CAR_Public/100304.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 4, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 44

                            Headlines

CAPITAL ONE: N.J. Suit Complains About Payment Protection Plan
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Says Being Sold for Inadequate Price
FUTURE FORD: Accused in Calif. of Unlawful Business Practices
GE HEALTHCARE: Update on CT Scanner Suit from Plaintiffs' Counsel
HOSPIRA INC: Ruling on Employees' Lost Benefits Lawsuit Pending

MASTERCARD INC: Appeals to Approved Antitrust Suit Deal Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Junk Interchange Fees Suit Still Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Amended IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
MASTERCARD INC: July 16 Trial Set for Overcharges Suit Deal
OGE ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Rehearing of Nixed Class Status

OGE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Price II Class Rehearing Bid
OGE ENERGY: Unit Continues to Defend Oklahoma Royalties Suit
OGE ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Cause in OCC Billing Suit Pending
SIPC OFFICIALS: Sued for Not Paying Madoff Insurance Claims
SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Face Dioxin Exposure Suits in VA

SOLUTIA INC: Suit Over Contamination Ongoing in Illinois
SOLUTIA INC: Final Appealable Ruling in ERISA Suit Entered
SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Accused in D.C. of Misleading Students
SYNGENTA AG: Holiday Shores' Suit v. Syngenta Crop in Discovery
UNITED STATES: Congress Doesn't Act on Indian Trust Fund Deal

WELLPOINT INC: Defending Suits Over 2001 AICI Demutualization
WELLPOINT INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Dentists' Suit Pending
WELLPOINT INC: Wants Out-of-Network Reimbursement Suit Dismissed
YELP! INC: Unlawful Sales Practice Complaint Now Available

                            *********

CAPITAL ONE: N.J. Suit Complains About Payment Protection Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Capital One Bank sold a
"payment protection" plan to customers that is "so restricted in
terms of the benefits" that it is "essentially worthless," a
class action claims in Camden, N.J., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Carr, et al. v. Capital One Bank
(U.S.A.), N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc.
191 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Feb. 25, 2010 (D. N.J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/26/CapitalOne.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-985-9177


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Says Being Sold for Inadequate Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Coca-Cola
Enterprises, a bottler and distributor, is selling itself too
cheaply to its controlling shareholder, Coca-Cola Co., in a self-
dealing stock swap that will leave CCE shareholders holding
"stock that will be worth considerably less than the shares they
currently own," in a class action in Fulton County Superior
Court, Atlanta.

A copy of the Complaint in Lang v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al.,
Case No. 2010CV182035 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/01/CocaCola.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Martin D. Chitwood, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Molly A. Havig, Esq.
          Mary Kathryn King, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          1230 Peachtree St., NE
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-873-3900

               - and -

          John F. Harnes, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          11 Grace Ave., Suite 306
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: 516-773-6090
          
               - and -
          
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          440 Sylvan Ave., Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377


FUTURE FORD: Accused in Calif. of Unlawful Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that in a state
class action, a man claims a Ford dealer demanded he return the
truck he bought, due to "financing issues," then paid him $3,750
for the truck he had traded in, though it already had sold his
old vehicle for $10,000.

Pasquale Salerno says he bought a 2006 Ford F-150 pickup from the
Future Ford dealership in Sacramento in November 2009.  Mr.
Salerno says he traded in his 2002 truck and paid $400 down.

About a week later, Mr. Salerno says, Future Ford told him to
return his newly purchased truck due to "financing issues."  When
he asked for his old truck back, he says the dealer told him "it
is the custom of Future Ford to return the trade in value given
for the vehicle" and that his truck had been "wholesaled."

The dealership paid him $3,750 for his old truck, plus the $400
down payment, Mr. Salerno says in his Superior Court class
action.

Mr. Salerno claims a Future Ford employee told him, "Sorry, but
we didn't even make any money when we wholesaled it."

But Mr. Salerno says he found out that Future Ford actually
resold the truck for $10,000.

"Even more problematic," he says, "Future Ford's finance
department actually knew that financing was not deemed complete
. . . and willfully chose to immediately place the truck on the
sales lot."

Mr. Salerno seeks damages for consumer law violations.  

A copy of the Complaint in Salerno v. Future Ford, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 34-2010-00070701 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/26/FordSacto.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.L. Sean Slattery, Esq.
          John P. Pearson, Esq.
          DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
          2002 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Suite No. 100
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: 858-793-6244


GE HEALTHCARE: Update on CT Scanner Suit from Plaintiffs' Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on behalf of people who have
received excess radiation as a result of medical imaging
conducted on GE CT scanners continues.  GE has asked the Court to
dismiss the case and is claiming that the patients' hair loss and
subcellular damage are not a "present injury." The injured
patients seek to create a medical monitoring fund to provide
annual or semi-annual testing to: (1) provide earlier detection
of cancerous tumors resulting from the radiation; and (2) provide
early detection to allow quick and decisive treatment.
The patients appreciate the efforts of the imaging industry to
include safeguards which would prevent over radiation of
patients, but are puzzled why such safety measures are just now
being considered.

The patients are hopeful that the hearings held on Friday,
February 26, 2010, by the Committee on Energy and Commerce
(Subcommittee on Health) will help reveal why GE and other CT
manufacturers failed to include safeguards into their machines
which would have ensured patient safety. They also hope that the
Committee uncovered why it has taken the overexposure of hundreds
of patients to garner the industry's attention to this serious
public health matter.

