---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 25, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 212

                               Headlines

APPLE: Sued Over Undisclosed Five-Year Exclusivity Agreement
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: To Pay Additional $38MM in WorldCom Audit Suit
BEF FOODS: Recalls 1.8MM Lbs. of Bob Evans Maple Links & Patties
CASH STORE: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Payday Loans
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Remains Pending

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Former Students' Suits
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Parties in Settlement Talks
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Reed" Plaintiff May Seek Sup. Ct. Review
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Securities Suit Dismissed in August 2012

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Five Labor Class Actions
EBAY: Faces Class Action Over Privacy-Invading Software
FERRING BV: New York Judge Narrows DDAVP Class Action Claims
HELIOS ADVANTAGE: Files Class Action Settlement Stipulation
ILLINOIS: Sued Over Excessive Charges for Arrest Videotapes

LOJACK CORP: Settles Two Wage-and-Hour Class Actions for $8.1MM
MADISON SQUARE: Awaits Ruling on Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bid
MAIN STREET: Recalls 2,310 Pounds of Ground Beef Products
MARK YABLONOVICH: Sued Over Secret Labor Class Action Settlement
MORGAN KEEGAN: Settles Mutual Fund Class Action for $62 Mil.

NESTLE WATERS: Sued Over False Claims on Bottled Water
NEW FRONTIER: Defends Suit Over Longkloof Acquisition Offer
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Robins Geller Files Class Action in California
PERU: SNP to File Class Action Over New Fisheries Management
PETSMART INC: Defends "Moore" Class Action Suit in California

SIGNET JEWELERS: Arbitration in Suit vs. Sterling Still Ongoing
SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From IPO Suit Deal Approval Dismissed
SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery in "EEOC" Suit vs. Sterling Ongoing
SINO-FOREST CORP: Cohen Milstein Files Amended Class Action
STARBUCKS CORP: Appeals $14.1-Mil. Class Action Judgment
SWISHER HYGIENE: Judge Designates Class Action Lead Plaintiffs

WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Gluten Free Double Chocolate Brownie Mix


                          *********

APPLE: Sued Over Undisclosed Five-Year Exclusivity Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple
violated antitrust law by forcing customers to use AT&T Mobility
for five years and barring them from switching to another carrier,
a class claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiffs Zack Ward and Thomas Buchar say Apple entered into
a secret five-year contract with (nonparty) AT&T Mobility before
it launched the original iPhone in June 2007.  The contract
established AT&T as the exclusive provider of cell phone and data
services for iPhone customers through part of 2012.

Messrs. Ward and Buchar say iPhone buyers did not agree to use
AT&T Mobility for five years.

"Apple's undisclosed five-year exclusivity agreement with [AT&T
Mobility], however, effectively locked iPhone users into using
[AT&T Mobility] for five years, contrary to those users'
knowledge, wishes and expectations," the lawsuit states.

The complaint mirrors another federal antitrust lawsuit filed
against Apple in early January.

Apple allegedly enforced the exclusive contract by programming and
installing locks on each iPhone that prevented customers from
switching to a competing carrier.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, cell phone
consumers "have an absolute legal right to modify their phones to
use the network of their carrier of choice," according to the
lawsuit.

But the plaintiffs say Apple blocked iPhone customers from
exercising that right "by locking the iPhones and refusing to give
customers the software codes needed to unlock them."

This barred international travelers from using their iPhones
abroad, as they would first need to swap out their SIM cards and
replace them with the SIM card of a local carrier such as
Vodaphone or Orange.

Global carriers AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile "typically unlocked SIM
cards on request for international travel, or even if customers
wanted to cancel their accounts and switch to another carrier,"
the plaintiffs say.

"Accordingly, [AT&T Mobility] unlocked SIM cards on telephones
sold exclusively through them, such as the Blackberry Torch and
the Samsung Blackjack," the complaint states.  "There is but one
exception: the iPhone."

The plaintiffs say Apple never told customers that their phones
would only work with AT&T Mobility cards or that the unlock codes
would not be provided to them, even on request.

They also accuse Apple of failing to tell even its sales or
customer service representatives about the length of the
exclusivity agreement.

"Apple retained exclusive control over the design, features and
operating software for the iPhone, including the code that 'locks'
iPhones to the [AT&T Mobility] network," the complaint states.

"Through these actions, Apple has unlawfully stifled competition,
reduced output and customer choice, and artificially increased
prices in the aftermarkets for iPhone voice and data services."

Messrs. Ward and Buchar sued on behalf of people who purchased an
iPhone from Apple or AT&T Mobility and then bought wireless voice
and data services for the phone between Oct. 19, 2008 and Feb. 3,
2011.

The class is represented by:

          Francis Gregorek, Esq.
          WOLF, HALDENSTEIN,ADLER,FREEMAN & HERZ
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone:(619) 239-4599
          Email: gregorek@whafh.com


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: To Pay Additional $38MM in WorldCom Audit Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cohn, writing for Accounting Today, reports that former
Big Five auditing firm Arthur Andersen has reached a proposed
settlement for an additional $38 million with the plaintiffs in a
decade-long class-action lawsuit over the firm's audits of the
telecommunications company WorldCom.

Two law firms, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and
Barrack Rodos & Bacine, announced the proposed settlement on
Oct.15.  They noted that the lead plaintiff previously achieved
settlements with various defendants in the case for over $6.1
billion plus interest to benefit members of the class action.

One of the previous settlements was with Andersen in 2005 and it
provided for a cash payment of $65 million, as well as the
possibility of certain contingent payments.  The currently
proposed settlement would settle and release the contingent
payment claim in return for the immediate payment by Andersen of
an additional $38 million in cash.  A federal judge in New York
granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement on Oct. 2,
according to Law360.

Andersen voluntarily surrendered its CPA license in 2002 in the
wake of auditing and accounting scandals at its clients WorldCom
and Enron.  Most of its partners joined other auditing firms as
clients also fled to competing firms.  Andersen still operates to
settle the remaining litigation against the firm, and it runs a
conference center near its old Chicago headquarters.  The firm's
former consulting arm, Andersen Consulting, is now known as
Accenture.


BEF FOODS: Recalls 1.8MM Lbs. of Bob Evans Maple Links & Patties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BEF Foods Inc., a Columbus, Ohio corporation, is recalling
approximately 1,768,600 pounds of Bob Evans Maple Links and Maple
Patties because they are misbranded in that they contain
monosodium glutamate (MSG), which is not declared on the label.
The products were produced at establishments in Hillsdale,
Michigan, and Xenia, Ohio.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 12-oz. packages of "Bob Evans Maple Links" with UPC numbers
     of "075900002300", "075900000085" and "075900002324."

   * 12-oz. packages of "Bob Evans Maple Patties" with UPC
     numbers of "0759000025028" and "075900000795" and
     "075900002522."

The products were produced between April 4, and October 19, 2012,
and will have the establishment number "M-952" or "M-6785"
inkjetted on the side of the package.  Product purchased fresh
will have a use-by date between October 14, 2012, and December 4,
2012 listed.  Instead of a use-by date, frozen products may be
identified by any of the following Julian codes: 0264 through
0365, 1001 through 1365, and 2001 through 2293.

