CAR_Public/121112.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 12, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 224

                               Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of "Las/Yanez" Suit Settlement
ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of Two Suit Settlements in Wash.
ABM INDUSTRIES: Payments Under "Diaz" Suit Settlement Disbursed
ABM INDUSTRIES: To Appeal $89.7-Mil. Judgment in "Augustus" Suit
ASPENBIO COMPANY: Appeal From AppyScore Suit Dismissal Filed

AURICO GOLD: Settles Class Action for $13.25 Million
AUTOLIV INC: Faces Two More Antitrust Class Actions
BAC FIELD: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Discovery in Retirees Suit Now Proceeding
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Horsepower Labeling Suits Pending in Canada

CELANESE CORP: Settlement of Canadian Suits Still Pending Ct. OK
CENTENE CORP: Securities Suit in Missouri Voluntarily Dismissed
CISCO SYSTEMS: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Suit
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Judge Orders Arbitration in Auto-Dial Suit
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Southern Tasmanian Council Joins Class Action

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Ct. Denies Class Cert. Bid in Securities Suit
COOPER COS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
DEL MONTE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit in Calif.
DEL MONTE: Bid to Consolidate Suits Over Jerky Treats Pending
DEL MONTE: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Milo's Kitchen Jerky Treats

DEL MONTE: Jerky Treats-Related Suit Removed to Calif. Dist. Ct.
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "OLERS" Suit
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Bushansky" Shareholder Suit in Penn.
GAMESA WIND: Faces Overtime Class Action
HALCON RESOURCES: Defends Suits Over GeoResources Acquisition

INDIANA INSURANCE: Renews $650-Mil. TCPA Class Action Challenge
INNOVATIVE SCUBA: Recalls 2,590 High Pressure Scuba Diving Hoses
K12 INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hoppaugh" Class Suit
MAIBEC INC: Ct. Dismisses Portion of Suit Over Defective Shingles
NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Gets Favorable Ruling in CosaminDS Suit

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Calif. Suit Dismissal Bid Ruling
OMYA INC: Recalls Food Grade Ground Limestone Products
ORCHARD SUPPLY: Wage and Hour Suits Remain Pending in Calif.
PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Sanctions Bid Pending in Parlux Merger Suit
PIONEER FOODS: May Face Class Action Over Alleged Collusion

RADIO ONE: Settlement of IPO-Related Suit Declared Final
RALCORP HOLDINGS: Expects $4.4MM Settlement Approval This Quarter
RUE21 INC: Trial Date in "Perez" Suit Assigned for March 2013
SAUDER WOODWORKING: Recalls 72,300 Gruga Office Chairs
SINO-FOREST CORP: Investors Lose Bid to Lift Stay to Pursue Suit

SOS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action for Using Consumer Reports
TELENAV INC: "Smith" Stockholder Class Suit Resolved in May
THUNDER BAY, CANADA: Court Set to Decide on Class Action Merits
TILLY'S INC: Continues to Defend "Lyddy" Suit in California
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of Wiretap Suit

UPPER CRUST: Owes $850,000 in Back Wages & Damages to Employees
UTI WORLDWIDE: "Precision" Antitrust Class Suit Remains Pending


                          *********

ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of "Las/Yanez" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a collective action captioned Las and Yanez v. ABM
Industries Incorporated, et al., according to the Company's
September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in the case of Las and Yanez v. ABM
Industries Incorporated, et al. filed on April 6, 2011, in
Illinois state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Las/Yanez
case").  The Las/Yanez case involves allegations relating to
unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work under federal and state
law.  It was filed as a collective action, but has not been
certified as a class action or collective action.  On May 4, 2012,
the parties accepted a mediator's proposal, which involves
settling all the claims made in the operative complaint for the
period of April 6, 2008, through May 7, 2012, subject to court
approval.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the gross
settlement value ("GSV") is the total agreed-upon value of the
claims of all settlement class members in the Las/Yanez case
assuming that 100% of the settlement class members were to submit
a claim.  The parties have agreed that the GSV is equal to $5.5
million, less certain costs and payments to the named plaintiffs
in this action.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, in
the event that more than 30% of the settlement class, measured by
the aggregate value of their claims in relation to the GSV,
submits claims, the Company has the option to terminate the
settlement agreement.  The Company currently anticipates that
payments to members of the settlement class who properly submit
claims, together with payments to plaintiffs' attorneys, will
total approximately $2.1 million and that the Company's maximum
exposure would be approximately $2.9 million.  The Company has
accrued $2.1 million with respect to this matter, which is
included in the total amount accrued for all litigation matters.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of Two Suit Settlements in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of two lawsuits in Washington, according to the
Company's September 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2012.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of
Khadera v. American Building Maintenance Co. - West and ABM
Industries filed on March 24, 2008 in the U.S. District Court of
Washington, Western District (the "Khadera case").  The Khadera
case is a collective action and involves allegations relating to
unpaid overtime and meal and rest claims.  It is an opt-in class
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and 343 plaintiffs are in the
class.  On March 14, 2012, the parties accepted a mediator's
proposal and settled this matter for $1.8 million, which includes
payments to plaintiffs' attorneys.  The settlement is subject to
the District Court's approval of the settlement and the state
court's approval of the settlement in the companion Simpson case.
The Company has accrued $1.8 million with respect to this matter,
which is included in the total amount accrued for all litigation
matters.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported case of
Simpson v. ABM Janitorial Services-Northwest and ABM Industries
Incorporated filed on September 24, 2010, in the Superior Court
for the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Simpson
case").  The Simpson case involves allegations relating to unpaid
overtime, off-the-clock work, and failure to provide meal and rest
periods under Washington state law.  On March 14, 2012, the
parties accepted a mediator's proposal and settled this matter for
$1.2 million, which includes payments to plaintiffs' attorneys.
The settlement is subject to the State Court's approval of the
settlement and the District Court's approval of the settlement in
the Khadera companion case.  The Company has accrued $1.2 million
with respect to this matter, which is included in the total amount
accrued for all litigation matters.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Payments Under "Diaz" Suit Settlement Disbursed
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated disclosed in its September 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2012, that funds under the
settlement of a lawsuit captioned Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco
System Parking totaling approximately $3.2 million, including
payments to plaintiff's attorneys, were disbursed in late May
2012.

The Company was a defendant in the previously reported
consolidated cases of Diaz/Morales/Reyes v. Ampco System Parking
filed on December 5, 2006, in Los Angeles Superior Court (the
"Superior Court").  On June 22, 2011, the parties accepted a
mediator's proposal which involves settling all the claims made in
the first amended complaint for the period of October 1, 2002, to
the date on which the Superior Court grants preliminary approval
of the settlement.  The Superior Court granted its preliminary
approval of the settlement on December 13, 2011.  On January 27,
2012, the notice to the class of the settlement was mailed.  The
Superior Court approved the final settlement on
May 21, 2012.  Settlement funds totaling approximately $3.2
million, including payments to plaintiff's attorneys, were
disbursed in late May 2012.


ABM INDUSTRIES: To Appeal $89.7-Mil. Judgment in "Augustus" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its September 6, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 31, 2012, that it will appeal the $89.7
million judgment against it in the class action lawsuit styled
Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services.

The Company is a defendant in the previously reported consolidated
cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security
Services filed on July 12, 2005 in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case").  The
Augustus case is a class action involving allegations that the
Company violated certain state laws relating to meal and rest
breaks.  As previously disclosed, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for summary judgment on the rest break claim seeking damages in
the amount of $103.0 million.  On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior Court") heard
plaintiffs' motion for damages on the rest break claim and the
Company's motion to decertify the class.  The Superior Court
denied the Company's motion and awarded plaintiffs damages.  On
July 31, 2012, the Superior Court entered judgment in favor of
plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million, which is
included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses.
This amount does not include plaintiffs' counsel's fees.  The
Company strongly disagrees with the decisions of the Superior
Court, firmly believes that it has complied with applicable law,
and intends to vigorously appeal these decisions.


ASPENBIO COMPANY: Appeal From AppyScore Suit Dismissal Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal has been lodged challenging the dismissal of a
securities class action complaint relating to AspenBio Pharma,
Inc.'s test kit product, AppyScore, the Company disclosed in a
October 23, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On October 1, 2010, AspenBio received a complaint, captioned John
Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc.  et al., Case No. CV10 7365 (the "Wolfe
Suit").  This federal securities purported class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California
on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased
common stock of the Company during the period between February 22,
2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint names as
defendants certain officers and directors of the Company during
such period.  The complaint includes allegations of violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants, all related to the Company's blood-based
acute appendicitis test in development known as AppyScore.  On the
Company's motion, the action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado by order dated January 21,
2011.