The law firms representing the patients are:

     -- Watson, McKinney & Artrip, LLP,

     -- Owen, Patterson & Owen, and

     -- Cusimano, Keener, Roberts, Knowles & Raley, LLC.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported about this
litigation on Dec. 21, 2009.  


HOSPIRA INC: Ruling on Employees' Lost Benefits Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on a class-action suit brought by former Abbott
Laboratories employees alleging they lost benefits when the
company spun off Hospira, Inc., in 2004, is pending.

Hospira has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging
generally that the spin-off of Hospira from Abbott resulted in a
mass termination of employees so as to interfere with the future
attainment of benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned: Myla
Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories
and Hospira, Inc.

Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement in Abbott benefit plans,
disgorgement of profits and attorneys fees.

On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and Hospira for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA. Hospira has been dismissed as a
defendant with respect to the fiduciary duty claim.

By Order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class action
status to the lawsuit.  As to the sole claim against Hospira, the
court certified a class defined as: "all employees of Abbott who
were participants in the Abbott Benefit Plans and whose
employment with Abbott was terminated between August 22, 2003 and
April 30, 2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD [Hospital
Products Division] /creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on
August 22, 2003, and who were eligible for retirement under the
Abbott Benefit Plans on the date of their terminations."

Hospira denies all material allegations asserted against it in
the complaint.  The trial of this matter has concluded, but the
court has not rendered a decision.

In 2008, Hospira received notice from Abbott requesting that
Hospira indemnify Abbott for all liabilities that Abbott may
incur in connection with this litigation. Hospira denies any
obligation to indemnify Abbott for the claims asserted against
Abbott in this litigation.

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman, presiding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Paul William Mollica, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica
         208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-263-0272


Hospira is represented by:

         James F. Hurst, Esq.
         Winston & Strawn LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive
         41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-558-5230


MASTERCARD INC: Appeals to Approved Antitrust Suit Deal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York's final approval of the settlement agreements in the
lawsuit "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation" are
pending.

MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.
(USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a
number of federal putative class actions that allege, among
other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the
asserted one percent currency conversion "fee."

Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL
No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("MDL Complaint") adding MBNA Corporation and
MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants.

This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

   (i) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
       MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
       with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
       conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no
       less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently
       more"; and

  (ii) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
       each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have
       conspired with its members to fix currency conversion
       "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than
       1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and
       encourage institution-and collection-of second tier
       currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.

On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL
action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and
related matters, as well as the Schwartz matter.  Pursuant to
the settlement agreements, MasterCard paid $72,480,000 to be
used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action
and $13,440,000 to settle the Schwartz matter.  On Nov. 8, 2006,
Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreements.  The settlement agreements are subject to final
approval by Judge Pauley, and resolution of all appeals.  The
hearing on final approval of the settlement agreements was held
on March 31, 2008, and Judge Pauley reserved decision on final
approval.

On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state
court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On June 6, 2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard's motion
to defer briefing until a final settlement is approved in the
MDL action.  With regard to other state court currency
conversion actions, MasterCard has reached agreements in
principle with the plaintiffs for a total of $3,557,000, which
has been accrued.  Settlement agreements have been executed with
plaintiffs in the Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Arizona, New York, Minnesota and Illinois actions,
but such an agreement has not been executed with plaintiffs in
the Missouri action.

On Nov. 3, 2009, Judge Pauley signed a Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal granting final approval to the settlement
agreements.  On Nov. 20, 2009, the same plaintiff in the New York
state cases filed notice of appeal of final settlement approval
in the MDL action.  Within the time period for appeal in the MDL
action, twelve other such notices of appeal were filed.  

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William
H. Pauley, III.

The plaintiffs are represented by::

         David J. Bershad, Esq.
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387
         Fax: 212-868-1229
         E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com

               - and -  

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-1600


MASTERCARD INC: Bid to Junk Interchange Fees Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second consolidated class-action
complaint over MasterCard International Incorporated's
interchange fees remains pending.

On June 22, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut
against MasterCard International Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc.
Visa International Service Association and a number of member
banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations and
conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade.  In addition, the
complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and
bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The suit seeks treble damages in
an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

Since the filing of this complaint, there have been
approximately 50 similar complaints (the majority styled as
class actions although a few complaints are on behalf of
individual plaintiffs) filed on behalf of merchants against
MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in
federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordination of pre-trial proceedings in MDL No. 1720.

On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and in the complaints brought on the behalf of the
individual merchants are generally brought under both Section 1
of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which
prohibits monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to
monopolize a particular industry.

Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these
claims: (i) that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange
fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions) violates
Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) that MasterCard and Visa have
enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge
rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section
1 or 2 of the Sherman Act; (iii) that MasterCard's and Visa's
purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to
standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement;
and (iv) that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and
bundled transaction fees.  In addition to the claims brought
under federal antitrust law, some of these complaints contain
certain unfair competition law claims under state law based upon
the same conduct.

