case.

"Thus contrary to the express representation in defendant's form
letter, Deutsche Bank National Trust did not purchase the
plaintiff's home, but was assigned an illegal credit bid," the
complaint states.

"This representation by defendant is grossly misleading in that it
not only conceals the true nature of the foreclosure sale from
plaintiff, but also actively covers up the whole process of the
credit bid being assigned by representing that Deutsche Bank
'purchased' the property."

The complaint proposes two classes: one of all people who received
a letter from Boyd that falsely represented who bought their home
at a foreclosure sale and concealed that the party whom Boyd
claims to be the purchaser actually is an assignee of the
purchaser.  The other consists of people who received notice-to-
vacate letters from Boyd that did not have a mini-Miranda warning.

The plaintiffs say they are members of both classes.

They seek actual and statutory damages.

They are represented by Tim Hiller.

A copy of the Complaint in Lawson, et al. v. Boyd Law Group, L.C.,
et al., Case No. 1222-CC09199 (Mo. Cir. Ct., City of Saint Louis),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/12/DeutscheEvict.pdf


ELMHURST UNIT: Has Until July 25 to Respond to Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Chadra, writing for Elmhurst Patch, reports that a lawsuit
filed in March alleges the district failed to pay agreed-upon
wages and overtime to administrative personnel over the past six
years.

Elmhurst Unit District 205 has until July 25 to file a response to
a class action lawsuit filed by former and current administrative
personnel employed by the district over the last six years.

Attorney Terrence Buehler, of the Daniel G. Austin Law Group LLC
in Chicago, filed the suit in U.S. District Court March 22 on
behalf of Suzanne S. Holler and Mary A. Caliri, and other past and
present "similarly situated employees."

The suit alleges the district owes the employees unpaid wages and
overtime, and is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs, whose duties included
payroll and human resources, "routinely worked in excess of 40
hours per week" and the School District "willfully and improperly"
designated their positions as exempt from overtime pay.

The suit states the action is in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, which states an employee must be paid overtime
equal to 1 1/2 times the employee's regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The suit also states that the district formerly paid overtime to
administrative personnel, but "made a unilateral decision to stop
paying nonexempt employees for their overtime work."

Plaintiffs also are alleging the district at some point began
calculating their pay based on 37 1/2 hours a week instead of 40.

"At some point in the past, defendant made the unilateral decision
to stop paying plaintiffs for their work for this 2 1/2 hour
period," the suit states.  It also alleges the district failed to
keep records of hours worked.

The class includes "all individuals who were employed by the
defendant as administrative personnel . . . at any time during the
relevant statue of limitations period who worked between 37.5 and
40 hours in a week and did not receive their regular hourly rate
of pay" or who worked more than 40 hours without overtime.

The suit claims there are about 30 administrative personnel
employed by the district over the past six years who fall into
this category.

The suit seeks "a sum that will properly, adequately and
completely compensate plaintiffs for the nature, extent and
duration of their damages," including interest on pay that was not
received.  The suit also asks for the district to pay all
attorney's fees and costs related to the claim.

A pretrial conference is set for Aug. 6.

District 205 Superintendent David Pruneau said on July 11 that
school officials will not comment on pending litigation.


EXELON CORP: Defends Securities Lawsuit vs. Constellation
----------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation is defending a securities class action suit
commenced against its acquired entity, Constellation Energy Group,
Inc., according to Exelon's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

On March 12, 2012, Exelon completed the merger contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, among Exelon; Bolt Acquisition Corporation; a
wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon (Merger Sub) and Constellation.
As a result of that merger, Merger Sub was merged into
Constellation (the Initial Merger) and Constellation became a
wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon.  Following the completion of
the Initial Merger, Exelon and Constellation completed a series of
internal corporate organizational restructuring transactions.
Constellation merged with and into Exelon, with Exelon continuing
as the surviving corporation (the Upstream Merger).
Simultaneously with the Upstream Merger, Constellation's interest
in RF Holdco LLC, which holds Constellation's interest in
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), was transferred to
Exelon Energy Delivery Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Exelon that also owns Exelon's interests in Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO). Following the
Upstream Merger and the transfer of RF Holdco LLC, Exelon
contributed to Exelon Generation Company (Generation) certain
subsidiaries, including the customer supply and generation
businesses that were acquired from Constellation as a result of
the Initial Merger and the Upstream Merger.  Constellation's
shareholders received 0.930 shares of Exelon common stock in
exchange for each share of Constellation common stock outstanding
as of March 12, 2012.  Generally, all outstanding Constellation
equity-based compensation awards were converted into Exelon
equity-based compensation awards using the same ratio.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the
District of Maryland between September 2008 and November 2008
against Constellation Energy Group, Inc.  The cases were filed on
behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded
securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures,
of Constellation between January 30, 2008 and September 16, 2008,
and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008.
The securities class actions generally allege that Constellation,
a number of its former officers or directors, and the underwriters
violated the securities laws by issuing a false and misleading
registration statement and prospectus in connection with
Constellation's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The
securities class actions also allege that Constellation issued
false or misleading statements or was aware of material
undisclosed information which contradicted public statements
including in connection with its announcements of financial
results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of
2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first
quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities class actions seek, among
other things, certification of the cases as class actions,
compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there. On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September
17, 2009. On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On August 13,
2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion
to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and limiting the suit to those
persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering. In
August 2011, plaintiffs requested permission from the court to
file a third amended complaint in an effort to attempt to revive
the claims of the common shareholders. Constellation filed an
objection to the plaintiffs' request for permission to file a
third amended complaint and on March 28, 2012, the District Court
of Maryland denied the plaintiffs' request for permission to
revive the claims of the common shareholders.

Given that limited discovery has occurred, that the court has not
certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their
potential damage claims, Exelon is unable at this time to provide
an estimate of the range of possible loss relating to these
proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of the securities
class actions or their possible effect on its financial results.

Based in Chicago, Illinois, Exelon Corporation --
http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- a utility holding company, engages
in the generation of electricity in the United States.
It generates electricity from nuclear, fossil, hydro, and
renewable energy sources.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls 280,000 Decorative Light Sets
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Family Dollar Services, Inc., of Matthews, North Carolina,
announced a voluntary recall of about 280,000 sets of 200 Mini
Lights.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The light sets do not meet the UL standard for this product and
pose a fire and shock risk.

There were three reports of overheating.  No injuries or property
damage were reported.

The recalled decorative light sets have "200 Mini Lights" and
"Multi Lights, Green Wire" printed on the red box.  The product is
identified by SKU # 2211428 and UPC # 049696720465 found on the
back of the package.  The product contains labels attached to a
tag on the power cord with UL Listing # E346525 and Model #
F0L200A4S.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12222.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Family Dollar stores from September 2011 through
December 2011 for $8.

Consumer should immediately stop using the light sets and return
the product to a Family Dollar store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Family Dollar Stores at (800) 547-
0359 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.familydollar.com/in the
Help section.


FISKVILLE: Firefighters Mull Class Action Over Chemical Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a law firm says
firefighters who trained at Fiskville will consider launching a
class action over their exposure to chemicals at the Victorian
training facility.

Slater and Gordon represents about 150 Country Fire Authority
(CFA) volunteers, past and present, suffering from conditions
ranging from cancer to respiratory illnesses and auto-immune
diseases.

The law firm says the volunteers' fears have been confirmed by an
independent report on Fiskville released on July 12 and lawyers
are weighing up legal options on behalf of their clients.

They say a class action is one potential mechanism under
consideration as are individual test cases.