On September 13, 2012, the United States District Court for
Colorado dismissed and entered judgment without prejudice in the
Wolfe Suit.  The Order to dismiss the action found in favor of the
Company and all of the individual defendants.

On October 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of
the Order granting the motion to dismiss the Wolfe Suit.


AURICO GOLD: Settles Class Action for $13.25 Million
----------------------------------------------------
iStockAnalyst reports that AuRico Gold Inc., a Canada-based gold
producer with a diversified portfolio of mines and projects in
North America, announced a settlement of a class action lawsuit
initiated by Edward McKenna in 2008.

The company entered into a settlement agreement related to a
previously disclosed class action lawsuit pending in the Ontario
Superior Court and initiated by Edward McKenna in 2008 against
AuRico and certain of its directors, officers and underwriters.

The settlement agreement, which provides for payment of $13.25
million to the settlement class, does not contain any admission of
wrongdoing and is subject to certain conditions, including court
approval.


AUTOLIV INC: Faces Two More Antitrust Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. disclosed in its October 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012, that two more antitrust class action
complaints have been commenced against it since it last SEC
report.

The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct.  Notably, the Company, several of its
subsidiaries and its competitors are defendants in a total of 10
purported antitrust class actions in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Those cases are: Brad
Zirulnik v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. filed on June 6, 2012; A1A
Airport & Limousine Service, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. and
Frank Cosenza v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. each filed on June 8, 2012;
Meetesh Shah v. Autoliv, Inc., et al. filed on June 12, 2012;
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et al. v. Autoliv, Inc., et al.
and Richard W. Keifer, Jr. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al. each filed on
June 26, 2012; Findlay Industries, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. filed on
July 12, 2012; Beam's Industries, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., et al.
filed on July 21, 2012; Melissa Barron et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et
al. filed on July 24, 2012; and Stephanie Kaleuha Petras v.
Autoliv, Inc. et al. filed on August 14, 2012.  Additional related
cases may be filed in the future.

Plaintiffs in the cases allege generally that the defendants have
engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices of
occupant restraint systems or components thereof in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws and various unfair or deceptive
trade practice statutes. Plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and various purported classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of occupant restraint systems and purchasers or lessees
of vehicles in which such systems have been installed, injunctive
relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiffs in
these cases make allegations that extend significantly beyond the
plea discussed.

The Company denies these overly broad allegations and intends to
actively defend itself against the same.  While it is probable
that the Company will incur certain expenses as a result of these
cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently
cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has
been recorded as of September 30, 2012.

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


BAC FIELD: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 18, 2012, the Los Angeles employment lawyers at
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik initiated a class action
Complaint, alleging that the company devised a deceptive scheme of
classifying maintenance employees as independent contractors in
order to avoid paying the company's share of payroll taxes,
overtime wages, and other business related expenses.  Weseman, et
al. v. BAC Field Services Corporation ("BAC") is currently pending
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court as Case No. BC494019.
According to the class action complaint filed by the Los Angeles
labor attorneys, in order to maintain the upkeep of homes Bank of
America acquired through foreclosure, BAC hires individuals to
provide maintenance work in and around the foreclosed properties.

According to the lawsuit, BAC has allegedly devised an unlawful
scheme of classifying the employees as independent contractors in
order to avoid paying for regular and overtime hours worked.

Specifically, the class action Complaint alleges that the,"
Plaintiff and other Maintenance Employees performed their work in
a particular order and sequence in accordance with BAC company
policy."

The managing partner of Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal, stated, "misclassification of employees damages the
economy, suppresses wages for all workers and undermines popular
and well-established laws designed to protect them."

If you feel you have been misclassified as an independent
contractor and want to collect your unpaid overtime wages, call an
experienced Los Angeles employment attorney today at (310) 981-
3918.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm that
focuses on claims involving California labor laws.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Discovery in Retirees Suit Now Proceeding
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is now proceeding in the class action lawsuit brought by
retirees, according to Briggs & Stratton Corporation's
August 28, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended July 1, 2012.

On May 14, 2010, the Company notified retirees and certain
retirement eligible employees of various changes to the Company-
sponsored retiree medical plans.  The purpose of the amendments
was to better align the plans offered to both hourly and salaried
retirees.  On August 16, 2010, a putative class of retirees who
retired prior to August 1, 2006, and the United Steel Workers
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin (Merrill, Weber, Carpenter, et al; United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v.
Briggs & Stratton Corporation; Group Insurance Plan of Briggs &
Stratton Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, Docket No. 10-C-
0700), contesting the Company's right to make these changes.  In
addition to a request for class certification, the complaint seeks
an injunction preventing the alleged unilateral termination or
reduction in insurance coverage to the class of retirees, a
permanent injunction preventing defendants from ever making
changes to the retirees' insurance coverage, restitution with
interest (if applicable) and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint and believes the changes
are within its rights.  On April 21, 2011, the district court
issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to
reconsider its order on May 17, 2011, and on August 24, 2011, the
court granted the motion and vacated the dismissal of the case.
The Company then filed a motion with the court to appeal its
decision directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, but the court denied this motion on February 29, 2012.
Discovery is now proceeding in the case.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
of the unresolved legal action or the range of possible loss, the
Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Horsepower Labeling Suits Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits over horsepower labeling remain pending in Canada,
according to Briggs & Stratton Corporation's August 28, 2012, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended July 1, 2012.

Starting with the first complaint in June 2004, various plaintiff
groups filed complaints in state and federal courts across the
country against the Company and other engine and lawnmower
manufacturers alleging that the horsepower labels on the products
they purchased were inaccurate and that the Company conspired with
other engine and lawnmower manufacturers to conceal the true
horsepower of these engines ("Horsepower Class Actions").  On
February 24, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement ("Settlement") that resolves all of the Horsepower
Class Actions including all horsepower-labeling claims brought by
all persons or entities in the United States who, beginning
January 1, 1994 through the date notice of the Settlement is first
given, purchased, for use and not for resale, a lawn mower
containing a vertical shaft internal combustion engine up to 30
horsepower provided that either the lawn mower or the engine of
the lawn mower was manufactured or sold by a defendant.

The Settlement received final court approval on August 16, 2010.
The settling defendants as a group agreed to pay an aggregate
amount of $51.0 million.  However, the monetary contribution of
the amount of each of the settling defendants is confidential.  In
addition, the Company, along with the other settling defendants,
agreed to injunctive relief regarding their future horsepower
labeling, as well as procedures that will allow purchasers of
lawnmower engines to seek a one-year extended warranty free of
charge beginning March 1, 2011, for most class members.  As part
of the Settlement, the Company denies any and all liability and
seeks resolution to avoid further protracted and expensive
litigation.  As a result of the Settlement, the Company recorded a
pre-tax charge of $30.6 million in the third quarter of fiscal
2010.

On March 19, 2010, new plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Canada (Robert Foster et al. v. Sears
Canada, Inc. et al., Docket No. 766-2010).  On May 3, 2010, other
plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Montreal Superior Court in
Canada (Eric Liverman, et al. v. Deere & Company, et al., Docket
No. 500-06-000507-109).  Both Canadian complaints contain
allegations and seek relief under Canadian law that are similar to
the Horsepower Class Actions.  The Company is evaluating the
complaints and has not yet filed an answer or other responsive
pleading to either one.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome
of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss,
the Company believes the unresolved legal actions will not have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.


CELANESE CORP: Settlement of Canadian Suits Still Pending Ct. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Holdings LLC, a U.S. subsidiary of Celanese Corporation, which
included the U.S. business now conducted by the Ticona business
that is included in the Advanced Engineered Materials segment,
along with Shell Oil Company ("Shell"), E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company ("DuPont") and others, has been a defendant in a series of
lawsuits, including a number of class actions, alleging that
plastic resins manufactured by these companies that were utilized
by others in the production of plumbing systems for residential
property were defective for this use and/or contributed to the
failure of such plumbing.  Based on, among other things, the
findings of outside experts and the successful use of Ticona's
acetal copolymer in similar applications, CNA Holdings does not
believe Ticona's acetal copolymer was defective for this use or
contributed to the failure of the plumbing.  In addition, in many
cases, CNA Holdings' potential future exposure may be limited by,
among other things, statutes of limitations and repose.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered into
national class action settlements in the Cox, et al. v. Hoechst
Celanese Corporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion
County, Tennessee) matter.  The time to file claims against the
class has expired and the entity established by the court to
administer the claims was dissolved in September 2010.  In
addition between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named as a
defendant in various putative class actions.  The majority of
these actions have now been dismissed.  As a result, the Company
recorded $59 million in reserve reductions and recoveries from
associated insurance indemnifications during 2010.  The reserve
was further reduced by $4 million during the year ended December
31, 2011, following the dismissal of the remaining US case (St.
Croix, Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company d/b/a Shell Chemical
Company, Case No. XC-97-CR-467, Virgin Islands Superior Court)
which was appealed during the three months ended September 30,
2011.