These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages
in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints
allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the
tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

On June 9, 2006, MasterCard answered the complaint and moved to
dismiss or, alternatively, moved to strike the pre-2004 damage
claims that were contained in the First Amended Class Action
Complaint and moved to dismiss the Section 2 claims that were
brought in the individual merchant complaints.  On Jan. 8, 2008,
the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' pre-2004 damage
claims.  On May 14, 2008, the court denied MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the Section 2 monopolization claims.  Fact discovery
has been proceeding and was generally completed by Nov. 21,
2008.  Briefs have been submitted on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
class certification motion on Nov. 19, 2009.  The parties are
awaiting a decision on the motion.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs filed a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  The allegations and claims
in this complaint generally mirror those in the first amended
class action complaint described above although plaintiffs have
added additional claims brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act against MasterCard, Visa and a number of banks
alleging, among other things, that the networks and banks have
continued to fix interchange fees following each network's
initial public offering.  On March 31, 2009, MasterCard and the
other defendants in the action filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its entirety, or
alternatively, to narrow the claims in the complaint.  The
parties have fully briefed the motion and the court heard oral
argument on the motion on Nov. 18, 2009.  The parties are
awaiting decisions on the motions, according to the company's
Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of
over 24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are
its customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients.  It manages a
family of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it license to its
customers.  The Company conducts its business principally
through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating
subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated.


MASTERCARD INC: Amended IPO-Related Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint alleging violations related to
MasterCard Inc.'s initial public offering of its Class A Common
Stock in May 2006, remains pending.

On July 5, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a
supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's IPO and
certain purported agreements entered into between MasterCard and
its member financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because their effect
allegedly may be to substantially lessen competition, (2)
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they allegedly
constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of trade and (3)
constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the member banks are
allegedly attempting to release without adequate consideration
from the member banks MasterCard's right to assess the member
banks for MasterCard's litigation liabilities in these
interchange-related litigations and in other antitrust
litigations pending against it.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and an order reversing
and unwinding the IPO.

On Sept. 15, 2006, MasterCard moved to dismiss all of the claims
contained in the supplemental complaint.

On Nov. 25, 2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its
entirety with leave to file an amended complaint.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the class plaintiffs repleaded their complaint
directed at MasterCard's IPO by filing a First Amended
Supplemental Class Action Complaint.  The causes of action in
the complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original
IPO-related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to
expand their factual allegations based upon discovery that has
been garnered in the case.  The class plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and injunctive relief including, but not
limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.

On March 31, 2009, MasterCard filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Supplemental Class Action Complaint in its
entirety.  The parties have fully briefed the motion to dismiss
and the court heard oral argument on the motion on Nov. 18, 2009.  
The parties are awaiting a decision on the motion.  

On July 2, 2009, the class plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs
served confidential expert reports detailing the plaintiffs'
theories of liability and alleging damages in the tens of
billions of dollars.  The defendants served their expert reports
on Dec. 14, 2009 countering the plaintiffs' assertions of
liability and damages.  Briefing on dispositive motions,
including summary judgment motions, is scheduled to be completed
on Oct. 25, 2010.  No trial date has been scheduled.  The parties
have also entered into court-recommended mediation, according to
the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.  

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of
over 24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are
its customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients.  It manages a
family of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it licenses to its
customers.  The Company conducts its business principally
through MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating
subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated.


MASTERCARD INC: July 16 Trial Set for Overcharges Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
A July 16, 2010, hearing on final approval of the settlement of
putative class-action complaints alleging state unfair
competition, consumer protection and common law claims against
MasterCard International Incorporated, according to MasterCard
Inc.'s Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Individual or multiple complaints have been brought in 19
different states and the District of Columbia alleging state
unfair competition, consumer protection and common law claims
against MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of
putative classes of consumers.

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made
in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that merchants, faced
with excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these
overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods
and services sold.

MasterCard has been successful in dismissing cases in 17 of the
jurisdictions as courts have granted MasterCard's motions to
dismiss for failure to state a claim or plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their complaints.  However, there are
outstanding cases in New Mexico and California.  The parties are
awaiting a decision on MasterCard's motion to dismiss in New
Mexico.

In December 2008, MasterCard reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the California state court actions for a payment by
MasterCard of $6,000,000.  The parties are negotiating a
settlement agreement that will be subject to court approval.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the parties to the California state court
actions executed a settlement agreement which the parties believe
would resolve the actions, subject to approval by the California
state court.  On Jan. 5, 2010, the court executed an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  

MasterCard Incorporated -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a
global payment solutions company that provides a variety of
services in support of the credit, debit and related payment
programs of over 24,000 financial institutions and other
entities that are its customers.  Through its three-tiered
business model as franchisor, processor and advisor, the company
develops and markets payment solutions, process payment
transactions, and provides support services to its customers
and, depending upon the service, to merchants and other clients.
It manages a family of payment card brands, including
MasterCard, MasterCard Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it
license to its customers. The Company conducts its business
principally through MasterCard Incorporated's principal
operating subsidiary, MasterCard International Incorporated.


OGE ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Rehearing of Nixed Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
No ruling on the motion for a rehearing of the denied class
certification in the matter Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural
Gas Co., et al. (Price I), has been made, according to OGE Energy
Corp.'s Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the company were
served with a class action petition filed in the District Court
of Stevens County, Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands.  

On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class
certification.  

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon
Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation,
on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed
a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and
the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003.  

In its amended petition (the "Fourth Amended Petition"), OG&E and
Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of the Company's
other subsidiary entities remained as defendants.  

The plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Petition seeks class certification
and alleges that approximately 60 defendants, including two of
the Company's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the
volume of natural gas.  The Fourth Amended Petition asserts
theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, accounting and
unjust enrichment.  In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The
plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and
the parties fully briefed these same issues.  A hearing on class
certification issues was held April 1, 2005.  In May 2006, the
court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by
Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is claiming
entitlement to participate in the putative class action.  The
court has not yet ruled on the motion to intervene.

The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the
parties in 2005, and proposed findings of facts and conclusions
of law on class certification were filed in 2007.  On Sept. 18,
2009, the court entered its order denying class certification.  
On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the
court's denial of class certification. On Feb. 10, 2010 the court
heard arguments on the rehearing.  

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and  
energy services provider offering physical delivery and related
services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the
south central United States.  The Company conducts its
activities through four business segments: electric utility;
natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering
and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility
segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric
energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are
conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E).


OGE ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Price II Class Rehearing Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
No ruling on the motion for a rehearing of the denied class
certification in the lawsuit, Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al. (Price II), has been made, according to
OGE Energy Corp.'s Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (ill Price, Stixon Petroleum,
Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation, on behalf
of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed a new
class action petition in the District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas naming the same defendants and asserting substantially
identical legal and/or equitable theories as in the Fourth
Amended Petition of the Price I case.  

OG&E and Enogex Inc. were not named in this case, but two
subsidiary entities of the Company were named in this case.  

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants mismeasured the Btu
content of natural gas obtained from or measured for the
plaintiffs.  In their briefing on class certification, the
plaintiffs seek to also allege a claim for conversion.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The
plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and
the parties fully briefed these same issues.  A hearing on class
certification issues was held April 1, 2005.  In May 2006, the
court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by
Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is claiming
entitlement to participate in the putative class action.  The
court has not yet ruled on the motion to intervene.

The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the
parties in 2005 and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of
law on class certification were filed in 2007.  On Sept. 18,
2009, the court entered its order denying class certification.  
On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the
court's denial of class certification. On Feb. 10, 2010 the court
heard arguments on the rehearing.   

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and  
energy services provider offering physical delivery and related
services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the
south central United States.  The Company conducts its
activities through four business segments: electric utility;
natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering
and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility
segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric
energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are
conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E).


OGE ENERGY: Unit Continues to Defend Oklahoma Royalties Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp.'s subsidiary, Enogex, continues to defend a  
purported class action over royalties in Oklahoma, according to
Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 22, 2005, Enogex along with certain other unaffiliated
co-defendants was served with a purported class action which had
been filed on Feb. 7, 2005, by Farris Buser and other named
plaintiffs in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs own royalty interests in certain oil and gas
producing properties and allege they have been under-compensated
by the named defendants, including Enogex and its subsidiaries,
relating to the sale of liquid hydrocarbons recovered during the
transportation of natural gas from the plaintiffs' wells.  

The plaintiffs assert breach of contract, implied covenants,
obligation, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and
fraud causes of action and claim actual damages in excess of
$10,000, plus attorneys' fees and costs, and punitive damages in
excess of $10,000.  

Enogex and its subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss which was
granted on Nov. 18, 2005, subject to the plaintiffs' right to
conduct discovery and the possible re-filing of their allegations
in the petition against the Enogex companies.  

On Sept. 19, 2005, the co-defendants, BP America, Inc. and BP
America Production Company, filed a cross claim against Products
seeking indemnification and/or contribution from Products based
upon the 1997 sale of a third-party interest in one of Products
natural gas processing plants.  

On May 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition against
Enogex and its subsidiaries.  Enogex and its subsidiaries filed a
motion to dismiss the amended petition on Aug. 2, 2006.  The
hearing on the dismissal motion was held on Nov. 20, 2006 and the
court denied Enogex's motion.  Enogex companies filed an answer
to the amended petition and BP's cross claim on Jan. 16, 2007.  
Based on Enogex's investigation to date, the Company believes
these claims and cross claims in this lawsuit are without merit
and intends to continue defending this case.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and  
energy services provider offering physical delivery and related
services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the
south central United States.  The Company conducts its
activities through four business segments: electric utility;
natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering
and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility
segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric
energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are
conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E).


OGE ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Cause in OCC Billing Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion asking the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) to
dismiss the cause in the billing practices complaint against OGE
Energy Corp.'s electric utility, Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company (OG&E), is pending.

On June 19, 2006, two OG&E customers brought a putative class
action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain
charges on OG&E's electric bills.

The plaintiffs claim that OG&E improperly charged sales tax
based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers.  The
plaintiffs also challenge certain franchise fee charges,
contending that such fees are more than is allowed under
Oklahoma law.

OG&E's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial
judge.

OG&E filed a writ of prohibition at the Oklahoma Supreme Court
asking the court to direct the trial court to dismiss the class
action suit.

In January 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the
District Court action until, and if, the propriety of the
complaint of billing practices is determined by the OCC.

In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed an application with the
OCC asking the Commission to modify its order which authorizes
OG&E to collect the challenged franchise fee charges.

On March 10, 2009, the Oklahoma Attorney General, OG&E, OG&E
Shareholders Association and the Staff of the Public Utility
Division of the OCC all filed briefs arguing that the application
should be dismissed.  

On Dec. 9, 2009 the OCC issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' request for a modification of the OCC order which
authorizes OG&E to collect and remit sales tax on franchise fee
charges. In its Dec. 9, 2009 order, the OCC advised the
plaintiffs that the ruling does not address the question of
whether OG&E's collection and remittance of such sales tax should
be discontinued prospectively.