In the meantime, Slater and Gordon class action lawyer Andrew
Baker says the state government should introduce laws giving
firefighters the right to claim compensation if they contract one
of 12 cancers, without having to show it's linked to their work.

This would bring the Victorian legislation into line with the
federal system.

"(The report) has confirmed the fears held by these people for a
long time: that they were exposed to dangerous chemicals while at
Fiskville and that that exposure is making them sick," Mr. Baker
said.

"In fulfilling what they saw as their duty to keep Victorian
communities safe, these people have made enormous personal
sacrifices and it is now up to the system that let them down to
make things right."

Law firm Maurice Blackburn has been contacted by about 50 people
who have health concerns due to their involvement with the
Fiskville site, but the firm has no current plans for a class
action.

It has backed the United Firefighters Union's calls for the onus
of proof to be reversed when it comes to occupational cancer
compensation claims.

Principal lawyer Andrew Dimsey said the science lags significantly
behind the onset of the disease.

"Proving causation with this type of cancer is difficult," he said
in a statement.


GENERAL MOTORS: Stewarts Law Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stewarts Law US LLP on July 11 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the common stock of General Motors Company pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's November 18, 2010 Initial Public
Offering (the "IPO"), alleging violations of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Complaint").  The case is entitled Scott v. General
Motors Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:12-CV-5124 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.).

If you wish to view a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact David A. Straite, Esquire or Noah R.
Wortman, Director of Case Development of Stewarts Law at 1201
North Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, by telephone at
(302) 298-1200, or by e-mail at investorprotection@stewartslaw.com

The Complaint names GM, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and several underwriting investment banks as
defendants and alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued by GM in connection with the IPO were false,
misleading and in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges, in connection with the IPO,
and in order to assuage concerns that GM was predicting revenue
based on production rather than actual sales, GM falsely assured
investors that it was actively managing its production by
monitoring its dealer inventory levels.  Additionally, GM assured
investors that in 2011 it would improve inventory management,
which would improve average transaction price.

In July 2011, reports began to surface that GM had engaged in an
extraordinary inventory build-up.  In particular, an article
published by Bloomberg on July 5, 2011 revealed that GM may have
been unloading excessive inventory on dealers, a practice known as
"channel stuffing," in order to create the false impression that
GM was recovering and sales and revenues were rising.

Indeed, on July 1, 2011, GM admitted on an investor conference
call that it had substantially exceeded inventory targets.  An
article appearing on Barron's on July 5, 2011 quotes Don Johnson,
the VP of GM's U.S. sales operations, who stated on an investor
call that "[r]ight now we are at 122 day supply on full-size
pickups.  And this is slightly above where we would like to be.  I
acknowledge that our target is between 100 and 110 day supply but
I think it's important that people realize why we are there and
what we may do about it."  Thus, GM acknowledged that its target
was above the 100 vehicle figure that industry experts considered
excessive, and moreover GM exceeded even its own excessive target.

During the three months following the Bloomberg and Barron's
articles, GM's share price fell from more than $31.00 to below
$20.00, far below the IPO price of $33.00, and continues to trade
around $20.00 today.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 11, 2012.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting 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.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
proposed 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.

Stewarts Law is an international litigation-only law firm with
over 100 lawyers based in London, Leeds, New York and Delaware.
Stewarts Law acts for corporate, institutional investor and
individual clients and has specialist departments in antitrust
litigation, aviation and travel, clinical negligence, commercial
litigation, divorce and family, employment, investor protection
litigation and personal injury.

In particular, the Investor Protection Litigation Department has
expertise in securities class action litigation and individual
cases, mergers and acquisitions litigation, shareholder derivative
actions and hedge fund/alternative entity litigation.  The
department, with offices in both the US and UK, is uniquely placed
to meet the global litigation needs of international investor
clients in the US, English and European courts.  The department
also handles all other US litigation needs, including complex
consumer and digital privacy class action litigation.

Stewarts Law operates as Stewarts Law LLP in the United Kingdom
and as Stewarts Law US LLP in the United States.


GENON ENERGY: Sued Over Emissions from Penn. Facility
-----------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in Pennsylvania over
sustained property damage brought by emission from one of its
facility, according to the Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Company's Cheswick
generating facility have damaged the property of neighboring
residents.  The Company disputes these allegations.  Plaintiffs
have brought nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability
claims seeking both damages and injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs
seek to certify a class that consists of people who own property
or live within one mile of the plant.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc.
-- http://www.genon.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
provides energy, capacity, ancillary, and other energy services to
wholesale customers in the energy market in the United States. It
also operates as a wholesale generator of electricity; and
involves in asset management and proprietary trading, fuel oil
management, and natural gas transportation and storage activities.
The company generates electricity using coal, natural gas, and oil
resources. It operates 8 generating facilities with a total net
generating capacity of 6,341 megawatt in Maryland, New Jersey, and
Virginia; 23 generating facilities with a total net generating
capacity of 7,483 megawatt in Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; 7
generating facilities with a total net generating capacity of
5,391 megawatt in California; and 8 generating facilities with a
total net generating capacity of 4,482 megawatt in Florida,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Texas.


GENON ENERGY: Appeal in Gas Price Suit Pending in Nev. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in one class action lawsuit against GenOn Energy, Inc.,
relating to increases in natural gas prices is pending before the
Nevada Supreme Court, according to the Company's May 10, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company is party to five lawsuits, several of which are class
action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath
of the California energy crisis and the resulting Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission investigations and relate to alleged conduct
to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and
similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages,
restitution and/or expenses.  The lawsuits also name a number of
unaffiliated energy companies as parties.  In July 2011, the judge
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
handling four of the five cases granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment dismissing all claims against the Company in
those cases.  The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The fifth case is pending in the
State of Nevada Supreme Court on plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of all its claims by the Eighth Judicial District Court
for Clark County, Nevada.  The Company has agreed to indemnify
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. against certain losses relating to these
lawsuits.

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

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc.
-- http://www.genon.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
provides energy, capacity, ancillary, and other energy services to
wholesale customers in the energy market in the United States. It
also operates as a wholesale generator of electricity; and
involves in asset management and proprietary trading, fuel oil
management, and natural gas transportation and storage activities.
The company generates electricity using coal, natural gas, and oil
resources. It operates 8 generating facilities with a total net
generating capacity of 6,341 megawatt in Maryland, New Jersey, and
Virginia; 23 generating facilities with a total net generating
capacity of 7,483 megawatt in Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; 7
generating facilities with a total net generating capacity of
5,391 megawatt in California; and 8 generating facilities with a
total net generating capacity of 4,482 megawatt in Florida,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Texas.


GMX RESOURCES: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Bid Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
GMX Resources Inc. continues to await a court decision on a motion
to appoint a lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit pending in
Oklahoma, according to the Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Northumberland
County Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement
System in the District Court in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma,
purportedly on March 10, 2011, against the Company and certain of
its officers along with certain underwriters of the Company's July
2008, May 2009 and October 2009 public offerings.  Discovery
requests and summons were filed and issued in late April 2011. The
complaint alleges that the registration statement and the
prospectus for contained material misstatements and omissions and
seeks damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 of an unspecified equitable relief.  Defendants removed
the case to federal court on May 12, 2011 and filed motions to
dismiss on June 20, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court on June 10, 2011, and Defendants filed an
opposition to that motion.  By order dated November 16, 2011, the
court denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  On February 3, 2012,
Plaintiffs moved to be appointed lead plaintiff under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  After the appointment of lead
plaintiff, Plaintiffs are expected to file an amended complaint,
with Defendants' responses thereto expected to be filed later in
2012.

The Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss
or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with the
securities class action case, which is at an early stage.

Based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, GMX Resources Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company historically focused on the
development of the Cotton Valley group of formations, specifically
the Cotton Valley Sands layer in the Schuler formation and the
Upper Bossier, Middle Bossier and Haynesville/Lower Bossier layers
of the Bossier formation, in the Sabine Uplift of the Carthage,
North Field of Harrison and Panola counties of East Texas.


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Still Defends "Silverman" Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. is defending itself against a
securities class action lawsuit in Texas, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On April 27, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company and certain of its executive officers: Steve Silverman
v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-1332.
The complaint generally alleges that, between March 29, 2010 and
April 18, 2012, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making materially false and misleading statements including
certain statements related to the status and viability of the
Tamandua #1 well.

The Company believes that additional class action suits have since
been filed against it, and may in the future be filed against it,
as a result of, or based on, the SEC investigation. The Complaint
in the Silverman case seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company believes all of the claims in the Silverman case are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.  It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of the Silverman case or any other class action lawsuits
that have or may be filed.

Based in Houston, Texas, Houston American Energy Corp. --
http://www.houstonamericanenergy.com-- engages in the
acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and
production of natural gas and crude oil properties in the U.S.
Gulf Coast region and South America.  The Company's oil and gas
properties are located primarily in the South American country of
Colombia; and in the onshore Gulf Coast region of Texas and
Louisiana.


ILLINOIS: Sued Over Disabled Children Medicaid Cuts
---------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that
"draconian" state budget cuts will force more than 1,000 medically
fragile disabled children out of their homes and into institutions
and will reduce or eliminate their Medicaid, six families say in a
federal class action.

"Effective September 1, 2012, the State of Illinois is unraveling
27 years of community based services to medically fragile children
by making Draconian cuts to Medicaid services to the plaintiffs
and putative class which puts them at risk of institutionalization
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Rehabilitation Act and Medicaid," the families say in their
complaint against the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family
Services and its director Julie Hamos.

The class of severely disabled children who need an in-home nurse
at least 12 hours a day seek an injunction against new state rules
that will reduce or eliminate their Medicaid benefits, which they
claim will force them to be institutionalized.

"The plaintiffs and class consist of approximately 1,050 medically
fragile disabled children who currently receive funding from the
defendant for skilled nursing services at their home at an average
monthly cost between $11,000 to $16,000, depending upon their
medical needs, so that they do not have to be institutionalized or
hospitalized for their entire life at a rate of approximately
$55,000 per month," the complaint states.

The children are 1 to 15 years old, require at least 12 hours a
day of nursing care, and their family income exceeds 500 percent
of the federal poverty rate, or $95,450 for a family of three.

One child, M.K., "requires intensive vigilant nursing care that
consists of: tracheostomy care, monitoring of respiratory and
cardiac status, suctioning, monitoring of fragile statue of g-
button and trach, meticulous skin care including many topical
creams/ointments that are applied daily, and several medications
that are administered on a daily basis via g-tube," according to
the complaint.

The Illinois Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services Waiver for
Children that are Medically Fragile, Technology Dependent (MF/TD)
allows "eligible children to remain in their own homes rather than
in an institutional setting," the class says.

Under the waiver, "the State of Illinois is required to show that
the cost of providing home and community based services is less
(or at least cost neutral) than the cost of providing those
services in an institution (hospital).  The hospital level of care
is approximately $55,000 per month and the current cost of
providing community based services (Skilled Nursing and Medicaid)
is about 1/3rd the hospital level of care so cost neutrality is
satisfied," the complaint states.

The new waiver, effective Sept. 1, "eliminates the hospital level
of care and substitutes a nursing facility as being the level of
care which the medically fragile children require.  Accordingly,
in order to be cost neutral, the comparable institution (nursing
facility) rate would be used instead of the hospital rate.  The
nursing facility rate will be approximately $9,400 per month,
which means the State of Illinois will not approve community based
skill nursing and Medicaid funding for the medically fragile
children which exceeds the sum of $9,400 per month.  . . .

"By Illinois reclassifying 99 percent of the persons in the MF/TD
Waiver as only needing a nursing facility level of care as opposed
to a hospital level care in order to cap or limit the 'medical
necessity' level of funding, the state is placing the plaintiffs
and putative class at risk of institutionalization," the class
claims.

In addition, the new waiver will exclude medically fragile
children from families with incomes of over 500 percent of the
federal poverty rate.

"A medically fragile child will be unable to receive in-home
medically necessary services when the average cost of those
services is $188,000 from a family that is excluded because they
make too much money (in excess of $95,450 for a family of three),"
the complaint states.

The class seeks an injunction prohibiting the new MF/TD waiver
from reducing or denying class members' Medicaid benefits.

States across the nation have instituted similar budget cuts since
the financial crisis began, which often have been challenged by
class actions.  As in this case, the classes nearly always object
that institutionalizing the sick people will cost far more in the
long run.

Lead plaintiff T.B., 5, his parents, Thomas and Margaret Boyce,
and the rest of the class are represented by Robert Farley Jr., of
Naperville.

A copy of the Complaint in T.B., et al. v. Hamos, Case No. 12-cv-
05356 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/12/ChicagoMedical.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert H. Farley, Jr., Esq.
          ROBERT H. FARLEY, JR. LTD.
          1155 S. Washington Street
          Naperville, IL 60540
          Telephone: (630) 369-0103
          E-mail: farleylaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Mary Denise Cahill, Esq.
          CAHILL & ASSOCIATES
          1155 S. Washington Street
          Naperville, IL 60540
          Telephone: (630) 778-6500
          E-mail: mdcahill@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Michelle N. Schneiderheinze, Esq.
          2401 E. Washington Street
          Suite 300C
          Bloomington, IL 61704
          Telephone: (309) 533-7340


JTH HOLDING: Additional Complaints Filed in Consolidated RAL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Additional lawsuits were filed in the consolidated class action
against JTH Holding, Inc., relating to refund anticipation loans,
according to the Company's July 9, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April
30, 2012.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, in May 2012 in
New York and in Minnesota, since the initial filings.  In December
2011, the plaintiffs in the original cases filed a motion to
consolidate all of the then-pending cases before a single judge in
federal court in the Northern District of Illinois.  This
consolidation motion was granted in April 2012, and in June 2012,
the plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the consolidated action
that also consolidates the additional cases filed in 2012.  The
consolidated complaint alleges that an electronic refund check
(ERC) represents a form of refund anticipation loan (RAL) because
the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that an ERC
is therefore subject to federal truth-in-lending disclosure and
state law requirements regulating RALs.  The plaintiffs therefore
allege violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer
statutes.  The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the
plaintiffs allege potential damages in excess of $5 million, but
the Company may be able to recover any damages from the providers
of the financial products that designed the programs and related
disclosures.

The Company says it is aware that virtually identical lawsuits
have been filed against three of its competitors.  The Company has
not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor
has the Company accrued a loss contingency related to this matter.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in
this case, and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there
can be no assurances as to the outcome or the impact on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.


