CAR_Public/120718.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 18, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 141

                             Headlines

AUTOLIV INC: Sued Over Occupant Safety Restraint Systems' Prices
BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowners Sue Over Wrongful Account Practices
BANK OF AMERICA: Flood Insurance Class Action Can Proceed
BIRD BRAIN: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Gel Explosions
CIT GROUP: Awaits Final Court OK of Securities Suit Settlement

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Sued Over False Claims on Antibacterial Soap
DDI CORP: Inks MOU in Viasystems Merger-related Class Suits
DENSO CORP: Faces Suit Over Prices of Heater Control Panels
HEARST CORP: Unpaid Interns' Suit Gets Conditional Certification
J. ALEXANDER'S CORP: Awaits Approval of Deal in Ex-worker's Suit

KELLOGG CO: 9th Cir. Says Attorney Fees in Settlement Improper
KIT DIGITAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: July 19 Trial Set for Suit v. Sheriff
MICROSOFT: Sued for Overcharging Marketers for Pay-Per-Click Ads
NEW ENERGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.

NEW JERSEY: Six More Towns Face Class Suits Over Red-Light Cameras
OHIO: Settles Class Action Over Unclaimed Funds
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Trial in SSD Class Suit Set for May 28, 2013
PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Laid-Off Employee Files Class Action
PHARMAVITE LLC: Sued Over Misleading Nature Made Advertisement

PHARMAVITE LLC: Robbins Geller Files Consumer Fraud Class Action
PHARMERICA CORP: Shareholder Litigation Dismissed in May
REPUBLIC SERVICES: May Face Suit Over Newby Island Landfill Odors
TOSHIBA: Settles Class Action Over Alleged LCD Price-Fixing
TRIPLE-S MGMT: Still Awaits Order on Breach of Contract Claim

TRIPLE-S MGMT: Unit Continues to Defend Vehicle Owner Suits
UNIFIED LIFE: Dental Insurance Class Action Settled
UNITED STATES: Philippine Immigrant Files Class Action Over DOMA
UPPER CRUST: Judge Grants Class-Action Status to Overtime Suit
VISA INC: Merchant Law Group Sues Canadian Credit Card Cos.

WET SEAL: Black Employees File Race Discrimination Class Action
YAZAKI CORP: Accused of Fixing Instrument Panel Clusters' Prices
YAZAKI CORP: Accused of Rigging Bids for Prices of Fuel Senders


                          *********


AUTOLIV INC: Sued Over Occupant Safety Restraint Systems' Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Barron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Autoliv, Inc., Autoliv ASP, Inc., Autoliv B.V. & Co.
KG, Takata Corp., TK Holdings, Inc., Tokai Rika Co., Ltd., Tram,
Inc. d/b/a Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc., and TRW Automotive Holdings
Corp., Case No. 3:12-cv-03630 (N.D. Calif., July 11, 2012) accuses
the Defendants and their co-conspirators of forming an
international cartel illegally to restrict competition in the
automotive parts market, including the Occupant Safety Restraint
System market, specifically targeting and injuring indirect-
purchaser consumers and affecting billions of dollars of commerce
throughout the United States of America.

The conspiracy included communications and meetings in which the
Defendants agreed to eliminate competition and to rig bids for,
and to fix the prices of Occupant Safety Restraint Systems, Ms.
Barron alleges.  She asserts that as a result of the Defendants'
bid-rigging and price-fixing conduct, she and class members have
been injured in their business and property by paying more for
Occupant Safety Restraint Systems than they would otherwise have
paid in the absence of the Defendants' conspiracy.

Ms. Barron is a resident of California, who indirectly purchased
one or more Occupant Safety Restraint Systems manufactured and
sold by one or more of the Defendants during the Class Period.

Autoliv, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Stockholm, Sweden.  Autoliv ASP, Inc. is an Indiana
corporation with its principal place of business in
Ogden, Utah.  Autoliv B.V. is a German corporation with its
principal place of business in Elmshorn, Germany.  Autoliv ASP and
Autoliv B.V. are subsidiaries of Autoliv, Inc.  Tokai Rika is a
Japanese company with its principal place of business in Toyota,
Japan.  TRAM, Inc. is a Michigan Corporation with its principal
place of business in Plymouth, Michigan.  TRAM, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Tokai Rika.  TRW Automotive is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Livonia,
Michigan.  Takata Corp. is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan.  TK Holdings is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Auburn Hills, Michigan.  TK Holdings is a subsidiary of Takata
Corp.

All of the Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries,
manufactured, marketed and sold Occupant Safety Restraints that
were purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Sarah Crowley, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
                  adam@gba-law.com
                  sarah@gba-law.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowners Sue Over Wrongful Account Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that Bank of
America under-reports to the IRS its customers' tax-deductible
"deferred interest" mortgage payments by "millions, if not
billions, of dollars," to decrease its reportable income,
homebuyers say in a federal class action.

Named plaintiff Richard Horn claims Bank of America's intentional
misrepresentation prevents borrowers from filing correct tax
returns and getting the deductions they deserve.

Mr. Horn says he is "one of millions of consumers" who were hurt
"by BOA's wrongful accounting practices."

Mr. Horn, whose mortgage loan is serviced by Bank of America, says
he received inaccurate tax forms from the bank which, under-
reported the mortgage interest he paid in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by
more than $23,000.

Mr. Horn says his adjustable rate mortgage loan (ARM), one of
millions of such loans serviced by Bank of America, allows him to
make minimum monthly mortgage payments and defer some of the
interest due on the note, which is added to the loan balance.

"The issue presented in this action arises when the 'deferred
interest' is paid by the consumer, and how BOA then characterizes
those payments," the complaint states.  "Unlike other national
banks, BOA is not treating the consumers' payments of the
'deferred interest' or 'unpaid interest' as mortgage interest at
all. Rather BOA mischaracterizes these payments as a 'reduction of
principal.'  As a result, BOA knowingly and deliberately fails to
report the consumers' payment of 'deferred interest' as a payment
of 'mortgage interest' on the consumer's IRS Form 1098 BOA files
with the IRS."

Mr. Horn says Bank of America owns or services millions of
adjustable rate loans which are worth billions of dollars.
The bank took over most of those loans from other lenders, such as
Countrywide Financial, which BofA acquired for $4.1 billion in
2008, according to the complaint.

Mr. Horn says the bank makes a distinction between principal and
deferred interest on its monthly loan statements, but still treats
the deferred interest payments it receives as "a reduction in
principal."

He says he and other borrowers relied on the bank's tax forms and
did not deduct from their taxes the full amount of mortgage
interest they paid to BofA.

"Having first realized the under-reporting of mortgage interest by
BOA in March 2012, plaintiff contacted BOA about the discrepancy
in 'mortgage interest' payments on the IRS Form 1098 issued to him
by BOA," the complaint states.  "BOA informed plaintiff that the
$10,628 [2011] 'deferred interest' payments were a 'reduction in
principal' and therefore not reportable on IRS Form 1098 as
'mortgage interest.'  Plaintiff disagreed with this
characterization and requested a corrected IRS Form 1098. BOA
refused.

"As a result of BOA's mischaracterization of deferred interest
payments as principal reduction payments, plaintiff is informed
and believes, and thereon alleges that class members are and were
similarly affected by BOA's under-reporting of mortgage interest
and are and were deprived of the ability to adequately prepare
their tax forms and deduct from their taxes the full amount of
mortgage interest they paid to BOA in 2011."

Mr. Horn claims the bank filed hundreds of thousands, if not
millions of inaccurate tax forms, which under-reported borrowers'
mortgage interest payments.

He claims the bank "has engaged in this wrongful accounting
practice solely to benefit itself by reducing its public debt
exposure and to avoid reporting interest income and payment of
income taxes on such earned income."

He says other mortgage lenders with similar loans do report the
receipt of all mortgage interest paid to them.

Mr. Horn seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive
damages for breach of contract, negligence, negligent and
intentional misrepresentation and unfair business practices, and
wants the bank to issue corrected tax forms for the years for
which it failed to report all interest payments.

A copy of the Complaint in Horn v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No.
12-cv-01718 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/13/BofA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Vendler, Esq.
          MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
          1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 417-5100
          E-mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Brown, Esq.
          MICHAEL R. BROWN, APC
          18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1940
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 435-3888

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Poindexter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY D. POINDEXTER
          2580 Catamaran Way
          Chula Vista, CA 91914
          Telephone: (619) 271-2382


BANK OF AMERICA: Flood Insurance Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
On July 11, 2012, Judge Michael Simon of the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon issued a ruling that
permitted the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims to proceed in
a nationwide class action alleging that Bank of America improperly
force-placed high-premium flood insurance policies on homeowners
across the United States.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs Ronda and Larry Arnett allege that
Bank of America has a practice of force-placing flood insurance
coverage above the amounts required by borrowers' mortgage
contracts and by federal law.  Bank of America asked the Court to
dismiss the case, asserting that its mortgage contracts with
borrowers permit it to force-place high premium flood insurance
coverage in any amounts that it deems necessary.  The Court denied
Bank of America's motion to dismiss and decided that Plaintiffs'
claims alleging breach of contract and conversion of funds should
proceed to trial.