On Dec. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion at the Oklahoma
Supreme Court asking the court to deny OG&E's writ of prohibition
and to remand the cause to the District Court.  On Dec. 29, 2009,
the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared the plaintiffs' motion moot.

On Jan. 27, 2010, the OCC Staff filed a motion asking the OCC to
dismiss the cause and close the cause at the OCC.  If the OCC
Staff's motion is granted, the plaintiffs would be required to
file a new cause in order to ask for prospective relief.  In its
motion, the OCC Staff stated that the plaintiff's counsel advised
the OCC Staff counsel that the plaintiffs have no desire to seek
a determination regarding prospective relief from the OCC.  

According to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, it is unknown whether the plaintiffs will
attempt to continue the District Court action.  OG&E believes
that the lawsuit is without merit.

OGE Energy Corp. -- http://www.oge.com/-- is an energy and  
energy services provider offering physical delivery and related
services for both electricity and natural gas primarily in the
south central United States.  The Company conducts its
activities through four business segments: electric utility;
natural gas transportation and storage; natural gas gathering
and processing, and natural gas marketing. The electric utility
segment generates, transmits, distributes and sells electric
energy in Oklahoma and western Arkansas. Its operations are
conducted through Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E).


SIPC OFFICIALS: Sued for Not Paying Madoff Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, three Madoff investors who took out more money than
they put into the giant Ponzi scam say the Securities Investor
Protection Corp. is cheating them by denying them "the prompt
replacement of securities in their accounts, up to $500,000 in
value, based upon their November 30, 2008 statements (their
'Statutory Balances')."  The class objects that the SIPC and its
trustee, Irving Picard, "refuse to pay SIPC insurance to any
customer whose withdrawals exceeded his deposits, regardless of
the amount of time the customer maintained the account."

The class says it's no fair that the SIPC has limited claims to
the amount they deposited with Bernard Madoff -- minus any
withdrawals -- rather than basing it on the phony account
statements the jailed conman sent them days before his arrest --
up to the limit of $500,000.

The class claims that Mr. Picard and the directors of the SIPC,
who are charged with unwinding the case, conducted a "fraudulent
investor's insurance scheme" causing them billions of dollars in
damages, "to enrich SIPC and its members at the expense of the
customers."

"The class members are Madoff customers who, as a result of
SIPC's deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and scope of
insurance provided to investors, have been denied their full SIPC
insurance and have lost their entire investments.  But for the
promise of SIPC insurance, the customers would not have invested
their funds with Madoff," the complaint states.

"In direct contradiction of their repeated representations to the
customers and in violation of their statutory mandate, defendants
have caused their designated trustee in the Madoff case, Irving
H. Picard, to refuse to pay SIPC insurance to any customer whose
withdrawals exceeded his deposits, regardless of the amount of
time the customer maintained the account.  In addition, as to
those customers who have received some payment from SIPC, the
payment is not equal to the customers' statutory balances up to
$500,000.  Rather, in breach of the representations the
defendants made to the customers and in defiance of the plain
language of SIPA, the payment is based upon the customers' net
investment over generations of account holders."

The named plaintiffs -- Lissa Canavan, Leslie Goldsmith and
Judith Kalman -- say that in refusing to credit them with the
account balances shown in Mr. Madoff's last statements, the eight
directors of the SIPC are trying to "claw back" money the
investors withdrew before Mr. Madoff's crimes were uncovered.

They contend SIPC president and chief executive Stephen P.
Harbeck and his board of directors should be held personally
liable for "cheating customers of their promised insurance" and
payments of up to $500,000 each.

They accuse the SIPC board of fraud, bad faith failure to pay
insurance claims and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.

In a written statement, Mr. Harbeck expressed disappointment that
"certain attorneys" are "exploiting the plight of these victims
to incorrectly direct their anger and frustration at SIPC."

"Sadly, this frivolous litigation will have the effect of making
it harder for SIPC to focus all of its time and attention on
aiding the Madoff victims," Mr. Harbeck said.  "That being said,
SIPC is not now and never was an FDIC-like 'insurance' entity.

"SIPC has filed two extensive briefs with the court, which
explain our position in detail.  At this time, we are awaiting
the court's ruling on the matter."

Mr. Madoff is serving a 150-year federal prison sentence.  The
SIPC is pursuing a case against Mr. Madoff in U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Manhattan.

A copy of the Complaint in Canavan, et al. v. Harbeck, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 7856 in Case No.
33-av-00001 on Feb. 24, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/26/SIPCMadoff.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq.
          BECKER & POLIAKOFF, LLP
          21 East Front St., Suite 400
          Redbank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: 908-303-4568


SOLUTIA INC: Continues to Face Dioxin Exposure Suits in VA
----------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc., continues to face purported class action lawsuits
alleging exposure to dioxin in Putnam County, West Virginia,
according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia against
Flexsys, Pharmacia, Monsanto and Akzo Nobel (Solutia is not a
named defendant) alleging exposure to dioxin from Flexsys' Nitro,
West Virginia facility, which is now closed.  

The relevant production activities at the facility occurred
during Pharmacia's ownership and operation of the facility and
well prior to the creation of the Flexsys joint venture between
Pharmacia (whose interest was subsequently transferred to us in
the Solutia Spinoff) and Akzo Nobel.  