The problem was discovered by the Company during a label audit.
When the Company reformulated their products, they discontinued
the use of a spice blend containing MSG and removed MSG from the
ingredient list on the label.  During the label audit, the Company
discovered that the individual establishments were still using a
spice blend containing MSG.  MSG is not classified as an allergen,
but can cause a reaction in people with a sensitivity to MSG.

FSIS and the Company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks (including at
restaurants) to verify recalling firms notify their customers of
the recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that
the product is no longer available to consumers.

Media with questions about the recall should contact the company's
Director of Corporate Communications, Margaret Standing, at (614)
492-4921.  Consumers should call the Company's guest relations
line at 1-800-939-2338.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


CASH STORE: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Payday Loans
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Shecter, writing for Financial Post, reports that the Cash
Store Financial Services Inc., a publicly traded firm in the
payday loan business, has been served with a proposed class action
in four Canadian provinces.

"In each case, the plaintiffs allege that the payday loans
provided by Cash Store failed to meet the applicable laws
governing payday lenders in these jurisdictions," the Edmonton-
based company, which operates 529 branches across Canada under the
banners Cash Store Financial and Instaloans, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs behind the actions in Ontario, Saskatchewan,
Alberta and British Columbia are seeking a refund of money paid by
consumers in excess of the loan principal, the statement says,
adding that the company plans to "vigorously" defend itself.

None of the allegations have been proven.

"Cash Store Financial believes that it conducts its business in
accordance with applicable laws in each of the jurisdictions," the
firm said.  "However, the likelihood of loss, if any, is not
determinable.  Accordingly, no provision has been made in the
accounts for these actions."

In addition to its Canadian branches, Cash Store Financial
operates 25 branches in the United Kingdom.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.  The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus.  The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus.  The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution.  On November 22,
2011, a California state court judge refused to confirm the
arbitrator's clause construction decision and remanded the matter
to the arbitrator for further consideration.  The Company has
appealed the state court order.  The Company believes the
complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against these allegations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 24, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Continues to Defend Former Students' Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits brought by former students in California and
Florida, according to the Company's August 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2012.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented
increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students.  In
many of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought to
represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the
complaint.  The Company believes these lawsuits are largely the
result of negative publicity -- and aggressive lawyer recruitment
of potential clients -- surrounding the Department of Education's
("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings,
the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other
related matters that occurred during that time period.  Many of
the cases filed during that time have since been dismissed.  In
virtually all of the following remaining cases, the plaintiffs
cite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report,
public statements by elected officials and/or other negative media
coverage in their complaints, although the locations of the
students, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claims
differ.  The Company believes all of the following complaints are
contractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrations
between the named students and the Company, and the Company has
moved, to compel these cases to arbitration.  This is a brief
summary of those matters:

   (1) Dated Filed: December 20, 2010

       Named Plaintiff(s) & Campus Attended: Jacquel Kimble;
       Everest College in Hayward, California

       Venue: U.S. District Court, Northern District of
       California

       Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged
       misrepresentations by specific admissions representative
       at a specific campus regarding accreditation,
       transferability of credits, certifications and career
       placement; Alleged violation of California's Unfair
       Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
       Act; Complaint seeks class certification, restitution and
       injunctive relief.

       Description of Putative Class: All persons who attended
       any Everest College campus in the United States during the
       applicable statute of limitations period

       Status Update: The matter was compelled to arbitration,
       but no arbitration demand was been filed; the case was
       resolved for an immaterial amount.

   (2) Dated Filed: January 24, 2011, and February 17, 2011

       Named Plaintiff(s) & Campus Attended: Kevin Ferguson;
       Everest Institute in Miami, Florida; and Sandra Muniz;
       Heald College campuses in Rancho Cordova and Roseville,
       California (initially filed as separate actions, but now
       consolidated)

       Venue: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

       Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged
       misrepresentations by specific admissions representative
       at a specific campus regarding accreditation,
       transferability of credits, cost of attendance,
       eligibility for certifications, and career placement
       opportunities; Causes of action alleging breach of implied
       contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
       fair dealing, violation of California's Business and
       Professions Code, violation of California's Consumer Legal
       Remedies Act, negligent misrepresentation and fraud;
       Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief,
       restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys'
       fees and cost of lawsuit.

       Description of Putative Class: All persons who attended
       any Everest institution in the United States or Canada
       from January 2005 to the present; all persons who attended
       any Heald institution from January 2009 to the present

       Status Update: District court compelled all non-injunctive
       claims to arbitration and permitted all injunctive claims
       to remain before the court; the Company appealed the order
       as it relates to the injunctive claims, and the court of
       appeal stayed the district court action pending the
       appeal.

   (3) Dated Filed: March 11, 2011

       Named Plaintiff(s) & Campus Attended: Noravel Arevalo and
       fourteen former students at the Company's Everest College
       location in Alhambra, California

       Venue: American Arbitration Association

       Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged
       misrepresentations by specific admissions representatives
       at a specific campus and unlawful business practices in
       the licensed vocational nursing program in Alhambra, CA;
       Causes of action alleging violation of the California
       Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud, breach of contract,
       violation of California's former Private Postsecondary and
       Vocational Education Reform Act, violation of the
       Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
       violation of California's Business and Professions Code;
       Complaint seeks class certification, injunctive relief,
       damages, restitution and disgorgement, civil penalties,
       punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
       expenses, costs of lawsuit and other relief.

       Description of Putative Class: All persons who enrolled in
       the Everest College, Alhambra, CA Vocational Nursing
       classes of 2007-08 and 2008-09

       Status Update: Arbitration demands have been filed and the
       arbitrator selection is in progress.

The Company says it intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries
vigorously in all of these matters.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Michael Harrington, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. Corinthian
Schools, Inc., et al., remains pending in California, according to
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s August 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
June 30, 2012.

On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court.  A virtually identical action with the
same caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on
September 15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court.
The plaintiff is a former admissions representative at the
Company's Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions allege
violations of California's Business and Professions Code Section
17200 and the California Labor Code for alleged failure to pay for
all hours worked, purported denial of meal periods, and alleged
failure to pay wages upon termination.  The Alameda complaint has
since been voluntarily dismissed.  While the scope of the putative
class is not clear, the remaining Orange County action appears to
seek certification of a class to include those current and former
admissions representatives over the last four years at the
Company's California campuses.  The Company believes the
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Parties in Settlement Talks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit initiated by Alisha
Montgomery, et al., have agreed to hold individual arbitration
hearings in abeyance to engage in settlement discussions,
according to Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s August 24, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2012.