"When it comes to flood insurance, Bank of America and other
companies in the mortgage servicing industry have engaged in a
classic bait-and-switch, in which borrowers are informed of one
set of flood insurance requirements at closing and then, later,
Bank of America demands additional, unwarranted flood insurance
coverage," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of
the lead attorneys for the Plaintiffs.  "Through this scheme, Bank
of America has harmed tens of thousands of consumers by force-
placing excessive and unnecessary flood insurance at
extraordinarily high prices.  Moreover, each time Bank of America
force-places flood insurance policies on its borrowers it receives
a kickback from the flood insurance companies with whom Bank of
America has an exclusive relationship."

"All homeowners in the United States with mortgage loans serviced
by Bank of America who have been force-placed with flood insurance
policies are potentially affected by the Court's decision in this
case," added Brett Cebulash, another of the Plaintiffs' attorneys.
"By virtue of this decision, they will now have their day in
court."

A similar case, brought on behalf of Bank of America borrowers
with home equity lines of credit ("HELOCs"), that also alleges
abuses in the force-placement of flood insurance, has been brought
by the same group of plaintiffs' attorneys and is also pending
before Judge Simon in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon.

Borrowers who have been subjected to force-placed insurance
policies and customers of Bank of America who are potentially
affected by this decision can obtain additional information by
calling Shanon J. Carson, Esq. at (215) 875-4656 or Patrick F.
Madden, Esq. at (215) 875-3035, both of the law firm, Berger &
Montague, P.C.  Mr. Carson and Mr. Madden can also be contacted by
e-mail at scarson@bm.net or pmadden@bm.net

The Plaintiffs in this case, Arnett, et al. v. Bank of America,
N.A., Civil Action No. 11-cv-1372 (D. Or.), are represented by the
law firms of Berger & Montague, P.C., Taus Cebulash & Landau LLP,
and Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C.

Berger & Montague, P.C., based in Philadelphia, PA, consists of
over 60 attorneys who represent plaintiffs in complex and class
action litigation.

Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, based in New York City, specializes
in complex consumer and antitrust class action litigation.  Brett
Cebulash and Kevin Landau, the two TCL partners involved in this
matter have 35 years of combined experience in complex litigation
and can be reached at (212) 931-0704 or via e-mail at
bcebulash@tcllaw.com or klandau@tcllaw.com for more information.


BIRD BRAIN: Faces Class Action Over Fuel Gel Explosions
-------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lawson, writing for The Huntsville Times, reports that a
flash explosion from a small fire pot that badly burned a young
Madison man in May 2011 is the subject of a lawsuit filed in
federal court in Madison County.

The lawsuit filed on July 6 by Chris Kutsor and his father targets
the maker of a pourable fuel gel, the maker of the small fire pot
and two retailers who sold the products.

Fuel gel fires have injured at least 86 people in the U.S. and
caused two deaths since 2010, according to the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission.

In September 2011, the commission announced a voluntary recall of
gel fuels by nine manufacturers, including Michigan-based Bird
Brain Inc., which is named in the Kutsor lawsuit.  Fuel pots have
not been banned but federal regulators are in the midst of rule-
making that could lead to a ban, expanded warning requirements or
changes in manufacturing standards.

Mr. Kutsor had to be airlifted to the UAB burn center after the
May 29, 2011 fire, according to the lawsuit.  Mr. Kutsor's father
sued on behalf of his daughter, who has suffered severe emotional
distress from the incident, the lawsuit argues.

The lawsuit said Mr. Kutsor, his two brothers, his 12-year-old
sister and his girlfriend were using the fire pot "as instructed."
Mr. Kutsor's girlfriend saw the flame had gone out as the fuel gel
had been used up. She then added fuel gel to the pot.

"The Fuel Gel she was pouring ignited, causing a fuel gel flash
fire explosion which bathed Chris Kutsor with flaming Fuel Gel,"
the lawsuit said.  "The ignited gel hit Chris Kutsor in the neck,
chest and face. His shirt, skin and hair immediately caught fire."
Mr. Kutsor's sister was standing next to him and drops of flaming
fuel gel just missed her, the suit said, and she narrowly missed
being injured.

"While his family attempted to rip the burning shirt from him,
Chris Kutsor ran into the kitchen where his mother, Robin Kutsor,
attempted to extinguish his burning hair, face, neck and chest
with water," the lawsuit said.

An ambulance responded to the scene and then took Mr. Kutsor a
short distance to an area with enough space to allow a helicopter
to land and transport him to UAB's burn center.

Regulators said the burning gel sticks to the skin and is
difficult to extinguish.  The classic "stop, drop and roll
technique," also doesn't work in such cases because patting the
flaming gel spreads the burning surface.  The commission reports
recommend use of a dry powder or dry chemical fire extinguisher.
The Kutsors' attorney, Eric Artrip, said Chris Kutsor was "a
really lucky young man."

"He was pretty severely burned, but he is still with us,"
Mr. Artrip said.  "Obviously he has some residual scarring, but at
the end of the day, we're just glad he made it.  It was a pretty
horrific day for their family, they were all basically standing
right there."

"His little sister probably has as many residual effects as he
does."

The lawsuit argues the fuel gel and fuel pot, which was shaped
like a turtle, were defective and unreasonably dangerous and carry
"an extremely high risk of combustion which exposes users,
including Plaintiffs, to serious injury and illness."

The lawsuit argues the products don't have adequate warning labels
and that defendants knew about fuel gel explosions before the
Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a warning about possible
safety risks in June 2011.

The gel is designed to be poured into a pot, often a metal cup
inside a small decorative form.

Injuries have most often occurred, regulators say, when someone is
refueling a pot that has recently been in use and appears to have
burned out.

But the flame can be difficult to see and vapors from inside the
gel container can be ignited by the flame, causing an explosion.
The lawsuit filed by the Kutsors names gel manufacturer Bird Brain
Inc. and Missouri-based fire pot maker Gerson Company.  The suit
also names Big Lots, which sold the fuel gel, and TJX, the parent
company of Marshalls, T.J. Maxx and HomeGoods, which sold the fire
pot.

TJX said it had not seen the lawsuit and does not comment on
litigation, Gerson also said they had not seen the lawsuit.  Big
Lots and Bird Brain did not respond to messages seeking comment.

According to WAAYTV.com's Shea Allen, an investigation by the CPSC
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 to consumers when they add pourable gel to an
already burning fire pot.  But according to Mr. Artrip, it's
impossible to tell if it's 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,
it's 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 it's been recalled and can't be
sold anymore, it's 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 are working on a bill that
would ban gel fuels and the fire pots that require them entirely.


CIT GROUP: Awaits Final Court OK of Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIT Group, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of a settlement
agreement resolving two class action complaints, 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 July and August 2008, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of CIT's pre-reorganization stockholders against
CIT, its former CEO and its former CFO. In August 2008, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed in the SDNY by a holder of CIT-PrZ
equity units against CIT, its former CEO, former CFO, former
Controller and certain members of its current and former Board of
Directors. In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three
shareholder actions into a single action (the Securities
Litigation) and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as Lead
Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which consists of all
acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred stock from
December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were
damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant
to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock.
In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.  Specifically, it is alleged
that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller,
and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act
by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
CIT's subprime home lending and student lending businesses. The
allegations relating to the Company's home lending business are
based on the assertion that the Company failed to fully disclose
the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime mortgage loans.
The allegations relating to the Company's student lending business
are based upon the assertion that the Company failed to account in
its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred
stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for
private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school,
which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should
have been written off. The Lead Plaintiff also alleged that the
Company, its former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and
those current and former Directors of the Company who signed the
registration statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ
preferred offering violated the 1933 Act by making false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's student lending
business.

Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT
Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the Securities
Litigation as a result of its discharge in bankruptcy. On June 10,
2010, the SDNY denied the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint. In February 2012, the parties
to the Securities Litigation agreed to the terms of a settlement.
The Settlement Agreement has been granted preliminary approval by
the SDNY.  Notice of the settlement is being provided to the class
members.  A final fairness hearing on the settlement is scheduled
before the SDNY in June 2012.  In light of the Company's insurance
coverage and existing reserves, the settlement will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Sued Over False Claims on Antibacterial Soap
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Dinan, writing for Seacostonline.com, reports that the
Colgate-Palmolive company misled consumers by falsely claiming its
Softsoap Antibacterial products are more effective at killing
germs than ordinary soap, while failing to tell users an active
ingredient could create antibiotic-resistant bacteria and may
cause cancer when mixed with chlorine in tap water, according to a
class-action suit assigned to a U.S. District Court of New
Hampshire judge.

"Colgate's claims about Softsoap Antibacterial's effectiveness and
superiority are false, deceptive, unfair and unconscionable," the
suit alleges.

By making the false claims, according to the federal suit,
Colgate-Palmolive "did induce" consumers to pay more than they
otherwise would for hand soap, "resulting in millions of dollars
of revenue" for the company.

Assigned to the state's federal court on June 21, the suit claims
damages to users exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and
costs, and that everyone who bought a Softsoap Antibacterial
product has been exposed to "material misrepresentations and/or
omissions" by the company's advertising.

