CAR_Public/120808.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 8, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 156

                             Headlines

APPLE INC: Sued in Texas Over Defective Macbook Motherboards
AUTHENTEC INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Acquisition by Apple
BRIGHTPOINT INC: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action
CAMERON INT'L: Still Awaits OK of Deepwater Horizon Suit Deals
CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend 3 CCA Students' Suits

CAREER EDUCATION: Court Junks Class Cert. Motion in "Vasquez" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Approval of Settlement in TCPA Suits
CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Awaits Ruling in Motion to Join Securities Suits
CIRCLE K: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
DECKERS OUTDOOR: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Delaware

EATON CORP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Ohio
HSBC USA: Appeals in Madoff-Related Suits Still Pending
HSBC USA: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
HSBC USA: Court Grants "Levin" Plaintiffs Leave to Amend Suit
HSBC USA: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated N.Y. Antitrust Suit

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend MERS-Related Suit
ILLUMINA INC: One Suit Over Stock Purchase Offer Remains Pending
KFC PROPERTIES: Cooks File Overtime Class Action in D.C.
LOCAL SPLASH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Girardi Sactioned For Not Producing Fees Docs

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Arpaio Suit Judge Seek Brief on Race & Intent
MICRONETICS INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
MOODY'S CORP: IKB Settles With Plaintiffs in Rhinebridge Suit
MOODY'S CORP: Misrepresentation Claim Remains in "Abu Dhabi" Suit

MOUNTAIN STATE: Faces Class Action Over Loss of Accreditation
NEW LEAF: Class Suit Over Lead in Products Remains Pending
PFIZER INC: Sued for Misleading Ads for Centrum Pro Nutrients
RAILAMERICA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
ROYAL CANADIAN: Female Mounties' Class Certification Bid Begins

SHARKY'S WOODFIRED: Sued for Misrepresenting Mahi Mahi Dishes
SNC-LAVALIN GROUP: Ontario Court Discontinues Gray Class Action
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
SUNTECH POWER: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Proceedings in "Jacobs" Antitrust Suit at an End

TIMMINCO LTD: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Class-Action Appeal
TRAVELZOO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
ULTRATECH INC: Injunction Motion in "Rice" Suit Denied in July
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits S.C. Action on Review Petition
WPCS INTERNATIONAL: Expects Acquisition-Related Suit's Dismissal

YAHOO! INC: Faces Class Action Over Hacked Users' Accounts
ZYNGA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
ZYNGA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
ZYNGA INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
ZYNGA INC: Newman Ferrara Files Class Action in California

ZYNGA INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Action
ZYNGA INC: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action

                          *********

APPLE INC: Sued in Texas Over Defective Macbook Motherboards
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Apple sold Macbook laptops
with defective motherboards that cause USB ports to malfunction, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rosales v. Apple, Inc., et al., Case
No. 12-cv-00251 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/03/AppleCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos E. Hernandez, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CARLOS E. HERNANDEZ, JR. P.C.
          101 N. 10th Ave.
          Edinburg, TX 78541
          Telephone: (956) 386-0900 Tel

               - and -

          Omar W. Rosales, Esq.
          THE ROSALES LAW FIRM, LLC
          402 South F St
          Harlingen, TX 78550
          Toll-Free: (866) 402-8082
          Telephone: (956) 423-1417


AUTHENTEC INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Acquisition by Apple
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craven K. Lee, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AuthenTec, Inc., William H. Washecka, Lawrence J.
Ciaccia, Jr., F. Scott Moody, Ronald D. Black, Chris Fedde, Gustav
H. Koven, III, Jean Schmitt, Apple Inc., and Bryce Acquisition
Corporation, Case No. 7735- (Del. Ch. Ct., July 31, 2012) is a
shareholder class action brought on behalf of holders of the
common stock of AuthenTec to enjoin the acquisition of the
publicly owned shares of AuthenTec common stock by Apple and
Bryce.

In facilitating the proposed acquisition for inadequate
consideration and through a flawed process, each of the Defendants
breached and aided the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties, Mr. Lee contends.  Hence, he seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual
Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties and from Apple.

Mr. Lee is a stockholder of AuthenTec.

AuthenTec is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Delaware with its principal executive offices located in
Melbourne, Florida.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.  Apple is a California corporation
headquartered in Cupertino, California.  Merger Sub is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple formed solely
for the purpose of consummating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gms@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          A Professional Corporation
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com
                  kerr@browerpiven.com


BRIGHTPOINT INC: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on August 2 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of holders of
BrightPoint, Inc. common stock on July 2, 2012, in connection with
the proposed acquisition of BrightPoint by Ingram Micro Inc.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 2.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Darren Robbins,
Esq. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-
mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

The complaint charges BrightPoint and its Board of Directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  BrightPoint is
a global leader in providing device lifecycle services to the
wireless industry.

On July 2, 2012, BrightPoint announced it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Ingram will acquire
all of the outstanding shares of BrightPoint common stock for
$9.00 per share.  The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Acquisition, on
July 19, 2012, defendants issued a materially false and misleading
Preliminary Proxy on Schedule 14A.  The Proxy, which recommends
that BrightPoint shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Acquisition, omits and/or misrepresents material information about
the unfair sales process for the Company, conflicts of interest
that corrupted the sales process, the unfair consideration offered
in the Proposed Acquisition, and the actual intrinsic value of the
Company on a stand-alone basis and as a merger partner for Ingram,
which information is material to the impending decision of
BrightPoint's shareholders whether or not to vote in favor of the
Proposed Acquisition.  Thus, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to
ensure that defendants cure their violations of 14(a) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Act before BrightPoint shareholders are asked to vote on
the Proposed Acquisition.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of
holders of BrightPoint common stock on July 2, 2012.  The
plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $1.5 trillion.


CAMERON INT'L: Still Awaits OK of Deepwater Horizon Suit Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------
A blowout preventer ("BOP") originally manufactured by Cameron
International Corporation and delivered in 2001, and for which the
Company was one of the suppliers of spare parts and repair
services, was deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon in
2010 when the rig experienced an explosion and fire resulting in
bodily injuries and loss of life, the loss of the rig, and
discharge of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Company was named as one of a number of defendants in over 350
lawsuits asserting claims for personal injury, wrongful death,
property damage, pollution and economic damages.  Most of these
lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding before a
single Federal judge under rules governing multi-district
litigation.  The consolidated case is styled: In Re: Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig "Deep Water Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico on
April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179.

On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with
BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BPXP), guaranteed by BP
Corporation North America Inc., pursuant to which BPXP agreed to
indemnify the Company for any and all current and future
compensatory claims, and to pay on behalf of the Company any and
all such claims, associated with or arising out of the Deepwater
Horizon incident the Company otherwise would have been obligated
to pay, including claims arising under the Oil Pollution Act,
claims for natural resource damages and associated damage-
assessment costs, clean-up costs, and other claims arising from
third parties.  The agreement does not provide indemnification of
the Company against any fines, penalties, punitive damages or
certain other potential non-compensatory claims levied on or
awarded against it individually.  The Company does not consider
any of these, singly or cumulatively, to pose a material financial
risk to it because, while the United States brought a lawsuit
against BP and certain other parties associated with this incident
for recovery under statutes such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA) and the Clean Water Act, the Company was not named as a
defendant in this lawsuit.  Additionally, BP and the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee ("PSC"), appointed by the Court in the MDL
proceeding to represent the interests of third-party claimants,
concluded an "Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement"
and a "Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement" which
were filed with the Court on April 18, 2012.  Under the terms of
these settlements, the PSC, on behalf of these claimants who would
be included in the proposed settling classes, has released any
claim against BP and certain other parties, including the Company,
for punitive and other non-compensatory damages.  This settlement
has yet to be approved by the Court.  The proposed settlement, and
the release of punitive and other non-compensatory damages against
Cameron, will not affect the claims of (i) persons who opt out of
the settlement;  (ii) persons outside of Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi and certain counties in Florida and Texas, the
geographic scope of the settlement; (iii) persons outside the
class of lost business covered by the settlement class such as
gambling, real estate development and insurance; and (iv) the Gulf
states and local government entities.

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

Cameron International Corporation's operations are organized into
three separate business segments, namely: Drilling & Production
Systems (DPS), Valves & Measurement (V&M) and Process &
Compression Systems (PCS).


CAREER EDUCATION: Continues to Defend 3 CCA Students' Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation continues to defend itself from three
putative class action lawsuits filed by current and former
students of the California Culinary Academy, according to the
Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy ("CCA") filed a
complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco.
Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a putative class
action and allege four causes of action: fraud; constructive
fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the
admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon
graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA.
On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.
The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on
the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to
plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action.
The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and
is being handled by the same judge. The Adams action has been
stayed.

In October 2010, the parties reached agreement on all the material
terms of a settlement and executed a formal settlement agreement
as of November 1, 2010. The settlement is subject to court
approval. The monetary component of the settlement involves
payment by the Company of approximately $40.8 million to pay
claims by all students who enrolled in CCA and/or graduated from
CCA from September 28, 2003 through October 8, 2008. The payment
includes plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain expenses to be
incurred in connection with the implementation of the settlement.
During 2010, the Company recorded a charge of $40.8 million which
represents the Company's best estimate of the loss related to this
matter. The Company disbursed $40.0 million during the first
quarter of 2011, as required by the terms of the agreement.