On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Corinthian
Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
Plaintiffs were thirty-three individuals who purport to be current
and/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program
at the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois.  The
complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus.  The plaintiffs sought to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and sought actual and compensatory damages on
behalf of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue
and benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and
such other relief as the court deemed proper.  The Company removed
the case to federal court and moved to compel individual
arbitrations, which the court granted.  Thirty-one plaintiffs have
filed individual demands in arbitration.  Individual arbitration
hearings commenced as scheduled during the quarter ended June 30,
2012, but the Company and the plaintiffs have now agreed to hold
the hearings in abeyance to engage in settlement discussions.  The
Company continues to believe these matters are without merit and
will continue to defend itself vigorously if a reasonable
settlement cannot be achieved.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Reed" Plaintiff May Seek Sup. Ct. Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. said in its August 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2012, that the only remaining avenue of appeal
in the "Reed" class action lawsuit is to seek review by the United
States Supreme Court.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas.  Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.  Plaintiff purports to be a former
student in the Company's Everest University Online operations.
The complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas.  The plaintiff
seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted to
receive distance education from Everest University Online while
residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,
pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive
relief, cost of lawsuit, and such other relief as the court deems
proper.  On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration, and the plaintiff subsequently filed a putative class
action demand in arbitration.  The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreement
is susceptible to class-wide resolution, but did not address
whether a class should be certified.  The Company appealed the
clause-construction decision and on June 15, 2012, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion overturning the
arbitrator's decision and ruling that the enrollment agreement is
not susceptible to class-wide resolution.  The plaintiff's motion
for a rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit was denied, and the
plaintiff's only remaining avenue of appeal on this issue is to
seek review by the United States Supreme Court.  The Company
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to defend
itself and its subsidiary vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Securities Suit Dismissed in August 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit was granted in August 2012,
according to the Company's August 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
June 30, 2012.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007, through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section
20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief.  On
October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned
the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs.  On March 30,
2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement System and
Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs,
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for lead
plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.  Lead plaintiffs
thereafter filed a second amended consolidated complaint, and the
Company moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint.

On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss, and gave the plaintiffs thirty days to file an
amended complaint.  On February 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint (the "TAC") in U.S. District Court, and,
on March 30, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss.  On August 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court
granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss, with prejudice.  If the plaintiffs appeal, the Company
will continue to defend itself and its current and former officers
vigorously.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Five Labor Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that the world's largest full-service
restaurant ownership company faces five separate class-action
lawsuits filed by a group that works to protect restaurant
workers' rights.

Lawsuits filed by the Mexican-American Legal and Education Fund
accuse Darden Restaurants -- which owns the Capital Grille, Red
Lobster and Olive Garden chains -- of violating state and federal
labor laws.  The suits claim the restaurants regularly ask
employees to work off the clock, skip legally required breaks and
report to work when sick.

The litigation began as a single class-action lawsuit filed in
federal court in Chicago, with state class-action claims covering
workers in Illinois, as well as California, Florida, Maryland and
New York.  Eventually, the lawsuit was severed into five
jurisdictions due to the large size of the classes and the
complexity of the various state claims.  Five regional U.S.
District Courts will hear the cases.

The lawsuits were initiated by the Restaurant Opportunities Cen-
ters United, which seeks to improve wages and working conditions
for low-wage restaurant workers.


EBAY: Faces Class Action Over Privacy-Invading Software
-------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that EBay and
PayPal plant privacy-invading spyware on customers' computers, and
promise, but fail, to protect sellers from fraud, but unfairly
insist "that the buyer is always right," a class action claims in
Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Maggie Campbell sued eBay and its wholly owned
payment processor, PayPal, in Santa Clara County Court.

Ms. Campbell claims that eBay "has been able to force the eBay
community of buyers and sellers, including the plaintiff, to adopt
defendant PayPal Inc. as the preferred payment method."

The complaint continues: "Defendants PayPal and eBay represented
to plaintiff and to other sellers similarly situated that they
have automatic fraud screening and a seller protection policy that
helps keep sellers and their customers safe from fraud.  This
representation, which was in writing on the website of both
defendant PayPal Inc. and defendant eBay Inc. is false.  Neither
defendant PayPal Inc. nor defendant eBay Inc. has a system that
protects sellers from the fraud of unscrupulous buyers.  Instead,
said defendants have a policy that the buyer is always right
during a dispute between a buyer and a seller through the
eBay/PayPal system.  Sellers such as the plaintiff end up losing
the goods that were shipped to the buyer, as well as the money
paid by the buyer for the goods, which is refunded to the buyer by
either PayPal or eBay."

Ms. Campbell says she uses her eBay account to sell bicycles and
bicycle parts.  She claims that the defendants, "through their
automatic fraud screening and seller protection software
electronically place files in the computers of the plaintiff and
other sellers similarly situated, which allows said defendants to
spy on the activities of the plaintiff and other sellers similarly
situated.  Thus said defendants wrongfully invade the privacy of
the plaintiff and other sellers by monitoring the computers of the
plaintiff and other sellers similarly situated and surreptitiously
obtain information as to what the plaintiff and other sellers and
doing."

Ms. Campbell also claims that eBay tricks sellers into creating
accounts by falsely representing that sellers "could list anything
they wanted to on eBay for sale without any restrictions from eBay
whatsoever.  However, the foregoing representation turned out to
be a false representation.  After the plaintiff and other sellers
sign an agreement with defendant eBay, only then do they discover
the eBay has very strict restrictions upon what items can be
listed for sale on eBay, the number of items that can be listed
for sale on eBay, and restrictions on the category of documents
that can be listed for sale on eBay.  These severe restrictions on
the listing of items for sale have damaged the plaintiff and other
sellers because it substantially reduces the amount of revenue
that the plaintiff and other sellers could realize if such severe
restrictions did not exist."

She also claims that eBay also forces buyers and sellers to use
its Web site to communicate, allowing eBay to change people's
messages to suit its purposes.

"Defendant eBay, Inc. is known to delete language from a
communication that it does not want the buyer or seller to read,
or said defendant will add language that it does want the buyer or
seller to read," the complaint states.

Ms. Campbell claims that eBay "inevitably" settles disputes in
favor of the buyer, but still charges sellers the listing price
for the item, the transaction fee, and shipping charges.

She also complains that when a seller makes a sale free from
dispute, PayPal retains control of the money for five days before
its transfers it from the buyer's account to the seller's account.

She seeks restitution and class damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and deceptive trade.

She is represented by J. David Franklin with Franklin & Franklin
in San Diego.


FERRING BV: New York Judge Narrows DDAVP Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on Oct. 17 narrowed claims brought by a proposed
class of indirect purchasers of the anti-diuretic drug DDAVP who
allege Ferring BV and a Sanofi SA unit suppressed generic
competition by fraudulently acquiring a patent on the medication.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel granted part of a motion to
dismiss filed by Ferring and Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
throwing out the indirect purchasers' bid for an injunction under
federal antitrust laws, as well as several unjust enrichment
claims brought under state laws.