Attorney Lucy Karl, of the Concord law firm Shaheen and Gordon, is
lead counsel for named Softsoap users who claim they bought the
soap because of Colgate's "false and misleading" advertising. The
plaintiffs currently include Softsoap users from California,
Florida, Illinois, Nevada and New Jersey, and if they prevail,
anyone who used the product would be eligible to file a claim.

"Colgate's omissions and representations about the greater
effectiveness and special health benefits of Softsoap
Antibacterial, however, are deceptive and misleading and Colgate
has taken no meaningful steps to correct consumer misconceptions
regarding the product," the suit alleges.  "Colgate's exhaustive
advertising campaign builds on this deception."

Representing Colgate are lawyers from across the country and,
according to court records, at one time included attorney David
Anderson of the Portsmouth law firm of Pierce Atwood.  Mr.
Anderson did not return messages seeking his comment on July 12.

Also not returning messages were Colgate's lead counsel Shon
Morgan from California, attorney Jill Garcia from Nevada and
California attorney Margaret Caruso.  Stephanie Clark, from
Colgate's media relations department, said on July 12 that it's
the company's policy to not comment on pending litigation.

Colgate has an Aug. 10 deadline to respond to the class-action
suit, which alleges the company advertised Softsoap Antibacterial
products as "clinically proven to eliminate 99% of germs your
family encounters," "kills 99% of common germs," is "dermatologist
tested," offers "antibacterial protection" and is "America's most
trusted hand soap."

"In fact, Colgate's product was never clinically proven to provide
any benefit greater than provided by using conventional soap,"
according to the lawsuit.

Colgate spent "millions of dollars to convey the deceptive
messages," while elevating the product "to the number one seller
in the antibacterial hand soap product category," the complaint
alleged.

Setting Softsoap apart from ordinary soaps, the suit claims, is
the addition of triclosan, which "can function as an antibacterial
and antifungal agent in certain circumstances."  However,
according to the suit, the Federal Drug Administration reported in
April 2010 that there's "no evidence that soap containing
triclosan is superior to soap without the ingredient."

Further, the suit alleges, triclosan "alters hormone regulation in
animals (indicating) it may contribute to making bacteria
resistant to antibiotics."

First marketed as an herbicide, triclosan is registered by the
federal Environmental Protection Agency as a pesticide, and
"reports have suggested that triclosan can combine with chlorine
in tap water to form chloroform," which is a "probable human
carcinogen," the suit alleges.

Studies by several scientific and medical groups are cited in the
lawsuit and point to data stating there are no benefits and
possible adverse effects from using antibacterial hand soap.  The
suit also quotes U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., urging a ban on
many applications of triclosan, stating, "consumers, especially
parents, need to know that many of these products are not only
ineffective, they may also be dangerous."

In 2008 and 2009, the suit alleges, Colgate published annual
reports acknowledging "that use of triclosan presented a risk."
Despite that, the company continued an "aggressive, uniform
marketing scheme" claiming Softsoap was "clinically proven to
eliminate 99% of germs your family encounters."

Images included in the lawsuit show bottles of Softsoap with
labels making the 99 percent germ-killing claim, while images on
Colgate's Web site on July 12 show bottles without the claim.

The class action suit alleges Colgate violated consumer protection
laws and breached "express warranty" and "implied warranty," and
that the company was unjustly enriched.  It also petitions the
court for a jury trial and the case has been assigned to U.S.
District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro.

A federal judicial panel assigned the case to Judge Barbadoro,
citing his experience with the Tyco Securities case, while noting
he "has the experience to guide this new (class-action suit) on a
prudent course."

Ms. Karl said on July 12 that advertising for other plaintiffs who
used the products, but are not named in the current lawsuit, is "a
long way down the road."

Ms. Karl also said she does not use antibacterial products.


DDI CORP: Inks MOU in Viasystems Merger-related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
DDi Corp. disclosed in a May 16, 2012 Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on May 15, 2012, it
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs and
other named defendants regarding the settlement of class action
litigation filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County, and in the Delaware Court of Chancery, as well the
settlement of all related claims that were or could have been
asserted, in response to the announcement of the execution of an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 3, 2012, by and
among DDi, Viasystems Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
Victor Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Viasystems.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will merge with and into DDi, and DDi will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Viasystems.

Under the terms of the MOU, DDi, the other defendants and the
plaintiffs have agreed in principle to settle the Litigation.
After the parties enter into a definitive stipulation of
settlement, the proposed settlement will be subject to Court
approval. If approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the
settlement will result in a release of the defendants from all
claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect
of or otherwise relating to the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or
the disclosures made in connection therewith, and that the
Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms
of the MOU, DDi has agreed to make available additional
information to its stockholders. The additional information is
contained in the Company's Form 8-K and should be read in
conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which should be read in its
entirety. Defined terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement. In return, the
plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Litigation with
prejudice and to withdraw and/or refrain from filing any and all
motions seeking to enjoin or otherwise challenging the Merger. In
addition, the MOU contemplates that plaintiffs' counsel will
petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in
an amount not to exceed $600,000 to be paid by DDi or its insurers
or successors. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

A copy of the Form 8-K filing is available at http://is.gd/li8lEn


DENSO CORP: Faces Suit Over Prices of Heater Control Panels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Barron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Denso Corporation and Denso International America
Inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-03629 (N.D. Calif., July 11, 2012) accuses
the Defendants of being part of a long-running conspiracy of
rigging bids for and fixing, raising, maintaining and stabilizing
prices of automobile parts, including Heater Control Panels that
were sold indirectly to her and other indirect purchasers
throughout the United States of America.

As a result of the Defendants' bid-rigging and price-fixing
conduct, she and class members have been injured in their business
and property by paying more for Heater Control Panels they would
otherwise have paid in the absence of Defendants' conspiracy, Ms.
Barron contends.  She asserts that the Defendants' conspiracy has
resulted in an adverse monetary effect on the class members.

Ms. Barron is a resident of California, who indirectly purchased
one or more Heater Control Panels manufactured and sold by one or
more of the Defendants during the Class Period.

Denso Corp., a Japanese corporation, directly and through its
subsidiaries manufactured, marketed and sold Heater Control Panels
that were purchased throughout the United States.  Denso
International, a Delaware corporation, is a subsidiary of
Denso Corp.  Denso International manufactured, marketed and sold
Heater Control Panels that were purchased throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Sarah Crowley, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
                  adam@gba-law.com
                  sarah@gba-law.com


HEARST CORP: Unpaid Interns' Suit Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled on July 12 that a federal
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuit filed on behalf of all
unpaid interns who worked in Hearst's Magazines division since
February 2009 can go forward as a collective action.

The class action complaint, filed by Outten & Golden LLP on
Feb. 2, 2012, on behalf of Xuedan Wang, a former Harper's Bazaar
intern, accuses Hearst of illegally failing to pay interns for
their work and taking unlawful deductions by requiring interns to
purchase academic credit as a condition of employment.  Ms. Wang
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and sometimes as
many as 55 hours per week, without compensation.

The Court made a preliminary determination that unpaid interns at
Hearst are "similarly situated" because Hearst made a uniform
determination that they are not "employees," required them to
submit college credit letters, and used them to perform entry-
level work with little supervision.

The Court's Order means that interns who worked for Hearst
Magazines within the past three years will soon receive a Court-
authorized notice of the lawsuit and information about how to join
it to protect their rights under federal law.

The Court also rejected Hearst's argument that the case could not
be certified as a class action under the New York Labor Law,
explaining that Hearst's arguments were "premature."  At a later
phase in the litigation, Outten & Golden will ask the Court to
certify a New York Labor Law class of unpaid interns who have
worked for Hearst since Feb. 2, 2006.

Rachel Bien -- rmb@outtengolden.com -- of Outten & Golden LLP,
said, "We are pleased that the Court agreed that this case should
move forward to the merits and that interns deserve to be notified
about the lawsuit and have the chance to join it."

The case is Xuedan Wang v. The Hearst Corporation, in the Southern
District of New York, Class Action Complaint No. 12 Civ. 0793.

Outten & Golden also has filed two other lawsuits on behalf of
unpaid interns, Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc., No. 11
Civ. 6784 (S.D.N.Y.), which is in discovery, and Bickerton v.
Charles Rose and Charlie Rose, Inc., No. Index No. 650780/2012
(N.Y. Supreme), which was recently filed.

Pleadings and related documents for Outten & Golden LLP's intern
cases are available at: http://www.unpaidinternslawsuit.com

Attorney Contacts: Rachel Bien and Elizabeth Wagoner, Outten &
Golden LLP, New York, 212.245.1000, http://www.outtengolden.com


J. ALEXANDER'S CORP: Awaits Approval of Deal in Ex-worker's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Alexander's Corporation is awaiting a court approval of a
settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by a former employee,
according to the Company's May 16, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended April 1, 2012.

In February 2012, the Company agreed to a settlement of a lawsuit
captioned Dionne Michelle Williams-Green v. J. Alexander's
Restaurants, Inc., pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The settlement is subject to
court approval. The case was filed by a former hourly employee of
the Company in Illinois and was later certified as a class action
on a claim that the Company's tip share pool in two restaurants
was invalid.  During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company
accrued an estimate of the amount it believes will be necessary to
settle this claim.