As of September 30, 2012, the class actions in Canada are subject
to a pending class settlement that would result in a dismissal of
those cases.  The Company does not believe the Possible Loss
associated with the remaining matters is material.  Accordingly,
the Company has determined to reduce the reserves based on the
expiration of the time to file and the resolution of certain
claims under the Canada class and no significant active claims
outside of Canada.

No further updates were reported in Celanese Corp.'s October 23,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Celanese Corporation and its subsidiaries is a global technology
and specialty materials company.  The Company's business involves
processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon
monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp,
into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other
chemical-based products.


CENTENE CORP: Securities Suit in Missouri Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Missouri securities class action complaint against Centene
Corporation has recently been terminated by the plaintiff,
according to the Company's October 23, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

In June 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.  The lawsuit alleged, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 7,
2012 through June 8, 2012, that the Company and certain of its
officers violated federal securities laws by making false or
misleading statements principally concerning the Company's fiscal
2012 earnings guidance.  The Company believed the case was without
merit. In September 2012, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice as to all claims and defendants.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2011, and April 12, 2011, purported shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against Cisco Systems, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors.  The lawsuits have been
consolidated, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
December 2, 2011.  The consolidated action is purportedly brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded
securities between February 3, 2010, and May 11, 2011.  Plaintiffs
allege that defendants made false and misleading statements,
purport to assert claims for violations of the federal securities
laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously.  While the Company believes there
is no legal basis for liability, due to the uncertainty
surrounding the litigation process, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 12,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 28, 2012.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Judge Orders Arbitration in Auto-Dial Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a federal
judge on Nov. 5 handed a victory to Citizens Financial Group Inc.
and Kroger Co. by ordering arbitration in a proposed class action
accusing the companies of auto-dialing cellphones without
consumers' consent.

U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz rejected plaintiff Patrick
McNamara's argument that the companies had waived their right to
arbitration by settling an April 2011 suit he filed in California
state court over the same issue.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Southern Tasmanian Council Joins Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a southern Tasmanian Council is joining
legal action against the Commonwealth Bank to recoup money it lost
during the global financial crisis.

The Huon Valley Council took the bank's advice during the
financial crisis and invested AUD3 million in a complex debt
instrument called a collateralized debt obligation.

In March 2010, it found the entire investment had been lost.

In a statement, the mayor Robert Armstrong says the council is
joining a class action against the bank to recover the funds.

The CBA has issued a statement saying it will defend any
allegations in the courts.

In a landmark ruling on Nov. 5, the Federal Court found in favor
of 13 New South Wales councils which had invested in similar
instruments, on the advice of ratings agency Standard and Poor's
and two other firms.

S&P is appealing against the decision.

Tasmania's Circular Head Council lost AUD2 million in an
investment recommended by the bank but says it will not join the
class action.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Ct. Denies Class Cert. Bid in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation disclosed in its September 7, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that lead plaintiff's motion for class certification in the class
action lawsuit styled In re Computer Sciences Corporation
Securities Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) was denied in
August.

On September 22, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification with the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, and on October 18, 2011, the Company
and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case with
the court.  On August 29, 2012, the court issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the motion
to dismiss.  The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect
to the plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's
operations in the Nordic Region.  The court granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged misrepresentations
and omissions concerning the Company's internal controls and the
Company's contract with the U.K.'s National Health Service.  The
court also granted the lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint
on September 12, 2012, and maintained the stay of discovery until
the sufficiency of the amended complaint has been decided.  The
court further denied lead plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice.

The defendants deny the allegations and intend to defend their
position vigorously.  The Company is unable to estimate any
possible loss or range of loss associated with this matter at this
time.


COOPER COS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in California, according to the Company's September 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

On November 28, 2011, Harold Greenberg filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Case No. 4:11-cv-05697-YGR, against the following
defendants: the Company; Robert S. Weiss, its President, Chief
Executive Officer and a director; Eugene J. Midlock, its former
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Albert G.
White, III, its Vice President of Investor Relations, Treasurer
and Chief Strategic Officer.  On December 12, 2011, a second
individual, Ross Wallen, filed a related complaint against the
same defendants in the Northern District of California, Case No.
4:11-cv-06214-YGR.  The Wallen complaint largely repeats the
allegations in the Greenberg complaint.  Greenberg and Wallen each
sought to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 4, 2011, and November 15, 2011.

On February 29, 2012, the court ordered the Greenberg and Wallen
actions consolidated and appointed Universal-Investment-
Gesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiff.  On May 4, 2012, the lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which alleges
that the Company, Robert S. Weiss and Eugene J. Midlock violated
Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among
other things, making misrepresentations with an intent to deceive
investors concerning the safety of the Avaira(R) Toric and Avaira
Sphere contact lenses, which the Company recalled in 2011.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of the purported class.

On June 1, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The court held a hearing on the
defendant's motion to dismiss on August 7, 2012.  Discovery is
stayed pending a resolution of the motion to dismiss.

The Company says it is not in a position to assess whether any
loss or adverse effect on the Company's financial condition is
probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if
any.


DEL MONTE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a consumer class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's September 11, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 29, 2012.

On April 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging false and misleading advertising under California's
consumer protection laws.  The complaint seeks certification as a
class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million.  On June 15,
2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 6, 2012, negating the
Company's motion to dismiss.  In its amended complaint, plaintiff
alleges the Company made a variety of false and misleading
advertising claims including, but not limited to, its lycopene and
antioxidant claims for tomato products; implying that its
refrigerated products are fresh and all natural; implying that
Fresh Cut vegetables are fresh; and making misleading claims
regarding sugar, nutrient content, preservatives and serving size.
The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously
defend itself.  The Company filed a new motion to dismiss
plaintiff's complaint on July 31, 2012.  A hearing on this motion
was scheduled for September 25, 2012.  The Company cannot at this
time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the
potential liability.


DEL MONTE: Bid to Consolidate Suits Over Jerky Treats Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a pending
motion to consolidate similar cases alleging product liability
claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats under the federal rules
for multi-district litigation, according to the Company's
September 11, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 29, 2012.

On July 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania alleging product liability claims
relating to Chicken Jerky Treats.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that plaintiff's dog became ill and had to be euthanized
as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats.  The complaint
also alleges that the Company breached its warranties and
Pennsylvania's consumer protection laws.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0
million.  The Company denies these allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself.  On August 3, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel
filed a motion to consolidate the previously filed two similar
class actions against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, owner of the
Waggin' Train brand of chicken jerky treats, in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the federal
rules for multi-district litigation ("MDL").  Plaintiffs' motion
also seeks to include the case against the Company in the proposed
MDL consolidation as a "related case."  The Company cannot at this
time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the
potential liability.


DEL MONTE: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Milo's Kitchen Jerky Treats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit in
California relating to Milo's Kitchen chicken jerky treats,
according to the Company's September 11, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 29, 2012.

On September 6, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging product liability claims relating
to Milo's Kitchen chicken jerky treats ("Chicken Jerky Treats").
Specifically, the complaint alleges that plaintiff's dog became
ill as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats.  The
complaint also alleges that the Company breached its warranties
and California's consumer protection laws.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0
million.  The Company denies these allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself.  The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability.


DEL MONTE: Jerky Treats-Related Suit Removed to Calif. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation disclosed in its September 11, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 29, 2012, that it removed a class action
lawsuit filed in state court to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging false
advertising under California's consumer protection laws,
negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company engaged in
false advertising by representing that Chicken Jerky Treats are
healthy, wholesome, and safe for consumption by dogs, and alleges
that plaintiff's pet became ill after consuming Chicken Jerky
Treats.  The allegations apply to all other putative class members
similarly situated.  The complaint seeks certification as a class
action and unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
On September 6, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Removal to
remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The Company cannot at this time
reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential
liability.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "OLERS" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative class action
lawsuit captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v.
Todd S. Nelson, et al., according to the Company's September 12,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2012.