The original deadline for filing claims and/or opting out of the
settlement was June 6, 2011. Pursuant to a subsequent order, the
Court required plaintiffs' counsel to provide a supplemental
notice to those who had opted out by June 6, 2011. Following the
supplemental notice, a total of 112 students opted out of the
settlement. On April 18, 2012, the Court issued an order granting
final approval of the settlement and on April 19, 2012, the court
entered a final judgment on the settlement.

On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the
class action filed by Allison Amador and 36 other current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy filed a
separate complaint in the San Francisco County Superior Court
entitled Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al, on
behalf of 115 individuals who are opt outs in the Amador action
and/or non-class members, and therefore not subject to the Amador
settlement. On June 15, 2011, the same attorneys filed another
action in the San Francisco County Superior Court entitled
Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al., on
behalf of another 31 individuals who are opt outs in the Amador
action and/or non-class members, and therefore not subject to the
Amador settlement. On August 12, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a
third action on behalf of five individuals who opted out of or
were not parties to the Amador settlement entitled Aprieto, et al.
v. California Culinary Academy. None of these three suits are
being prosecuted as a class action. They each allege the same
claims as were previously alleged in the Amador action, plus
claims for breach of contract and violations of the repealed
California Education Code. The plaintiffs in these cases seek
damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. The Company has not responded to these three
complaints, which have been related and transferred to the same
judge who is handling the Amador case, because they have been
stayed pending a ruling on the class settlement in the Amador
action. Certain of the plaintiffs in these cases filed claims or
received notice of the settlement and did not file claims, and
therefore their individual claims will be barred. The Court held a
status conference on these cases on May 3, 2012 and ordered that
the cases continue to be stayed until a further status conference
scheduled for July 17, 2012.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise as
discovery and pre-trial proceedings progress, the outcome of the
Abarca, Andrade and Aprieto legal proceedings is uncertain at this
point. Based on information available to the Company at present,
it cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss for these
actions because these matters are in their early stages, and
involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, the
Company has not recognized any liability associated with these
actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Court Junks Class Cert. Motion in "Vasquez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A court denied a motion for class certification filed in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Vasquez, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education
Corporation, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from California School of Culinary
Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the
limitations periods applicable to the herein alleged causes of
action (including, without limitation, the period following the
filing of the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the
constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it.
Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based
on alleged violations of California's former Educational Reform
Act.

The plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they
assert the same claims against the Company, but added claims
against approximately 15 student lenders. The plaintiffs
subsequently dismissed all of the student lenders.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and defendants
filed an opposition on September 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the
Court issued its order denying class certification.

Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related "mass
actions" entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary
Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 316 individuals);
Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County
Superior Court (by 373 individuals), Aguilar, et al. v. California
School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 88
individuals), Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los
Angeles Superior Court (by 73 individuals), Ackerman, et al. v.
California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior
Court (by 27 individuals), Arechiga, et al. v. California School
of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 60
individuals), Anderson, et al., v. California School of Culinary
Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 58 individuals) and
Allen v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles Superior
Court (by 12 individuals). All eight cases are being prosecuted on
behalf of hundreds of individual former students. The allegations
are the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action case.
The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and
punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies
received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All of
these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action
and therefore are pending before the same judge who is presiding
over the Vasquez case.

All of the individual cases (other than the recently filed Allen
case) were stayed pending the ruling on class certification in the
Vasquez class action. On April 13, 2012, the Court conducted a
status conference regarding further proceedings in the individual
cases. The Court has ordered the parties to participate in limited
discovery and meet and confer regarding motions to compel
arbitration in the individual actions.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already
arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these
legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions because the
Company's possible liability depends on an assessment of the
appropriate measure of damages, if the Company was to be found
liable and whether, in the case of the Vasquez action, a class is
certified and, if so, the size of any such class. Accordingly, the
Company has not recognized any liability associated with these
actions.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Approval of Settlement in TCPA Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is awaiting court approval of a
settlement in two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2012.

On August 4, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Sheila Fahey
alleging that she had received an unauthorized text message
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (the "TCPA"). On September 3, 2010, the Company removed this
case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. On November 22, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Fahey case. That motion is still pending. The Court
has stayed any further activity on the Fahey case until resolution
of an appeal in the Seventh Circuit of a case involving issues
similar to those raised in the Company's motion to dismiss. The
appeal has been resolved and the Company anticipates that the
Court will lift the stay of proceedings in Fahey shortly and
consolidate this case with the Rojas matter.

On August 18, 2010, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in
the Fahey action filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Sergio
Rojas alleging similar violations of the TCPA based on the same
text messages. Rojas, like Fahey, sought class certification of
his claims. The alleged classes are defined to include all persons
who received unauthorized text message advertisements from the
Company as part of the IADT test marketing campaign. Rojas and
Fahey each seek an award trebling the statutory damages to the
class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
On March 14, 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs' counsel resolving the claims asserted in both
cases. Plaintiffs' counsel had until May 9, 2012 to submit its
motion for preliminary approval of that settlement. Under the
terms of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to pay
$200 to each person who received the subject text message who can
be identified and returns a valid claim form. The parties did not
reach an agreement regarding the appropriate amount of legal fees
to be paid to class counsel. As a result, the parties have agreed
that this issue will be presented separately to the Court for
hearing and resolution. Based upon the information available to
the Company, it recorded a charge of $6.0 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011 which represents its best estimate of the loss
related to these matters.


CENTRAL EUROPEAN: Awaits Ruling in Motion to Join Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Central European Distribution Corporation is awaiting a court
ruling on a motion to consolidate two putative securities class
action lawsuits, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On October 24, 2011, a class action complaint titled Steamfitters
Local 449 Pension Fund vs. Central European Distribution
Corporation, et al., was filed in the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey on behalf of a putative class of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock from August 5, 2010
through February 28, 2011 against the Company and certain of its
officers. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
alleges violations of federal securities law in connection with
alleged materially false and misleading statements and/or
omissions regarding the Company's business, financial results and
prospects in the Company's public statements and public filings
with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission for the second and
third quarters of 2010, relating to declines in the Company's
vodka portfolio, the Company's need to take an impairment charge
relating to the deterioration in fair value of certain of its
brands in Poland and negative financial results from the launch of
Zubrowka Biala.  Subsequent to the above complaint, a second,
substantially identical class action complaint titled Tim Schuler
v. Central European Distribution Corporation, et al., was filed in
the same court. Motions to consolidate the two cases and for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been filed and
are awaiting decision. As a result, no response to the complaints
has yet been filed. The Company intends to mount a vigorous
defense to the claims asserted. As of March 31, 2012 the original
plaintiffs, Steamfitters Pension Fund and Tim Schuler, no longer
remain in the lawsuits and the current plaintiffs are now the
Prosperity Group and the Arkansas Pension Fund, however the names
of the lawsuits have remained unchanged.


CIRCLE K: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2012, the San Diego labor attorneys at Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against Circle
K Stores for alleged California Labor Code violations.  The case
is entitled Figueroa vs. Circle K Stores, Inc., Case No. 37-2012-
00101193 and is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior
Court for the State of California.

According to the class action complaint, Circle K allegedly failed
to pay their employees who worked split shifts a premium of one
hour's pay at the minimum wage.  The Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders define a "split-shift" as a "work schedule, which is
interrupted by non-paid, non-working, periods established by the
employer, other than bona fide rest or meal periods."  Under the
California Labor Code, employees who work split shifts are
entitled to receive their regular wages for the hours they work
plus a premium of one hour's pay at the minimum wage.
Specifically, the class action lawsuit alleges that Circle K
required their employees to work split-shifts that included
reporting to work twice in one workday to attend mandatory safety
meetings, but Circle K allegedly failed to pay these employees the
wages owed to them for working the split-shifts.

If you need information on how to collect unpaid wages in San
Diego or want to join the Circle K class action lawsuit, please
call one of our experienced San Diego employment attorneys today
at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors
and consumers fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.


DECKERS OUTDOOR: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case
No. 1:12-cv-01001-UNA, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
sold Deckers Outdoor Corporation options contracts between October
27, 2011 and April 26, 2012 inclusive and suffered damages as a
result.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/DECK

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Deckers, its Chief Executive Officer Angel Martinez, and its Chief
Financial Officer Thomas A. George, are charged with violations of
Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly failed to
inform investors that (1) the Company had not taken adequate steps
to offset the increased price in sheepskin costs; (2) the Company
inventory for its UGG brand was at a maximum, which caused the
Company to attempt to sell the products at reduced costs; (3) the
unseasonably warm winter weather was impacting the Company's
sales, and in particular, the Company's main product, the UGG
brand; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements regarding the Company's operations and earnings were
false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made.

On February 23, 2012, Deckers announced its full-year and fourth
quarter 2012 financial results, reporting better-than-expected
fourth quarter results, but also reporting that inventory levels
had increased 100%, and that it "expects full-year diluted EPS to
be approximately flat with 2011 levels."  As a result, the price
of Deckers common stock dropped $12.49 per share to close at
$77.72 per share.  Then on April 26, 2012, after the market
closed, the Company announced that it had missed its second
quarter 2012 earnings targets and lowered its full-year 2012
guidance, projecting a decrease in 2012 diluted EPS of between 9%
and 10%, compared to previous guidance for diluted EPS to be flat
year-over-year.  On this news, Deckers common stock dropped again,
falling $17.63 per share to close at $51.83 per share on April 27,
2012, a one-day decline of more than 25%, on volume of more than
14 million shares traded.

Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who bought or
sold Deckers options contracts between October 27, 2011 and
April 26, 2012, excluding defendants and their affiliates, and
were damaged thereby.  Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting
class actions and actions involving corporate fraud.