KELLOGG CO: 9th Cir. Says Attorney Fees in Settlement Improper
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the proposed
settlement of a class action against Kellogg Company for falsely
advertising that Frosted Mini Wheats improve kids' attention in
school is light on details and improperly awards attorneys $2
million, or $2,100 per hour, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit ruled on July 13.

"Not even the most highly sought after attorneys charge such rates
to their clients," wrote Judge Stephen Trott in a unanimous ruling
vacating the $10.6 million deal.

Kellogg agreed to settle after being hit with one class action in
California and threatened with another in Ohio.  The plaintiffs
argued that the company made misleading and scientifically suspect
assertions in a 2008 advertising campaign that said school-age
children could improve their attentiveness by nearly 20 percent by
eating Frosted Mini Wheats for breakfast.  Kellogg eventually
agreed to refund class members between $5 and $15 each (out of a
fund of $2.75 million), and to pay more than $5 million to
unspecified charities that provide food to the poor.  The company
also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys $2 million for 944.5
hours of work on the case.

Presiding U.S. District Judge Irma Gonzalez approved the
settlement in San Diego, despite objections filed by two class
members.

Finding the $5 million cy pres award vague and the attorney fees
excessive, the federal appeal court in Pasadena rejected the
settlement and remanded the action.

"At oral argument, Kellogg's counsel frequently asserted that
donating food to charities who feed the indigent relates to the
underlying class claims because this case is about 'the
nutritional value of food,'" Judge Trott wrote.  "With respect,
that is simply not true, and saying it repeatedly does not make it
so.  The complaint nowhere alleged that the cereal was unhealthy
or lacked nutritional value.  And no law allows a consumer to sue
a company for selling cereal that does not improve attentiveness.
The gravamen of this lawsuit is that Kellogg advertised that its
cereal did improve attentiveness."

The money should go to charities "dedicated to protecting
consumers from, or redressing injuries caused by, false
advertising," according to the panel.

Noting that, had the plaintiffs' attorneys charged on an hourly
basis, the fees would have come to $459,000, rather than $2
million, the panel found the award "extremely generous to
counsel."

"Class counsel and Kellogg ask us for the impossible -- a verdict
before the trial," Judge Trott wrote "They essentially say, 'Just
trust us.  Uphold the settlement now, and we'll tell you what it
is later.'  But that is not how appellate review works.  The
settlement provides no assurance that the charities to whom the
money and food will be distributed will bear any nexus to the
plaintiff class or to their false advertising claims and therefore
violates our well-established standards governing cy pres awards.
Moreover, the attorneys' fees are impermissibly high considering
what the defective settlement provides the class.  The District
Court's contrary conclusions were an abuse of discretion."

A copy of the Opinion in Dennis, et al. v. Kellogg Company, Case
No. 09-cv-01786 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/ceDDDB


KIT DIGITAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross has filed a securities class
action against KIT Digital Inc. and certain of its officers. The
class action (12 Civ. 5446), filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, is on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased KIT securities between November 9, 2011
and May 2, 2012, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages caused by the Company's violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased KIT securities during the
Class Period, you have until July 25, 2012 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

KIT is a global provider of on-demand, Internet Protocol (IP)-
based video asset management solutions.  The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, the Company made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts that: (i) the Company lacked appropriate financial
personnel with understanding of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles to ensure proper financial reporting; (ii) the Company
overstated the effectiveness of its integration of acquired
companies; (iii) the Company failed to report the true costs of
several of its acquisitions, including the cost of proper
administration and integration into the Company; (iv) the Company
had materially overstated its foreseeable growth and
profitability; (v) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (vi) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 23, 2012, the Company disclosed the resignation of its
Chief Executive Officer and four directors from its Board of
Directors including the independent director who resigned "because
of differences of opinion with other members of the Board over
issues related to the Company's operations, policies and
management."  On this news, KIT shares fell $1.82 per share or
22%, to close at $6.33 per share on March 23, 2012.

On May 2, 2012, The Wall Street Journal published an article that
concluded that KIT former Chief Executive Officer Kaleil Tuzman
had "left a mess" at the Company, which the new Chief Executive
Officer "may have a tough time cleaning up."  On this news, KIT
securities fell $1.92 per share or more than 30%, to close at
$4.42 per share on May 3, 2012.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York and Chicago,
concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities,
and antitrust class litigation.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: July 19 Trial Set for Suit v. Sheriff
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a trial on a
class action accusing Sheriff Joe Arpaio of racial profiling will
begin Thursday, July 19, nearly 4 years after it was filed in
Federal Court.

The trial against Mr. Arpaio, his Sheriff's Office and Maricopa
County is expected to last 6 days.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow ruled in December that the
lawsuit could proceed to trial as a class action that includes all
"Latino persons who, since January 2007, have been or will be in
the future, stopped, detained, questioned or searched by MCSO
agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway
or parking area in Maricopa County."

The five lead plaintiffs were detained by sheriff's deputies
during "so-called 'crime suppression sweeps.'"

"During these sweeps, which have shown no signs of abating since
defendants began them in September 2007, large numbers of MCSO
officers and volunteer 'posse' members under defendants' direction
and control have targeted Latino persons for investigation of
immigration status, using pretextual and unfounded stops, racially
motivated questioning, searches and other mistreatment, and often
baseless arrests," the amended class action states.  "Defendants'
pattern and practice of racial profiling goes beyond these sweeps
to include widespread, day-to-day targeting and mistreatment of
persons who appear to be Latino."

The plaintiffs claim "Arpaio participated in the authorization,
planning and supervision" of his deputies, and that he is
"responsible for recruiting, training, supervising and managing
members of the MCSO's volunteer 'posse' that have carried out
defendants' policies and practices."

Mr. Arpaio, up for re-election in November, first took office in
1993.

The class seeks an injunction to stop the Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office from exceeding its authority, and from engaging
in racial discrimination.

This class action is one of more than 200 complaints against
Mr. Arpaio in the Courthouse News database.

A copy of the First Amended Complaint in Melendres, et al. v.
Arpaio, et al., Case No. 07-cv-02513 (D. Ariz.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/13/ArpaioCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Bodney, Esq.
          Peter S. Kozinets, Esq.
          Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, Esq.
          Isaac P. Hernandez, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          Collier Center
          201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2382
          E-mail: dbodney@steptoe.com
                  pkozinets@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Daniel Pochoda, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
          P.O. Box 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148
          Telephone: 602 650-1854

               - and -

          Robin Goldfaden, Esq.
          Monica M. Ramirez, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0770

               - and -

          Kristina M. Campbell, Esq.
          Nancy Ramirez, Esq.
          MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
          South Spring Street, 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 629-2512 x136


MICROSOFT: Sued for Overcharging Marketers for Pay-Per-Click Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Microsoft has
been hit with a potential class-action lawsuit for allegedly
overcharging marketers for pay-per-click ads.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on July 11 by
Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, stems from ads that Microsoft
allegedly served on "parked domain" and "errors" pages.  Web users
tend to reach those sites by accident, after mistyping the
addresses of sites they intend to visit.

Lane's Gifts says in its complaint that it agreed to pay up to 30
cents per click when the company appeared in search results, which
are displayed to users based on their queries.  But the company
says it agreed to a maximum of just 5 cents per click when ads
appear in sites within the "content network" -- where Microsoft
serves ads that match keywords in a page's content.

Lane's Gifts alleges that it was charged the higher search-results
price for ads that were served on parked domains and error pages.
The company says it should have been charged the content-network
rate for those ads.  Lane's Gifts also alleges that Microsoft
misreported content-network ads as search ads.

Lane's Gifts is seeking to represent a class of all search
marketers who were "charged an amount higher than the advertiser's
maximum bid."

The Texarkana, Ark.-based marketer doesn't say how much money it
believes it lost, due to alleged overcharging. Lawyers for the
company didn't respond to telephone calls by Online Media Daily.

A Microsoft spokesperson said: "We became aware of this complaint
yesterday and look forward to examining the claims."

This lawsuit isn't Lane's Gifts first battle with a search engine.
The company also brought a class-action case against Google for
click fraud. That matter settled for $90 million in 2006.

Since then, Web companies have won some favorable rulings in
lawsuits about pay-per-click ads.  Earlier this year, a federal
judge ruled that search marketers couldn't proceed as a class in a
lawsuit against Google stemming from its parked domains and errors
program.  In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila
ruled that the marketers' claims required individualized
assessments.

Likewise, Facebook recently defeated a bid for class-action status
in a lawsuit by pay-per-click marketers who allege they were
overcharged.  The marketers in that case recently asked the 9th
Circuit for permission to appeal.

Marketers that are denied class-action status can still pursue
individual litigation, but the costs of doing so often are
prohibitive.


NEW ENERGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against New Energy
Systems Group remains pending in a New York court, according to
the Company's May 16, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.