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for loss of property value,
medical monitoring and other equitable relief.

Beginning in February 2008, Flexsys, Monsanto, Pharmacia, Akzo
Nobel and another third party were named as defendants in
approximately seventy-five individual lawsuits, and Solutia was
named in two individual lawsuits, filed in various state court
jurisdictions by residents or former residents of Putnam County,
West Virginia. The largely identical complaints allege that the
residents were exposed to potentially harmful levels of dioxin
particles from the Nitro facility. Plaintiffs did not specify the
amount of their alleged damages in their complaints.

In 2009, over fifty additional nearly identical complaints were
filed by individual plaintiffs in the Putnam County area, which
named Solutia, Flexsys, Monsanto and Pharmacia as defendants.

Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its  
subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety
of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in
a range of consumer and industrial applications. Solutia has two
segments. The Performance Products segment manufactures
performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market
applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals,
heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid. The
Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of
nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers.
Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various
industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a
lesser extent, by using distributors.


SOLUTIA INC: Suit Over Contamination Ongoing in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc., continues to face a purported class action lawsuit
alleging contamination in St. Clair County, Illinois, according
to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

In February 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois against Solutia,
Pharmacia, Monsanto and two other unrelated defendants alleging
the contamination of their property from PCBs, dioxins, furans,
and other alleged hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including our W.G.
Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).

The proposed class is comprised of residents who live within a
two-mile radius of the Sauget facilities.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical monitoring and the
costs associated with remediation and removal of alleged
contaminants from their property.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty
additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February
2009, against the same defendants (including Solutia) comprised
of claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois
who claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as
property damages as a result of the same PCB's, dioxins, furans,
and other alleged hazardous substances allegedly emanating from
the defendants' facilities in Sauget.

Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety
of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in
a range of consumer and industrial applications. Solutia has two
segments. The Performance Products segment manufactures
performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market
applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals,
heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid. The
Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of
nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers.
Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various
industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a
lesser extent, by using distributors.


SOLUTIA INC: Final Appealable Ruling in ERISA Suit Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
A final appealable ruling on the consolidated class-action suit
that claims Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan discriminated
against employees on the basis of their age has been entered,
according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

According to the Class Action Reporter dated June 18, 2008,
since October 2005, current or former participants in the
Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan have filed three class
action complaints alleging that the Pension Plan is
discriminatory based upon age and that the lump sum values of
individual account balances in the Pension Plan have been, and
continue to be, miscalculated.

Two of these cases are:

       1. "Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
          Plan," and

       2. "Hammond, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
          Plan."

The two are still pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.

Those two cases have been consolidated with similar cases
against Monsanto Co., and Monsanto Company Pension Plan, and
Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corp., Pharmacia
and Upjohn, Inc., and Pfizer Inc.

Those two cases that were consolidated with the Solutia suits
are:

       -- "Walker, et al. v. The Monsanto Pension Plan, et al."
          and

       -- "Donaldson v. Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, et
          al."

The plaintiffs seek to obtain injunctive and other equitable
relief (including money damages awarded by the creation of a
common fund) on behalf of themselves and the nationwide putative
class of similarly situated current and former participants in
the Pension Plan.

A consolidated class action complaint was filed by all of the
plaintiffs in the consolidated case on Sept. 4, 2006.

The complaint alleged three separate causes of action against
the Pension Plan:

       -- the Pension Plan violates the Employee Retirement
          Income Security Act by terminating interest credits on
          prior plan accounts at the age of 55;

       -- the Pension Plan is improperly backloaded in violation
          of ERISA; and

       -- the Pension Plan is discriminatory on the basis of
          age.

In September 2007, the second and third of these claims were
dismissed by the court.

By consent of the parties, the court certified a class in
September 2007 with respect to the Pension Plan on plaintiffs'
claim that the Pension Plan discriminated against employees on
the basis of their age by only providing interest credits on
prior plan accounts through age 55.

On June 11, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois entered a summary judgment in favor of the
U.S. Plan on the sole remaining claim against the U.S. Plan. The
District Court entered its final appealable judgment in the case
on Sept. 29, 2009.

Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety
of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in
a range of consumer and industrial applications. Solutia has two
segments. The Performance Products segment manufactures
performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market
applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals,
heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid. The
Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of
nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers.
Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various
industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a
lesser extent, by using distributors.


SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Accused in D.C. of Misleading Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that Southeastern
University scams its students, leading them to believe the
university is accredited and offers medical technology programs
that have qualified teachers and state-of-the-art equipment, a
class action claims in Federal Court.  Students say the
university made promises it couldn't fulfill and collected
"substantial amounts of money in tuition, books and costs" -- as
much as $41,500 from one student.

The students say they were told that they would make significant
salaries upon graduation.  They say they were led to believe they
would eligible to sit for a certification exam and that the
school had "learning resources that include interactive
classrooms and science/medical software programs."

They claims the school "promised potential consumers of the
Medical Technology program that they would receive an education
in two years, that they would train on state of the art
equipment, that they would be placed in a practical externship
program, and that they would be instructed by qualified
teachers."

All of these claims are bogus, the students say.  They say the
school isn't accredited and lacks "the ability to prepare
students academically, or professionally."

For the class, the seven named plaintiffs, all of the Capital
Area, seek punitive damages for fraud, breach of contract and
unfair trade practices.