If you purchased or sold Deckers options contracts during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby, you may, not later than
October 1, 2012, move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
class, if you so choose.  In order to discuss this action, or if
you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          ATTN: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
                Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
          Phone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  fmcconville@faruqilaw.com


EATON CORP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, 2012, Scott+Scott LLP filed a securities class action
complaint against Eaton Corporation, the Company's President and
Chief Executive Officer, and certain of its executives in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and was filed on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of
Eaton between August 9, 2009 and June 4, 2012, inclusive.

In general, the complaint alleges that Eaton issued false and
misleading statements concerning its executives' involvement in a
scheme to improperly influence a Mississippi state court judge in
litigation the Company had initiated against rival manufacturer
Frisby Aerospace, Inc. (the "Eaton-Frisby Litigation").  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that Eaton managers knew, but
repeatedly caused Eaton to deny, that Eaton had engaged
Mississippi attorney Ed Peters, a politically connected go-
between, to improperly influence Bobby DeLaughter, the presiding
judge in the Eaton-Frisby Litigation.  Judge DeLaughter later
recused himself from the Eaton case when he became embroiled in an
unrelated lawsuit involving high-powered Mississippi attorney
Richard Scruggs.  Judge DeLaughter was sentenced to 18 months in
prison after admitting he lied to FBI agents about conversations
he had with Peters in the Scruggs case.  Judge Swan Yerger, who
replaced Judge DeLaughter, subsequently dismissed Eaton's lawsuit
against Frisby after deciding there was "clear and convincing"
evidence that Eaton had hired Peters to secretly influence Judge
DeLaughter.

On May 31, 2012, Eaton's CEO and senior executives filed
affidavits with the court, which admitted that Eaton had failed to
turn over records showing that Eaton had improperly, and possibly
illegally, attempted to influence Judge DeLaughter.  On this news,
Eaton shares declined $3.10, or 7.2%, to close at $40.24 on June
1, 2012.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Eaton
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
October 2, 2012 to serve as lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact:

         Michael Burnett, Esq.
         Scott+Scott LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: mburnett@scott-scott.com

or visit the Scott+Scott Web site -- http://www.scott-scott.com/
-- for more information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

Scott+Scott is a class action law firms with offices in New York,
Connecticut, Ohio and California.  It prosecutes securities,
antitrust and employee retirement plan class action lawsuits.  The
firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals and other
entities worldwide.


HSBC USA: Appeals in Madoff-Related Suits Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. is awaiting court decisions on certain appeals filed
by plaintiffs in class action lawsuits arising from Bernard L.
Madoff's Ponzi scheme, according to the Company's July 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") was arrested for
running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the
liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ("Madoff Securities"), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser.  Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided
custodial, administration and similar services to a number of
funds incorporated outside the United States whose assets were
invested with Madoff Securities.  Plaintiffs (including funds,
funds investors and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced
Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a
multitude of jurisdictions.  Various HSBC companies have been
named as defendants in lawsuits in the United States, Ireland,
Luxembourg and other jurisdictions.  Certain lawsuits (which
include U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC
defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and
breached various duties to the funds and fund investors.

In November 2011, the District Court judge overseeing three
related putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York, captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities
Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Nos. 09-CV-0289 (RMB), 09-CV-2558 (RMB)),
dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non
conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one
of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of
investors in Thema International Fund plc -- in light of a
proposed amended settlement agreement between the lead plaintiff
in that action and the relevant HSBC defendants (including,
subject to the granting of leave to effect a proposed pleading
amendment, HSBC Bank USA).  In December 2011, the District Court
lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims
against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary
approval of the settlement.  In light of the District Court's
decisions, HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement.  The
Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate.  Plaintiffs in
all three actions filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the actions are
captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities
Litigation (2nd Cir, Nos. 12-156, 12-184, 12-162).  Plaintiffs'
opening briefs were filed in April 2012 and HSBC filed responses
in July 2012.


HSBC USA: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits related to
lender-placed insurance, according to the Company's July 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining a hazard
insurance policy on a mortgaged property when the borrower fails
to maintain their own policy.  The cost of the lender-placed
insurance is then passed on to the borrower.  Industry practices
with respect to lender-placed insurance are receiving heightened
regulatory scrutiny.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
recently announced that lender-placed insurance is an important
issue and is expected to publish related regulations sometime in
2012.  In October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and
insurers, including the Company's affiliate, HSBC Insurance (USA)
Inc., received subpoenas from the New York Department of Financial
Services (the "NYDFS") with respect to lender-placed insurance
activities dating back to September 2005.  The Company has and
will continue to provide documentation and information to the
NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena.

Between June 2011 and March 2012, several putative class actions
related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC
U.S. entities, including actions against the Company and its
subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation
(USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); Maxwell et al v. HSBC
Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (S.D.N.Y. No. 12-CV-1699); West
et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (South Carolina
Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687).  These
actions relate primarily to industry-wide regulatory concerns, and
include allegations regarding the relationships and potential
conflicts of interest between the various entities that place the
insurance, the value and cost of the insurance that is placed,
back-dating policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse,
self-dealing and insufficient disclosure.


HSBC USA: Court Grants "Levin" Plaintiffs Leave to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted plaintiffs in Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., et al., leave to amend their complaint with regard to their
claims for conversion and unjust enrichment, according to HSBC USA
Inc.'s July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In February 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D.N.Y. 11-CV-0701) was filed in the
Eastern District of New York against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC USA and
HSBC North America on behalf of a putative nationwide class and
New York sub-class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft
fees due to the posting of debit card transactions to deposit
accounts in high-to-low order.  HSBC USA Inc. is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC
North America"), which is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC").  Levin asserts claims for breach of
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York
deceptive acts and practices statute.  The plaintiffs dismissed
the Federal court action after the case was transferred to the
multi-district litigation pending in Miami, Florida, and re-filed
the case in New York state court on March 1, 2011.  The action,
captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 650562/11), alleges a variety of common law claims and
violations on behalf of a New York class, including breach of
contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, unjust enrichment and a violation of the New York
deceptive acts and practices statute.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint in May 2011.

In June 2012, the court denied in part and granted in part the
motion to dismiss, granting plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint with regard to plaintiffs' claims for conversion and
unjust enrichment.

At this time, the Company says it is unable to reasonably estimate
the liability, if any, that might arise as a result of this action
and the Company will defend the claims vigorously.


HSBC USA: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated N.Y. Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. and other defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit known
as In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, according to the Company's July
30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

HSBC USA Inc. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC").

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC
North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and
MasterCard Incorporated, have been named as defendants in four
class actions filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New
York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (D.
Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y.
No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and American
Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-
5391 (JG)).  Numerous other complaints containing similar
allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed across
the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other
banks.  These actions principally allege that the imposition of a
no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of
the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes
the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust
laws.  These lawsuits have been consolidated and transferred to
the Eastern District of New York.  The consolidated case is: In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720").

A consolidated, amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on
April 24, 2006, and a second consolidated amended complaint was
filed on January 29, 2009.  On February 7, 2011, MasterCard
Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other defendants, including HSBC Bank
USA, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into
settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Agreements") that
provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and
liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Bank USA and the
Company's affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the
event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of
these actions.  The Agreements also cover any other potential or
future actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings with MDL 1720.

The parties engaged in a mediation process at the direction of the
District Court.  On July 13, 2012, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa
Inc. and the other defendants, including the HSBC defendants,
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle the
class litigations consolidated into MDL 1720.  Separately, the
same defendants continue to negotiate an agreement to settle all
claims brought by individual merchant plaintiffs consolidated into
MDL 1720.  The MOU for the class litigations sets out a binding
obligation to enter into a settlement agreement in the form
attached to the MOU.  The settlement is subject to: (i) the
successful completion of certain appendices regarding class
notice, claims, and other procedures, (ii) the successful
negotiation of a settlement agreement with the individual merchant
plaintiffs, (iii) final court approval of the class settlement and
(iv) any necessary internal approvals for the parties.

In the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company says it increased its
litigation reserves to an amount equal to its estimated portion of
a potential settlement of this matter.  In connection with the
execution of the MOU, the Company increased its litigation
reserves by an immaterial amount in anticipation of a related
short-term reduction in interchange fees.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend MERS-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 2012, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated was named
a defendant in a putative class action filed on behalf of all 88
counties in Ohio against MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other
financial institutions that participate in the mortgage electronic
registration system (MERS).  The complaint alleges that recording
of mortgages and assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law
and seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants are required
to record every mortgage and assignment on real property located
in Ohio and pay the attendant statutory recording fees.  The
complaint also seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Although
Huntington has not been named as a defendant in the other cases,
similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and
other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country.

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


ILLUMINA INC: One Suit Over Stock Purchase Offer Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
One class action lawsuit arising from an unsolicited tender offer
to purchase all outstanding shares of Illumina, Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 1, 2012.

On January 27, 2012, CKH Acquisition Corporation and Roche Holding
Ltd. (together, "Roche") commenced an unsolicited tender offer
(the "Offer") to purchase all outstanding shares of the Company's
common stock for $44.50 per share.  In response to the Offer, the
Company's Board of Directors unanimously recommended that the
Company's stockholders reject the Offer and not tender their
shares to Roche for purchase.