In February 2012, two separate securities class action complaints
were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors. The complaints alleged that the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to
state material facts that rendered its affirmative statements
misleading as they related to the Company's financial performance,
business prospects, and financial condition, and that the
defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued or
corrected, during a putative class period between April 15, 2010
and November 14, 2011. The complaints seek, among other relief,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. On May 10, 2012, the
Court consolidated the two complaints for all purposes under the
caption In re New Energy Systems Group Sec. Litig., and appointed
a lead plaintiff.  The Company believes it is likely that a
consolidated amended complaint will be filed shortly. The Company
has not yet responded to either complaint, but the Company
believes that the lawsuit has no merit and intends to vigorously
defend against it. While certain legal defense costs may be later
reimbursed by the Company's insurance carrier, no reasonable
estimate of any impact of the outcome of the litigation or related
legal fees on the financial statements can be made as of the date
of this statement.


NEW JERSEY: Six More Towns Face Class Suits Over Red-Light Cameras
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Osborne, writing for Philly.com, reports that class-action
litigation over New Jersey's red-light cameras has expanded to six
more cities and towns and could grow in the weeks ahead.

Marlton lawyer Joseph A. Osefchen has filed suits in Glassboro,
Monroe Township, Newark, Edison, Stratford, and Woodbridge in the
last 10 days contending that motorists were illegally fined for
running red lights after municipal traffic officials failed to
complete required inspections of the cameras and intersections.

Mr. Osefchen filed his first such lawsuit last month in Cherry
Hill.

"I've probably heard from more than a hundred motorists since
then," Mr. Osefchen said on July 12.  "Nineteen municipalities had
their red-light-camera permits revoked [by the state], and I plan
to sue every one of them."

The litigation follows a decision by the state Department of
Transportation last month to suspend its five-year red-light-
camera pilot program in all but six of 25 participating
municipalities until timing of the lights and cameras was found to
meet state law.

Municipalities have until Aug. 1 to certify that the cameras meet
state standards.  But a conflict between state traffic law and
pilot-program requirements regarding the length of the amber light
could force many cameras to be removed, said transportation
spokesman Tim Greeley.

By state regulation, traffic signals are timed to the speed limit.
But under terms of the pilot, approved by the Legislature in 2008,
lights are timed solely according to the flow of traffic.  Were
the speed of 85 percent of the vehicles passing through the
intersection above the speed limit, the camera would have to be
removed, Mr. Greeley said.

"We're not retiming any signals," he said.

New Jersey's red-light cameras have been a source of controversy
since the state launched the pilot in 2009.  The program has been
lucrative for municipalities, but it has hit car owners with
tickets that attorneys contend are unconstitutional and difficult
to challenge.

A recent Inquirer report showed that six municipalities in Camden
and Gloucester Counties had collected a total of $9.5 million in
fines since 2010.

In Glassboro, according to the lawsuit, the amber phase of a
traffic signal at one intersection with a red-light camera was two
seconds short of state traffic laws, catching untold numbers of
motorists unfairly.

Glassboro Solicitor Timothy Scaffidi declined to comment on July
12.  Officials from other municipalities did not return phone
calls for comment.  Two companies that installed and maintained
the cameras, Red Flex and American Traffic Solutions, both in
Arizona, also have been named in the suits filed on behalf of
motorists.

A spokesman for Traffic Solutions said in an e-mail on July 12
that the company's cameras had met all state requirements and
"been approved by the Department of Transportation." Red Flex did
not return a request for comment.

Under terms of the pilot, municipalities were required to conduct
traffic-flow studies to ensure proper timing of the signal.  An
engineer was to recheck the timing and report to the state every
six months.

The lawsuits contend that did not happen and have demanded that
the municipalities refund fines collected since the program began.

That could be a financial blow to towns, which are racing to get
their red-light cameras recertified.  State officials have turned
off red-light cameras at 63 of the 85 intersections included in
the pilot program.

Cherry Hill Deputy Solicitor Erin Gill said the township already
had considered cutting its revenue projection for next year based
on the loss of the fines.

"We're hoping," she said, "to get our lights turned back on soon."


OHIO: Settles Class Action Over Unclaimed Funds
-----------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the state of Ohio says a
tentative settlement in a lawsuit over interest earned on Ohioans'
unclaimed funds is worth up to $15 million.

The Ohio Department of Commerce collects money from dormant bank
accounts, forgotten rent deposits and other sources and invests
the money until the owners are found.  A judge previously ruled
that any interest earned must be paid out to residents who have
collected their money.

The department says people who have collected such funds since
Aug. 3, 2000, are eligible for interest under the settlement in
the class action lawsuit. That doesn't apply if the interest owed
is less than $5.

Attorney fees would be deducted from the $15 million available for
the settlement.

It still must be approved by a court.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Trial in SSD Class Suit Set for May 28, 2013
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date of May 28, 2013, has been set in a purported class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to OCZ Technology
Group, Inc.'s July 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31,
2012.

On March 24, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California San Jose Division alleging that certain of OCZ's solid
state drives ("SSDs") sold after January 1, 2011, did not meet
certain performance criteria and as a result OCZ engaged in
certain deceptive practices and violated various laws.  Among
other things, the lawsuit seeks unspecified actual and
compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement, and injunctive and other equitable relief.  On
May 18, 2011, OCZ filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint,
or alternatively, to Strike Certain Allegations.  The Motion was
granted in part and denied in part on October 4, 2011.  On
November 18, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and, on
December 20, 2011, the Company again filed a Motion to Dismiss or
Alternatively to Strike Certain Allegations.

The Motion was granted in part and denied in part on June 6, 2012.
The June 6, 2012 ruling limited plaintiff's claims to the single
product he purchased.  Additionally, plaintiffs were given leave
to file a second amended complaint, which was due on
June 28, 2012, but no such filing was made.  A class certification
hearing is tentatively set for late 2012 (assuming the plaintiff
moves for certification and depending upon when the plaintiff does
so); as of June 25, 2012, plaintiff has not so moved.  A trial
date of May 28, 2013, has been set.

As of May 31, 2012, the Company says it has not recognized this
contingency within the financial statements presented as OCZ
believes the complaint has no merit and OCZ intends to vigorously
defend itself against this litigation.


PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Laid-Off Employee Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a Peregrine
Financial Corp. worker in Chicago has filed a lawsuit against the
company, claiming that he was among "300 or so" employees laid off
last week without 60 days' written notice.

Lawyers for Ronald Kotulak, who worked at Peregrine offices at 311
W. Monroe St. in Chicago until he was let go on July 9, couldn't
be reached for immediate comment on whether the 300 layoffs
occurred at Peregrine operations in the Chicago area or in
Peregrine's headquarters in Cedar Falls, Iowa.

Under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act, an employer must give at least 60 days' notice of
terminations under certain circumstances, such as when more than
50 workers are let go or at least a third of a workforce at a
facility.

Peregrine filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy July 10 in a U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Illinois.  The
complaint was also filed here.  Peregrine founder Russell
Wasendorf Sr. attempted suicide at the company's headquarters, and
the business is also being sued by regulators who say there's a
$200 million shortfall in customer accounts.

Mr. Kotulak said in the suit, which seeks class-action status,
that he and other workers seek to recover 60 days' wages and
benefits from the time they were fired on July 9.


PHARMAVITE LLC: Sued Over Misleading Nature Made Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bilal Elsakka, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Pharmavite LLC, Otsuka America, Inc. and Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Case No. 4:12-cv-03645 (N.D. Calif.,
July 12, 2012) seeks redress for the Defendants' false, deceptive,
and misleading advertising of approximately five dozen of their
popular dietary supplements, Nature Made(R).

The labels and ingredient lists in approximately 60 of the
Defendants' Supplements fail to indicate that the Supplements
contain animal-based ingredients, Mr. Elsakka asserts.  He
contends that the Defendants' Supplements at issue in the action
contain pork or beef gelatin.  He argues that the Defendants'
deception has more serious consequences for certain members of the
Class, such as practicing members of the Muslim and Jewish faiths,
who believe that consuming pork or pork by-products, which are
considered by them to be "impure," is a serious sin.

Mr. Elsakka is a resident of Santa Clara County, California.  He
is a practicing Muslim, and adheres to certain dietary
restrictions pursuant to which he does not consume, among other
things, animal-based gelatin, pork or pork by-products.  He has
purchased the Defendants' Nature Made(R) Supplements.

Pharmavite is a limited liability company organized under the laws
of the state of California, with its headquarters in Northridge,
California.  Pharmavite manufactures, markets and sells, inter
alia, Nature Made(R) Supplements.  Pharmavite is wholly owned by
Otsuka America, a Delaware corporation, and Otsuka Pharmaceutical,
a Japanese company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          Christopher Martins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (661) 750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmartins@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Muniza Bawaney, Esq.
          Rishi V. Vohra, Esq.
          LAW FIRST LLC
          30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 860-3755
          Facsimile: (312) 753-5066
          E-mail: mbawaney@lawfirst.com
                  rvohra@lawfirst.com


PHARMAVITE LLC: Robbins Geller Files Consumer Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Law First LLC have filed an
important consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the
manufacturers of the popular Nature Made(R) vitamins and
supplements, after an extensive pre-suit investigation revealed
that dozens of Nature Made(R) supplements contain pork gelatin,
notwithstanding what is stated on the product labels.  The lawsuit
seeks damages from named defendants Pharmavite LLC, Otsuka
America, Inc. and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., an injunction
against continued false advertising and marketing by the
defendants, and various other forms of relief.

The complaint alleges that more than 120 different Nature Made(R)-
brand dietary supplement products are distributed in the United
States and around the globe, and Nature Made(R) has become
America's best selling supplement brand over the last seven years.
However, approximately 60 different Nature Made(R) supplements
contain an ingredient that is not listed on the label: gelatin, a
mixture of peptides and proteins produced by the extraction of
collagen from the skin, boiled crushed bones, connective tissues,
organs, and intestines of animals such as domesticated cattle,
chicken and pigs.

According to the complaint, Nature Made(R) has become the
supplement leader by making numerous "promises" and "guarantees"
of "transparency," "openness," and "honesty" with the consuming
public, such as expressly stating on its Web site that Nature
Made(R) "goes above and beyond to guarantee to consumers that what
is on the label is in the bottle."

"If there is any universal truth with respect to America's
consumers, it is that labels matter," said attorney Paul J.
Geller.  Mr. Geller is the lead attorney handling the case for
Robbins Geller, the firm serving as co-counsel in the case along
with Muniza Bawaney and Rishi V. Vohra of Law First LLC.  "There
are millions of consumers around the country who purchased these
supplements upon the promise and guarantee that the product labels
were true and that the ingredient listings were complete.  Put
simply, they weren't," Mr. Geller continued.  "There is no place
for such unscrupulous corporate behavior, and through this
lawsuit, we hope to put a stop to it," he said.

Muniza Bawaney of Law First further noted that "everywhere in this
country there are people who carefully read labels before
consuming anything because their religions and lifestyle choices
strictly prohibit them from ingesting pork or other animal by-
products, including members of the Muslim faith, vegans and many
others. For these individuals," Ms. Bawaney stated, "our findings
are most disturbing.  The American public deserves better than
this and the manufacturers of Nature Made(R) need to understand
that we are not going to sit back and let them continue to deceive
consumers."  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California by Robbins Geller
attorneys Paul J. Geller and Stuart A. Davidson, along with the
Chicago law firm of Law First LLC, lawyers Muniza Bawaney and
Rishi V. Vohra.  The plaintiff in the case is Bilal Elsakka, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.

If you bought Nature Made supplements and would like to learn more
about this case, please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/naturemadeor
call Stuart A. Davidson at (561) 750-3000 to discuss your legal
rights.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.

Law First LLC is a Chicago law firm with a practice focusing on
litigation matters as well as corporate and business advisory
services.


PHARMERICA CORP: Shareholder Litigation Dismissed in May
--------------------------------------------------------
Pharmerica Corporation disclosed in a May 17, 2012 Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on May 15,
2012, a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware with regard to the civil action
styled In Re PharMerica Corporation Shareholder Litigation (No.
6851-CS), the class action lawsuit consolidating the claims of the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, filed on
September 9, 2011, and Hugh F. Drummond as Trustee of the FBO Hugh
F. Drummond Trust, filed on September 22, 2011, against PharMerica
Corporation (the "Company"). The claims alleged that the members
of the Company's board of directors had breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company and its stockholders by, among other things,
adopting a rights agreement dated August 25, 2011, between the
Company and Mellon Investor Services LLC, and failing to respond
appropriately to Omnicare, Inc.'s unsolicited tender offer. The
Stipulation of Dismissal dismissed the action. No funds were
exchanged in order to effect the dismissal.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: May Face Suit Over Newby Island Landfill Odors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bauer, writing for Milpitas Post, reports that out-of-town
lawyers specializing in class action lawsuits about pet food
recalls, sewage backups and odors generated by landfills say they
plan to file a class action suit against the operators of the
Newby Island Landfill and Resource Recovery Park on the Milpitas-
San Jose border.

Evans Law Firm PSC of San Francisco in conjunction with Detroit-
based Macuga, Liddle & Dubin PC planned to file the suit in court
last week, according to Ingrid Evans, a civil trial lawyer.  She
told the Milpitas Post on July 9 that her firm's potential class
action concerns "substantial odor complaints" her firm received
from several local residents, despite Republic Services' efforts
to work with City of Milpitas for several years to mitigate odors
from composting and solid waste operations -- and no notices of
violation from the governing Bay Area Air Quality Management
District within the last five years.

On June 29, the firm sent a letter and accompanying question-and-
answer survey to Milpitas residents regarding odors allegedly
emitted from Republic Services' Newby Island Landfill.  Ms. Evans
would not say how many letters were mailed nor how many responses
she has received.

"We are currently investigating the possibility of filing
litigation against Allied Waste's Newby Island Landfill for the
emission of noxious odors.  Due to your proximity to the Newby
Island Landfill, you may have experienced odors associated with
this neighboring facility," the letter reads.  "Odors which
interfere with the use and enjoyment of your home may constitute a
nuisance that may entitle you to compensation.  Any litigation
filed by this office would also have the objective of preventing
any future emission of noxious odors."

The letter goes on to say her firm is working with Macuga, Liddle
& Dubin.  According to the firm's Web site, Detroit-based Macuga,
Liddle & Dubin focuses on class action lawsuits involving basement
flooding, environmental contamination, governmental liability and
consumer law cases.

Rick King, Newby Island general manager, acknowledged the
potential suit, but did not want to comment further on the
specifics.

"While it is our policy not to comment on litigation, I can tell
you that Newby Island Landfill and Resource Recovery Park is
committed to being a good neighbor at all of our facilities and to
protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment in
everything we do," Mr. King said.

The law firm's correspondence followed San Jose Planning
Commission's June 6 vote to recommend San Jose City Council
approve an expansion to Newby Island Landfill at 1601 Dixon
Landing Road in conformance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and recommend the council approve a proposed planned
development rezoning, as recommended by staff.

The approval would allow the landfill, operated by Republic
Services of Santa Clara County (formerly Allied Waste Services)
just west of the Milpitas city limits, to increase the permitted
top elevation from 150 feet above mean sea level to 245 feet above
mean sea level, and allow an increase in the capacity by 15.12
million cubic yards.

City of Milpitas filed an appeal of the planning commission
decision.  If the San Jose City Council approves the landfill
capacity expansion next month, it will allow Newby Island to
operate through approximately 2030, depending on material volume
and diversion rates.  If it is denied, the landfill would reach
capacity by approximately 2020, a company spokeswoman previously
said.

Those in town who have received the law firm's letter had mixed
reactions.

"The only thing I can say is that I find it refreshing that there
is finally some light being cast on this long-standing problem. It
has been a big problem since I moved here in 1978," Milpitas
resident Dan Manassau said.  "Perhaps this may help our city join
the rest of the Bay Area as an environment free of ongoing air
pollution."

In June, during the San Jose Planning Commission meeting,
Mr. Manassau appeared as one of two Milpitas residents who
disliked having the San Jose-based landfill close to his Milpitas
home.

"The stink has been there for 35 years and I have been looking
forward to the (landfill's) closure date for a long time,"
Mr. Manassau told the commission.

Mr. Manassau said he did not have enough information yet "about
the law, the law firm, the odor regulations, or this action to
make an informed decision or offer an opinion at this time" on the
class action suit.  He did complete the firm's attached datasheet
one that asks questions like "Have you noticed any odors from the
Newby Island Resource Recovery Park Landfill at your home?" and
"How long have you experienced the offensive odors at your home?"
Another resident said he is angry about the premise of a class
action lawsuit.

"I am beyond incensed and livid that a law firm based in San
Francisco is sending out solicitations to the citizens of Milpitas
. . . in hopes of having people fall for their wanting to help
them litigate real or imagined concerns about odors," Ed Blake,
chair of Milpitas Recycling and Source Reduction Advisory
Commission, told the Post.  "This law firm is no better than the
predatory law firms who solicit on TV for 'victims' so that they
can build a case, get high rewards from which they abscond with
attorney's fees and leave the 'victim' with little or nothing."

Mr. Blake said Newby Island Landfill is a benefit to residents as
it provides a lower cost facility for City of Milpitas to dump its
waste.

"It's hard to find new landfills," Mr. Blake said, noting landfill
closures in the South Bay over the years that force waste to be
trucked farther away.  "That costs money."

He added opponents to the class action suit should inform Milpitas
officials.

"People should let their feelings be known about this," Mr. Blake
said.

According to Ms. Evans, the letter sent to residents last month
was only a "by-product" of a class action case brewing for some
time against Republic Services.

"We're ready to file the complaint," Ms. Evans said.  "The letter
is less relevant than the fact that we have a case."

Ms. Evans said the class action will involve petitioning the court
to allow Macuga, Liddle & Dubin in on the California legal case,
known as seeking pro hac vice status.

"They can't be admitted into the case until the judge rules on
it," Ms. Evans said, adding the class action may take three months
before being heard in court.  "It won't be moving very quickly."


TOSHIBA: Settles Class Action Over Alleged LCD Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Toshiba, LG
and AU Optronics joined the largest antitrust class action
settlement in history last week, agreeing to pay consumers $543.5
million for their roles in an alleged price fixing conspiracy for
the liquid crystal display panels contained in TVs, laptops and
computer monitors.

The proposed agreement brings the total settlement amount to
roughly $1.1 billion, as a federal judge approved the first half
of the settlement with seven LCD manufacturers last year.