A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. Southeastern
University, Case No. 10-cv-00294 (D. D.C.) (Friedman, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/26/SEUniv.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Hermina, Esq.
          HERMINA LAW GROUP
          Laurel Lakes Executive Park
          8327 Cherry Lane
          Laurel, MD 20707
          Telephone: 301-206-3166


SYNGENTA AG: Holiday Shores' Suit v. Syngenta Crop in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint by Holiday Shores Sanitary District in
Madison County, Illinois, against Syngenta AG's Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., is in discovery.

The Holiday Shores filed a class action complaint against
Syngenta Crop in July 2004, purportedly on behalf of a class
consisting of all Illinois community water systems who have,
allegedly, suffered contamination of their water sources at any
measurable level on account of the product Atrazine, a herbicide
manufactured since the late 1950s by Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc. and its predecessors in interest, Novartis Crop Protection,
Inc., Ciba-Geigy and Geigy Chemical Corporation.

The Holiday Shores Complaint alleges that the product Atrazine
and/or its degradent chemicals are harmful to humans as consumed
through dietary water, and that run-off from the soil where
Atrazine has been applied has damaged the water district's
property and contaminated its surface waters, used as a source of
drinking water for the district.  It alleges claims of trespass,
nuisance, negligence, strict liability and violation of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act and seeks monetary damages,
including the cost of purchase, installation, maintenance and
operation of charcoal filtration systems, alleged diminution in
property value and remediation, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

The complaint was served on Syngenta on Aug. 27, 2004.

Syngenta succeeded in having the lawsuit removed from state to
federal court but, on Plaintiffs Motion, the federal court on
March 28, 2005, remanded the lawsuit back to state court.

Syngenta filed a Motion to Dismiss which was argued on Oct. 25,
2005, and on July 7, 2008, was denied by the court (except as
regards those parts of the motion which sought dismissal of the
punitive damage and remediation claims - those claims have been
dismissed although plaintiff may attempt to re-assert the
punitive damage claim at a later date).  Since the denial of that
motion, Holiday Shores amended its complaint to add seven
additional CWS as named plaintiffs and has stipulated that its
purported class will consist of no more than ninety-nine CWS.

While plaintiffs' counsel has threatened to bring similar
lawsuits in other states, no such lawsuits have yet been filed.
The case is now in the discovery phase and the company has filed
answers to interrogatories as well as produced the first of
millions of pages of documents, according to its Feb. 18, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Syngenta AG is an
agribusiness that is involved in the discovery, development,
manufacture and marketing of products designed to improve crop
yields and food quality.


UNITED STATES: Congress Doesn't Act on Indian Trust Fund Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella at The National Law Journal reports that for the
second time, the Justice Department and the lawyers representing
a class of Indians in a long-running federal suit in Washington,
D.C., have agreed to push back the deadline needed to secure
congressional authorization for a $1.41 billion settlement.

The original deadline for congressional approval of the
settlement was Dec. 31. But Congress failed to act, and so the
deadline was extended to Feb. 28.

Now, the lawyers have agreed to a new deadline: April 16.  The
Justice Department issued this statement: "In order for the
agreement to remain valid after its existing February 28, 2010
legislative enactment deadline, the parties have agreed to extend
that deadline through Friday, April 16, 2010."

A lawyer for lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell:

          Keith M. Harper, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
          607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005-2018
          Telephone: 202.508.5844

was not immediately reached for comment. D.C. solo practitioner
Dennis Gingold declined to comment about the extension.  Neither
extension required court approval.

The Cobell settlement, announced at a press conference in early
December, requires Congress to pass legislation authorizing
payment to the plaintiffs. Justice and Interior department
officials, and the plaintiffs lawyers, too, have urged Congress
to act swiftly on the legislation. By April, the plaintiffs
lawyers had hoped to be close to final approval on the deal in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The settlement would end the 13-year-old case, which demands an
accounting of the government's handling of accounts set up for
the collection and dispersal of billions of dollars in payments
flowing from natural resources on Indian land.

The plaintiffs lawyers have agreed to a cap of $100 million in
legal fees. Judge James Robertson, who is presiding over the
Cobell case, has the final say on fees.  See http://is.gd/9rVFx

A petition for certiorari, which the plaintiffs filed just days
after the settlement was announced, is pending in the U.S.
Supreme Court.  See http://is.gd/9rVzQ


WELLPOINT INC: Defending Suits Over 2001 AICI Demutualization
-------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc. is defending several putative class actions filed
as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. (AICI)
demutualization.

The suits name AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a
WellPoint, Inc. The suits are captioned as Ronald Gold, et al. v.
Anthem, Inc. et al.; Mary E. Ormond, et al. v. Anthem, Inc,. et
al.; Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al; and
Jeffrey D. Jorling, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a WellPoint,
Inc.) et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan,
provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.

Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or
ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for
their membership interests in the mutual company.

The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the
wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.

In Gold, cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part
and denied in part with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity
asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut.  The State
has appealed this denial to the Connecticut Supreme Court.  The
company filed a cross-appeal.  Oral argument was held in November
2008, and the parties are awaiting a ruling.

In the Ormond suit, the company's Motion to Dismiss was granted
in part and denied in part on March 31, 2008.  The court
dismissed the claims for violation of federal and state
securities laws, for violation of the Indiana Demutualization Law
and for unjust enrichment.  On Sept. 29, 2009, a class was
certified in the Ormond suit.  The class consists of all ESMs
residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or Connecticut who received
cash compensation in connection with the demutualization.  The
class does not include employers located in Ohio and Connecticut
that received compensation under the Plan.