In connection with the unsolicited tender offer by Roche, the
Company became involved in three stockholder class action
lawsuits, with one case in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, one case in the California
Superior Court (County of San Diego), and one consolidated case in
the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware.  Following
termination of Roche's tender offer, the plaintiffs in the actions
filed in California Superior Court (County of San Diego) and the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware voluntarily dismissed
the class action lawsuits.


KFC PROPERTIES: Cooks File Overtime Class Action in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that KFC Properties stiffs cooks
for overtime and pays less than minimum wage, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Young, et al. v. KFC U.S. Properties,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01285 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/03/KFC.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Lescht, Esq.
          Susan L. Kruger, Esq.
          ALAN LESCHT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1050 Seventeenth St., N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 463-6036


LOCAL SPLASH: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2012, the San Diego employment lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action Complaint against Local
Splash, a Relevant Ads, Inc. company for wage and hour violations,
specifically for allegedly violating California labor laws in
regards to overtime pay and requiring their employees to work off-
the-clock without being paid for all their hours worked.  Poole,
et al. vs. Relevant Ads, Inc., Case No. 30-2012-00587816 is
currently pending in Orange County Superior Court for the state of
California.

According to the class action Complaint filed against Relevant
Ads, the company required their employees to routinely perform
work off-the-clock for which they were not compensated for.
Specifically, the unpaid overtime lawsuit claims that Relevant Ads
fails to pay their employees for "work time which is spent logging
onto computers, initializing software applications, and preparing
to take and/or make phone calls."  As a result, the Complaint
alleges Plaintiff and California Class Members were consistently
not paid all overtime wages during their employment with Relevant
Ads.

The unpaid overtime Complaint further claims that as a result of
Relevant Ads' failure to record all hours worked by members of the
California Class, Relevant Ads allegedly failed to provide the
Plaintiff and the other members of the California Class with
complete and accurate wage statements which failed to show, among
other things, the correct number of all hours worked and the
correct overtime rate for overtime hours worked.

Founding partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal asserts, "the failure to pay employees for off-the-
clock work is one of the more common violations of federal and
state wage and hour laws."

For more information about California labor laws and to better
understand your rights as an employee, contact a San Diego
employment lawyer or call (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors
and consumers fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Girardi Sactioned For Not Producing Fees Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Winnick writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on July 30 slammed Girardi & Keese with sanctions for failing to
hand over documents in a class action accusing the firm of
charging excessive fees while representing Lockheed Martin Corp.
employees in chemical exposure litigation that netted settlements
totaling $131 million.

"I have rarely seen a litigant more routinely noncompliant with
deadlines than Girardi & Keese in this case," Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge William F. Highberger told attorneys for the firm on
July 30, ordering that Girardi & Keese pay $3,500 in sanctions.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Arpaio Suit Judge Seek Brief on Race & Intent
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do I have to find racial animus?" the federal judge asked
attorneys on Aug. 2 after testimony concluded in the civil rights
class action against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Jamie Ross at Courthouse
News Service reports.

"If you intend . . . to use race as a factor, does it matter that
you didn't intend to violate the law?" he added.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow asked attorneys for both sides
to provide him with arrest records, operational plans and shift
summaries in the briefs they file in the next 2 weeks.

"Is there something less than racial animus but more than criminal
intent?" Judge Snow asked the attorneys.

"Let's say that I determine . . .  that MCSO [Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office] believed and did and continued to use race as
one factor among many in making certain law enforcement decisions
in certain content . . . is the intent requirement for injunctive
relief satisfied even though they may have had some officers or
all officers believe they were acting according to law?"

The plaintiffs are not seeking money damages, but an injunction to
stop Arpaio and his office from exceeding their authority, and
from engaging in racial discrimination.

The court heard testimony on Aug. 2 from Bennie Click, a former
Dallas police chief and an expert witness for the defense.

Mr. Click said he found no policy in the Sheriff's Office's
training documents "that specifically addressed the language that
would be racial profiling."

Mr. Click added: "I think if it was solely, 'I trust them so I
therefore don't have to monitor them,' that would fall below the
standard of care."

Plaintiffs' attorney Dan Pochoda asked Mr. Click if an officer
will "readily confess to using race improperly, if he or she does
it?"

Mr. Click responded: "I do think that officers would acknowledge
that what they did was improper.  I think there may be a
hesitancy, but I think in most agencies most of the reports of
misconduct from other officers and deputies come from other
officers and deputies. "

Tim Casey, representing the defendants, asked Mr. Click if there
is a "national standard that requires an agency the size of MCSO
to have a separate stand-alone policy for racial profiling?"

Mr. Click said no -- that racial profiling was usually covered
more broadly as a constitutional rights issue.

"I did not find information that led me to believe that there was
a pattern and practice of racial profiling," Mr. Click testified.
He said there was no benefit in racial profiling.

"Part of it is, it is going to get you in trouble.  . . . You
could be charged criminally.  It is a federal felony.  There are
officers that have gone to prison for this."

The court again heard from plaintiffs' expert Ralph Taylor, a
Temple University professor, who testified on the first day of the
trial that Hispanic names were 34 to 40 percent more likely to be
checked by a deputy during one of Sheriff Arpaio's "saturation
patrols" than non-Hispanic names.

Mr. Taylor rebutted claims made by Steven Camarota on July 31,
that the lower socioeconomic status of Latinos in Maricopa County
may lead to more and lengthier traffic stops against them.

"I have seen no data specific to this population that demonstrates
that to be the case," Mr. Taylor said.  "The analysis that I ran
showed that if a Hispanic was pulled over on a saturation patrol
day by a saturation patrol active officer, he or she was less
likely to receive a citation."

Judge Snow has not indicated when he will rule on the case.

Nor is it clear how, or if the verdict, whatever it may be, will
affect Sheriff Arpaio's run for re-election to a 6th 4-year term
in November.

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

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/01/MelendresvArpaio.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Bodney, Esq.
          Peter S. Kozinets, Esq.
          Karen J. Hartman-Tellez, Esq.
          Isaac P. Hernandez 025537, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          Collier Center
          201 East Washington Street, Suite 1600
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-23 82
          Telephone: (602) 257-5200
          E-mail: dbodney@steptoe.com
                  pkozinets@steptoe.com
                  khartman@steptoe.com
                  ihernandez@steptoe.com

               - 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
          634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: 213 629-2512 x136


MICRONETICS INC: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micronetics, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's July 30, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On July 30, 2012, Micronetics, Inc. ("Micronetics") signed a
memorandum of understanding to settle the previously disclosed
class action lawsuit captioned In re Micronetics, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 7626-VCP pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and the lawsuit in the New Hampshire Superior Court
entitled Constantinescu v. Micronetics, et al., No. 226-2012-CV-
490 and the newly-filed action in the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire entitled Joshi v. Micronetics,
Inc., et al., No. 1:12-CV-00285 (collectively, the "Merger
Litigation").  The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of June 8, 2012, by and among Mercury
Computer Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRCY, http://www.mc.com/)
("Mercury"), a new Mercury subsidiary, and Micronetics.

Micronetics agreed to the settlement solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing.  The settlement provides,
among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement which provides for the conditional
certification of the Merger Litigation as a non opt-out class
action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23 on behalf of a class
consisting of all record and beneficial owners of Micronetics
common stock during the period beginning on June 10, 2012, through
the date of the consummation of the proposed merger, including any
and all of their respective successors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, and the release of all asserted claims.  The
asserted claims will not be released until such stipulation of
settlement is approved by the court.  There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation.  The settlement
will not affect the merger consideration to be received by
Micronetics stockholders or the timing of the special meeting of
Micronetics stockholders scheduled for August 8, 2012.

Additionally, as part of the settlement, Micronetics has agreed to
make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed
merger.  The additional disclosures supplement the disclosure
contained in the proxy statement filed by Micronetics with the SEC
on July 10, 2012 (the "Proxy Statement"), and should be read in
conjunction with the disclosures contained in the Proxy Statement,
which in turn should be read in its entirety.  Nothing in the
Company's press release or any stipulation of settlement shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any
of the disclosures.

Micronetics Inc. -- http://www.micronetics.com-- manufactures
microwave and radio frequency (RF) components and integrated
subassemblies used in a variety of defense, aerospace and
commercial applications.  Micronetics also manufactures and
designs test equipment and components that test the strength,
durability and integrity of communication signals in communication
equipment.  Micronetics serves a diverse customer base, including
BAE Systems, Boeing, Cobham, EADS, General Dynamics, ITT Exelis,
L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon,
Rockwell, Tecom Industries, Teradyne, and Thales.


MOODY'S CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported
purchasers of Moody's Corporation's securities against the Company
and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the
federal securities laws.  The first was filed by Raphael Nach in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
July 19, 2007.  The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282
Pension Trust Fund in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on September 26, 2007.  Both actions
have been consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re
Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On June 27, 2008, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's securities during the period
February 3, 2006, through
October 24, 2007.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued
false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company's
business conduct, business prospects, business conditions and
financial results relating primarily to Moody's Investors
Service's ratings of structured finance products including
residential mortgage-backed security, collateralized debt
obligation and constant-proportion debt obligations.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and
their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with
the case.  The Company moved for dismissal of the consolidated
amended complaint in September 2008.  On February 23, 2009, the
court issued an opinion dismissing certain claims and sustaining
others.  On January 22, 2010, plaintiffs moved to certify a class
of individuals who purchased Moody's Corporation common stock
between February 3, 2006, and October 24, 2007, which the Company
opposed.  On March 31, 2011, the court issued an opinion denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed class.  On April 14,
2011, plaintiffs filed a petition in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking discretionary permission to
appeal the decision.  The Company filed its response to the
petition on April 25, 2011.  On July 20, 2011, the Second Circuit
issued an order denying plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.

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


MOODY'S CORP: IKB Settles With Plaintiffs in Rhinebridge Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and IKB Credit Asset Management GmbH
executed a confidential settlement agreement with plaintiffs in
the class action lawsuit initiated in New York to which Moody's
Corporation and its subsidiaries are also named  plaintiffs,
according to Moody's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington, and Iowa
Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially
identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other
defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche
Industriebank AG.  These actions arise out of investments in
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called
Rhinebridge plc (the "Rhinebridge SIV") and seek, among other
things, compensatory and punitive damages.  Each complaint
asserted a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency
defendants, alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings
assigned to the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were
false and misleading.  The case is pending before the same judge
presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV.  In April
2010, the court denied the rating agency defendants' motion to
dismiss.  In June 2010, the court consolidated the two cases and
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other
things, added Morgan Stanley & Co. as a defendant.

In January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the
court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that
asserted claims against the rating agency defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
aiding and abetting claims.  In May 2012, the court, ruling on the
rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the
new claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, which
alleges that the credit ratings assigned to the Rhinebridge SIV
had no reasonable basis, and a claim for aiding and abetting
fraud. Plaintiffs have thus far not sought class certification.
In the course of the proceedings, the two plaintiffs have asserted
that their total compensatory damages, consisting of alleged lost
principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest, equal
approximately $70 million.

In June 2012, defendants IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and IKB
Credit Asset Management GmbH informed the court that they had
executed a confidential settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.


MOODY'S CORP: Misrepresentation Claim Remains in "Abu Dhabi" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A claim for negligent misrepresentation remains in the class
action lawsuit commenced by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, according
to Moody's Corporation's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2012.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co.  The action relates to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and seeks, among other things, compensatory and
punitive damages.  The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants is that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading.  In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud.  In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint.

In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary
judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud
claims.  Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case
law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims.  In May
2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to
dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the
negligent misrepresentation claim, which alleges that the credit
ratings assigned to the Cheyne SIV had no reasonable basis.  In
the course of the proceedings, the 15 plaintiffs in this action
have asserted that their total compensatory damages, consisting of
alleged lost principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest,
equal approximately $811 million.


MOUNTAIN STATE: Faces Class Action Over Loss of Accreditation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Lannom, writing for The State Journal, reports that an Ohio
resident has filed a federal class action suit against Mountain
State University.

The Bell Law Firm and The Googasian Firm filed the suit, which
asserts the university's loss of accreditation has "made it
impossible" for class members to obtain accredited credentials.

Lynnetta Martin filed the 23-page lawsuit against MSU, its former
president Charles H. Polk, and trustees Jerry Ice, Max Beard, Mona
K. Wiseman, Frank S. Harkins Jr., Harriet W. Cabell, Elmer
Coppoolse and Lynn Blanchard.

Ms. Martin enrolled in the school's online computer science
associate degree program in 2010.  In the suit, Ms. Martin says
she has incurred, "thousands of dollars in tuition expenses."

The suit defines the class as, "all individuals who reside outside
of West Virginia and had enrolled in any program at MSU prior to
July 10, 2012."  The suit seeks damages for similarly situated
members who enrolled in MSU's programs.

Officials with the University of Charleston recently announced
they would open a Beckley Center near MSU to serve as a primary
teach-out partner.

"I think it is a good move to see West Virginia institutions
growing and expanding that places the students first," said Harry
Bell, founder and attorney at The Bell Law Firm.  "From that
perspective, the people of Raleigh County and students of that
institution need to have a quality of leadership that a respected
institution can offer."

This came on the heels of the Higher Learning Commission's June 28
decision to withdraw MSU's accreditation.  However, accreditation
has been temporarily restored through the end of the year.

The lawsuit alleges the university breached its duty of care to
plaintiffs by failing to maintain accreditation and taking steps
to maintain accreditation.

Plaintiffs also allege negligent misrepresentation against MSU,
asserting defendants made "one or more innocent, negligent or
reckless omissions of the fact" including the representation that
the university had accreditation and leading students to believe
it would continue to possess accreditation.

The suit also asserted plaintiffs were not advised of the risk of
losing accreditation.

This is not the first time this year a class action has been filed
against MSU.  Both firms filed another class action July 12 on
behalf of Rebecca Mullis, a Florida resident enrolled in an online
diagnostic medical sonography program.

This class is defined as "all individuals who enrolled in an
online medical diagnostic sonography program at Mountain State
University at any time from the program's inception in 2007 to the
present, for whom Mountain State provided no clinical externship
site within three hours of the students' home or another
practicable location in the student's area."

Ms. Mullis, who enrolled in the program in 2008, alleges MSU did
not have and did not attempt to locate a clinical externship
location in her area.  Ms. Mullis says she incurred approximately
$60,000 in student loan debt.

"One of the things that is interesting is most of the time,
student loan debt is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy," Mr. Bell
said.  "A typical example of someone who is over their head -- you
lose your job, medical bills are crushing you.  You go through
bankruptcy.  . . . Therefore it can just be crushing more people
for a longer period of time."

The suit states completion of a clinical externship was necessary
to become licensed to practice diagnostic medical sonography.

"As a result of Mountain State's breaches of its obligations, the
time and money invested by plaintiff and other class members has
been wasted because the students cannot complete their programs
and obtain the credentials toward which they have been working and
paying tuition," the suit asserts.

Both suits mentioned MSU's expansion to different states as well
as online classes.  It also mentioned the former president's
salary.

The suit additionally asserts MSU took on $10.2 million in debt to
refinance its $7 million purchase loan to fund improvements to the
Martinsburg Mall and for the opening of an integrated learning
center.  The suit maintains the learning center never "fully
opened."

"The expansion undertaken by Mountain State, Polk and the Trustee
Defendants failed to preserve the academic and financial standing
of the school," the Martin suit alleged.

The Webb Law Firm PLC and DiTrapano, Barrett & DiPiero PLLC also
filed a class action suit, which seeks class certification on
behalf of all current and former students affected by the loss of
accreditation.

The suit, filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court defined this class
as "all West Virginia residents who were enrolled as students of
Mountain State University at any time since July 10 2008, who have
not yet received a degree as of the time of the filing of this
complaint."

Excluded from this class are those who have filed individual
lawsuits regarding the 2010 revocation of accreditation for MSU's
undergraduate nursing program.

"We are delighted UC is going to take over the facilities.  It's
good for Beckley and good for students, but we still have
substantial damages because all of the students who transferred
will inevitably lose a lot of credits associated with that
transfer," said Rusty Webb, an attorney with The Webb Law Firm.
"Even though UC is taking over the facilities and programs, there
will still be a lot of credits that will not transfer because of
the quality of education received at Mountain State.  We are still
going forward."


NEW LEAF: Class Suit Over Lead in Products Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2009, New Leaf Brands, Inc. was notified that it
was named as a defendant, along with 54 other defendants, in a
class action lawsuit under California Proposition 65 for allegedly
failing to disclose the amount of lead in one of its products.
The Company has responded to discovery requests from the Attorney
General of California.  To date, no trial date has been set.  The
Company is currently investigating the merits of the allegation
and is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or a range of possible loss.  This matter remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 30, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The Company says that although the product in question was sold as
part of its Asset Sale to Nutra, Inc., the Company remains as a
named defendant in the case.  The Company believes this case is
without merit and it plans to defend the case vigorously.  The
Company believes this lawsuit will not have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.


PFIZER INC: Sued for Misleading Ads for Centrum Pro Nutrients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Arroyo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pfizer, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:12-
cv-04030 (N.D. Calif., July 31, 2012) is brought in connection
with the Company's alleged misleading advertising for its product
called "Centrum Pro Nutrients Probiotic powder packets."

Pfizer made false and misleading statements in its advertising and
packaging of the Product, Ms. Arroyo alleges.  She contends that
Pfizer's uniform and consistent claims that use of the Product
would support healthy immune function is false and misleading
because the Product cannot support healthy immune function for
almost all of the Product is excreted through the urine leaving
minimal, if any, benefit to an individual's immune system.

Ms. Arroyo is a resident of Contra Costa County, California.  She
purchased the Product during March 2012 for $15 from a Walgreens
pharmacy.

Pfizer is a Delaware corporation based in New York.  Directly and
through its agents, the Company has substantial contacts with, and
receives benefits and income from and through, the state of
California.  The Company owns, manufactures and distributes the
Product, and is the company that created and authorized the
alleged false, misleading and deceptive labeling and advertising
for the Product.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com


RAILAMERICA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that RailAmerica is selling itself
too cheaply to Genesee & Wyoming through an unfair process, for
$1.4 billion or $27.50 a share, shareholders claim in Chancery
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ford v. RailAmerica, Inc., et al., Case
No. 7744 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/03/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gms@rigrodskylong.com


ROYAL CANADIAN: Female Mounties' Class Certification Bid Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Sun reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging
the RCMP "systematically" discriminated and harassed women on the
force had its first day in court on Aug. 2, as lawyers
representing claimants added a high-profile former constable to
the case.

Former Mountie Valerie MacLean, who claims she faced gender
harassment on the job, told reporters outside court how her
complaints to RCMP superiors were repeatedly ignored.

"We joined to have a career.  We didn't join to be harassed and
humiliated or be told our career depended on us being 'friendly'
or having relationships with our supervisors," she said.

Ms. MacLean recalled how, more than 30 years ago, her supervising
corporal tagged along with her on each shift and insisted it would
be "good" for her career to have a relationship as he oversaw her
assessment.

She later quit the national police force and eventually served
stints as executive director of the Vancouver Police Foundation
and a vice-president at the Better Business Bureau.

To be heard in court, however, Ms. MacLean and more than 200
additional claimants need to have the lawsuit certified for class
action.

Lawyer David Klein currently represents sole plaintiff Janet
Merlo.

Certification as a class-action suit means Merlo, also an ex-RCMP
constable, could argue on behalf of the other women and any
judicial ruling would apply to the whole class.

Ms. Merlo didn't appear in court on Aug. 2, but her story was
detailed in an 18-page notice of claim filed to B.C. Supreme Court
in March.

The unproven allegations include a sex-toy being left in her work
files, regular comments about her breasts, suggestions that she
should do "women's work" and offers of sex.

"On many occasions Ms. Merlo would take sick days because she was
upset about the ongoing discrimination and harassment she faced,"
the claim reads.  "She felt too physically ill to attend work.

"On other occasions, Ms. Merlo would start work early in order to
give herself time to prepare for dealing with the ongoing
harassment."

Government lawyers, however, are expected to fight the
certification proposal.  Federal lawyer Mitchell Taylor told court
he doesn't feel some allegations meet requirements for a class-
action suit.

He told the court to expect any claimants who breached employment
contracts with the RCMP would be challenged, adding many of the
allegations have to do with individual "person-to-person"
interactions, not the RCMP as a whole.

A motion from federal lawyers to "strike out" sections of the
claim is expected in September.


SHARKY'S WOODFIRED: Sued for Misrepresenting Mahi Mahi Dishes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sharky's Woodfired Mexican
Grill restaurants sell Mahi Mahi dishes that do not contain Mahi
Mahi, a class action claims in Orange County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Chenier, et al. v. Sharky's Franchise
Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 30-2012-00587784 (Calif. Super. Ct.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/03/PhonyFish.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Moore, Esq.
          Ronald T. Labriola, Esq.
          THE SENATORS (Ret.) FIRM, LLP
          4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 370
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 209-9820
          E-mail: tmoore@thesenatorsfirm.com
                  rlabriola@thesenatorsfirm.com


SNC-LAVALIN GROUP: Ontario Court Discontinues Gray Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 9, 2012, Rochon Genova LLP commenced a global class action
in Toronto on behalf of investors of SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.
alleging securities law violations by the company, its Board of
Directors and certain officers.  The lawsuit was initiated by
Brent Gray on behalf of all SNC-Lavalin investors, excluding
residents of Quebec, who purchased securities of SNC-Lavalin
between February 1, 2007 and February 28, 2012, including
investors who purchased debentures of SNC-Lavalin through the
company's June 2009 prospectus offering (the "Gray Action").

A separate proceeding was commenced by Siskinds LLP on May 9, 2012
in Brampton raising similar allegations on behalf of investors who
acquired securities of SNC-Lavalin between November 6, 2009 and
February 27, 2012.

Since commencing the actions, the plaintiffs in both actions and
their counsel have agreed to jointly prosecute a class proceeding
against SNC-Lavalin and certain of its officers and directors.  On
June 29, 2012, the plaintiffs obtained an order from the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice consolidating the two actions (to
proceed in Toronto under the court file in the Gray Action).

Concurrently with the consolidation, the Court approved the
discontinuance of the Gray Action against Jacques Lamarre, Eric
Siegel, Jean-Paul Vettier, Charles Azar and Andre Beland, who were
named as defendants in the Gray Action.

The proposed class period in the consolidated action is November
6, 2009 to February 27, 2012.  Please be advised that claims are
no longer being advanced on behalf of investors who purchased SNC
securities between February 1, 2007 and November 5, 2009,
including investors who purchased debentures of SNC-Lavalin
through the company's June 2009 prospectus offering.

The bases for the discontinuance against the defendants and for
the revised class period are explained in the plaintiffs' motion
materials, which are available upon request from Siskinds LLP or
Rochon Genova LLP.

If you purchased SNC securities between February 1, 2007 and
November 5, 2009, or would like to assert claims against Jacques
Lamarre, Eric Siegel, Jean-Paul Vettier, Charles Azar or Andre
Beland in relation to the matters in issue in this litigation, you
should immediately seek independent legal advice.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Southern California
Permanente Medical Group stiffs appointment center supervisors for
overtime, a class action claims in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Martel v. Southern California
Permanente Medical Group, Inc., et al., Case No. CIVD8-1207857
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/03/Employment.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq.
          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          Katherine Den Bleyker, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mschimmel@initiativelegal.com
                  kdenbleyker@initiativelegal.com


SUNTECH POWER: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Suntech
Power Holdings Co., Ltd., has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all  persons or
entities who purchased the American Depositary Shares of Suntech
between August 18, 2010 and July 30, 2012, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com

The Complaint charges Suntech and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Suntech, a solar energy company, engages in the design,
development, manufacture and marketing of photovoltaic products.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about Suntech's
business, operations and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Suntech had not
been pledged EURO 560.0 million in German government bonds from
GSF Capital Pte Ltd., in connection with its May 2010 financing
arrangement with the China Development Bank; (2) that the Company
lacked internal and financial controls; and (3) that, as a result,
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 30, 2012 the Company disclosed that it was conducting an
investigation into the security interest that Suntech purportedly
received in May 2010 from GSF Capital Pte Ltd, the parent of the
general partner of Global Solar Fund, S.C.A., Sicar ("GSF"), an
investment fund created to make investments in private companies
that own or develop projects in the solar energy sector that had
80% of its share equity owned by Suntech.  According to the
Company, outside counsel that had been hired as part of Suntech's
initiative to monetize its investment in GSF had noted certain
facts and circumstances suggesting that the German government
bonds in the amount of EURO 560.0 million purportedly pledged to
the Company may not have ever existed.  The Company further
disclosed that it had filed legal claims against relevant parties
in multiple jurisdictions to assert control of GSF and its assets.

On this news, shares of the Company declined $0.23 per share, or
14.65%, to close on July 30, 2012, at $1.34 per share, on
unusually heavy volume, and further declined another $0.21, or
15.67%, to close on July 31, 2012, at $1.13 per share, also on
unusually heavy volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class, you may move the Court, no later
than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve as lead
plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll
Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com
or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Proceedings in "Jacobs" Antitrust Suit at an End
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in an antitrust class action lawsuit captioned
Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North
America, Inc., initiated in Georgia are at an end, Tempur-Pedic
International Inc. said in its July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012.

On January 5, 2007, a purported class action was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Rome Division (Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, Inc., or the
Antitrust Action).  The Antitrust Action alleged violations of
federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic
mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain
distributors.  The action alleged a class of all purchasers of
Tempur-Pedic mattresses in the United States since January 5,
2003, and sought damages and injunctive relief. Count Two of the
complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25, 2007, based on a
motion filed by the Company. Following a decision issued by the
United States Supreme Court in Leegin Creative Leather Prods.,
Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. on June 28, 2007, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the remaining two counts of the Antitrust Action on July
10, 2007. On December 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a
result, judgment was entered in favor of the Company and the
plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On December
21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment," which was fully briefed. On May 1, 2008, that motion
was denied.  Jacobs appealed the dismissal of their claims, and
the parties argued the appeal before the United States Circuit
Court for the Eleventh Circuit on December 11, 2008.

The Court rendered an opinion favorable to the Company on December
2, 2010, affirming the trial court's refusal to allow Jacobs to
alter or amend its pleadings and dismissing its claims.  Jacobs
subsequently petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an
"en banc" review of the three judge panel's ruling.   The Court of
Appeals decided unanimously (11-0) that it would not reconsider
the ruling.  No further appeal was taken by the Plaintiffs.  The
proceedings are at an end.


TIMMINCO LTD: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Class-Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal of a
landmark Ontario Court of Appeal decision that critics say imposes
a draconian deadline on the right of shareholders to sue companies
they accuse of misrepresenting their financial results.

The Supreme Court announced on Aug. 2 that it had dismissed the
leave application filed in the case of Ravinder Kumar Sharma v.
Timminco Ltd. et al.  As is customary, the court did not provide
any reasons.

Lawyers who file class actions against corporations on behalf of
shareholders were sharply critical of the February decision from
the Ontario Court of Appeal, which dealt a blow to a proposed
shareholder class action against Toronto-based Timminco Ltd.

That ruling held that the province's class-action legislation does
not freeze a three-year time limit in the Ontario Securities Act
for plaintiffs to secure the leave, or special permission, they
need from a judge for "secondary market" shareholder lawsuits to
proceed.  The act was changed in 2005 to make it easier for this
kind of case, which involves shareholders who purchased stock on a
stock market, to go ahead.

The time limit to secure leave runs from the last statement from
the company that the plaintiffs allege was a misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs lawyers say this timeframe makes it next to impossible
to secure leave from a judge, given the complexity of most
shareholder lawsuits and the ability of defendants to drag their
heels.  They warned that several multi-million lawsuits were in
jeopardy.

Last month, an Ontario judge ruled that the Timminco decision
meant that a shareholder class action against Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce for allegedly downplaying its exposure to U.S.
subprime mortgages could not go ahead. Mr. Justice George Strathy
said he made the ruling "with considerable regret."

Toronto lawyer Won Kim of Kim Orr Barristers P.C., who represents
the plaintiffs in the Timminco case, said he was disappointed with
the result.  He insisted that the case against the company could
still be revived.

The $540-million lawsuit alleges that Timminco, which sought
protection from its creditors and is now being sold off, defrauded
investors by claiming in 2008 that it had discovered a cheaper way
to make silicon for solar panels.

While the three-year deadline clearly gives defendants an
advantage, Mr. Kim said he believes in future cases, judges may be
forced to dramatically speed up proceedings and as a result, lower
the hurdle that plaintiffs need to jump over to win leave.

"The leave provision has been completely watered down," Mr. Kim
said.  "This means the leave provision will become perfunctory.
The judges will just pass this through  . . . They are not going
to let the defendants delay."

Mr. Kim also said that other cases are now moving forward to the
appeal stage that could end up seeing the Ontario Court of Appeal
modify or change its stance from the Timminco decision.

Plaintiffs'-side lawyers have also urged the Ontario government to
rewrite the law to extend the deadline, and point out that
Manitoba has introduced an amendment to its securities
legislation.

Bay Street lawyers who defend companies in this kind of case
praised the original Ontario Court of Appeal decision, saying the
three-year deadline is needed to ensure companies are not kept
under a cloud by allegations in shareholder lawsuits that can drag
on for many years.


TRAVELZOO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelzoo Inc. continues to defend a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's
July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Beginning on August 9, 2011, two purported class action lawsuits
were commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  On January 6, 2012, a Consolidated
and Amended Class Action Complaint was filed.  The complaint
asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") alleging that
between March 16, 2011, and July 21, 2011, the Company and/or the
individual defendants purportedly issued materially false and
misleading statements.  In particular, the complaint asserts,
among other things, allegations challenging certain statements
relating to the Company's growth.  The complaint also makes
allegations regarding the Company's Getaways business and asserts
that certain officers and directors sold stock while in possession
of materially adverse non-public information.  The action seeks
unspecified damages and the Company is unable to estimate the
possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result
from the action.  The Company believes that the action is without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


ULTRATECH INC: Injunction Motion in "Rice" Suit Denied in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Rice's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin
stockholders' vote on Ultratech, Inc.'s proposal to increase the
authorized shares of its common stock was denied in July 2012,
according to the Company's July 30, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2012.

Ultratech, Inc. is a defendant in Dennis Rice v. Ultratech, Inc.,
et al., a class action lawsuit commenced on June 14, 2012, in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.  The
plaintiff alleges that the proposal in the Company's proxy seeking
approval to increase the authorized shares of common stock from 40
million to 80 million was misleading and incomplete and that the
directors violated their fiduciary duties by making these
misleading disclosures.  The plaintiff sought to enjoin the
stockholders' vote on this proposal.  On July 16, 2012, the Court
held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction
and issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion.  While
plaintiff's motion for an injunction was denied, the action is
still pending.

The Company believes the action is without merit and it plans a
vigorous defense.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits S.C. Action on Review Petition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. is still awaiting a supreme court
action on plaintiffs' petition for review of an appeals court
decision dismissing their lawsuit alleging that Verizon and other
telecommunications companies participated in intelligence-
gathering activities, according to the Company's July 30, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Verizon and a number of other telecommunications companies, have
been the subject of multiple class action lawsuits concerning
their alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction
of the President of the United States, as part of the government's
post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs
generally allege that Verizon has participated by permitting the
government to gain access to the content of its subscribers'
telephone calls and/or records concerning those calls and that
such action violates federal and/or state constitutional and
statutory law. Relief sought in the cases includes injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, and statutory and punitive damages. On
August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(Panel) ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated
and coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The Panel subsequently ordered that a
number of "tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern
District of California. Verizon believes that these lawsuits are
without merit. On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the
FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of these
lawsuits by the court based on submission by the Attorney General
of the United States of a specified certification. On September
19, 2008, the Attorney General made such a submission in the
consolidated proceedings. Based on this submission, the court
ordered dismissal of the complaints on June 3, 2009. Plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal, and by decision issued December 29, 2011,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal.

On March 28, 2012, plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.  The Supreme
Court has not yet acted on the petition.


WPCS INTERNATIONAL: Expects Acquisition-Related Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
WPCS International Incorporated said in its July 30, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended April 30, 2012, that it anticipates that a
consolidated acquisition-related class action lawsuit will be
dismissed as Multiband Corporation is no longer pursuing the
acquisition of the Company.

On or about June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company
filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court
of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County, against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Ralph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al.,
Docket No. 11-06837 (No Judge has been assigned at this time).  In
this action, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction in which Multiband would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the consideration to be paid for such
acquisition by Multiband is inadequate, and that the individual
board members failed to engage in an honest and fair sales process
for the Company and failed to disclose material information for
the purposes of advancing their own interests over those of the
Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the plaintiff asserts
a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's board
of directors.  In the event that the proposed transaction is
consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.  The plaintiff
also asserts a claim against the Company and Multiband Corporation
for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for which he
seeks unspecified money damages.

On or about June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company
filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court
of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County, against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Robert Shepler v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al.,
Docket No. 11-06838 (No Judge has been assigned at this time).  In
this action, the plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction in which Multiband would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the consideration to be paid for such
acquisition by Multiband Corporation is inadequate, and that the
individual board members failed to engage in an honest and fair
sales process for the Company and failed to disclose material
information for the purposes of advancing their own interests over
those of the Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the
plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company's board of directors.  In the event that the proposed
transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.
The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company and
Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for
which he seeks unspecified money damages.  On August 11, 2011, the
Shepler case was consolidated into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case.

On or about June 30, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company
filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court
of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County, against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Edwin M. McKean v. WPCS International Incorporated, et
al., (No Docket number or Judge has been assigned at this time).
In this action, the plaintiff also seeks to enjoin a proposed
transaction in which Multiband would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff's allegations
are substantially similar to the allegations in Rapozo v. WPCS and
Shepler v. WPCS.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
the consideration to be paid for such acquisition by Multiband is
inadequate, and that the individual board members failed to engage
in an honest and fair sales process for the Company and failed to
disclose material information for the purposes of advancing their
own interests over those of the Company and its shareholders.  To
that end, the plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Company's board of directors.  In the event that
the proposed transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money
damages.  The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company
and Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for
which he seeks unspecified money damages.  On October 18, 2011,
the McKean case was consolidated into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case.

WPCS' time to answer or move with respect to the Complaint in the
Rapozo case has not yet expired.  The Company and its directors
deny the material allegations of this complaint and intend to
vigorously defend this action if necessary, however, as Multiband
has announced that it is no longer pursuing the acquisition of
WPCS, the Company anticipates that the lawsuit will be dismissed.

WPCS International Incorporated -- http://www.wpcs.com/--
provides design-build engineering services for communications
infrastructure.  The Company operates in three segments:
Electrical Power, Wireless Communication, and Specialty
Construction.  The Company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Exton, Pennsylvania.


YAHOO! INC: Faces Class Action Over Hacked Users' Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Allan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-04034 (N.D. Calif., July 31,
2012) alleges that Yahoo is a leading Internet company that
provides Internet based services to millions of users on a monthly
basis and yet failed to deploy even the most rudimentary of
protections for certain users' personal information.

"Yahoo! Inc. is a leading Internet company that provides Internet
based services to millions of users on a monthly basis and yet
failed to deploy even the most rudimentary of protections for
certain users' personal information," lead plaintiff Jeff Allan
says in the complaint.  "Consequently, a group of hackers, in the
name of publicly humiliating Yahoo for its lax security measures,
infiltrated a Yahoo database and publicly posted login credentials
from over 450,000 accounts.

"Plaintiff Jeff Allan is one of the approximately 450,000 users
whose information was posted online for the world to see and use.
Within days of the breach, Mr. Allan received an alert of account
fraud on his eBay account, which used the same login credentials
as disclosed in the Yahoo breach.  Mr. Allan does not know what
other information the hackers and others have gathered about him.

"Plaintiff Allan brings this class action lawsuit against Yahoo
for failing to adequately safeguard his and others' personal
information.  Mr. Allan seeks an order requiring Yahoo to remedy
the harm caused by its negligent security, which may include
compensating plaintiff and class members for resulting account
fraud and for all reasonably necessary measures plaintiff and
class members have had to take in order to identify and safeguard
the accounts put at risk by Yahoo's negligent security."

Yahoo bought Associated Content for $100 million in 2010,
according to the complaint.  Associated Content "published text,
image, and video media contributed by freelance authors registered
with the company.  To contribute material before the Yahoo
purchase, users had to establish an account with Associated
Content, using an e-mail address as the login name and creating a
password.  Some or all of these login credentials were obtained by
Yahoo when it acquired Associated Content.

"In November 2010, Yahoo launched the Yahoo! Contributor Network,
calling it 'an evolution of the Associated Content platform' that
would "bring contributions from more than 450,000 writers,
photographers, and videographers to the Internet's largest media
destinations, including Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo!
Sports, and even the Yahoo! Homepage, among many others.'  In
December 2011, Yahoo also announced Yahoo! Voices, a new digital
library for content published by the Yahoo! Contributor Network,
including content acquired with Associated Content.  Registered
users of the Yahoo! Contributor Network can contribute content
and, in some cases, earn money if Yahoo publishes their content.

"On July 11, 2012, a group of hackers reportedly based in Eastern
Europe and known as 'the D33Ds Company' breached Yahoo's security
measures and extracted e-mail addresses and passwords that were
stored unencrypted within a Yahoo database.  D33Ds then posted
these login credentials, which were associated with roughly
453,000 Associated Content users, online in a plaintext file,
stating that they did so in order to provide a 'wake-up call' to
Yahoo about its lack of proper security.