HELIOS ADVANTAGE: Files Class Action Settlement Stipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Helios Closed-End Funds(1) on Oct. 18 disclosed that the
parties to In re Helios Closed-End Funds Derivative Litigation,
Case No. 2:11-cv-02935 (W.D. Tenn.) have filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee a Stipulation
of Settlement.  The Stipulation was submitted to the Court
together with a proposed Preliminary Approval Order, which if
signed by the Court, will preliminarily approve the settlement of
the derivative claims filed on behalf of the Closed-End Funds in
the Litigation in exchange for a settlement payment to the Closed-
End Funds by Regions Financial Corp. and several Morgan Keegan
affiliated entities, as defined in the Stipulation, in the amount
of $6.0 million, less an attorneys' fee award in the amount of
$1.8 million.  After a hearing on the settlement, if the Court
grants final approval of the settlement, it is expected that each
of the Closed-End Funds' share of the settlement, after the
attorneys' fee award is deducted, will be approximately the
amounts reflected below, based upon an allocation of the
settlement to the Closed-End Funds approved by the Closed-End
Funds' Boards of Directors:

Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc. $1,150,000 ($0.18 per share)
Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc. $1,225,000 ($0.16 per
share) Helios High Income Fund, Inc. $850,000 ($0.17 per share)
Helios Strategic Income Fund, Inc. $975,000 ($0.16 per share)

The Preliminary Approval Order, once signed by the Court, will
provide for further notice of the settlement to the shareholders
of the Closed-End Funds (at the Closed-End Funds' expense), and
the scheduling of a hearing and any remaining proceedings.  The
amount of the settlement is subject to modification by the Court
prior to final approval and, therefore, the amount to be paid to
each Closed-End Fund is subject to change.

Concurrent with the filing of the Stipulation of Settlement of the
Litigation, the parties to In re Regions Morgan Keegan Closed-End
Fund Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-02830 (W.D. Tenn.) (the "Class
Action Litigation") have also filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee a Stipulation of Settlement.
The Stipulation attaches a Preliminary Approval Order, which if
signed by the Court, will preliminarily approve the settlement,
including a release of securities claims alleged against the
Closed-End Funds and the other defendants pursuant to the terms of
the Stipulation of Settlement of the Class Action Litigation.  The
Stipulation of Settlement filed in the Class Action Litigation
(which also is subject to Court approval) requires that certain of
the defendants make a payment of $62.0 million to a class of
Closed-End Fund shareholders and does not require any payments to
be made by the Closed-End Funds in connection with the settlement
of the Class Action Litigation.

The Preliminary Approval Order in the Class Action Litigation,
once signed by the Court, will provide for further notice of the
settlement to the class members, and the scheduling of a hearing
and any remaining proceedings.

(1) Helios Advantage Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK Advantage
Income Fund, Inc.), Helios High Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK
High Income Fund, Inc.), Helios Multi-Sector High Income Fund,
Inc. (formerly RMK Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc.) and Helios
Strategic Income Fund, Inc. (formerly RMK Strategic Income Fund,
Inc.)


ILLINOIS: Sued Over Excessive Charges for Arrest Videotapes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Illinois State Highway Authority charges too much ($20) for
videotapes of arrests that people wish to use in their defense.


LOJACK CORP: Settles Two Wage-and-Hour Class Actions for $8.1MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
LoJack Corporation on Oct. 18 disclosed that it has reached a
settlement agreement involving the remaining claims in the two
California wage-and-hour class action lawsuits against the
Company.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
approval of the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
County, the Company has agreed to pay up to $8.1 million,
including plaintiffs' attorneys' potential fees and costs, to
resolve all remaining California state class action claims.  The
Company previously disclosed that it estimated the range of
possible loss with respect to the state court case to be between
$970,000 and $30 million.

"These legal claims were originally filed in 2006, and plaintiffs
asserted claims reaching back to 2002," said Randy L. Ortiz,
President and Chief Executive Officer of LoJack.  "Since then the
cases have involved a significant amount of time and expense on
pleadings, motions, depositions, and discovery in various state
and federal courts.  The cases have also required us to look at
employment practices of the distant past rather than focus
entirely on our present and continuing commitment to the welfare
of our employees, the success of our dealer partners and licensees
and the strength of our brand.  Though the Company believes that
it has substantial legal and factual defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims, the Board of Directors and current leadership team
determined that a settlement at this time is in the best interest
of LoJack and its shareholders."

"One of my priorities since joining LoJack in November has been to
ensure that as an organization we efficiently address issues
distracting the Company from the pursuit of its strategic
initiatives and plans for growth," Mr. Ortiz continued.  "We
believe that this settlement agreement is a significant step
toward that objective and also protects the strength of our
balance sheet and liquidity resources.  Equally important, by
eliminating the expense and uncertainty associated with continued
litigation, the agreement frees us to position the Company for
improved long-term financial performance and expansion of its
business opportunities."

As previously disclosed, in the related California federal wage-
and-hour case, the Company paid the class action plaintiffs
$115,000 in 2011 to settle the federal claims.  During 2011, the
Company also recorded a $1.1 million accrual with respect to
plaintiffs' attorneys' fee application in the federal case.  In
early August 2012, the federal court awarded plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs of $900,518 related to those claims.
Although the Company filed a notice of appeal with respect to the
attorneys' fee award in the federal case, the Company has agreed
to waive that appeal as part of this settlement.

The settlement agreement involves no admission of wrongdoing,
liability or violation of the law by the Company.  In addition,
the agreement bars the named plaintiffs in the California state
class action from pursuing further claims against the Company.

The Company expects the Court to issue a decision shortly
regarding preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  Should
the Court grant preliminary approval, California class members
would be sent a notice of the settlement and given the opportunity
to decide whether to participate.  LoJack could pay less than $8.1
million in settlement of the state court case depending on the
level of participation by class members in the settlement.
Following the notice period, the parties may move for final
approval of the settlement.  LoJack anticipates that the Court
would be in a position to rule on final approval of the proposed
settlement by the first or second quarter of 2013.  LoJack does
not anticipate paying any portion of the settlement of the
California state case until the Court has granted final approval.

As a result of the settlement agreement, LoJack expects to record
a one-time charge of approximately $6.9 million, or approximately
$0.40 per diluted share, for the third quarter ended September 30,
2012.  The $6.9 million charge represents the $8.1 million
expected settlement less the $970,000 previously accrued for the
state court case and the $200,000 reduction in the estimated
attorneys' fees accrual in the federal court case.


MADISON SQUARE: Awaits Ruling on Antitrust Suit Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison Square Garden Company is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss an antitrust class action lawsuit pending in
New York, according to the Company's August 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended June 30, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the National Hockey League (the "NHL") and certain NHL
member clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellite
distributors.  The complaints, which are substantially identical,
primarily assert that certain of the NHL's current rules and
agreements entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the
plaintiffs to provide certain territorial and other exclusivities
with respect to the television and online distribution of live
hockey games, violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.  The complaints seek injunctive relief against the
defendants' continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble
damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.  On
July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes).  The Company intends to vigorously defend
the claims against the Company.  Management does not believe this
matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company.


MAIN STREET: Recalls 2,310 Pounds of Ground Beef Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Main Street Quality Meats, a Salt Lake City, Utah establishment,
is recalling approximately 2,310 pounds of ground beef products
that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   * 10-lb cases of "GROUND BEEF BULK."
   * 12-lb cases of "GROUND BEEF PATTIES."

Each case bears the establishment number "EST. 19916" inside the
USDA mark of inspection, as well as any of the following
identifying lot numbers: "1018121," "1019121," "1018122," or
"1019122."  The products were produced on October 18 and
October 19, 2012, and were distributed to restaurants in Utah.

The problem was discovered by FSIS and occurred as a result of the
products testing positive for E. coli O157:H7 and being shipped
prior to the Company receiving test results.  FSIS and the Company
have received no reports of illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.  Individuals concerned about an
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers (including restaurants) of
the recall and to ensure that steps are taken to make certain that
the product is no longer available to consumers.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney
failure.  The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune
systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160 degrees F.  The only
way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high
enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that
measures internal temperature.

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should
contact the Company's Food Safety Coordinator, Scott Schmidt, at
(801) 484-5295.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
www.AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen"
live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.


MARK YABLONOVICH: Sued Over Secret Labor Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a California
law firm accepted a $6 million "secret settlement" of a labor
class action against a bank, agreed to dismiss the claims without
telling 600 clients, then tried to convert the whole settlement
into legal fees, a class action claims in state court.

Lead plaintiff Kendra Cutting sued Mark Yablonovich; an attorney
in his law office, Michael Coats, and The Law Offices of Mark
Yablonovich, in Alameda County Court.

Mr. Yablonovich's office is in Los Angeles, according to the
California Bar Association Web page.

Ms. Cutting claims the defendants "wrongfully collected and
continue to unlawfully retain substantial sums belonging to
plaintiff and the other members of the proposed class."

Ms. Cutting and other sold mortgages for Wells Fargo and alleged
that the bank improperly classified them as exempt from overtime
wages.

She claims that she and about 600 others "were represented by
attorney defendants in a wage and hour class action against Wells
Fargo," and that "Attorney defendants entered into settlement
negotiations with Wells Fargo to resolve the lawsuit and agreed to
a secret settlement (the 'Supplemental Settlement') without the
consent or knowledge of clients."

The complaint continues: "The Supplemental Settlement contained
three core provisions: (1) "the class and individual lawsuits
filed on behalf of clients would be dismissed; (2) the clients
would forego their right to opt out of a class action settlement
of their wage and hour claims; and (3) Wells Fargo would pay $6
million in exchange for the dismissal of the lawsuits and the
surrender of clients' opt out rights.  In essence, attorney
defendants bargained away clients' opt out rights for $6 million
without the approval of or disclosure to clients.

"As a result of a concerted and focused campaign, clients were
induced not to opt out of the class action settlement.  Their wage
and hour claims against Wells Fargo extinguished.  The terms of
the Supplemental Settlement remained undisclosed until it was too
late for them to opt out and pursue individual claim which would
have yielded far greater recoveries than the class action
settlement.

"Attorney defendants concealed the existence of the Supplemental
Settlement from clients for 11 months during which they maneuvered
to convert the entire $6 million settlement into attorneys' fees.
Acting without the knowledge or approval of clients, attorney
defendants attempted to persuade Wells Fargo to execute a
'confidential' settlement agreement characterizing the entire $6
million as attorneys' fees instead of funds belonging to clients.
Wells Fargo declined to sign this agreement.

"Undeterred by this setback, attorney defendants then participated
in a fraudulent scheme to induce clients to accept a self-serving
allocation of approximately $5.5 million of the settlement to
'attorneys' fees.'  Attorney defendants were covertly paid and
continue to retain a portion of these 'attorneys' fees.'

"The activities of attorney defendants challenged in this action
were both unethical and unlawful.  . . . Attorney defendants
concealed and misrepresented material facts, put their own
interests ahead of clients and ultimately defrauded clients out of
approximately $5.5 million. To redress this appalling misconduct,
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages against each of
the attorney defendants, restitution, and appropriate declaratory
and injunctive relief."

Ms. Campbell is represented by:

          Mark Chavez, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Ave.
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          E-mail:mark@chavezgertler.com


MORGAN KEEGAN: Settles Mutual Fund Class Action for $62 Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Evanoff, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that
Morgan Keegan & Co. and more than 10,000 clients nationwide have
settled a class-action lawsuit filed after the 2008 meltdown of
the Memphis firm's mutual funds.

The investment firm will pay out $62 million under the settlement
with its former closed-end investors and admit no wrongs.

The measure, which requires a judge's approval, winds down one of
two major class-action lawsuits filed by Morgan Keegan's mutual
fund clients.

"This was a reasonable compromise," said Joel Bernstein, the New
York attorney for the lead plaintiff, noting 90 percent of cases
are settled "because you never know what the outcome will be" when
a trial begins.

The lead plaintiff is Lion Fund LP, a Texas hedge fund run by
energy entrepreneur Corbin Robertson, who claimed an investment of
$2.1 million in Morgan Keegan's closed-end mutual fund.
Settlements in class-action cases generally return less than 20
percent of the original investment.

A closed-end mutual fund trades like a single stock.  Another
class-action lawsuit representing thousands of investors in
conventional mutual funds, known as open ended, is also pending in
federal district court in Memphis.

"We don't know the precise number of investors yet," Mr. Bernstein
said about the closed-end case.  "It's probably in the tens of
thousands.  All of the clients on the plaintiff's side and the
defendant's side have agreed and it's now subject to the approval
of (federal district court) Judge Samuel Mays.  Once he OKs it,
investors will have to fill out claim forms and show evidence of
the shares they purchased and the price.  Then we'll have to (have
another firm) calculate the proper amounts owed them.  The plan of
allocation could take another six months to a year to complete."

Birmingham-based Regionals Financial Corp., which bought Morgan
Keegan in 2001, agreed to pay the legal bills before it sold
Morgan Keegan for $1.2 billion in April to Florida-based Raymond
James Financial Inc.

A Regionals spokesman could not be immediately reached on Oct. 18
for comment.  The settlement was reached on Oct. 12, ending a
legal scrap that traced back to the country's economic crash.

For years, the nationally known mutual funds earned high income
investing in high-risk housing bonds.  But clients contended
Morgan Keegan hid the risks from them.  The problems surfaced when
the 2008 housing market collapse drained $2 billion out of the
funds.

Last year, state regulators and the U.S. Securities & Exchange
Commission concluded separate probes.  Morgan Keegan accepted a
$210 million SEC fine under a settlement in which the company
admitted to no wrongdoings.  The investment firm contends the Wall
Street crash froze credit markets in 2007 and 2008, making it
difficult to sell off securities held in the mutual funds.


NESTLE WATERS: Sued Over False Claims on Bottled Water
------------------------------------------------------
Vending Times reports that a putative class action lawsuit claims
that Nestle Waters North America Inc. has been selling bottles of
municipal tap water and falsely marketing it to consumers as 100%
spring-sourced natural water.

Plaintiff Chicago Faucet Shoppe Inc. asserts that Nestle has
falsely represented to consumers that 5-gal. bottles of Ice
Mountain water are sourced from springs and contain only naturally
occurring minerals, when the jugs are actually filled with tap
water.  Chicago Faucet Shoppe bought the water for its offices.

The class action suit was filed Oct. 10 in the Illinois Northern
District Court on behalf of consumers in Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota and Missouri who bought Ice Mountain brand water in the
5-gal. bottles promoted as 100% natural and spring-sourced.  News
of the lawsuit was first reported by FoodNavigator USA.

The complaint recognizes that there are many bottled water brands
which do not make a spring water claim, and they are assumed to be
repackaged tap water, FoodNavigator said.  These sell for far less
than genuine spring water.

The lawsuit seeks attorneys' fees, punitive damages and recovery
from Nestle Waters North America, which is the largest bottled-
water company in the U.S. with about 40% market share.

The water giant has been sued on similar grounds before.  In June
2003, it was sued for false advertising in a class action that
charged its Poland Spring brand is heavily treated common ground
water.  The suit was settled in September 2003, with the company
not admitting to the allegations, but agreeing to pay $10 million
in charity donations and discounts over five years.  Nestle
continues to sell the same Maine water under the Poland Spring
name.


NEW FRONTIER: Defends Suit Over Longkloof Acquisition Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Frontier Media, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit
arising from an unsolicited conditional acquisition offer from
Longkloof Limited, according to the Company's August 23, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 9, 2012, the Company received an unsolicited, conditional
acquisition offer from Longkloof Limited, one of its existing
shareholders (Longkloof), to acquire all of the outstanding shares
of the common stock of the Company not already owned by Longkloof
and its affiliates pursuant to an all-cash transaction.  That
offer was publicly announced by Longkloof and the receipt thereof
was also publicly confirmed by the Company.  On March 23, 2012,
Elwood M. White filed a class action complaint in the Boulder
County, Colorado District Court for the 20th Judicial District of
the State of Colorado, purportedly on behalf of the Company's
public shareholders, against the Company and its board of
directors.  The complaint alleges that the individual members of
the Company's board of directors have breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the Company's shareholders in connection with the
receipt of Longkloof's offer on March 9, 2012.

Mr. White's complaint seeks, among other things, an order allowing
the action to be maintained as a class action and certifying Mr.
White as the class representative and his counsel as class
counsel.  It also seeks to enjoin the Company's board of directors
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is
in the best interests of the Company's shareholders, a declaration
that the Company's board of directors has violated their fiduciary
duties, an order directing the Company and its board of directors
to account to the class for any damages sustained because of the
alleged wrongs, and an award to Mr. White of the costs of the
action, including Mr. White's attorneys' and experts' fees.  The
Company believes Mr. White's claim is without merit and it intends
to vigorously defend against this matter.  Based on the Company's
current knowledge, a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or
range of loss associated with the complaint cannot be made at this
time.  Legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties,
and unfavorable rulings or other events could occur.  Were
unfavorable final outcomes to occur, there exists the possibility
of a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position,
results of operation, or cash flows.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Robins Geller Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct.18 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of OCZ
Technology Group, Inc. common stock during the period between
July 10, 2012 and October 11, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 11, 2012.  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 of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ocz/

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 OCZ and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
OCZ designs, manufactures, and distributes Solid-State Drives and
related computer components.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business practices and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that the Company's sales trends were
not as robust as they had stated, and that in order to address
those negative trends in OCZ's business, defendants were promising
to pay customers "incentives" (i.e., rebates) in order to obtain
sales, rendering their statements concerning OCZ's financial
results materially false and misleading.  As a result of these
false statements, OCZ's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $7.67 per share
in intraday trading on July 30, 2012.

On September 5, 2012, defendants reported that revenue for the
second quarter of 2013 (ended August 31, 2012) would be in the
$110 to $120 million range instead of the $130 to $140 million
range projected on July 10, 2012, causing OCZ's stock price to
decline approximately $1 per share, or more than 20%.  Defendants
attributed the downward guidance revision to supply constraints,
stating demand for the Company's product offerings had simply
overwhelmed available supply.


PERU: SNP to File Class Action Over New Fisheries Management
------------------------------------------------------------
Analia Murias, writing for Fish Info & Services, reports that the
National Fisheries Society (SNP) announced that it will present a
Class Action Lawsuit to overturn Supreme Decree 005-2012, as it
has been deemed unconstitutional.

Last August, the Ministry of Production (Produce) amended the
regulations of the anchovy fisheries management and established
the five-mile strip (between five and 10 miles) as a reserve area
for direct human consumption (DHC) and artisanal fishing, by means
of the above mentioned Supreme Decree.

However, for SNP, the new law actually discourages DHC.

Richard Inurritegui, president of the SNP, explained they chose to
sue the unconstitutionality of the norm given the indifference
shown by the Production Minister, Gladys Triveno, at the moment of
learning about the position of the various industry associations,
artisanal fishermen and Peruvian fishers.

The fisheries sector warned the minister on the adverse effects
that will be generated as a result of one of the main economic
activities of the country.

SNP claims that the legislation is far from managing the sector
and jeopardizes the anchovy, the newspaper La Republica reported.

Mr. Inurritegui states the worst thing is that the Supreme Decree
creates incentives for the DHC anchovy to be used for
manufacturing fishmeal.

"This rule created an exclusive area for the whole year between
the 5 miles and the 10 miles for 1,500 smaller scale vessels,
without any scientific basis, given that in the recitals there is
no report issued by Instituto del Mar del Peru (Imarpe) that can
back it up," argued the SNP head.

Produce estimated from the effective date of the rule 500,000
tonnes of anchovy could be fished.

But SNP considers that at least 400,000 tonnes would be used to
produce fishmeal.

The association also warned about the annual losses amounting to
USD300 million in exports, impacting 1,200 workers and their
families.

Meanwhile, Alfredo Armendariz, an expert on fisheries issues,
pointed out this: "While this Decree may have its effects and
adjustments to do, it is a first step towards an actual
management.  Understandably, SNP, which captures 85 per cent of
the domestic fisheries, is the first to object."


PETSMART INC: Defends "Moore" Class Action Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit in California,
according to the Company's August 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 29, 2012.

In May 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in Moore, et al.
v. PetSmart, Inc., et. al., a lawsuit originally filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Alameda.  On July 9,
2012, PetSmart removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  The Complaint
brings both individual and class action claims, first alleging
that the Company failed to engage in the interactive process
and/or failed to accommodate the disabilities of four current and
former named associates.  The complaint also alleges on behalf of
all current and former hourly store associates that the Company
failed to provide pay for all hours worked, failed to properly
reimburse associates for business expenses, and failed to provide
timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods.  The lawsuit seeks
compensatory damages, statutory penalties, and other relief,
including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief.  The case
is in its early stages and the Company is, thus, unable to
reasonably estimate the potential monetary exposure associated
with the lawsuit.  The Company does not believe that the claims
alleged in the lawsuit have merit and does not believe class
treatment is appropriate.  As a result, the Company intends to
oppose any attempt to certify a class in this case, and should the
case be certified, the Company will vigorously defend on the
merits.  For these reasons, the Company has not accrued any
liability.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Arbitration in Suit vs. Sterling Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs filed a class action
lawsuit for an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc.
("Sterling"), a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that
US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to
compensation and promotional activities.  In June 2008, the
District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where
the plaintiffs sought to proceed on a class-wide basis.  In June
2009, the arbitrator ruled that the arbitration agreements allowed
the plaintiff to proceed on a class-wide basis and attempt to seek
class certification.  Sterling challenged the ruling and the
District Court vacated the arbitrator's decision in July 2010.
The plaintiffs appealed that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  In July 2011, the Second Circuit reversed
the District Court's decision and instructed the District Court to
confirm the Arbitrator's Award (i.e., to allow the private
plaintiff to move forward with a proposed class claim in
arbitration).  Sterling filed a petition for rehearing en banc of
the Second Circuit panel's decision, which was denied on September
6, 2011.  Sterling appealed the Second Circuit's decision to the
U.S. Supreme Court on December 15, 2011, which was denied on March
19, 2012.  The arbitration proceeding is in the early stages, and
discovery is ongoing.

Sterling denies the allegations and intends to defend the case
vigorously.  At this point, no outcome or amount of loss is able
to be estimated.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 23, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.


SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal From IPO Suit Deal Approval Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated appeal from the approval of a settlement in the
litigation over Sify Technologies Limited's initial public
offering has been dismissed, according to the Company's
August 24, 2012, Form 20-F/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Sify Technologies Limited and its subsidiaries (the "Group") and
certain of its officers and directors are named as defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  This
action, which is captioned In re Satyam Infoway Ltd. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, also names several of the
underwriters involved in Sify's initial public offering of
American Depositary Shares as defendants.  This class action is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Sify's
American Depository Shares (ADSs) from the time of Sify's Initial
Public Offering ("IPO") in October 1999 through December 2000.
The central allegation in this action is that the underwriters in
Sify's IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from,
and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors
who purchased Sify's ADSs in the IPO and the aftermarket.  The
complaint also alleges that Sify violated the United States
Federal Securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO
prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly
undisclosed arrangements.  More than 300 issuers have been named
in similar lawsuits.

On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with the Court a motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between all parties,
including the Company and its former officers and directors.  The
proposed settlement provides the plaintiffs with $586 million in
recoveries from all defendants.  Under the proposed settlement,
the Issuer Defendants collectively would be responsible for $100
million, which would be paid by the Issuers' insurers, on behalf
of the Issuer Defendants and their officers and directors.

Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Sify's insurers.  On
June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.  On October 6, 2009, the
District Court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  Subsequent to the final approval of Settlement
agreement by the District court, there were several notices of
appeal filed.  Most were filed by the same parties that objected
to the settlement in front of the District Court.  These appeals
were consolidated into a single appeal and briefing schedule was
held.  On January 9, 2012, the class counsel and issuer
defendant's counsel entered into a Settlement Agreement, which
agreement includes an agreement to dismiss the appeal.  Thus, the
appeal has been dismissed with prejudice confirming the Settlement
agreement entered before the District Court.

The Company believes, the maximum exposure under this settlement
is approximately $338,983, an amount which its insurer will pay as
per the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Company.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery in "EEOC" Suit vs. Sterling Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 23, 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against Sterling Jewelers Inc.
("Sterling"), a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.  The EEOC's
lawsuit alleges that Sterling engaged in a pattern or practice of
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female
retail store employees from January 1, 2003, to the present.  The
EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices.  Discovery is now
ongoing in the case.

Sterling denies the allegations and intends to defend the case
vigorously.  At this point, no outcome or amount of loss is able
to be estimated.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 23, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 28, 2012.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Cohen Milstein Files Amended Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on Oct. 18 disclosed that it
has filed an amended class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of (i) all
persons or entities who, from March 19, 2007 through August 26,
2011 purchased the common stock of Sino-Forest on the Over-the-
Counter market and who were damaged thereby; and (ii) all persons
or entities who, during the Class Period, purchased debt
securities issued by Sino-Forest other than in Canada and who were
damaged thereby.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims against Defendants Sino-
Forest Corporation, Allen T.Y. Chan, David J. Horsley, Kai Kit
Poon, W. Judson Martin, William E. Ardell, James P. Bowland, James
M.E. Hyde, Edmund Mak, Garry J. West, Albert Ip, Alfred C.T. Hung,
George Ho, Simon Yeung, Poyry (Beijing) Consulting Company
Limited, Banc Of America Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, and Ernst & Young LLP, for misleading investors in
connection with the offer and sale of Sino-Forest common stock and
debt securities.

The Amended Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Sino-
Forest and the individual defendants made materially false and
misleading statements in the Company's financial statements and
regulatory filings regarding Sino-Forest's business and financial
condition.  The Amended Complaint also alleges that the Company's
auditor Ernst & Young failed to properly audit Sino-Forest's
financial statements and that its audit reports misrepresented
that the financial statements were presented in conformance with
Canadian GAAP and that its audits complied with Canadian GAAS.  In
addition, the Amended Complaint alleges that, among other things,
the underwriters for Sino-Forest's $600 million note offering in
October 2010 failed to perform proper due diligence in connection
with the offering and sale of securities to the public.

If you purchased the common stock of Sino-Forest on the Over the
Counter market, or its debt securities from March 19, 2007 through
August 26, 2011, you may move the court no later than 60 days
after the date of this notice and request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide
that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that you will adequately represent the class.  Your share in
any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, or other attorneys, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact one of the following:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Stefanie M. Ramirez, Esq.
          Cameron Clark, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue
          N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  sramirez@cohenmilstein.com
                  cclark@cohenmilstein.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Appeals $14.1-Mil. Class Action Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
Coffeehouse giant Starbucks Corp. is appealing a judgment that
ordered them to pay $14.1 million in a class-action employment
lawsuit that challenged Massachusetts' tip rules and whether or
not it allows shift supervisors to split tips from customers with
the baristas, reports Eric Grover, a Bay Area wage-and-hour
attorney at Keller Grover LLP.

Oral arguments began on September 11th in the Matamoros v.
Starbucks Corp. case, where Starbucks is appealing the $14.1
million award for the plaintiffs and certification of their
proposed class.  Judge Nathaniel Gorton handed down the ruling in
March 2011, which certified the class and granted the plaintiffs'
partial summary judgment, finding that Starbuck's shift
supervisors are prohibited from receiving money from any tip pools
under Massachusetts' tip laws, as reported by The National Law
Journal.

In January 2012, Judge Gorton made his final ruling, awarding the
plaintiffs $7.5 million in damages, as well as prejudgment
interest at a rate of 12 percent per annum.  The plaintiffs were
also awarded triple damages for more recent violations, totaling
$6.6 million that were made mandatory by current state wage-and-
hour claims, as amended in July 2008.

Starbucks maintains that their shift supervisors are correctly
classified as "wait staff," because they only have "limited
supervisory" tasks and no actual "managerial responsibility."  The
coffeehouse giant also asserts that the ruling is contradictory to
the law on tips in Massachusetts, which is to ensure that service
employees are the ones that receive the tips from customers.
Furthermore, they claim that the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit
don't actually represent the interests of the numerous former
baristas that have been promoted to shift supervisors and who now
reap the benefits of the current tip policy.

In addition, Starbucks maintains that the court erred with the
treble damages provision because the law allows punitive damages
without showing that the punished conduct was reprehensible.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs claim that, "There's a
Starbucks policy that a shift supervisor, assistant manager or
manager must be on the premises of a store at all time.  Just
because a management style or a company's philosophy may be a
quote more collaborative style doesn't mean that there aren't
people who have a managerial responsibility."

"Interestingly, in many cases the misclassification is the
opposite of what is alleged here.  Hourly staff is often
classified as management to avoid overtime payments.  It seems
that in this case supervisory staff has been classified as wait
staff to pay a lower hourly rate because of the anticipated tip
sharing, notes Eric Grover, a San Francisco wage and hour
attorney."


SWISHER HYGIENE: Judge Designates Class Action Lead Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ely Portillo, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that a
class-action lawsuit against Charlotte-based Swisher Hygiene Inc.
took a step forward on Oct. 18, with a federal judge designating
lead plaintiffs in a suit from angry shareholders who say the
company inflated the stock price with misleading statements.

Earlier this year, Swisher disclosed that it is conducting an
internal financial review that will likely cause it to disclose
bigger losses than it had previously revealed, prompting its stock
to fall sharply.  Swisher told investors that its financial
statements from 2011 can't be relied upon, and hasn't filed
required financial statements since.

The legal problems and continuing financial review are a major
stumbling block for the company's second act.  After a financial
scandal sent founder Patrick Swisher to federal prison in 2002,
Swisher was bought by Florida magnate H. Wayne Huizenga and his
longtime associate Steve Berrard.  Messrs. Huizenga and Berrard
earlier built and then sold Waste Management, Blockbuster and
AutoNation.

Shareholders James Caird and Eugene Stranch were designated the
lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on Oct. 18 by a federal judge in
Charlotte.  They claim their losses due to Swisher's stock total
more than $1.6 million.

Swisher provides cleaning, sanitation and waste removal services
to businesses.

Shareholders have accused the company of inflating its share price
by filing untrue financial statements.  Some of those shareholders
are business owners, who received their Swisher stock last year as
payment for businesses they sold to Swisher.

The company's stock has fallen from $4.66 per share a year ago to
$1.49 on Oct. 18.  Swisher's market capitalization has shrunk from
$1.3 billion to just over $270 million.

The review was focused on how the company accounted for its
acquisitions -- Swisher acquired more than 50 businesses last year
-- and how it accounted for accounts receivable not likely to be
paid.

The financial review has also shaken up the company's top
leadership.  Chief financial officer Michael Kipp left in March,
followed by CEO Berrard in August.  Thomas Byrne, an associate of
Mr. Berrard and co-founder of their New River Capital private
equity fund, took over as interim CEO.  Brian Krass, who replaced
Mr. Kipp as CEO, resigned in September after four months on the
job.

Mr. Berrard remains the company's largest stockholder, with more
than 14 percent of shares outstanding, and Mr. Huizenga -- with a
Forbes-estimated net worth of $2.4 billion -- is chairman of the
board. The company's board of directors includes former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush.

A spokesman for Swisher said the company could not comment on the
shareholder lawsuit, the status of its internal investigation, or
when the company might be ready to file its updated financial
statements.  In court on Oct. 18, a lawyer representing Swisher
told the judge that the company can't say when it will release its
corrected financial statements.

                         Failed Strategy

Swisher grew rapidly over the past few years, fueled by
acquisitions.  The company's revenue more than tripled in the
first nine months of 2011, the most recent numbers available, from
$45.9 million in 2010 to $146.3 million in 2011.  During that same
time, the company bought back nine of its franchises and 45
independent businesses.  The company reported a $14 million loss
during those months.

Much of that growth was funded by issuing stock -- the same shares
that are now languishing at barely more than a tenth of their peak
value.

In 2010, Mr. Huizenga described his acquisition strategy in an
interview with Bloomberg News.  "You go to a guy and you say, 'Do
you want to sell?' If they think they can be a part of something
that's going to grow -- you give them some cash and some stock ?
they'll say 'yes,'" said Mr. Huizenga.  "They want the stock
because they'll think, 'Oh boy, you guys are going to grow this
business, and I'm going to watch my stock grow!'"

Swisher received its first major cash infusion and went public as
the result of a 2010 reverse merger with CoolBrands, a Canadian
company that sold ice cream and frozen snacks.  CoolBrands had
sold off its businesses, and the company was looking for something
to do with its remaining $61.9 million worth of cash. In the
merger, shareholders of CoolBrands received more than 56 million
shares of Swisher.  The company debuted on the Nasdaq on Feb. 2,
2011, at $6.45 a share.

Swisher's next major acquisition was a Florida-based waste
disposal company called Choice Environmental Services.  According
to financial filings, Swisher paid for the deal with $5.7 million
in cash and $48.8 million worth of stock, issued to Choice
shareholders at $5.89 a share.  Swisher also assumed $42.8 million
worth of debt, most of which it quickly paid off with cash from
subscription receipts it sold, exchangeable for shares of stock at
$4.80 a share.

Swisher also sold 12 million shares of stock, at $5 a share, to
"certain funds of a global financial institution" in a 2011
private placement.  Swisher made $60 million from the sale.

Securities filings from last year show the company issued almost
7.4 million shares, worth $49.6 million at the time, to fund a
string of various small-business acquisitions.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Gluten Free Double Chocolate Brownie Mix
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all code dates
(from 30Oct2013 to 18Mar2013) of Wegmans Gluten Free Double
Chocolate Brownie Mix, 17.2 oz. (UPC 77890 28336) because the
product may contain undeclared tree nuts (pecans) and milk.
People who have an allergy to tree nuts (pecans) or milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they
consume this product.  A picture of the recalled products' label
is available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm324998.htm

This product was originally recalled on 10/11/2012 because it may
contain milk (allergen) not declared on the label.  It was removed
from sale at that time.  Further testing was done and came back
positive for the possible presence of tree nuts (pecans).  Updated
information includes reference to both allergens.

Wegmans began offering this product for sale in May 2012 at its 80
retail stores in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Maryland, and Massachusetts.

The recall was initiated by Wegmans following reports by two
consumers of allergic reactions after consuming the product.
Initial testing revealed that the product may contain undeclared
milk prompting the recall on October 11, 2012, when the product
was immediately removed from sale.  Further testing for other
allergens resulted in the finding that undeclared pecans may also
be present in the product.

Concerned customers should return the product to Wegmans service
desk for a full refund.  Wegmans customers with questions or
concerns should contact the consumer affairs department at 1-800-
WEGMANS (934-6267), Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.


                           *********

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  * * *