On Nov. 4, 2009 a class was certified in the Mell suit.  That
class consists of persons who were employees or retirees who were
continuously enrolled in the health benefit plan sponsored by the
City of Cincinnati between the dates of June 18, 2001, and Nov.
2, 2001.  The company is seeking an appeal of this class
certification order to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Summary Judgment Bid in Dentists' Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a putative class
action relating to Out-of-Network reimbursement of dental claims
(American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health Networks, Inc.
and Blue Cross of California) is pending.

The lawsuit was filed in March 2002, by the ADA and three
dentists who are suing on behalf of themselves and are seeking to
sue on behalf of a nationwide class of all non-participating
dental providers who were paid less than their actual charges for
dental services provided to WellPoint dental members.

The complaint alleges that WellPoint Health Networks Inc., Blue
Cross of California and other WellPoint affiliates and
subsidiaries improperly set usual, customary and reasonable
payment for OON dental services based on HIAA/Ingenix data.  The
plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the HIAA/Ingenix
databases fail to account for differences in geography, provider
specialty, outlier (high) charges, and complexity of procedure.  
The complaint further alleges that WellPoint was aware that this
data was inappropriate to set usual, customary and reasonable
rates.

The dentists sue as assignees of their patients' rights to
benefits under WellPoint's dental plans and assert that WellPoint
breached its contractual obligations in violation of ERISA by
routinely paying OON dentists less than their actual charges and
representing that its OON payments were properly determined
usual, customary and reasonable rates.

The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  The company filed a motion for summary
judgment.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009. The company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


WELLPOINT INC: Wants Out-of-Network Reimbursement Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc.'s motion to dismiss eleven putative class actions
relating to out-of-network reimbursement is pending.

The cases have been made part of a WellPoint-only multi-district
litigation called In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR"
Rates Litigation and are pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

The first lawsuit (Darryl and Valerie Samsell v. WellPoint, Inc.,
WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) was filed in
February 2009 by two former members on behalf of a putative class
of members who received out-of-network services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges.  The plaintiffs in that
case allege that the defendants violated RICO, the Sherman
Antitrust Act, ERISA, and federal regulations by relying on
databases provided by Ingenix in determining out-of-network
reimbursement.

The second lawsuit (AMA et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in
March 2009 by the American Medical Association, or AMA, four
state medical associations and two individual physicians on
behalf of a putative class of out-of-network physicians.  

The third lawsuit (Roberts v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.)
was brought in March 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative
class action on behalf of all persons or entities who have paid
premiums for out-of-network health insurance coverage.

The fourth lawsuit (JBW v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was
brought in April 2009 by a WellPoint member as a putative class
action on behalf of all persons who have paid premiums for out-
of-network health insurance coverage.

The fifth lawsuit (O'Brien, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.)
was brought in May 2009 by three WellPoint members as a putative
class action on behalf of all persons who received out-of-network
services.

The sixth lawsuit (Higashi, D.C. d/b/a Mar Vista Institute of
Health v. Blue Cross of California d/b/a WellPoint, Inc.) was
brought in June 2009 by an out-of-network chiropractor as a
putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network
chiropractors.

The seventh suit (North Peninsula Surgical Center v.
WellPoint,Inc., et al.) was brought in June 2009 by an out-of-
network surgical center as a putative class action on behalf of
all out-of-network surgical centers.

The eighth lawsuit (American Podiatric Medical Association, et
al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June 2009 by the American
Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic
Association, California Psychological Association and an out-of-
network clinical psychologist as a putative class action on
behalf of out-of-network podiatrists, chiropractors and
psychologists.

The ninth lawsuit (Michael Pariser, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.)
was brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist as a
putative class action on behalf of all out-of-network providers
who are not medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy.

The tenth lawsuit (Harold S. Bernard, Ph.D., et al. v. WellPoint,
Inc.) was brought in July 2009 by an out-of-network psychologist
as a putative class action on behalf of all non-medical doctor
health care providers.

The eleventh lawsuit (Ken Unmacht, Psy.D., et al. v. WellPoint,
Inc.) was brought in August 2009 by an out-of-network licensed
psychotherapist as a putative class action on behalf of all non-
medical doctor health care providers.

A consolidated complaint has been filed for the eleven cases.

The company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to enjoin the
claims brought by the M.D.s and D.O.s based on prior litigation
releases.

Based in Indianapolis, Ind., WellPoint, Inc. is a health benefits
company, serving 34.6 million medical members as of March 31,
2009. The Company is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent health
benefit plans.


YELP! INC: Unlawful Sales Practice Complaint Now Available
----------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Feb. 26, 2010, edition of the Class Action
Reporter, two law firms, Beck & Lee from Miami, Fla., and The
Weston Firm in San Diego, Calif., filed a class action
lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court alleging unfair business
practices by local business review and rating Web site operator
Yelp.

A copy of the Complaint in Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital, Inc. v.
Yelp! Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01340 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/01/Yelp.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          THE WESTON FIRM
          888 Turquoise St.
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: 858-488-1672

               - and -

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS
          Courthouse Plaza Building
          28 West Flagler St., Suite 555
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: 305-789-0072

                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2010.  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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *