A federal judge approved a $40 million class-action settlement Monday between Skechers USA Inc. and consumers who bought toning shoes after ads made unfounded claims that the footwear would help people lose weight and strengthen muscles.

U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell in Louisville approved the deal, which covers more than 520,000 claims. About 1,000 people eligible for coverage by the settlement opted not to take part.

Those with approved claims will be able to get a maximum repayment for their purchase _ up to $80 per pair of Shape-Ups; $84 per pair of Resistance Runner shoes; up to $54 per pair of Podded Sole Shoes; and $40 per pair of Tone-Ups.

Russell also awarded $5 million for the attorneys in the case to split. Russell ordered that the money cannot come from the $40 million settlement fund set aside for consumers.

Two people that served as the lead plaintiffs in the case will receive payments of $2,500 each.

Russell considered multiple factors in deciding to approve the settlement and found it provides just compensation to the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court appeared divided Monday in two cases in which businesses are trying to make it harder for customers or investors to band together to sue them.

The justices heard arguments in appeals from biotech company Amgen Inc. and cable provider Comcast Corp. that seek to shut down class-action lawsuits against the businesses.

Amgen is fighting securities fraud claims that misstatements about two of its drugs used to treat anemia artificially inflated its stock price. Comcast is facing a lawsuit from customers who say the company's monopoly in parts of the Philadelphia area allowed it to raise prices unfairly.

Last year, the Supreme Court raised the bar for some class-action suits when it sided with Wal-Mart against up to 1.6 million of its female employees who complained of sex discrimination. In the Wal-Mart case, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at the nation's largest private employer to wrap into one lawsuit.

Class actions increase pressure on businesses to settle suits because of the cost of defending them and the potential for very large judgments.

Connecticut pension funds that sued Amgen said lower courts correctly ruled that the case could move forward as a class action. The issue at the Supreme Court is whether the pension funds have to show at an early stage of the lawsuit that Amgen's claims about the safety and effectiveness of the drugs Aranesp and Epogen affected the stock price.

Several justices indicated they had no problem with the idea that, unlike in the Wal-Mart case, all the Amgen investors were in the same boat and could clear an early hurdle that tripped up the Wal-Mart employees.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. today announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased OCZ (OCZ) common stock or call options, or sold OCZ put options, between July 10, 2012 and October 10, 2012, inclusive (the "Class Period").

To join the OCZ class action, visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com, or call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against OCZ and certain if its officers and directors for issuing misleading financial information. Namely, the lawsuit asserts that OCZ: (a) was providing extraordinary customer incentives in excess of what was normal and customary in the past; and (b) improperly accounting for customer incentive programs. As a result, OCZ's financial results were misstated during the Class Period and the OCZ lacked adequate internal controls. The Complaint alleges that when this adverse information entered the market investors lost nearly half the value of their investment.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 10, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

www.rosenlegal.com.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Groupon, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the allegedly false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Groupon’s November 4, 2011 initial public offering, including purchasers of Groupon common stock between February 8, 2012 and March 30, 2012.

Groupon operates an e-commerce marketplace that connects merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a discount in North America and internationally. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company materially understated refund reserves for fourth quarter 2011 due to a failure to properly account for coupon refunds; (b) as a result, the Company materially misstated its previously reported fourth-quarter and full-year 2011 financial results; and (c), the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Groupon common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company’s November 4, 2011 initial public offering, and/or during the Class Period described above, you have certain rights, and have until June 4, 2012 to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member.

www.glancylaw.com

Italian confectionery group Ferrero has agreed to set aside $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit championed by a Californian mother after she discovered the group's Nutella chocolate spread packed more calories than jam or syrup.

Notices of class action settlements said that Ferrero USA Inc., the group's U.S. division, would pay up to $4 for every jar of Nutella bought in California since August 2009, or bought anywhere else in the United States since January 2008.

The notices posted on nutellaclassactionsettlement.com said the settlement was for $3,050,000 in total.

Ferrero USA also agreed to "modify certain marketing statements about Nutella" and to give more prominence to nutrition labels on Nutella jars, the notices said.

"Ferrero USA continues to stand by its product," a spokeswoman for Ferrero said on Sunday. "We believe that it is in the best interest of the company to resolve these matters, and have reached an agreement with the parties involved."

Block & Leviton LLP, a Boston-based law firm representing investors nationwide, has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased Swisher Hygiene Inc. stock between May 16, 2011 and March 28, 2012, inclusive.  The lawsuit, captioned Birch v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00221, is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the Company's financial strength and future prospects.  These statements, however, were materially false and misleading when made because the Company:  (1) was improperly accounting for business acquisitions; (2) was improperly calculating its allowance for doubtful accounts receivable; (3) was overstating its income; (4) was preparing and filing financial reports in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and (5) failed to have adequate internal and financial controls.

On March 28, 2012, Swisher disclosed that its previously-announced financial results for the first, second and third quarter of 2011 should no longer be relied upon and that its Audit Committee was conducting an ongoing internal review, which was initiated following a concern raised by a former employee.  On this news, shares of Swisher Hygiene stock declined $0.29 per share, or more than 9.5%, to close on March 28, 2012, at $2.76 per share.  The Company's stock declined another $0.33 per share, or nearly 12%, on March 29, 2012.

The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Groupon, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased Groupon common stock between November 4, 2011 and March 30, 2012. The lawsuit charges Groupon, and certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of Groupon’s initial public offering with violations of federal securities laws for false and misleading statements related to Groupon’s financial results and internal controls.

The lawsuit, captioned Einspahr v. Groupon, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of misrepresentations and omissions related to Groupon’s internal controls, financial results and business.

In November 2011, Groupon went public with an offering of 35 million shares priced at $20 per share, netting Groupon $658 million and its underwriters $42 million. In a press release and its first annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2012, Groupon announced that it was revising its fourth quarter 2011 financial results, resulting in a $14.3 million reduction to its fourth quarter revenues. Groupon also disclosed that its auditors found a material weakness in its internal controls, and that it could not assure the accuracy of its financial statements.

On April 2, 2012, the first trading day following Groupon’s announcement, the company’s stock price dropped by nearly 17% to $15.27, well below its $20 IPO price and the class period high of $26.19.

“The fact that Groupon had to revise its numbers so soon after its initial public offering raises significant questions about its financial reporting,” said attorney Jonathan Levine of Girard Gibbs. “It is crucial that investors in public companies are provided with the most accurate information available when they are making the decision to invest.”

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning your rights as an investor in Groupon, please contact Girard Gibbs LLP

http://www.girardgibbs.com/case/97/groupon-lawsuit