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et
al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in the case.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department
of Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to
admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting
tactics in violation of Title IV of the HEA and accrediting agency
standards, falsification of job placement data for graduates of
its schools and failure to satisfy the U.S. Department of
Education's financial responsibility standards.  The Company
previously received two demand letters from the plaintiff which
were investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board
of Directors and found to be without merit.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012.  The
Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

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


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Bushansky" Shareholder Suit in Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation is facing a shareholder
derivative class action lawsuit brought by Stephen Bushansky,
according to the Company's September 12, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended June 30, 2012.

On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against
certain of the directors of the Company in federal district court
in the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The Company is named as
a nominal defendant in the case.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting,
enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of
the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of
incentive compensation to admissions representatives.  The Company
previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was
investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors and found to be without merit.  The Company believes
that the claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

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


GAMESA WIND: Faces Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gamesa Wind US stiffed its
inspectors and field laborers for overtime, a class action claims
in Federal Court.


HALCON RESOURCES: Defends Suits Over GeoResources Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halcon Resources Corporation is defending five class action
lawsuits arising from its acquisition of GeoResources, Inc.,
according to the Company's September 11, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 1, 2012, Halcon Resources Corporation (the "Company")
completed the acquisition of GeoResources, Inc., a Colorado
corporation ("GeoResources"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated April 24, 2012.

As of May 3, 2012, five putative class action lawsuits had been
filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, against
GeoResources, each of its directors, Halcon and certain Halcon
subsidiaries, and in one lawsuit, HALRES, LLC.  The lawsuits have
each been brought by a purported stockholder of GeoResources and
allege, among other things, that the members of its board of
directors, aided and abetted by GeoResources and Halcon, and in
one lawsuit, HALRES, breached their fiduciary duties to
GeoResources stockholders by entering into the Merger Agreement
for merger consideration the plaintiffs claim is inadequate and
pursuant to a process the plaintiffs claim to be flawed.  The
lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms or to rescind the
Merger to the extent already implemented, as well as damages,
expenses, and attorneys' fees.  GeoResources believes these
lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against such claims.  There may be additional lawsuits of a
similar nature.


INDIANA INSURANCE: Renews $650-Mil. TCPA Class Action Challenge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that Indiana Insurance
Co. on Nov. 5 renewed its bid to avoid coverage of a potential
$650 million Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action,
claiming in an Illinois federal court complaint that it owes at
most $2 million in coverage under a disputed policy.

The insurer is once again looking to escape coverage of litigation
accusing the now-defunct Matrix LS Inc. of sending unsolicited
junk faxes to a certified class of as many as 1.3 million members.


INNOVATIVE SCUBA: Recalls 2,590 High Pressure Scuba Diving Hoses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importers, Innovative Scuba Concepts Inc., of Colorado Springs,
Colorado, Trident Diving Equipment, of Chatsworth, California, and
A-Plus Marine, of Gulf Breeze, Florida; and manufacturer, Li Chung
Plastics Ind. Co. Ltd, of Taiwan, announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,590 total units of high pressure scuba diving air hoses:
1900 Innovative Scuba Concepts hoses, about 480 Trident Diving
Equipment hoses and about 210 A-Plus Marine hoses.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The diving hose can rupture reducing the available air supply to
the diver, posing a drowning hazard.

The importers have received nine reports of burst hoses.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled air hoses are black braided high pressure scuba air
hoses.  The hoses measure about one centimeter in diameter and
vary in length from 6-inches to 40-inches.  These hoses attach to
the regulator first stage and are intended for use with the
submersible pressure gauge (SPG's) that indicate the air pressure
in the scuba diving tank.  These recalled hoses were sold under
the Phantom and Mesh Flex brand names printed only on the product
packaging.  The air hoses have production date codes stamped into
the metal fitting that attaches to the regulator with the
following codes:

   * Innovative Scuba Concepts: 11Q3, 11Q4 and 12Q1

   * Trident Diving Equipment: T0811, T0911, T1011, T1111, T1211,
     T0112, and T0212

   * A-Plus Marine: 11Q3, 11Q4, and 12Q1

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13029.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
scuba diving retailers nationwide and on-line from August 2011
through August 2012 for prices ranging between about $40 and $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the hoses and contact
Innovative Scuba Concepts, Trident Diving Equipment or A-Plus
Marine to receive instructions for obtaining a free replacement
hose.

Consumer Contact:

   Innovative Scuba Concepts Inc. at (800) 472-2740 from
   8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday or
   online at http://www.innovativescuba.com/and click on the
   Phantom High Pressure Hose Safety Recall button for more
   information.

   Trident Diving Equipment at (800) 234-3483 from 8:00 a.m. to
   4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday or on-line at
   http://www.tridentdive.com/for more information.

   A-Plus Marine at (800) 352-2360 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
   Pacific Time Monday through Friday or
   http://www.aplusmarine.com/and click on the recall notice on
   High Pressure Braided Hose Safety Recall for more information.


K12 INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Hoppaugh" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
K12 Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Virginia, according to
the Company's September 12, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30,
2012.

On January 30, 2012, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned
Hoppaugh v. K12 Inc., was filed against the Company and two of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Hoppaugh v. K12, Inc., Case No. 1: 12-CV-
00103-CMH-IDD.  The plaintiff purports to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 common stock
between September 9, 2009, and December 16, 2011, inclusive, and
alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false or misleading statements of material fact, or failed to
disclose material facts, about (i) the Company's financial results
during the class period, (ii) the academic performance of the
virtual schools served by the Company, and (iii) certain school
administrative practices and sales strategies related to
enrollments.  On May 18, 2012, the Court appointed the Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff, and it filed an
amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on
June 22, 2012.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  The Company intends to defend
vigorously against the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint,
and filed a motion to dismiss on July 20, 2012.

In addition to the stockholder class action, on March 21, 2012, a
federal stockholder derivative action, Jared Staal v. Tisch. et.
al., Case No. 1: 12-CV-00365-SLR, putatively initiated on behalf
of the Company, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware.  By stipulation, all matters in this
derivative action have been stayed until the motions to dismiss
the Amended Complaint are decided.  The Board of Directors
received a shareholder demand letter, dated August 16, 2012, that
asserted allegations against various directors, senior officers
and employees of K12 similar to those made in the previously
disclosed securities class action and derivative lawsuits.  The
shareholder requested that the Board investigate and pursue claims
related to breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the Company.  The
Board will consider the demand and take appropriate action.


MAIBEC INC: Ct. Dismisses Portion of Suit Over Defective Shingles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on Nov. 5 dismissed five counts from a putative
class action alleging Canadian manufacturer Maibec Inc. sold wood
shingles that warped and cracked despite extensive warranties,
finding negligence and strict liability claims were barred by the
economic loss rule.

Under that doctrine, a purchaser such as named plaintiff Ilene
Stern can't seek tort recovery against a manufacturer for a
contractually based economic loss, U.S. Judge Peter Sheridan
ruled.


NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Gets Favorable Ruling in CosaminDS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Johnsen, writing for Drug Store News, reports that
Nutramax Laboratories recently announced the defeat of a class
action lawsuit brought against the company in a California court.

In April, Nutramax was named in a class action regarding its
CosaminDS Joint Health Supplement.  Plaintiffs claimed the
glucosamine/chondroitin supplement did not work in relieving joint
pain as advertised.

The federal court, however, agreed with Nutramax Laboratories'
arguments that class certification was not appropriate.  Apart
from the wealth of scientifically sound, clinical studies that
established CosaminDS has beneficial effects, the court agreed
that the plaintiff's allegations did not pass muster.

"We are very pleased to have defeated this lawsuit, but our
success in this frivolous action is unfortunately not the norm,"
stated Robert Henderson, chairman of Nutramax.  "The legal system
is being inundated by these types of lawsuits brought by lawyers
who appear to be driven by the possibility of big settlement
payouts" he said.  "Going forward, Nutramax Laboratories will
reconsider its position to sell our new . . . products in states
such as California, which support these types of anti-
business/anti-consumer laws."


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Calif. Suit Dismissal Bid Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion
to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in
California, according to the Company's September 7, 2012, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2012.

On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and three of
its executives, one of whom is a director.  All of three
complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making misleading statements or omissions
regarding the Company's business and financial results, in
particular regarding the use of its imaging sensors in Apple
Inc.'s iPhone.  These actions have been consolidated as In re
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-5235
(RMW) (the "Securities Case").  On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 27, 2010,
and November 6, 2011, seeking unspecified damages.  On June 25,
2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint;
the hearing on this motion was scheduled for October 26, 2012.
The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this
complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss
nor estimate a range of possible loss.


OMYA INC: Recalls Food Grade Ground Limestone Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Omya Inc. is voluntarily recalling certain lots of food grade
ground limestone products processed at its Superior, Arizona plant
because of the possible presence of Salmonella.  There have been
no reports of any illnesses or adverse health effects associated
with any of Omya's food grade ground limestone products.  Although
an investigation is still ongoing, Omya is recalling specific lots
of Omya-Cal FG-4 AZ, Omya-Cal FG-10 AZ and Omya-Cal FG-15 AZ in
the U.S. as a precaution.  Omya's voluntary recall is being
conducted in consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

The most common symptoms of Salmonella infection are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps and fever, which develop within eight to 72 hours
of eating contaminated food.  The illness usually lasts for four
to seven days and most people recover without treatment.  However,
salmonellosis can be severe or even life threatening for infants,
older people, pregnant women and those with weakened immune
systems.  Individuals experiencing these symptoms should seek
medical attention.

Omya's food grade ground limestone products were sold to
distributors and/or manufacturers as ingredients for further
processing in the U.S.  The food grade products were not
distributed for retail sale to consumers.

Omya says it is diligently investigating the possible problem and
implemented additional precautionary food safety measures.

The products involved in this voluntary recall are:

Product             Container Size       Lot numbers
-------             --------------       -----------
Omya-Cal FG-10 AZ   50 lb. bags          Z227510511
Omya-Cal FG-10 AZ   2500 lb. bulk bags   Z227500511
Omya-Cal FG-10 AZ   2000 lb. bulk bags   Z227500511
Omya-Cal FG-4 AZ    50 lb. bags          Z227510409
Omya-Cal FG-4 AZ    50 lb. bags          Z230310409
Omya-Cal FG-15 AZ   2500 lb. bulk bags   Z228400712
Omya-Cal FG-15 AZ   2500 lb. bulk bags   Z228200712

Pictures of the recalled products and labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm327186.htm

"Our top priority is public safety," said Omya chief executive
officer Region Americas Tony Colak.  "We have notified all of our
customers who received the above-listed products, and we are
working with all the government agencies that are involved out of
an abundance of caution."

All questions regarding the product recall should be directed to
Omya at ph. 1-877-650-3478 (press 1 for product return assistance
and press 2 for all other questions).


ORCHARD SUPPLY: Wage and Hour Suits Remain Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class action lawsuits, brought on behalf of current
and former employees, are pending against Orchard Supply Hardware
Stores Corporation.  One of these lawsuits was brought in 2010 and
one was brought in 2011.  These lawsuits allege the Company failed
to comply with various California labor laws, including
misclassification of non-exempt employees as exempt employees,
failure to pay regular, overtime, and final wages, failure to
provide meal and/or rest breaks, and failure to provide accurate
wage statements.  The Company denies the allegations in the claims
of these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against
them.  However, the Company cannot predict with assurance the
outcome of these lawsuits and accordingly adverse developments,
settlements, or resolutions may occur and negatively impact income
in the quarter of such development, settlement, or resolution.
Based on the information currently available, the Company does not
believe that either of these lawsuits would have a material
adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or results
of operations of the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 11,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2012


PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Sanctions Bid Pending in Parlux Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perfumania Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion for sanctions and attorneys' fees in a consolidated lawsuit
over the Company's proposed merger with Parlux Fragrances, Inc.,
according to the Company's September 11, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 28, 2012.

On April 18, 2012, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of December 23, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and
among Perfumania, Parlux Fragrances, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
and PFI Merger Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Perfumania ("Merger Sub"), Perfumania acquired all
the outstanding shares of Parlux common stock via a merger of
Parlux with Merger Sub, with Parlux surviving the merger.  Parlux
was then merged into PFI Merger Sub I, LLC, which survived this
second merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Perfumania and
changed its name to Parlux Fragrances, LLC ("Parlux, LLC").  The
two transactions are referred to as the "merger."  The merger was
consummated following the approval and adoption of the Merger
Agreement by Parlux shareholders and the approval by Perfumania
shareholders of the issuance of shares of Perfumania common stock
to the Parlux shareholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement.
Trading in Parlux's common stock on the NASDAQ stock market
terminated after market close on April 18, 2012.

Following the announcement of the Company's merger agreement with
Parlux on January 5, 2012, a putative class action complaint,
captioned as Shirley Anderson v. Parlux Fragrances, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida on behalf of a purported
stockholder of Parlux.  The case was transferred to the Complex
Business Division No. 7 and assigned case number 12-000344-CA-07.
The named defendants included Parlux, the individual members of
the Parlux board of directors and the Company.  The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the members of the Parlux board
breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the
Merger Agreement, that the merger consideration negotiated in the
merger agreement was inadequate, that certain of the defendants
had improper conflicts of interest by reason of the existing
relationships between Parlux and the Company, and that the terms
of the Merger Agreement failed to provide the Parlux stockholders
with certain procedural protections and imposed improper deal
protection devices that would preclude competing offers.  The
complaint further alleged that Parlux and the Company aided and
abetted the members of the Parlux board in their alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff sought a determination that
the lawsuit was a proper class action and that the plaintiff was a
proper class representative, orders enjoining the defendants and
their agents from consummating the proposed transaction unless and
until Parlux adopted and implemented a procedure to obtain a
merger agreement that provided the best possible terms for the
Parlux stockholders, rescinding any terms of the proposed
transaction already implemented, and awarding damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.  On February 7, 2012, the Anderson plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint in which the claims and defendants
remained the same, but, among other additions, plaintiff added
allegations concerning the independent committee of the Parlux
board of directors that she alleged raised questions as to that
committee's impartiality.

On February 9, 2012, another class action complaint, captioned as
Arthur Weill v. Esther Egozi Choukroun, et al., (Case Number 2012-
CV-3508-07) was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida on behalf of a
purported stockholder of Parlux. The Weill action alleged the same
claims and operative facts as the Anderson action and the Dias
action and requested similar relief.  On February 24, 2012, the
Court consolidated the Anderson and Weill actions.  On February
29, 2012, the Court also granted the defendants' motion to stay
the consolidated actions in light of the Dias action in Delaware.
On May 29, 2012, plaintiffs in the consolidated Anderson and Weill
action filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, dismissing the
consolidated lawsuits with prejudice.

On January 31, 2012, an additional putative class complaint,
captioned as Jose Dias v. Fredrick E. Purches, et al., (Case
Number 7199 VCG) was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State
of Delaware on behalf of a purported stockholder of Parlux.  The
Dias action alleges the same claims and operative facts as the
Anderson action and requests similar relief.  The Dias plaintiff,
joined by the plaintiff in the Anderson action, filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the merger based on
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Parlux board in
negotiating and approving the merger agreement, the alleged
inadequacy of the merger consideration and Parlux's alleged
failure to make material disclosures relating to the merger.  On
April 5, 2012, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it
in part.  The Court ordered Parlux and the Company to file with
the SEC certain additional information about the process followed
by the financial advisors to Parlux's board of directors, which
both companies did on April 6, 2012.  The Court did not enjoin the
stockholder meeting scheduled for April 17, 2012, on the condition
the additional information be filed, did not enjoin the
consummation of the merger, and did not grant any relief other
than noted.  On April 19, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss
this action.  On May 4, 2012, the plaintiff filed notices of non-
opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss.  On July 25,
2012, the Court held oral argument on the Parlux defendants'
motion for sanctions and attorneys' fees and the plaintiff's
motion for attorney's fees, in which the plaintiff is seeking an
award of $500,000 in attorneys' fees.  The court has yet to issue
a ruling on either motion.

On March 5, 2012, the plaintiff in the Anderson action in Florida,
which has been stayed by order of the Florida Court, filed a new
action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware a
captioned as Shirley Anderson v. Parlux Fragrances, Inc., et al.
(Case Number 7305-VCP), alleging the same facts and claims as were
in her Florida action.  Plaintiff has not served this action on
the Company.  As noted, however, the plaintiff in this action
joined in the motion for a preliminary injunction filed in the
Dias action and dismissed her action in Florida.


PIONEER FOODS: May Face Class Action Over Alleged Collusion
-----------------------------------------------------------
BizCommunity.com reports that South Africa's bread producers may
face a class action after an independent bread producer claimed
that Pioneer Foods, Tiger Brands and Premier Foods had colluded to
reduce the discounts offered to distributors.

Defining a "class" for purposes of launching a class action, and
the correct procedure that must be followed to certify the class,
was put before the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein on
Nov. 6.

The court heard a certification application from bread
distributors, who claim they had been "prejudicially affected" by
the conduct of the country's major bread producers, Pioneer Foods,
Tiger Brands and Premier Foods.

Independent bread distributor Imraahn Ismail-Mukaddam complained
at the end of 2006 to the Competition Commission that the bakers
had colluded when they collectively decided to reduce the
discounts offered to the distributors.

The Competition Tribunal found Pioneer Foods, Tiger Brands and
Foodcorp guilty of contravening the Competition Act.

Premier Foods received corporate leniency from the commission and
did not receive a penalty, but was included in the claim for
damages by the distributors.

Paul Hoffman SC, appearing for the independent distributors,
amended his definition of the class following some criticism from
the bench on the way the class had been defined in the notice of
appeal.

Judge Nugent said the principles of class action required that the
class should be identified objectively and could not depend on who
was likely to succeed with the action.

Mr. Hoffman said the class action was limited to the bread
distributors in the Western Cape, who received a lesser discount
due to the collusive actions by bread producers.  It should
include those distributors who did not pass on their losses to
consumers. Mr. Ismail-Mukaddam's claim amounted to R4m.

The Competition Act, unlike the Consumer Protection Act, does not
provide for class action. The only class action brought
successfully in South Africa had been in terms of infringements
under the Constitution.

Schalk Burger SC, appearing for Pioneer, argued that the court
papers on which the distributors relied, where "fatally defective"
as there was no clear definition of a class and there was no clear
prima facie case made to the court.

It was also not clear from the evidence what the damages were.

Premier and Tiger Brands also questioned the argument raised by
the distributors that their choice of profession, in terms of
Section 22 of the Constitution, had been hampered due to the
illegal action by the bread bakers.

John Dickerson SC, appearing for Tiger Brands said there were only
vague assumptions that their choice of profession had been
negatively affected.  Evidence before the court was that some
distributors had been liquidated and forced out of business
because of a loss of income.

On Nov. 7, the court will hear an application for a class
certification from bread consumers.  The Black Sash, the
Children's Resource Centre, trade federation Cosatu and the
National Consumer Forum, said in a joint statement they were
confident the Supreme Court of Appeal would overturn the decision
by acting Judge Francois van Zyl in the Western Cape High Court to
refuse the group a class certificate.


RADIO ONE: Settlement of IPO-Related Suit Declared Final
--------------------------------------------------------
Radio One, Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit over its
initial public offering is now final, according to the Company's
September 11, 2012, Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In November 2001, Radio One and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a shareholder class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned, In re Radio One, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10160.
Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies ("Issuers") that conducted initial
public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s ("the IPO
Cases").  In the complaint filed against Radio One (as amended),
the plaintiffs claimed that Radio One, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of certain of its public offerings
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act.  The plaintiffs' claim
was based on allegations that Radio One's registration statement
and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by the underwriters, and the stock
allocation practices of the underwriters.  The complaint also
contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that these omissions
constituted a deceit on investors.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In July 2002, Radio One joined in a global motion, filed by the
Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Cases.  In October 2002, the court
entered an order dismissing the Company's named officers and
directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an
agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to Radio
One's officers and directors until September 30, 2003.  In
February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against Radio One
and most of the Issuers.

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of Radio One's board
of directors approved in principle a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs.  The proposed settlement would have provided for the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the participating
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Cases and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against their underwriters.  In September 2003,
in connection with the proposed settlement, Radio One's named
officers and directors extended the tolling agreement so that it
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.  In June
2004, Radio One executed a final settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.  In 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.  In 2007, the settlement was
terminated pursuant to stipulation of the parties.

In February 2009, plaintiffs informed the court that a new
settlement of all IPO Cases had been agreed to in principle,
subject to formal approval by the parties and preliminary and
final approval by the court.  In April 2009, the parties submitted
a tentative settlement agreement to the court and moved for
preliminary approval thereof.  In June 2009, the court granted
preliminary approval of the tentative settlement and ordered that
notice of the settlement be published and mailed to class members.
In October 2009, the court certified the settlement class in each
IPO Case and granted final approval to the settlement.
Thereafter, a number of shareholders filed appeals to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, objecting to the settlement.  On January
10, 2012, the last of these shareholder appeals was dismissed with
prejudice.  Accordingly, the settlement is now final, all claims
against the Company and its officers and directors in the IPO
Cases will be dismissed with prejudice, and its pro rata share of
the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance.

Radio One, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an urban-
oriented, multi-media company that primarily targets African-
American consumers.  The Company's core business is its radio
broadcasting franchise that is the largest radio broadcasting
operation that primarily targets African-American and urban
listeners.  The Company currently owns and operates 54 broadcast
stations located in 16 urban markets in the United States.  The
Company is based in Silver Spring, Maryland.


RALCORP HOLDINGS: Expects $4.4MM Settlement Approval This Quarter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. expects approval of its proposed $4.4
million settlement of class action lawsuits filed in California
will occur during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, according to
the Company's September 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2012.

Two subsidiaries of the Company are subject to three lawsuits
brought by former employees currently pending in separate
California state courts alleging, among other things, that
employees did not receive statutorily mandated meal breaks
resulting in incorrect payment of wages, inaccurate wage
statements, unpaid overtime and incorrect payments to terminated
employees.  Each of these lawsuits was filed as a class action and
seeks to include in the class certain current and former employees
of the respective subsidiary involved.  In each case, the
plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees,
compensatory and other monetary damages, statutory penalties, and
injunctive relief.  No determination has been made by any court
regarding class certification.  In April 2012, the Company,
plaintiffs and a third party staffing agency formerly used by the
Company agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement with respect
to these lawsuits.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement,
the Company has agreed to pay $4.4 million in order to resolve
these claims.  The Company accrued $4.4 million related to the
proposed settlement during the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement,
however, it is possible that up to $1.5 million could be returned
to the Company depending upon the number of current and former
employees who participate in the settlement.  The proposed
settlement requires court approval which the Company expects will
occur during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012.


RUE21 INC: Trial Date in "Perez" Suit Assigned for March 2013
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has been assigned for March 2013 in the class action
lawsuit initiated by Elva Perez against rue21, inc., according to
the Company's August 28, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28,
2012.

On June 11, 2010, Elva Perez, a former employee, on behalf of
herself and a purported class of all of the Company's other
similarly situated California employees, filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company has forced its in-
store employees to work off-the-clock without compensation; failed
to pay overtime wages; failed to provide in-store employees bona
fide meal and rest periods; failed to reimburse in-store employees
for business expenses they incur; and failed to provide accurate,
timely itemized wage statements, in violation of the California
Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders and the California Business and Professions Code.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order awarding
compensatory and liquidated damages, including unpaid wages; an
award of restitution; an order imposing civil penalties; an order
enjoining the Company from committing future violations of the
laws allegedly violated; and interest, attorney's fees and costs.
The Company denied the allegations made by the Plaintiff and
asserted various defenses.

On June 6, 2012, the Court certified a class of all individuals
employed in the Company's California locations as hourly store
managers, assistant store managers and sales clerks from June 11,
2006, to pursue claims related to meal breaks, meal premium pay,
work related travel claims, travel expense claims, bag check
claims, and pay record claims.  The Company is currently in the
discovery phase of this case.  A trial date has been assigned for
March 2013.

The Company says it intends to vigorously contest the claims that
have been asserted in this lawsuit and will seek to decertify the
class.  As discovery is ongoing and the ultimate outcome of this
matter is uncertain, it is not reasonably possible at this time to
estimate a range of loss and no amounts have been accrued by the
Company as of the date of this report.  Depending on developments
in this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results.


SAUDER WOODWORKING: Recalls 72,300 Gruga Office Chairs
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Sauder Woodworking Company, of Archbold, Ohio,
announced a voluntary recall of about 70,000 Gruga Office Chairs
in the United States of America and 2,300 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The seat plate can break, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Sauder Woodworking Company has received 17 reports of seat plates
breaking, two of which involved consumers falling and receiving
bumps and bruises.

The recalled chairs are entertainment, executive, manager's and
task chairs with the brand name "GRUGA - Seating from Sauder."
The chairs are sold in a variety of fabrics and colors.  The model
number and Universal Product Code (UPC) are on a tag attached to
the bottom of the seat.  A blue date code is stamped on the legal
disclaimer label on the underside of the chair seat.  Recalled
chairs are dated August 2009 and later.  The following chair
models have been recalled:

   Description                           Model         UPC
   -----------                           -----    ------------
   Black Fabric Butterfly Chair          403612   042666601627
   Executive Chair Leather Brown         404237   042666604659
   Executive Chair Leather Black         404238   042666604666
   Executive Chair Fabric Black          404240   042666604680
   Executive Chair Leather Black         404241   042666604697
   Manager's Chair Fabric Black          404242   042666604703
   Manager's Chair Leather Black         404243   042666604710
   Task Chair Fabric Black               404244   042666604727
   Task Chair Fabric Black               404245   042666604734
   Task Chair Fabric Black               404246   042666604741
   Exec Chair Leather Black              404260   042666604888
   Manager's Chair Fabric Black          404261   042666604895
   Executive Chair Fabric Silver/Brown   404279   042666605335
   Executive Chair Leather Burnt Brown   404281   042666605359
   Air Seat Managers Chair               404370   042666605373
   Black Micro Fabric Executive          404398   042666607742
   Premium Executive Leather             405147   042666609678
   Premium Executive Fabric              407688   042666609685
   Fabric Manager's Chairs               407702   042666609708
   Leather Manager's Chair               407894   042666609722
   Deluxe Fabric Task Chair              407895   042666609739
   Executive Fabric Mesh Chair           407896   042666609746
   Executive Mesh Back Chair             407897   042666609920
   Task Chair                            408989   042666104920
   Vinyl Manager's Chair                 408993   042666101561
   Deluxe Leather Executive Chair        409977   042666101578
   X-Vibe Entertainment Chair            410409   042666105187
   X-Vibe Entertainment Chair            410573   042666105170
   Duraplush Mid Manager's Chair         410593   042666104883
   Duraplush Manager's Chair             410879   042666104890
   Air Comfort Executive Chair           412429   042666109284

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml13/13030.html

For photos of all 31 chairs, go to http://www.Sauder.com/and
click on Safety Notices, then click on the link for model numbers,
descriptions and UPCs.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Meijer, Menards, Shopko and Target and a variety of retail outlets
nationwide, and online retailers including BestBuy.com and
Kohls.com from August 2009 to September 2012 for between $79 and
$399.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
contact Sauder for a free replacement seat plate and attachment
tool.  Sauder Woodworking Company; toll-free (888) 800-4590, from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or
http://www.Sauder.com/and click on Safety Notices for more
information.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Investors Lose Bid to Lift Stay to Pursue Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that investors
suing Sino-Forest Corp. have lost a bid to speed up parts of their
potential $9.18-billion class-action claim against three of the
scandal-plagued company's former executives and its big-name
underwriters and auditors.

Lawyers acting for burned investors were recently in court, asking
an Ontario Superior Court judge to partly lift the stay, or
litigation freeze, imposed on the troubled company.  The stay
order came with Sino-Forest's move to seek protection from its
creditors this year as it faced fraud allegations and
investigations by the Ontario Securities Commission and the RCMP.

In a decision released on Nov. 6, Mr. Justice Geoffrey Morawetz of
the Ontario Superior Court extended the stay order until at least
Dec. 10, saying that doing so would do no harm to the plaintiffs
in the securities class action against the company.

Lawyer Dimitri Lascaris of Siskinds LLP, acting for the
plaintiffs, had urged the court to lift the stay to allow the
potential class-action claims to proceed against only three former
company executives and the company's auditors and its
underwriters.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.  The defendants
have denied the allegations.

Lawyers for three former Sino-Forest executives, the auditors,
Ernst & Young LLP and BDO Ltd., and the company's long list of
major underwriters, opposed the plaintiffs' move.

They argued it was unfair to proceed against only their clients.
They also said the class-action proceedings should be delayed
until the Ontario Court of Appeal rules on their challenge of the
terms of Sino-Forest's proposed restructuring deal.  That deal, on
which the company's debt holders are to vote this month, would see
them take over its remaining assets.

Mr. Lascaris pointed out on Nov. 6 in an e-mail that Judge
Morawetz's decision also says the claims of investors who lost
billions in Sino-Forest's collapse will eventually have to be
heard.  "Although we would have preferred that Justice Morawetz
lift the stay, His Honour has stated clearly that the class
actions will have to proceed.  So sooner or later, the defendants
will have to answer for their conduct."


SOS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action for Using Consumer Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, reports that SOS International
Ltd., which provides support operations to the U.S. government,
was hit with a putative class action in Virginia federal court on
Nov. 1 over allegations the company is improperly using consumer
reports in its hiring practices.

Dean M. Javid brought the action, claiming SOS has willfully
violated requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by taking
adverse employment action against him and other proposed class
members based on undisclosed consumer report information, without
first producing copies of the relevant reports.


TELENAV INC: "Smith" Stockholder Class Suit Resolved in May
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit brought by David Smith was dismissed in
May 2012, following approval of the parties' settlement, according
to TeleNav, Inc.'s September 7, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June
30, 2012.

On September 2, 2010, a purported stockholder class action was
filed by David Smith in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:10-CV-03942-SC)
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of its underwriters for its May 13, 2010 initial public
offering, or IPO, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act.  On November 15, 2011, the Court entered an Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice.  On
February 24, 2012, the Court held a Settlement Hearing and at the
hearing requested that plaintiff provide additional information
regarding the claim forms submitted by class members.  On March
19, 2012, the Court requested that plaintiff submit supplemental
briefing on the same topic.  On
May 16, 2012, the Court issued its final approval of the proposed
settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.  The settlement
included a payment of $3.8 million by the Company's insurance
carrier to resolve all claims as to all defendants to the
litigation.

In the future, especially following periods of volatility in the
market price of the Company's shares, other purported class action
or derivative complaints may be filed against the Company.  The
outcome of potential future litigation is difficult to predict and
quantify and the defense of such claims or actions can be costly.
In addition to diverting financial and management resources and
general business disruption, the Company may suffer from adverse
publicity that could harm the Company's brand or reputation,
regardless of whether the allegations are valid or whether the
Company is ultimately held liable.  A judgment or settlement that
is not covered by or is significantly in excess of the Company's
insurance coverage for any claims, or the Company's obligations to
indemnify the underwriters and the individual defendants, could
materially and adversely affect its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.

TeleNav, Inc. -- http://www.telenav.com/-- is a leader in
location-based applications delivered via a mobile device.  One of
the first to launch a GPS navigation and mobile workforce
management service on a cell phone in North America, TeleNav is
partnered with every significant wireless carrier and device
manufacturer.  TeleNav offers products in 29 countries on 16
carriers on 600+ devices-more devices than any other location-
based services provider.  TeleNav began trading on NASDQ under the
stock symbol TNAV in May 2010.  The Company is headquartered in
Sunnyvale, California.


THUNDER BAY, CANADA: Court Set to Decide on Class Action Merits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a court must now decide the merits of two
proposed class action lawsuits against the City of Thunder Bay
that are both related to last May's flooding.

A partner in Adair Morse LLP -- a Toronto law firm that's filed a
claim for more than C$500 million -- said the claim is on behalf
of three Thunder Bay homeowners who suffered losses.

"They were identified as the logical people to be representative
to make sure all the types of harm that were suffered in the
flooding would be covered off," Jerome Morse said, adding that's
one of the requirements to have a claim certified as a class
action law suit.

Mr. Morse said the suit alleges mismanagement of the sewage
treatment plant.

"And a lot of people suffered damage," he said.

"We believe -- given the opportunity -- we can establish it was
owing to the fault of the city of Thunder Bay [and] their
management of the sewage plant."

A Thunder Bay law firm earlier this year filed a separate notice
of a claim for C$300 million.  Mr. Morse said the court will have
to decide whether his firm's class action or the one already
initiated by the Thunder Bay law firm will be approved, if any.

The city has not provided a comment about the claim.


TILLY'S INC: Continues to Defend "Lyddy" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit initiated by Deborah Lyddy  in California, according to
the Company's September 7, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28,
2012.

In October 2011, a putative class action, Deborah Lyddy v. World
of Jeans & Tops and Tilly's, Inc. (37-2011-00098812-CU-BT-CTL) was
filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, alleging various causes of
action based on the Company's California gift card redemption
policies.


UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of Wiretap Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News reports that aside from
monitoring terror threats, the National Security Agency eavesdrops
on the private communications of Americans for fun, a class says
in the 6-year-old case against the federal wiretap program.

The allegation appears in the latest opposition brief a class
filed as the government seeks dismissal or summary judgment for
the third time.  Lead plaintiff Virginia Shubert filed her suit
originally in 2006.

Ms. Shubert's brief adopts the same arguments set forth in an
unrelated case over the alleged communications dragnet.  The
arguments stem from a motion for summary judgment filed recently
in the case Jewel v. National Security Agency.  Carolyn Jewel
leads a class of telephone service customers who accuse the NSA of
using telecommunications companies to spy on customers under the
Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).

Both Ms. Shubert and Ms. Jewel allege that the TSP violates the
Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Ms. Shubert's latest brief reaffirms the position that the
government seeks to transform a limited, common law on evidentiary
privilege into sweeping immunity for its "own unlawful conduct."

If it evades challenge, the government will receive unprecedented
power and "no court could ever stop it" from spying on U.S.
citizens, regardless if the action is illegal, unconstitutional or
even criminal, Ms. Shubert says.

But Ms. Shubert also says that the NSA has a prurient basis for
its surveillance.

Some NSA employees who have listened to flagged phone calls "have
admitted to listening to calls simply for entertainment purposes,
and sharing these calls with their colleagues," according to the
brief authored by Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady attorney Ilann
Maazel.  "As one employee explained, 'it's almost like going
through and finding someone's diary."

Meanwhile, the government argues it should be trusted and that
both cases should be dismissed under the state secrets privilege,
alleging that the court should admit evidence of a potential
breach in national security.

In its response to the Jewel, the government had said: "Renewed
invocation of the state secrets privilege in this action by the
director of national intelligence has undergone rigorous review
within the executive branch under a process providing that
privilege will only be asserted where necessary to protect against
significant harm to national security."

Ms. Shubert's opposition brief contends, however, that the states
secrets privilege does not apply in this case because, among other
things, it only applies to "military matters," not civilian
communications.

"In short, this case is unprecedented, and the assertion of the
state secrets privilege in this case is unprecedented," Ms. Maazel
wrote.  "It creates fundamental constitutional conflicts no court
has ever wrestled with, among them: whether the privilege
overrides (i) constitutional limitations upon the president to
exert power unauthorized by Congress within the domestic sphere;
(ii) the deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to
the extension of military control over civilians; and (iii) the
constitutional right and duty of Article III courts to 'say what
the law is,' especially in a case involving ongoing, widespread
violations of constitutional rights."

The secrecy issue is also superficial since President George W.
Bush previously confirmed the existence of its wiretapping
program, according to the brief.

"The president 'opened the door for judicial inquiry by publicly
confirming and denying material information about its monitoring
of communication content," Ms. Maazel wrote.  "Defendants cannot
both deny the existence of a broader Dragnet, and claim that the
state secrets privilege prevents them from making such a denial.
Yet, that is what they attempt to do in this case."

The wiretapping program is "hardly a secret, much less a state
secret," the brief also states.  "Defendants publicly admitted the
existence of the program, that it monitors communication content,
tracks calls into the United States or out of the United States
and operates without warrants. Because the very subject matter of
this action is hardly secret, the state secrets privilege cannot
bar this suit."


UPPER CRUST: Owes $850,000 in Back Wages & Damages to Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Abelson, writing for Boston.com, reports that Upper Crust,
the bankrupt gourmet pizza chain accused of exploiting workers as
it expanded across the region, owes employees about $850,000 in
back wages and damages, according to court records filed by the US
Department of Labor.

A federal investigation of pay practices at Upper Crust between
April 2009 and January 2011 found the company violated minimum-
wage and overtime laws and failed to pay 67 employees roughly
$425,000 during that period.

Upper Crust owes an equal amount in damages, as well as $37,000 in
civil penalties, according to the proof of claim filed in US
Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts.

The government notified Upper Crust founder Jordan Tobins of its
findings in August 2011 and spent more than a year trying to come
to an agreement with the chain on payments and penalties.  But the
business, with 176 employees, sought bankruptcy protection in
October after facing persistent labor problems, financial
troubles, and ownership disputes.

Upper Crust has 16 locations left after four restaurants shut down
in the past year.

"The department has been engaged in protracted settlement
negotiations with the parties involved in an attempt to resolve
the matter and recover back wages and liquidated damages for the
workers," said Ted Fitzgerald, an agency spokesman.

The Labor Department's claim makes it the largest unsecured
creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings.  It is the second time the
federal agency has sanctioned the company in recent years.

Lawyers representing Mr. Tobins and Upper Crust co-owners Josh
Huggard and Brendan Higgins did not respond to messages seeking
comment.

Upper Crust, which was founded in 2001 in Beacon Hill and quickly
gained a devoted following, depended on a steady pipeline of
immigrant workers from the impoverished village of Marilac in
Brazil, according to a Globe investigation published in 2010.

In the beginning, the Brazilian workers embraced jobs that allowed
them to send money to their families and improve their lives back
home.  But the relationship soured over time, employees said,
because management began underpaying them for long work weeks as
the business grew rapidly.

Employees eventually took their complaints to the Department of
Labor, which first investigated in 2009 and ordered Upper Crust to
pay workers nearly $350,000 in overtime.

Mr. Tobins and other executives then allegedly devised a plan to
take back the money by reducing employees' wages or firing them if
they refused to return the federally mandated compensation.  That
prompted a 2010 class-action lawsuit filed by five former
employees, as well as a second Labor Department investigation.

The Labor Department, which determined Upper Crust owed workers
about $850,000 in back wages and damages, will detail its claims
in lawsuits it plans to file against the corporate entities and
individual executives, Mr. Fitzgerald said.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney who filed the class-action suit
on behalf of former Upper Crust workers, said she will continue
pursuing claims for employees who were allegedly forced to choose
between keeping their jobs or keeping their payments for back
wages.

Ms. Liss-Riordan said she is not surprised by the Labor
Department's finding.  "This company has repeatedly shown its
disregard for the laws protecting workers and their wages," she
said.

Upper Crust, which defaulted on a TD Bank loan in late September,
said it owes at least $3.4 million to creditors, including more
than $500,000 to ZVI Construction Co. in Brookline, about $235,000
to a food distributor, and $230,000 to a former Massachusetts
attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly, who represented the business
after leaving office, according to a list filed last month with
the Bankruptcy Court.  The state Department of Revenue says Upper
Crust has not paid an estimated $843,000 in meals taxes from the
last year.

The Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing -- it is intended to allow the
chain to reorganize and keep operating restaurants -- capped
months of turbulence at Upper Crust.  Earlier this year, partners
Messrs. Huggard and Higgins put Mr. Tobins on leave and sued him,
for allegedly misusing company funds, including by making a down
payment on a personal residence and charging yacht costs to
corporate credit cards.

The problems deepened in June, when ZVI Construction filed a
lawsuit seeking about $700,000 it claims it is owed for store
improvements at Upper Crust restaurants.  ZVI then attempted to
seize Upper Crust's bank accounts at TD Bank and Bank of America.

Mr. Tobins and his partners tried to resolve their differences
this summer with a settlement agreement that would allow the
founder to keep the Upper Crust name and franchising rights, along
with two Upper Crust stores in Brookline and Beacon Hill in
exchange for a $250,000 payment, according to a copy of the
agreement filed with the Bankruptcy Court.

Messrs. Higgins and Huggard would keep running the remaining
restaurants as long as they did not use the word "Upper" -- in
their names.

Mr. Tobins made the $250,000 payment with the help of a private
equity firm, which they claim was immediately supposed to be paid
to ZVI, according to court records.

E-mails between Mr. Tobins's lawyer and the attorney representing
Messrs. Huggard and Higgins indicate the funds were to be
transferred to ZVI.

But according to a lawsuit filed by the private equity firm, it
appears Messrs. Huggard and Higgins kept the money and days later
sought bankruptcy protection.


UTI WORLDWIDE: "Precision" Antitrust Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. (along with several other global logistics
providers) has been named as a defendant in a federal antitrust
class action lawsuit filed on January 3, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of New York (Precision
Associates, Inc., et. al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding)
Ltd., et. al.). This lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged
in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 7,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2012.

The Company says it has incurred, and may in the future incur,
significant legal fees and other costs in connection with
governmental investigations and lawsuits.

                           *********

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  * * *