JTH HOLDING: Still Defends Class Action Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, several former customers of one of JTH Holding,
Inc.'s South Carolina franchisees initiated a purported class
action against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
another of the Company's employees in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, in a case styled Martin
v. JTH Tax, Inc.  In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the
employees of the Company's franchisees fraudulently increased
customer tax refunds, and that this behavior was pursuant to a
plan or scheme in which the Company and its employees were
involved.  In this case, the plaintiffs seek damages in excess of
$5 million, certification of class action status, treble damages
under a claim pursuant to The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act of 1970, punitive damages, and other damages.
This case is in the early stages of the proceeding.  The Company
believes that the probability of a loss related to this matter is
remote; consequently the Company has not recorded a loss
contingency related to this matter.  The Company intends to defend
this case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the
outcome or the impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 9, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2012.


KOSMOS ENERGY: Securities Class Action Pending in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2012, Scott+Scott LLP filed the first class action
complaint for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf
of purchasers of Kosmos Energy Ltd. common stock, including those
purchasing in the Company's initial public offering held on or
about May 16, 2011.  The action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

If you purchased the common stock of Kosmos pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's IPO and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than
September 10, 2012.  Any member of the investor class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott --
scottlaw@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537).

There is no cost or fee to you.

The securities class action charges that Kosmos concealed that the
Company's "Jubilee" oil field project in the Republic of Ghana was
underperforming; issuing false and misleading statements in the
IPO's offering documents that failed to disclose certain design
defects in Kosmos' oil wells, all of which were known to the
Company prior to the IPO.

Kosmos represented in offering documents leading up to the IPO
that the Company expected that the Jubilee oil field would produce
120,000 barrels of oil per day by "mid 2011", failing to mention
known defects with the oil wells.  Investors discovered the field
problems when Kosmos' partner, Tullow Oil plc, issued a press
release announcing that production from the Jubilee oil field was
only 80,000 barrels per day.  According to the complaint, Tullow
stated this was due to "extra work required" on the Jubilee wells'
gas compression systems.  This information was not revealed in
Kosmos' offering documents.  The following month, Tullow Oil
reduced its projected oil production to between 79,000 to 81,000
barrels per day.

Kosmos finally addressed the Jubilee production issues in the
Company's earnings release for the third quarter of 2011,
announcing that there would be a sizable amount of cost in 2012
and beyond to fix the problems with the Jubilee oil wells.

The complaint alleges that the undisclosed Jubilee oil field
production issues have had a significant negative impact on
investors who purchased in Kosmos' IPO as Company shares have
declined over 30% since the offering.

Scott+Scott prosecutes major securities, antitrust, and employee
retirement plan actions throughout the United States.  The firm
represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other
entities worldwide.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Price-Fixing Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of
dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) products have been filed
against Micron Technology, Inc. in Quebec, Ontario, and British
Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers,
asserting violations of the Canadian Competition Act and other
common law claims.  The claims were initiated between December
2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006 (Quebec).  The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in the United States.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the
British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June 2008,
respectively.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal of each of
those decisions.  On November 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court
of Appeal reversed, and on November 16, 2011, the Quebec Court of
Appeal also reversed the denial of class certification and
remanded the cases for further proceedings.

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


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $45-Mil. as of May 3 Under Suits Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
At least sixty-eight purported class action price-fixing lawsuits
have been filed against Micron Technology, Inc. and other
suppliers of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) in various
federal and state courts in the United States and in Puerto Rico
on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging a conspiracy to increase
DRAM prices in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and
state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to
the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April
1999 through at least June 2002.  The complaints seek joint and
several damages, trebled, in addition to restitution, costs and
attorneys' fees.  A number of these cases have been removed to
federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings.  In July, 2006, the Attorneys General for
approximately forty U.S. states and territories filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaints allege, among other things, violations of the
Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, and certain other states' consumer
protection and antitrust laws and seek joint and several damages,
trebled, as well as injunctive and other relief.  On October 3,
2008, the California Attorney General filed a similar lawsuit in
California Superior Court, purportedly on behalf of local
California government entities, alleging, among other things,
violations of the Cartwright Act and state unfair competition law.

On June 23, 2010, the Company executed a settlement agreement
resolving these purported class-action indirect purchaser cases
and the pending cases of the Attorneys General relating to alleged
DRAM price-fixing in the United States.  Subject to certain
conditions, including final court approval of the class
settlements, the Company agreed to pay approximately $67 million
in aggregate in three equal installments over a two-year period.

As of May 31, 2012, the Company has paid $45 million into an
escrow account in accordance with the settlement agreement,
according to the Company's July 9, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May
31, 2012.


MOLENAAR LLLC: Recalls 3,700 Folding Step Stools Due to Fall Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Molenaar LLC, of Willmar, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall
of about 3,700 folding step stools.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The folding step stools can break or collapse unexpectedly when in
use, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries were reported.

This recall involves 13-inch high folding step stools.  The step
stool is plastic and has a handle for carrying the stool when it
is folded.  The stools have a single step and come in beige with a
brown top.  The stools, which were used as promotional products,
have various company logos imprinted on the side panel beneath the
top of the stool.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12224.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and were
distributed free by various companies as promotional products
between March 2012 and May 2012.

Consumers should immediately stop using the step stools and return
them to the business printed on the step stool to receive a
different promotional item.  Businesses who purchased the product
from Molenaar should return them for a refund or credit.
Consumers or businesses can contact Molenaar LLC for more
information.  For additional information, contact Molenaar at
(877) 719-4442 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.miline.com/where a link to this recall will be posted.


MOUNTAIN STATE: Two Charleston Law Firms File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson and Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia
Record, report that two Charleston law firms have filed a lawsuit
against Mountain State University on behalf of students of the
university.

The former president of the university, Charles H. Polk, and the
University Board of Trustees are also named as defendants in the
class action law suit.

The Webb Law Firm and DiTrapano, Barrett & DiPiero filed to seek
certification as a class action on behalf of all current and
former students affected by the university's loss of
accreditation.

Rusty Webb of the Webb Law Firm said he had followed the story
regarding the university's issues for quite some time, but became
involved when a former client contacted him regarding his son's
curriculum issues with the university.

"I spoke with him and he and his son were having curriculum issues
with the university and they felt cheated," Mr. Webb said.  "Then,
when the university's accreditation issues surfaced, he contacted
me again."

Mr. Webb said his firm and DiTrapano, Barrett & DiPiero jointly
decided to file the cause of action because of their connection
through the former client.

Although still not sure of how many people the class action
lawsuit will contain, Mr. Webb said he believes there are more
than 3,000 students affected by Mountain State University's
accreditation and curriculum problems.

"The school's web site says they have approximately 3,000
students," Mr. Webb said.  "Then, you have to take into account
that there are thousands more taking classes online over a four-
year period."

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for
misrepresentation, loss of accreditation, consumer protection
statutes, negligence, breach of contract and breach of duty of
good faith and fair dealing.

The regional Higher Learning Commission's board of trustees
recently decided to withdraw accreditation effective Aug. 27.  In
a news release, Mountain State officials said they will vigorously
appeal the decision and said accreditation will not be withdrawn
until the process is complete.

Mountain State University is a private university headquartered in
Beckley, with campuses around West Virginia including in
Charleston.

The revocation of accreditation has left "thousands of students
with worthless college course credits, now unaccredited, after
many Mountain State students had incurred tens of thousands of
dollars in student loan debt to pay the college," said Sean
McGinley, one of the attorneys working on the case.

"The Class Action Complaint explains that accreditation is a
third-party stamp of approval that ensures universities or
programs are meeting a minimum set of national standards,"
Mr. McGinley said in a statement.  "If a university loses its
primary accreditation, any subsequent degrees conferred by the
university are effectively worthless.  The Higher Learning
Commission is the regional accrediting agency that accredits
institutions of higher education in West Virginia.

"According to a spokesman for the HLC, losing an accreditation 'is
a very rare circumstance.'  Mountain State University is the first
higher education institution in West Virginia history to have its
schoolwide accreditation revoked."

Mountain State has faced accreditation issues for years.

In 2008, the HLC told Mountain State in its report that despite
the university's strong financial position and rising student
enrollment, "it is not clear how the University will continue to
respond to future challenges and opportunities with no clearly
defined process for updating the University's long-term plans;
limited empirical evidence [transparency] guiding planning and
budgeting . . . no program review processes to determine and
sustain academic quality and viability; and a lack of strong
communication and collaboration in governance."

The 79-page 2008 report went on to say "long-term planning was
remarked as "not necessary" and "pie in the sky" by some employees
and board members, "and expressed concerns that there were no
mechanisms in place to get feedback on how to improve the
university."

In 2010, a national agency ("NLNAC") revoked the accreditation for
Mountain State University's nursing school.  That prompted the
West Virginia nursing board to place Mountain State's nursing
program on provisional status, for major problems in leadership
and failure to keep up-to-date student records.  This action has
resulted in scores of lawsuits from students.

"Throughout the accreditation problems, members of Mountain
State's board of trustees said they didn't know how bad the issues
in the nursing school were," Mr. McGinley said.  "They promised to
take corrective action.  But in June 2011, the HLC placed Mountain
State University on 'show cause' status, citing the school for its
top-down leadership, lack of long-term planning, failure to
collaborate with faculty, failure to give information to students,
and the loss of specialized accreditation for the nursing program.

"The HLC gave Mountain State one year to make big fixes at the
school or risk losing its accreditation altogether.  Also, in
2011, the Chronicle of Higher Education indicated in its report
that '[n]o other college in the survey [of 519 colleges] devoted
such a substantial share of its resources to a president[,]' as
did Mountain State University."

Mr. Polk, the former president of the school, received a salary of
$1.84 million in 2009.  That's more than the presidents of Harvard
and Yale.  He also repeatedly used the school's two private plans
to fly to his home in North Carolina.

"From 2008 through July 2012, defendants reassured students and
prospective students that Mountain State University was in sound
shape, when in fact, such was not true," the complaint says.  "On
June 28, 2012, the Board of Trustees of the Higher Learning
Commission voted to withdraw Mountain State's accreditation,
effective August 27, 2012. The HLC's action was made public on
July 10, 2012.

"Students found out about Mountain State's accreditation being
withdrawn by hearing it on the news.  The HLC explained Mountain
State lost its accreditation after years of failing to correct
major problems in leadership, program evaluations, and campus-wide
governance."

For more information, contact Mr. Webb at 304-344-9322 or
rusty@rustywebb.com or Rob Bastress at 304-342-0133.  There is a
questionnaire at rustywebb.com.


MR WRIGHT: Named in Class Action Over Elliot Lake Mall Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Ougler, writing for QMI Agency, reports that a northern
Ontario engineering firm that has been named in a class-action
lawsuit regarding the deadly June 23 mall collapse in Elliot Lake
said in a report earlier this year the building was "structurally
sound."

Douglas Elliott -- rde@reolaw.ca -- of the firm Roy Elliott
O'Connor LLP, of Toronto, confirmed on July 11 that M.R. Wright &
Associates is the firm referred to, but not named, in earlier
media reports regarding the lawsuit.

Mr. Elliott said M.R. Wright & Associates provided two reports --
one in 2009 and another earlier in 2012 -- that said the building
was "structurally sound," adding he is uncertain if the reports
were commissioned by the mall owner or someone else or "to whom it
was provided, but I understand that there were two reports done."

M.R. Wright & Associates was the last engineering firm "who had an
opportunity" to provide an engineering report on the Algo Centre
Mall, Mr. Elliott alleged.

"It appears that they got it wrong and my understanding from our
consultant is that given the nature of the collapse, a proper
inspection should have revealed the problem," Mr. Elliott said,
adding he hasn't read the engineering report.

"This is not something that was caused by a traumatic, unforeseen
event.  There was no earthquake or lightning strike or anything of
that nature.  This failure of the building occurred because of a
long-term problem of corrosion due to water infiltration that was
well known."

M.R. Wright & Associates did not return a phone call and e-mail
from QMI Agency requesting comment.

Five defendants in all have been named in the class-action suit.
Two are Eastwood Mall Inc., which owns the Algo Centre Mall, and
Robert Nazarian, the head of Eastwood Mall.

The Province of Ontario and City of Elliot Lake are also named.

None of the allegations made against any of the defendants have
been proven in court.

"We didn't know that name at the time, but that was the firm we
had in mind," Mr. Elliott said from Toronto.

Lawyers have filed a $30-million lawsuit on behalf of victims of
the partial collapse of the Algo Centre Mall.

Two Elliot Lake residents, Doloris Perizzolo, 74, and Lucie
Aylwin, 37, were killed, while 22 others were treated in hospital
for minor injuries sustained in the collapse, which garnered
international media attention.


NETWORK ENGINES: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Consummated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving a securities class action against Network
Engines, Inc. is deemed finalized as the remaining appeal on the
deal has been dismissed and the Company's insurers provided for
the settlement amount in January 2012, according to the Company's
May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On or about December 3, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company; Lawrence A. Genovesi, the Company's
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Douglas G. Bryant,
the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and several underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering. The suit alleges, inter
alia, that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling securities pursuant to the Company's initial
public offering in July 2000 (IPO) without disclosing to investors
that the underwriter defendants had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. The
suit seeks damages and certification of a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's
common stock between July 13, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

In October 2002, Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas G. Bryant were
dismissed from this case without prejudice. On December 5, 2006,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the
District Court's certification of a plaintiff class. On April 6,
2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing, but clarified that the plaintiffs may seek to certify a
more limited class in the District Court. On September 27, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in certain
designated "focus cases" in the District Court. That motion has
since been withdrawn. On November 13, 2007, the issuer defendants
in certain designated "focus cases" filed a motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended class action complaints that were
filed in those cases. On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued
an Opinion and Order denying, in large part, the motions to
dismiss the amended complaints in the "focus cases." On April 2,
2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
new proposed settlement between plaintiffs, the underwriter
defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer
defendants. On June 10, 2009, the Court issued an opinion
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, and scheduling a
settlement fairness hearing for September 10, 2009. On October 5,
2009, the Court issued an opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the settlement, approval of the plan of
distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the
settlement classes. An Order and Final Judgment was entered on
December 30, 2009.

Various notices of appeal of the District Court's October 5, 2009
order were filed.  On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had
filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the District
Court withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two
remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals.  On
May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appeals and
remanded the one remaining appeal to the District Court for
further proceedings to determine whether the remaining objector
has standing.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court concluded
that the remaining objector lacks standing to object to the
settlement because he was not a class member.  On September 23,
2011, the remaining objector filed a Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's August 25, 2011 Order.  On January 13, 2012, the
Second Circuit issued a mandate dismissing the appeal, thereby
finalizing the settlement between the plaintiffs and defendants
and ending this case.

The settlement required the insurers for the issuer defendants to
pay the settlement directly to the plaintiffs, as the Company had
no liability in connection with this litigation.  In January 2012,
the insurers for the issuer defendants paid the settlement amount
directly to the plaintiffs. As the Company did not and will not
have any obligation related to this case or settlement, no amounts
have been accrued as of March 31, 2012.

Networks Engine Inc., as a system integrator, designs and
manufactures application platforms and appliance solutions on
which software applications are applied to both enterprise and
telecommunications networks.  The Company markets its application
platform solutions and services to original equipment
manufacturers, or OEMs, and independent software vendors, or ISVs,
that then deliver their software applications in the form of a
network-ready hardware or software platform.


OCLARO INC: Settles Opnext Merger-Related Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, Inc. reached an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit
arising from its proposed merger with Opnext, Inc., according to
the Company's July 9, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 6, 2012, Oclaro, Inc. ("Oclaro"), Opnext, Inc. ("Opnext"),
and Tahoe Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), reached an
understanding to settle the previously disclosed class action
lawsuit in California captioned Martin Zilberberg v. Charles J.
Abbe, No. RG12623460 (and the cases consolidated with the
Zilberberg action, other than the Wright action, which was
voluntarily dismissed on July 5, 2012) and the previously
disclosed class action lawsuit in Delaware captioned In re Opnext,
Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7400-VCL (collectively, the
"Merger Litigation").  The Merger Litigation relates to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of March
26, 2012, by and among Oclaro, Merger Sub and Opnext.

Oclaro agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing.  The other defendants and all named
plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation are parties to the settlement,
which provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to
enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the
conditional certification of the Zilberberg Action as a non opt-
out class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 382 and California Rule of Court 3.769 on behalf of a
class consisting of all record and beneficial owners of Opnext
common stock during the period beginning on March 26, 2012,
through the date of the consummation of the proposed merger,
including any and all of their respective successors in interest,
predecessors, representatives, and the release of all asserted
claims.  The asserted claims will not be released until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the California and
Delaware courts.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
California and Delaware courts will approve such settlement even
if the parties were to enter into such stipulation.  The
settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be received
by Opnext stockholders or the timing of the special meetings of
Oclaro stockholders or Opnext stockholders scheduled for July 17,
2012.

Additionally, as part of the settlement, Oclaro and Opnext have
agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
proposed merger.  The additional disclosures supplement the
disclosure contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus which
forms a part of the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by
Oclaro with the SEC on June 13, 2012, and mailed to Oclaro's
stockholders on or about June 15, 2012 (the "Proxy Statement"),
and should be read in conjunction with the disclosures contained
in the Proxy Statement, which in turn should be read in its
entirety.


OCLARO INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Westley" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, Inc. obtained a court order granting its motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit commenced by Curtis and Charlotte Westley
with leave to file an amended complaint, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors. The Court subsequently appointed the
Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund (Pension Fund) as lead
plaintiff for the putative class.  On October 27, 2011, the
Pension Fund filed an Amended Complaint, captioned as Westley v.
Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448 EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's common stock between May 6 and October
28, 2010, alleging that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements during this time period regarding the
Company's current business and financial condition, including
projections for demand for the Company's products, as well as the
Company's revenues, earnings, and gross margins, for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the full fiscal year.  The
complaint alleges violations of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, as
well as section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks damages and costs of an unspecified amount. On
December 12, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. That motion was granted with leave to file the amended
complaint. Discovery has not commenced, and no trial has been
scheduled in this action.

The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously.  It is
unable at this time to estimate the effects of these lawsuits on
its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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

Based in San Jose, California, Oclaro, Inc. --
http://www.oclaro.com/-- offers optical network components,
modules, and subsystems to telecommunications equipment
manufacturers.  The company designs, manufactures, and markets
products that generate, detect, amplify, combine, and separate
light signals in telecommunications networks.  The Company was
formerly known as Bookham, Inc. and changed its name to Oclaro,
Inc. in April 2009.


OLD NAVY: Recalls 37,800 Toddler Girl Aqua Socks Due to Slip Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Old Navy, of San Francisco, California, announced
a voluntary recall of about 34,000 pairs of Old Navy Toddler Girl
Aqua Socks in the United States of America and 3,800 pairs 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.

This style of Aqua Socks have less traction when worn on wet or
smooth surfaces such as hardwood or tile, creating a slip and fall
hazard.

Two customers reported falls with minor injuries that did not
require medical attention.

The slip-on shoes have pull-on tabs on both the front and back of
the foot opening of the shoe.  These Aqua Socks were sold in pink
and purple in Toddler sizes 5-11.  The recall includes Old Navy
Toddler Girl Aqua Socks with style number 896452.  A small tag
inside the foot opening contains the style number (896452), size
information and country of origin (China).  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12223.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Old
Navy stores in the U.S. and Canada and at oldnavy.com in the U.S.
and at oldnavy.ca in Canada from February 2012 through June 2012.
The shoes sold for between $12 and $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using these shoes and return
them to any Old Navy store for a full refund.  Consumers who
return the shoes before November 9, 2012, will also receive a
coupon for $10 off their next purchase at Old Navy.  Contact
custserv@oldnavy.com if you wish to return the Toddler Girl Aqua
Sock by mail.  For additional information, contact Old Navy toll-
free at (866) 580-9930 between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, Saturday between 12:00 p.m. and 7:00
p.m. Eastern Time, and Sunday between 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Eastern Time, or e-mail Old Navy at custserv@oldnavy.com


OPNEXT INC: Settles Merger-Related Suits in Calif. and Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Opnext, Inc. disclosed in its July 9, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that on July 6, 2012,
it reached an understanding to settle the previously disclosed
class action lawsuit in California captioned Martin Zilberberg v.
Charles J. Abbe, No. RG12623460 (and the cases consolidated with
the Zilberberg action, other than the Wright action, which was
voluntarily dismissed on July 5, 2012) and the previously
disclosed class action lawsuit in Delaware captioned In re Opnext,
Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7400-VCL (collectively, the
"Merger Litigation").

                        Company Statement

Opnext, Inc. ("Opnext" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OPXT), a global
leader in the design and manufacture of optical modules and
components, announced that it has reached an understanding to
settle the previously disclosed class action lawsuit in California
captioned Martin Zilberberg v. Charles J. Abbe, No. RG12623460
(and the cases consolidated with the Zilberberg action, other than
the Wright action, which was voluntarily dismissed on July 5,
2012) and the previously disclosed class action lawsuit in
Delaware captioned In re Opnext, Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
C.A. No. 7400-VCL, respectively (collectively, the "Merger
Litigation").  The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of March 26, 2012, by and among Oclaro,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Oclaro"), Tahoe Acquisition Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Oclaro, and Opnext.

The Company agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing.  The other defendants and
all named plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation are parties to the
settlement, which provides, among other things, that the parties
will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides
for the conditional certification of the Zilberberg Action as a
non opt-out class action pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382 and California Rule of Court 3.769 on behalf
of a class consisting of all record and beneficial owners of
Opnext common stock during the period beginning on March 26, 2012,
through the date of the consummation of the proposed merger,
including any and all of their respective successors in interest,
predecessors, representatives, and the release of all asserted
claims.  The asserted claims will not be released until such
stipulation of settlement is approved by the California court.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the California and
Delaware courts will approve such settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation.  The settlement will not
affect the merger consideration to be received by Opnext
stockholders or the timing of the special meeting of Opnext
stockholders scheduled for July 17, 2012.

Additionally, as part of the settlement, Opnext has agreed to make
certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger.
The additional disclosures supplement the disclosure contained in
the joint proxy statement/prospectus which forms a part of the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Oclaro with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on June 13, 2012, and
mailed to Opnext's stockholders on or about June 15, 2012 (the
"Proxy Statement").


WILLIS GROUP: Compensation Class Suit Settlement Approved in Mar.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey federal court approved in March a settlement
resolving a contingent compensation class action against Willis
Group Holdings Public Limited Company, according to the Company's
May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Since August 2004, the Company and its subsidiary Hills Rogal &
Hobbs Company RH (along with various other brokers and insurers)
have been named as defendants in purported class actions in
various courts across the United States.  All of these actions
have been consolidated into a single action in the US District
Court for the District of New Jersey (MDL).  These actions allege
that the brokers breached their duties to their clients by
entering into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in
other improper activities.  Plaintiffs seek monetary damages,
including punitive damages, and certain equitable relief.  In May
2011, the majority of defendants, including the Company and HRH,
entered into a written settlement agreement with plaintiffs.  On
June 28, 2011, the Judge entered an Order granting preliminary
approval to the settlement agreement. Notice of the settlement was
sent to all members of the class and each member was given the
opportunity to opt out of the settlement and pursue its own
individual claim against any defendant. A total of 84 members of
the class have opted out of the settlement. A Fairness Hearing to
decide if the settlement should be given final approval took place
on September 14, 2011.  The Court approved the settlement on March
30, 2012.  The amount of the settlement paid by the Company and
HRH is immaterial and was previously reserved.

Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company --
http://www.willis.com/-- provides a range of insurance brokerage,
reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to its
clients worldwide.  The Company offers various insurance brokerage
services, including property damage, offshore construction,
liability, and control of well and pollution insurance to the
energy industry; and marine insurance and reinsurance brokerage
services consisting of hull, cargo, and general marine
liabilities.  The Company was founded in 1828 and is headquartered
in London, the United Kingdom.


WILLIS GROUP: Discrimination Suit Deal Payments Distributed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company disclosed in its May
10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, that payments
relating to a gender discrimination class action settlement it
negotiated were distributed as of the end of March 2012.

In December 2006, a purported class action was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging that the Company discriminated against female
officers and officer equivalent employees on the basis of their
gender and seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.  In January 2011, the Company reached a
settlement with plaintiffs that resolves all individual and class
claims.  The amount of this settlement is not material.  The Court
has given preliminary approval to the settlement.  As part of the
settlement, Willis of New York has agreed to implement certain
injunctive measures, including having an independent monitor
review compensation decisions for certain groups of employees
during the next three years.  On December 19, 2011, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement, and during the quarter
ended March 31, 2012, the settlement payments were distributed to
class members.

Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company --
http://www.willis.com/-- provides a range of insurance brokerage,
reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to its
clients worldwide.  The Company offers various insurance brokerage
services, including property damage, offshore construction,
liability, and control of well and pollution insurance to the
energy industry; and marine insurance and reinsurance brokerage
services consisting of hull, cargo, and general marine
liabilities.  The Company was founded in 1828 and is headquartered
in London, the United Kingdom.


WILLIS GROUP: 5th Cir. Rejects Rehearing Pleas for Remand Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied petitions
for rehearing en banc of orders for the remand of three lawsuits
against Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company and certain
of its affiliates relating to the collapse of The Stanford
Financial Group, according to Willis Group's May 10, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company has been named as a defendant in six similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for
which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on
certain lines of insurance.  The complaints in these actions
generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided
Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain
letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help
retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors.
The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain
statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the
defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted
material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford
promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

One of the six actions is the complaint captioned Troice, et al.
v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01274-N,
filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others.  On April 1,
2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action
Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide
class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant
and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs.  On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia,
that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA).

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N.  On August 31, 2011, the court
issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the decision
in Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N and on appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were
consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following
the completion of briefing and oral argument, on
March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the
actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed
petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions
for rehearing en banc were denied.

Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company --
http://www.willis.com/-- provides a range of insurance brokerage,
reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to its
clients worldwide.  The Company offers various insurance brokerage
services, including property damage, offshore construction,
liability, and control of well and pollution insurance to the
energy industry; and marine insurance and reinsurance brokerage
services consisting of hull, cargo, and general marine
liabilities.  The Company was founded in 1828 and is headquartered
in London, the United Kingdom.


ZAYO GROUP: Defends Class Suits Over AboveNet Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------
Zayo Group, LLC is defending class action lawsuits arising from
its acquisition of AboveNet, Inc., according to the Company's July
2, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On March 19, 2012, Zayo entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with AboveNet, Inc., a provider of
high-bandwidth connectivity solutions.  On July 2, 2012, the
AboveNet Acquisition was consummated, and Zayo acquired 100
percent of the outstanding capital stock of AboveNet in exchange
for a purchase price of approximately $2.2 billion in cash (net of
cash acquired).

On March 22, 2012, and March 28, 2012, two class actions on behalf
of the stockholders of AboveNet, respectively styled Raul v.
LaPerch, et al., Index. No. 54232/2012 (the "Raul Action"), and
Wachsler v. AboveNet Inc., et al., Index No. 54662/2012 (the
"Wachsler Action"), were filed in the Supreme Court for the State
of New York, County of Westchester.  On March 30, 2012, a class
action on behalf of the stockholders of AboveNet, styled Miramar
Firefighters Pension Fund v. AboveNet, Inc., Case No. 7376, was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Delaware action," and together with the Raul Action and the
Wachsler Action, the "Actions").  The Actions name as defendants
AboveNet, Zayo Group, LLC and the members of AboveNet's Board of
Directors, Jeffrey Brodsky, Michael J. Embler, William LaPerch,
Richard Postma, Richard Shorten, Jr. and Stuart Subotnick.  The
Raul Action and Delaware Action also name Voila Sub, Inc. as a
defendant.

The Actions allege that the members of AboveNet's Board of
Directors violated their fiduciary duties to AboveNet's
stockholders in connection with the Merger.  The Raul Action and
the Delaware Action further allege that AboveNet, Zayo Group, LLC
and Voila Sub, Inc. aided and abetted those purported breaches,
and the Wachlser Action further alleges that AboveNet and Zayo
Group, LLC aided and abetted those purported breaches.  On
April 17, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an
Amended Verified Class Action Complaint adding additional
allegations in support of their breach of fiduciary duty claims,
and on April 18, 2012, filed motions to expedite proceedings and
for a preliminary injunction.  On April 21, 2012, an Amended Class
Action Complaint was filed in the Raul Action.  On
April 27, 2012, the parties in the Raul Action and the Wachsler
Action filed stipulations providing that all further proceedings
related to the merger would take place in the Delaware action and
that the Raul Action and the Wachsler Action would be stayed
through and including June 20, 2012.  The stipulations also
provided that all motions filed in either action would be
adjourned.  The Court approved these stipulations on April 30,
2012.  On April 30, 2012, the defendants in the Delaware action
filed a stipulated order and case management schedule.  This order
reflects, among other things, the parties' agreement that the
defendants will provide certain limited discovery to the
plaintiffs. The Actions seek, among other things, an order
enjoining the Merger as well as unspecified damages.

The defendants deny the allegations in the Actions and intend to
defend the Actions vigorously.


* Hunstville Man Files Class Action Over Fuel Gel Fire Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shea Allen, writing for Waaytv.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed over fuel gel injuries.

They're called fire pots.  Ceramic bowls filled with a fuel gel
that burns with no smoke and leaves no mess.  The allure of
hassle-free patio decor was a big hit.  That is until reports
started coming in of the gel exploding, shooting scalding chemical
goo in all directions.

"They are sitting around the table, the entire family," says
attorney Eric Artrip of his client.  He says the family gathering
turned tragic when a freak accident left a Huntsville man with
third degree burns over much of his face and upper body.  He says
he isn't looking for fame and left it up to his attorney to tell
the story.

"The receptacle I guess goes out.  So his girlfriend refilled it.
When she refilled it apparently she had no idea it was still lit
nor did anyone else watching her refill it.  Then it exploded,"
says Mr. Artrip.

An investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission found
this wasn't an isolated incident.  Since the fuel gels hit shelves
in 2008, the agency has recorded 86 injuries and two deaths.

According to the CPSC, the product has a serious risk of flash
fire and burns when to consumers when they add pourable gel to an
already burning fire pot.  But according to Mr. Artrip, it's
impossible to tell if its still burning.

"The flames glow in a very faint hue.  It was impossible to tell
if it was lit or not because you had several people sitting around
the table all looking at the same thing and all saying that's out,
its safe to add more fuel," explains Mr. Artrip.

He says his client doesn't want anyone else to suffer.  He's filed
a class action lawsuit along with several other burn victims
against the manufacturers of the fire pots and fuel gel.

"His biggest goal was to get people to understand that this is
still out there and even though its been recalled and can't be
sold anymore, its still in people's homes," he says.

The CPSC says one of the biggest dangers is that gel fuel fires
are nearly impossible to put out.  Currently, the National
Association of State Fire Marshals is working on a bill that would
ban gel fuels and the fire pots that require them entirely.


* MINK FARMS: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Delaney, writing for Herald News, reports that opponents of
mink farming in Annapolis County are watching closely as a lawsuit
is proposed against the industry in neighboring counties.

Wagners law firm is investigating the viability of initiating a
class action over contamination caused by the fur industry in
Yarmouth and Digby counties.

"Wagners is presently accepting enquiries from residents of
Yarmouth County who have been affected by pollution resulting from
the mink farming industry in and around the Carleton, Meteghan and
Sissaboo River watersheds," the Halifax law firm says on its
website.

It offers a registration form to join the suit for anyone who
believes they have suffered any effects or losses from pollution.

A recent study by the provincial Environment Department and Acadia
Centre for Estuarine Research identified mink farms as the most
likely source of contamination in 10 lakes in western Nova Scotia,
particularly the Carleton, Meteghan and Sissiboo watersheds.

The lakes have been plagued by large algae blooms believed to be
caused by mink farm runoff.  They include Hourglass, Placides,
Porcupine, Parr, Ogden, Fanning, Sloans, Vaughan, Provost and
Nowlans lakes.

The blue-green algae is known to produce toxins that, at certain
levels, may be harmful to humans, wildlife and other animals,
including livestock.

"We're canvassing for interest," lawyer Raymond Wagner said in an
interview on July 11.  "Class action is all about numbers."

Environmental actions are difficult cases because of their
complexity, said Mr. Wagner, who specializes in serious injury
claims, having represented families of the Westray miners and
residents near the Sydney tar ponds.

He wouldn't reveal the number of complainants needed to initiate
the suit but estimated damages would have to be at least $1
million or more because the costs of hiring experts are so high.

"We have had some interest, but we need a larger mass in order to
be interested in pursuing it," said Mr. Wagner.  "We still haven't
hit that mark that we think is important for us to get to."

He said it's a troubling situation when pristine water systems are
becoming polluted to the point that people need to claim for
damages.

"The amount of money that is being generated in income and jobs in
the community (by the fur industry) is quite enormous," Mr. Wagner
said.  "Yet to have very little of it being focused on cleanup and
restoring the pristine lakes system is the most troubling part.

"There is a huge imbalance right now between development and the
lack of desire to be respectful to the environment.  This is a
very big industry . . . but, hopefully, the legacy it leaves over
time won't be an environmental catastrophe."

Colleen McGill is one of hundreds of people opposed to large-scale
development of mink farms in Annapolis County.

"I believe the folks there have had enough," Ms. McGill said in an
e-mail on July 11 about the pollution of rivers and waterways in
Yarmouth and Digby counties, where 85 per cent of the province's
mink industry is located.

The industry now exports more than 1.4 million pelts, worth $120
million annually, comprising 33 per cent of the province's total
agricultural exports.  Most are shipped to China and Russia, where
there is huge demand for mink fur.

Dan Mullen, president of the Nova Scotia Mink Breeders
Association, has said Annapolis County is a good place for the
industry to expand because of the large amount of unused farmland.

The province is expected to approve new regulations under its Fur
Industry Act this summer.  Mr. Mullen said they will address
concerns about manure handling and storage.  They will apply to
all new farms, while existing farms will have three years to
comply.

The Ecology Action Centre in Halifax and some residents say the
proposed regulations are not stringent enough.

There are five mink farms in Annapolis County.  Twenty permits
have been issued at five locations for new or expanded fur farms,
said county planner Albert Dunphy.

There are at least another 40 applications for permits to expand
or open new farms.


* ONLINE TRAVEL COS: City of Hiram to Join Tax Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Savannah Weeks, writing for NeighborNewspapers.com, reports that
the city of Hiram may earn excise taxes from online travel
companies, such as Expedia, Travelocity, Priceline and Orbitz,
after joining a class action excise tax lawsuit, according to
Hiram Mayor Doris Devey.

An excise tax is often referred to as an inland tax and is
considered an indirect tax, or in this case, a hotel-motel tax,
which was not paid when the rooms were booked online through the
travel companies.

The suit was brought by the city of Rome and Hart County.  Other
Georgia municipalities have since joined.

"We have four hotels here, but we're just joining in on it,"
Mr. Devey said.  "We don't know if we'll be affected by it or
not."

Hiram charges a 5 percent hotel-motel tax on checkout at hotels
and motels within its city limits.

The four hotels Mr. Devey referred to are the Best Western,
Country Inn and Suites, Sleep Inn and Hometown Lodge.

Hiram will receive taxes if Hiram hotel rooms were booked through
any of the online companies beginning in May 2011.

Mr. Devey said the city will not pay any attorney fees for joining
the lawsuit.

According to the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, the
court set a class action fairness hearing for Aug. 16 and ordered
that any city that did not wish to participate must opt out by
Aug. 9.

The partial settlement covers taxes from May 2011 forward only,
according to the Association.  The issue of back taxes owed from
as far back as 1999 is still being litigated.


* W.T. Johnson Team Settles Class Actions v. Two Insurance Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
The W.T. Johnson Team of nursing home abuse lawyers settled a
$900,000 dental insurance class action suit against two large
insurance companies in the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa
division, this spring.

The class action suit stemmed from the defendants improperly
marketing dental insurance policies to 1,600 Medicaid recipients
in nursing homes in Oklahoma, the case states.

As a result of the settlement, every claimant will get full
reimbursement of the money he or she spent on the dental insurance
policies.

"We do a lot of nursing home work," said David Crowe, attorney
with the W.T. Johnson team.  "This is the second nursing home
class action involving dental policies we've handled in Oklahoma.
Nursing home residents are among the most vulnerable in society
and they're often victimized because of it.  They were victims
here."

According to court documents, some of the nursing home residents
who bought the dental insurance didn't even have teeth, and many
were not even aware they had purchased the policies.  The policies
provided coverage that the patients already received under their
Medicaid plans.

Both defendants have ceased their operations in the state of
Oklahoma in the wake of the settlement.

The W.T. Johnson Law Firm is a team of personal injury and
consumer attorneys in Dallas, Texas.  The attorneys on the team
represent clients in cases involving nursing homes, car wrecks and
product liability, among others.

Court of Record: Northern Oklahoma District Court, Tulsa Division
Case Number: 10-CV-23-TCK-PJC

                           *********

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  * * *