The three companies were facing a criminal trial in federal court.
"They were about to go to trial in less than three weeks and they
decided it was best not to do that.  The settlement was handsome
enough that in our judgment it was the best thing," said Joseph
Alioto, co-lead counsel for the California plaintiffs in an
interview.  "The settlement has already resulted in a substantial
deterrence to these very, very powerful manufacturers of
electronic products.  They now understand completely that it is no
longer a game and they will be taken to task."

Consumers in Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri,
New York, West Virginia, and Wisconsin will receive $42 million
for civil penalties.  The remaining $1.08 billion will go to class
members who bought laptops and flat screen TVs between January
1999 and December 2006.

The seven other settling companies include Chimei Innolux, Chi Mei
Optoelectronics USA, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Japan, HannStar
Display, Hitachi, Hitachi Displays, Hitachi Electronic Devices,
Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electronics America, Samsung
Semiconductor, Sharp and Sharp Electronics.


TRIPLE-S MGMT: Still Awaits Order on Breach of Contract Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation continues to await a Puerto Rican
federal court's decision on a breach of contract claim asserted
against it in a dentists association's class action 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
March 31, 2012.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating
in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.  The Corporation
and two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc. ("TCI"), were
included as defendants.  This litigation purports to be a class
action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly
situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render. The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150 million. In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.
There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits.  The Corporation intends
to vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Corporation,
opposed.  Following months of jurisdictional proceedings in the
federal court system, the federal district court in Puerto Rico
decided to retain jurisdiction on February 8, 2011.  The
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the case on the merits,
because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  On August 31, 2011, the District Court dismissed all
of plaintiffs' claims except for its breach of contract claim, and
ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the court still
has federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, which they have done.   Plaintiffs moved the court to
reconsider its August 31, 2011 decision and the defendants,
arguing that the breach of contract claim failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, filed a motion for its
dismissal.  On May 2, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion.  The parties are awaiting the court's decision regarding
the breach of contract claim.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  It is a
player in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico.  Triple-S
Management also has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross Blue
Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.  With more than 50 years of experience in the industry,
Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed care and
related products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage markets
under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its subsidiary
Triple-S Salud, Inc. and effective February 2011, also offers non-
branded Medicare products through American Health Inc.  In
addition to its managed care business, Triple-S Management
provides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and property and
casualty insurance in Puerto Rico.


TRIPLE-S MGMT: Unit Continues to Defend Vehicle Owner Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Triple-S Management Corporation continues to defend
itself against two lawsuits filed by motor vehicle owner groups,
according to the Company's May 10, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ending
March 31, 2012.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico Joint Underwriting
Association (JUA) and 18 other defendants, including Triple-S
Propiedad, Inc. (TSP), alleging violations under the Puerto Rico
Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the local
statute against organized crime and money laundering. JUA is a
private association created by law to administer a compulsory
public liability insurance program for motor vehicles in Puerto
Rico (CLI).  As required by its enabling act, JUA is composed of
all the insurers that underwrite private motor vehicle insurance
in Puerto Rico and exceed the minimum underwriting percentage
established in such act.  TSP is a member of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code.  Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants do not incur in acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums.  Plaintiffs
also claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406.6 million, treble damages under RICO, and equitable
relief, including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment
barring defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along
with costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch a suit cannot be
brought, even under RICO, to amend the compulsory liability
insurance rates that were approved by the Puerto Rico Legislature
and the Commissioner of Insurance.  The motion also argues that
since RICO is not a federal statute that specifically relates to
the business of insurance, and its application in the claims at
issue would frustrate state policy and interfere with Puerto
Rico's insurance administrative regime, the McCarran-Ferguson Act
precludes plaintiffs' claims. Finally, the Company argued that
plaintiffs failed to allege the necessary elements of an
actionable RICO claim, or, in the alternative, their damages claim
is time barred.

On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition.  On April
4, 2012, the Company filed a Reply in support of its motion to
dismiss.

A similar case entitled Maria Margarita Collazo Burgos, et al. v.
La Asociacion de Suscripcion Conjunta del Seguro de
Responsabilidad Obligatorio (JUA), et al., was filed against JUA
and its members, including TSP, in the Puerto Rico Court of First
Instance, San Juan Part on January 28, 2010.  This litigation is a
putative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of motor vehicle
owners in Puerto Rico.  Plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that
each of the defendants engaged in similar activities and conduct
as those alleged in the Torres Ronda litigation and claim the
recovery of $225 million for the class pertaining to the
acquisition and administration costs of the CLI, allegedly charged
in violation of the Puerto Rico Insurance Code's provisions
prohibiting the illegal traffic of premiums.  TSP is vigorously
contesting this action.

Given the early stage of these cases, the Corporation cannot
assess the probability of an adverse outcome, or the reasonable
financial impact that any such outcome may have on the
Corporation.  The Corporation intends to vigorously defend these
lawsuits.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  It is a
player in the managed care industry in Puerto Rico.  Triple-S
Management also has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross Blue
Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.  With more than 50 years of experience in the industry,
Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed care and
related products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage markets
under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its subsidiary
Triple-S Salud, Inc. and effective February 2011, also offers non-
branded Medicare products through American Health Inc.  In
addition to its managed care business, Triple-S Management
provides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and property and
casualty insurance in Puerto Rico.


UNIFIED LIFE: Dental Insurance Class Action Settled
---------------------------------------------------
Carla Childs is the daughter of Ethel Levina Kirk, who resided in
Broken Arrow Nursing Home before she died on May 30, 2009.  During
her stay at the nursing home, Ms. Kirk was eligible for and
received Medicaid assistance from the State of Oklahoma.

Ms. Childs, as Special Administrator of Ms. Kirk's estate and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, brought a class action
suit against Unified Life Insurance Company.

Ms. Childs asserted that her mother, "an elderly lady in need of
dentures," was "entitled to receive denture-related services as
provided by Medicaid, at no charge to her personal funds."
However, on an unknown date, but before May 1, 2007, Ms. Kirk
applied for and purchased a dental insurance policy from Unified,
presumably to cover denture-related expenses.  Ms. Kirk was
invoiced for the Dental Plan on a monthly basis.  Acting on behalf
of her mother, Ms. Childs would pay the Dental Plan premium out of
her mother's checking account.  The Dental Plan was not purchased
by Broken Arrow Nursing Home on Ms. Kirk's behalf.  Nor were the
Dental Plan premiums paid by Broken Arrow Nursing Home out of its
daily rate for routine services.  Ms. Childs argued that the
Dental Plan is contrary to Oklahoma law and therefore void.

Sterling Health Services, LLC was initially named as a defendant
in addition to Unified.  However, Ms. Childs subsequently
voluntarily dismissed Sterling from the suit.

On July 11, 2012, the dental insurance class action suit was
settled for $900,000 in the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa
division, according to The W.T. Johnson Team of lawyers.

The class action suit alleged the defendants improperly marketed
dental insurance policies to 1,600 Medicaid recipients in nursing
homes in Oklahoma.

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.

The insurance companies named as defendants in the case 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
have recovered more than $50 million for clients and have more
than 25 years of experience representing 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


UNITED STATES: Philippine Immigrant Files Class Action Over DOMA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Dobuzinskis, writing for Reuters, reports that a Philippine
immigrant filed a lawsuit on July 12 seeking a legal right to stay
in the United States based on her same-sex marriage to an
American.

The suit seeks to win for gays and lesbians the same immigration
rights as heterosexual couples.  The group that helped file the
suit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security called it
the first proposed class action of its kind.

Plaintiffs Jane DeLeon, an immigrant from the Philippines, her son
Martin Aranas, 25, and Ms. DeLeon's U.S. spouse Irma Rodriguez
challenged the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which
defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

President Barack Obama said last year he considered the 1996 law
unconstitutional and would no longer defend it.  But the lawsuit
filed in federal court in Los Angeles faults the Obama
administration for reviewing immigration cases involving same-sex
couples on a case-by-case basis, rather than placing them on hold
while courts determine DOMA's constitutionality.

Peter Schey, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law and the lead attorney in the case, said the
waiver Ms. DeLeon was seeking to stay in the country was often
granted to heterosexual couples.

"Our immediate concern is with the failure of the administration
to implement a policy to provide protection from deportation for
immigrants in same-sex marriages, as they've done recently for
undocumented youth," Mr. Schey said.

Several federal court rulings have called into question the
constitutionality of DOMA.  On May 31, a federal appeals court in
Boston found DOMA unconstitutionally denied federal benefits to
lawfully married same-sex couples.  The ruling is expected to lead
to a U.S. Supreme Court decision on DOMA.

Six states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.

Ms. DeLeon and Ms. Rodriguez were married in California in 2008,
during the months when same-sex marriage was legal in the state
before voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban it.

Immigration authorities in April 2011 denied Ms. DeLeon's
application for an immigration visa on the grounds that in 1989,
she falsely claimed to be a married housewife when entering the
United States as the common-law partner of a Filipino, the lawsuit
said.

Ms. DeLeon began a 20-year relationship with Ms. Rodriguez in
1992.

She filed paperwork seeking a waiver on the grounds that if forced
to leave it would cause hardship to Ms. Rodriguez.  The waiver was
denied in September, her lawsuit said.

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Peter Boogaard said his
office did not comment on pending litigation.

Martin Aranas, who came to the United States at age 9, said his
legal residency depended on the outcome of his mother's case.

"After many years of having temporary legal status, I now face
being in 'illegal' status only because my mother is in a same-sex
marriage," he said in a statement.

Mr. Schey said his group estimated there were thousands of gay and
lesbian couples in the United States in which one partner was
American and the other was an immigrant.

His group would like the lawsuit to win class-action designation
from a judge so it could apply to those couples, he said.

Before this lawsuit, there were a few other federal court
challenges to the application of DOMA to deny legal residency to a
gay or lesbian immigrant in a relationship with an American,
including a lawsuit filed in New York this year.  But none sought
class-action status, Mr. Schey said.


UPPER CRUST: Judge Grants Class-Action Status to Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Abelson, writing for Boston.com, reports that a judge has
granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed on behalf of former
Upper Crust pizza chain workers who claim they were cheated out of
wages.

The case, filed in July 2010, accuses company founder Jordan
Tobins and other executives of rescinding overtime checks that
were ordered by the Department of Labor.  Upper Crust was supposed
to pay nearly $350,000 to more than 100 workers, but employees --
mostly low-paid Brazilian immigrants -- have alleged that the
Boston chain forced them to pay back the money to keep their jobs.

In the Suffolk Superior Court case, Judge D. Lloyd Macdonald
granted class-action status -- which allows the claims to be
considered together -- on July 12 and also ordered Mr. Tobins and
the company's co-owners to provide the court with full financial
disclosures.  The order also prohibits them from transferring any
assets outside the usual course of business.

"We believe these orders will bring us closer to obtaining full
recovery for all of these workers who were taken advantage of by
Upper Crust," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney representing
five former workers who are suing the restaurant chain.

Fifty-two people are covered under the class-action designation.
The court order said most of them are "immigrants from Brazil who
have limited resources and limited English skills and who, as a
group, are allegedly at risk for retaliation and are vulnerable to
adverse leverage on account of their immigration status."

Franklin Levy, a lawyer representing Upper Crust, said the change
in status has no bearing on the merits of the lawsuit.

"It is of no concern," he said.  "Whether individually or as a
class, the plaintiffs have no case."

Last month, David Marcus, Upper Crust's former chief financial
officer, said in sworn testimony that company executives, after
being ordered to provide overtime compensation, devised a scheme
to wrest the money back, including cashing forged checks and
slashing workers' wages.  His statements contradict testimony that
he gave when he still worked for the pizza chain last summer.

The federal Labor Department launched a second investigation --
which is ongoing -- into Upper Crust after the employee lawsuit
was filed in 2010.


VISA INC: Merchant Law Group Sues Canadian Credit Card Cos.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Regina Leader-Post reports that a Regina law firm has launched
a new proposed national class-action lawsuit targeting Canada's
major credit card companies for restricting surcharges.

"Everywhere but in North America, merchants may charge more if you
use a credit card.  Without analysis, Canadians will wrongly think
this "No Surcharge" rule helps them," lawyer Tony Merchant said in
a news release, maintaining it actually hurts Canadian businesses
and consumers.

"This action is not about Merchant helping merchants, but helping
consumers.  It sounds perverse but letting them charge us more
helps consumers," he added.

The suit alleges goods and services in Canada carry a built-in
extra charge to cover the credit card expense.

"If merchants are allowed to surcharge for credit card use, as
they do worldwide, then the additional cost to Canadians will not
be built in on everything we buy," Mr. Merchant contended.

Merchant Law Group filed the 17-page claim on July 12 in Regina
Court of Queen's Bench.  It names a dozen defendants, including
several large financial institutions and two major credit card
companies. A statement of claim contains allegations not yet
proven in court.

A statement of defense has not yet been filed.  A class-action
lawsuit must be certified by a judge in order to proceed, so
filing the claim is only the first step.

At this point, the only named plaintiff is Canada Rent a Heater
(2000), a Saskatchewan water rental company.  The proposed class
is all Canadian merchants who, from 2001 to the present, accepted
payment for goods and services by Visa or MasterCard.

The claim says merchants are charged a fee for accepting the
credit cards, and charged even more when the cards are part of a
benefits or loyalty program.  But it adds that Visa's and
MasterCard's rules keep merchants from imposing surcharges for
using any credit card of the same network, nor can it encourage
customers to use lower-cost methods of payment.

The suit contends the restrictions impede competition for credit
card network services and artificially increase the cost of goods
and services by as much as five per cent if all purchases were
made using the cards.

It notes that merchants in Europe and elsewhere outside Canada and
the U.S. can add surcharges for credit card purchases.


WET SEAL: Black Employees File Race Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that "The most senior executives"
of The Wet Seal targeted black employees for firing, and told a
district manager to fire all the black employees at one or more
stores, and to get more "white employees who fit the Wet Seal
'brand image,'" former employees who worked in three states say in
a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Cogdell, et al. v. The Wet Seal, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 12-cv-01138 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/13/WetSeal.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brad Seligman, Esq.
          Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
          Julie Wilensky, Esq.
          LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
          476 9th Street
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 839-6824
          E-mail: bseligman@lewisfeinberg.com
                  blee@lewisfeinberg.com
                  jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com

               - and -

          Nancy C. DeMis, Esq.
          Susan R. Fiorentino, Esq.
          GALLAGHER, SCHOENFELD, SURKIN, CHUPEIN & DEMIS, P.C.
          25 West Second Street
          Media, PA 19053
          Telephone: (610) 565-4600
          E-mail: ncd@gsscd.com
                  sfiorentino@gsscd.com

               - and -

          Debo P. Adegbile, Esq.
          Elise Boddie, Esq.
          ReNika C. Moore, Esq.
          Ria A. Tabacco, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
          99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 965-2200
          E-mail: dadegbile@naacpldf.org
                  rmoore@naacpldf.org
                  rtabacco@naacpldf.org


YAZAKI CORP: Accused of Fixing Instrument Panel Clusters' Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Barron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Yazaki Corp., and Yazaki North America Inc., Case No.
4:12-cv-03628 (N.D. Calif., July 11, 2012) arises out of an
alleged long-running conspiracy from at least December 2002,
through at least February 2010, among the Defendants and their co-
conspirators, with the purpose and effect of rigging bids for and
fixing, raising, maintaining and stabilizing prices of certain
auto parts, including Instrument Panel Clusters, sold indirectly
to the Plaintiff and other indirect purchasers throughout the
United States of America.

The Defendants and their co-conspirators formed an international
cartel illegally to restrict competition in the Instrument Panel
Clusters market, specifically targeting and injuring indirect
purchaser consumers and affecting billions of dollars of commerce
throughout the United States, Ms. Barron alleges.  She contends
that the conspiracy included communications and meetings in which
the Defendants agreed to eliminate competition and to rig bids
for, and to fix the prices of Instrument Panel Clusters.

Ms. Barron is a resident of California, who indirectly purchased
one or more Instrument Panel Clusters manufactured and sold by one
or more of the Defendants during the Class Period.

Yazaki Corp., a Japanese corporation, manufactured, marketed, sold
and distributed Instrument Panel Clusters that were purchased
throughout the United States.  Yazaki North America, an Illinois
corporation and a subsidiary of Yazaki Corp., acts as the United
States agent for the marketing sale and distribution of Instrument
Panel Clusters for its parent.

A copy of the Complaint in Barron v. Yazaki Corp., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-03628 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/13/Yazaki.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Sarah Crowley, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
                  adam@gba-law.com
                  sarah@gba-law.com


YAZAKI CORP: Accused of Rigging Bids for Prices of Fuel Senders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Barron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Yazaki Corporation, and Yazaki North America Inc.,
Case No. 4:12-cv-03627 (N.D. Calif., July 11, 2012) arises out of
an alleged long-running conspiracy from at least March 2004,
through at least February 2010, among the Defendants and their co-
conspirators, with the purpose and effect of rigging bids for and
fixing, raising, maintaining and stabilizing prices of certain
automobile parts, including Fuel Senders that were sold indirectly
to the Plaintiff and other indirect purchasers throughout the
United States of America.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants and their co-
conspirators formed an international cartel illegally to restrict
competition in the Fuel Senders market, specifically targeting and
injuring indirect-purchaser consumers and affecting commerce
throughout the United States.  She argues that as a result of the
Defendants' bid-rigging and price-fixing conduct, she and class
members have been injured in their business and property by paying
more for Fuel Senders that they would otherwise have paid in the
absence of the Defendants' conspiracy.

Ms. Barron is a resident of California, who indirectly purchased
one or more Fuel Senders manufactured and sold by one or more of
the Defendants during the Class Period.

Yazaki Corp., a Japanese corporation, manufactured, marketed, sold
and distributed Fuel Senders that were purchased throughout the
United States.  Yazaki North America, an Illinois corporation and
a subsidiary of Yazaki Corp., acts as the United States agent for
the marketing sale and distribution of Fuel Senders for its
parent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Sarah Crowley, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
                  adam@gba-law.com
                  sarah@gba-law.com

                           *********

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  * * *