"The hackers used a technique known as a 'SQL injection attack,'
which works by 'injecting' malicious commands into the stream of
commands between a website application and the database software
feeding it.  If the database does not properly screen these inputs
for signs of attack, the attackers can acquire information from
the database that they would otherwise be barred from accessing.
In essence, a SQL injection attack exploits the way in which a
website communicates with back-end databases, allowing an attacker
to issue commands (in the form of specially crafted SQL
statements) to a database that contains information used by the
website application, such as users' login credentials."

Mr. Allan claims that "reasonable information security measures"
could have stopped the hackers: "Had Yahoo encrypted the data
using standard salting and hashing techniques, the data stolen
from Yahoo would have been prohibitively difficult to utilize, as
each password would have to be cracked individually.  For example,
another Internet company (social Q&A website Formspring) whose
data was recently stolen appears to have successfully protected
its users' personal information with such encryption."

He claims Yahoo! uses encryption to protect other data, but did
not do it to protect its users' login information.  And, Mr. Allan
says, this exposed users' accounts with other sites to hackers
because people often use the same password and e-mail combinations
for multiple sites.

Mr. Allan claims Yahoo!s negligence also cost class members "the
cost of taking measures to identify and safeguard accounts put at
risk by disclosure of the personal information stolen from Yahoo,
including by purchasing credit monitoring services."

He seeks an injunction, costs and damages for negligence.

Mr. Allan is a resident of New Hampshire.

Yahoo is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Sunnyvale, California.  Yahoo maintains a substantial
portion of its computer systems in California.

A copy of the Complaint in Allan v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 12-cv-
04034 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/03/Yahoo.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq.
          Amy M. Zeman, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  gam@girardgibbs.com
                  amz@girardgibbs.com


ZYNGA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Campus, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Zynga Inc., Mark J. Pincus, David M. Wehner, Mark
Vranesh, and John C. Schappert, Case No. 4:12-cv-04048
(N.D. Calif., August 1, 2012) is a federal securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than
the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Zynga
securities between February 15, 2012, and July 25, 2012.

The lawsuit is seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials.  Mr.
Campus alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.

Mr. Campus is a shareholder of the Company.

Zynga operates as a social gaming company.  The Company offers
games and support on social networking sites, cellular devices,
and internet forums.  Zynga's gaming network includes puzzle,
card, role-playing, and virtual world games for users worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cheryl D. Hamer, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 792-3481
          Facsimile: (858) 792-3482
          Email: Chamer@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue - 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016-5516
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street - Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ZYNGA INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Zynga dumped
their shares for $229 million at prices inflated by false and
misleading statements, shareholders say in a federal class action
filed in San Francisco County Superior Court.

Defendants also failed to disclose material changes in Zynga's
relationship with Facebook, making its games harder to access.

The case is Robert Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others
v. Zynga Inc., Mark Pincus.


ZYNGA INC: Wohl & Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter on Aug. 2 disclosed that it has
filed a class action on behalf of investors against Zynga Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action is based on false
statements and omissions concerning Zynga's financial condition
and prospects.

If you purchased Zynga shares before July 26, 2012 and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff, you have until October 1, 2012 to seek
appointment by the Court.  To discuss the case or learn more about
becoming a lead plaintiff, please contact J. Elazar Fruchter, Esq.
at jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com or call us toll free at 866-582-
8140.  A copy of the complaint filed by Wohl & Fruchter can be
obtained at: http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/znga

As alleged in the complaint filed by Wohl & Fruchter, Zynga issued
positive financial forecasts between February and April 2012 that
were not justified in light of the company's financial performance
and trends.  The positive forecasts enabled senior executives and
selected investors to sell nearly $600 million of Zynga shares at
inflated prices in early April 2012.  This sale occurred
approximately two months before the lock-up period previously
agreed to by Zynga executives was scheduled to expire.  Zynga's
share price subsequently declined by more than 50%.

On July 25, 2012, Zynga announced sharply lower earnings and a
sharply reduced outlook for the second half of 2012.  In response,
Zynga shares lost more than one-third of their value, closing at
$3.18 on July 26, 2012.

The class action filed by Wohl & Fruchter seeks damages for
investors who purchased Zynga shares on the grounds that Zynga's
share price was artificially inflated as a result of the
defendants' false statements and omissions.

Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.com-- is a
securities litigation firm representing plaintiffs in class
actions arising from fraud and other fiduciary breaches by
corporate managers, as well as other complex litigation matters.


ZYNGA INC: Newman Ferrara Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Newman Ferrara LLP on Aug. 2 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. 12-cv-4007) on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Zynga, Inc. between February 28,
2012 and July 25, 2012, inclusive and includes those investors who
acquired Zynga stock pursuant to and/or traceable to Zynga's
secondary stock offering on April 3, 2012.

According to the Complaint, Zynga completed a secondary stock
offering on April 3, 2012 which enabled Zynga insiders to sell
over 43 million shares of their Zynga stock at a price of $12.00
per share for proceeds of approximately $516 million.  On July 25,
2012, Zynga announced its financial results for the second quarter
of 2012, reporting substantially lower than expected earnings and
lowering its 2012 guidance.  Following this announcement, the
Company's common stock plummeted 40% in value down to $2.97 per
share.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, against Zynga, certain of its officers and directors,
and those who served as underwriters in connection with Zynga's
secondary stock offering.  The Complaint alleges that the
defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions,
including a false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus in connection with Zynga's secondary offering, about
Zynga's business, operations, and growth prospects.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  If you wish to be appointed lead
plaintiff, you must apply with the Court no later than October 1,
2012.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation on behalf of
the other Class members.  The Court will select the lead plaintiff
from among applicants claiming the largest investment losses.  You
are not required to have sold your shares to seek damages or to
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Investors who purchased shares of Zynga common stock during the
Class Period and lost more than $100,000 are encouraged to contact
Newman Ferrara attorneys Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. --
jnorton@nfllp.com -- or Roy Shimon, Esq. -- rshimon@nfllp.com --
by e-mail or call (212) 619-5400 to discuss this action or the
lead plaintiff process.

Newman Ferrara -- http://www.nfllp.com-- maintains a multifaceted
practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in
complex commercial and multi-party litigation with an emphasis on
securities, ERISA, shareholder litigation, consumer fraud, and
real estate.


ZYNGA INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan on Aug. 3 disclosed that it filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Zynga, Inc. who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Zynga between December 16,
2011 and July 25, 2012, inclusive, for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Zynga between December 16, 2011 and July 25,
2012, you may, no later than October 1, 2012, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

For more information please contact either Peter Safirstein, Esq.
or Sheila Feerick at Morgan & Morgan, Five Penn Plaza, 23rd floor,
New York, New York 10001 or by telephone at (800) 732-5200, or by
e-mail to zyngacase@morgansecuritieslaw.com  or visit our Web site
at http://www.morgansecuritieslaw.com

The Complaint alleges that Zynga, a developer, marketer and
operator of online social games, and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws.  During the class
period, Zynga projected strong earnings and growth projections
regarding the Company's games and games development.  Unbeknownst
to the investing public however, Zynga was experiencing a sharp
drop-off in users of its most profitable web games, and delays in
developing new games to launch on social media platforms.  On July
25, 2012Zynga announced lower than expected earnings and lowered
2012 guidance.  Upon this news, shares of Zynga common stock
plummeted 37% to a trading low of $2.97 per share, representing a
loss in value of over 81% compared to the March 2, 2012 Class
Period trading high of $15.91 per share.

The Complaint alleges that insiders including Defendants Pincus,
Wehner, and Schappert, sold millions of shares for proceeds of
more than $500 million, cashing out right before the stock
imploded.  In particular, CEO Pincus sold 16.5 million shares for
proceeds of more than $192 million.

Morgan & Morgan -- http://www.morgansecuritieslaw.com-- is one of
the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In addition to securities
law, the firm also practices in the areas of personal injury,
consumer protection, overtime, and product liability.


ZYNGA INC: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
12-cv- 4066 on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Zynga Inc., during the period December 26, 2011 through
July 25, 2012 against Mark Pincus, David M. Wehner and John
Schappert for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding Zynga's business
and prospects, including in Registration Statements and
Prospectuses for the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and
secondary offering of its Class A common stock.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Zynga stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $14.69
per share on March 2, 2012.

Then on July 25, 2012, the Company issued a press release
announcing second quarter fiscal 2012 financial results below Wall
Street estimates, stating that the Company had experienced a
sequential decline in bookings.  The Company also substantially
reduced its fiscal 2012 bookings and earnings per share outlook,
explaining that the prospects for its March 21, 2012 acquisition
of OMGPOP, a creator of social networking games and a particularly
popular game called "Draw Something," had dimmed, and that changes
to Facebook's web platform had hurt its results and outlook.  On
July 26, 2012, the Company's stock price plummeted 37% in response
to the July 25, 2012 announcement of the Company's financial
results, closing at $3.17 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Zynga common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 1, 2012.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member. To discuss this action or any questions concerning this
notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Deborah R. Gross or
Susan R. Gross at 866-561-3600 or via e-mail at
debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com

A copy of the complaint can be viewed at
http://www.bernardmgross.com

Plaintiffs are represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
The firm has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Any questions, PLEASE CONTACT:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq.
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free)
          E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com
                  debbie@bernardmgross.com
          Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.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  * * *